The Limited Self

We can feign an interesting existence by pointing to everything that sits on our shelves, or we can be an interesting person by taking action in the world. One is passive and one is active. When we discern who is who in this distinction between active and passive persons, whether it’s us or others, we can’t help but admire and value the active player more. They take risks that most others won’t. They create the art, they don’t just collect it. They venture up the mountain, rather than watch films about it.

When we value these active players, take for instance the mountain climber, is it the mountain, the climber, or the trek that we value and can we really separate them? What is it that demands respect? It’s the mountain he chose, the journey he took, and the person he was when he did it. You can’t really separate it. How do we apply this to a creative person and what they produce?

What value does the created thing have compared to the creator?

Be it a piece of art or some other creation, can we answer this? Are Van Gogh’s pieces more valuable than his person? The artwork is all an expression of the person, so can that be separated? At one point an invisible aspect of this person is made tangible. The soul, so to speak, is pulled out into the world and we are able to place a value on it. Therefore, aren’t we really valuing the person? We can’t possess a mortal being in life and certainly not in death. But we can possess or at least enjoy a reflection of it, for as long as that piece exists.

The art alone loses value when we don’t know who created it because it’s lost its context. Art becomes dynamic because of the artist. It points back to the person. When we create or act, the creation and action points back to the originator. When we are passive in this world, nothing really points back to us. When I referenced being a passive person and collecting objects to appear interesting, all you can do is point to the interesting things, they don’t point back.