The Tension Between History and Artistry

Written by Kate Newman

 

A philosophical question: if an artist lives but no one sees their work, did they ever make a mark?

 

Can an artist exist in the quiet spaces

the cracks and corners,

the secret paths and back alleys 

of the world?

 

Or must an artist – to earn the title – 

create themselves into existence?

Must they scream their presence along

‘big city’ streets and seek an audience

who would grant their work value?

 

Truly, is the value in the artistry itself, 

or just how others perceive it?

 

Were Dickenson’s poems not just as profound

when they were sequestered in a trunk?

Were Van Gogh’s paintings not just as beautiful

Before his death boosted their success? 

 

And why is it only when we die that others 

finally seek the value in our lives?

A value, perhaps, that we were trying

to convince them of all along.

 

Of course, what is an artist

If not a person trying to live forever?

What is an artist,

If not a figure, or soon-to-be figure,

In history?

An old name to be remembered.

Revised, renowned, reprinted. 

 

But what of the artists with no legacy?

What of the poets who were never heard

and the singers that never found a stage?

What if the Mona Lisa’s rival never

found a gallery to rest? 

 

Did those artists exist? 

Did they ‘earn’ the title?

Truly, is the value in history’s 

ability to perceive and reflect on art

Or in the artistry itself? 

More from Edition 43

---

Editor Picks

---