When we read biographies often a somewhat cool "informative" description
or even a summary is given of who (usually "what") one 'externally', socially
spoken is said, wants or thinks to be and has done. Perhaps a little bit
decorated with interests, quotes, hobbies, etc. of the individual. A kind of CV
of one's (social) "status". But what and how much does such a description
really say about this person? I think very little.
Such a biography is therefore especially ment for what is known as "social
intercourse". Positioning in the market, whatever market that may be. The
decisive thing is that what should be taken as "profitable"; anything that
doesn't sell or may diminish the carefully construed image is deleted or at
least polished. Often a distinction is made between "biography" and
"autobiography". Curiously, the authors of these "biographies" are
themselves often the 3rd person writing about themselves...
The fact that we call our society "company" (in Dutch language it is called
“maatschappij” that is to be translated as “company”) in my opinion shows
how far this way of thinking has been normalized. We are daily encouraged to be even more effective,
“efficient”, etc. to 'promote' ourselves. People almost seem not able to escape it… Even when we try to stand-
out of that it is often just another way of actually doing the same thing.
And so it maintains itself. For what purpose was it all again? It calls us to be questioned, searched after and be
found. To "come closer" and make the connection. Nothing vague or woolly, but to get clear whereto all of this
is, what standards prevail in our lives, what moves us, what forms our foundation, the core where we build
our lives upon and around.
Now there is also an understandable reason to give only an 'external' description, namely because of the
protection of one's private life. Because when we would (try to) describe our inner person, that is, our most
essential characteristics, experiences, memories, feelings, thoughts, desires, dreams, fears, bad habits,
questions, pains, etc. and share this with the world than we are and/or feel easily vulnerable. Understandable.
People can take “advantage”. Although vulnerability does certainly not equal weakness. To the contrary.
For this reason, such a biography may be called "enveloping". As a shell around a core. But wouldn't we just like
all those aspects to be mentioned? And then of course, especially all those moments, experiences, etc. that
have touched and changed us? The things that really have something substantial to say to the other? Normally it
even lacks any reference to this inner life, taken as not informative, targeted or efficient enough.
Like music, fine arts is as a kind of biography. A re-action/response from our inner selves, an expression of who
someone is and what moves a person. What has enough "pressure" to be expressed, to put time and energy
into it to, whether or not, share it with others. Fine art is often a means to "get closer" to have real genuine
contact. Whatever how and with which that may be, and wherever the person may be upon his or her way.
A biography that truely wants to show something of a person can not suffice by (only) the appearance,
to convey the usual social "profile" which virtually describes (graphy) nothing about one's life (bio).
Especially when it comes to artwork which precisely wants to get to the core, a direct reference to man
who is creative and is being creative. You want such summary concerning me anyway? Well, here it is.
Of course, as an artist you can point out to your work. And perhaps sometimes that is just the best thing to do.
But why should we make this distinction here? Is the work not a result of what moves us, at least, of our inner
self, however we may interpret this? Although it stands beyond us after an idea, an inspiration is brought into
form, has become an image (or object)? Hence (I make a leap here) the word "biographics" (to be continued).