Never Explain?
[I wrote the following in my journal on 23 September 2009, the same day I wrote Scat. Though I am inclined to revise it at least slightly, I present it here in its raw form to see what, if any, response in engenders. Perhaps I will at some point expand it into a proper essay/article. I couldn't for the life of me recall the originator of the quotation to which I refer, so I finally looked it up. 'Twas Elbert Hubbard.]
Somebody somewhat famous said something like "Never explain. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway." Excrement! A little explanation can avoid a huge amount of misunderstanding. I agree we (especially as artists) shouldn't feel we have to explain everything all the time. Sometimes explanations are antithetical to art. And most things defy explanation, at least on some level. I won't say "Never say never," lest I contradict myself, but I will say "Never explain" is a quasi-mindless roadblock to clarity and an illegitimate excuse to perpetuate confusion. Ambiguity often enhances art — but it also often weakens art and enhances misunderstanding. And if the person who first said "Never explain" really meant or believed it, he wouldn't have found it necessary to add "Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway." His statement not only contradicts its own certainty by explaining itself, it also falsely assumes that everyone is either a friend or an enemy, falsely assumes there is always a clear delineation of the two, and falsely assumes that no person has been or can be swayed at any time by a rational, impassioned and/or intelligent explanation. Never explain? Excrement!
Somebody somewhat famous said something like "Never explain. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway." Excrement! A little explanation can avoid a huge amount of misunderstanding. I agree we (especially as artists) shouldn't feel we have to explain everything all the time. Sometimes explanations are antithetical to art. And most things defy explanation, at least on some level. I won't say "Never say never," lest I contradict myself, but I will say "Never explain" is a quasi-mindless roadblock to clarity and an illegitimate excuse to perpetuate confusion. Ambiguity often enhances art — but it also often weakens art and enhances misunderstanding. And if the person who first said "Never explain" really meant or believed it, he wouldn't have found it necessary to add "Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway." His statement not only contradicts its own certainty by explaining itself, it also falsely assumes that everyone is either a friend or an enemy, falsely assumes there is always a clear delineation of the two, and falsely assumes that no person has been or can be swayed at any time by a rational, impassioned and/or intelligent explanation. Never explain? Excrement!
Posted by Jesus Crisis at 10/1/2009 11:06 AM 
Categories: Religion and Philosophy
Tags: Elbert Hubbard
Categories: Religion and Philosophy
Tags: Elbert Hubbard
Though I agree in essence, I find that if I find myself with a desire to explain a piece of my work, it's generally an indicator that I've made the mistake of casting it in a context that is too personal, missing the universal truth I'm trying to express. This is fine if I want to write a journal entry, but not if I want to express something to an audience that doesn't live inside my head. Of course, it is the doom and privilege of artists that they will never be understood by all. Am I off on a tangent?
Reply to this
I hate when people use quotes to perpetuate myths. I could say a lot here but will have to restrain myself and try to say a little.
But if you are talking about art.... well what is that? Life is art.. we create and recreate our life and circumstances all the time.. so where do you draw the metaphorical line?
I will share based on my experience. Making yourself and your motivations understood to people that you interact with and care about is essential. Whether the be artists or family.. It's egocentric to think that a friend would never question you or misunderstand you. Or that your actions and choices are so clear to others that they automatically understand where your coming from.. Or that you shouldn't have to explain something whether it is a reason, a feeling or a thought. That doesn't mean you have to explain all the time.
Each of us have been raised with different life experiences, there are many similarities but enough differences to cause issues in understanding.
As an artist or friend.... would you prefer to be understood or misunderstood? I'd prefer to be understood. Even if it is just a little.
That doesn't mean you have to explain everything.. but just enough that people can't misunderstand your stance on things.. Sometimes explanations can be very enlightening. Just saying..
Also explanations lead to common ground... they build a foundation of understanding.. good relationships are built on good foundations.
Reply to this
And sometimes you never know what your enemies will believe.. they may actually be open to the truth... If you don't explain you will never know. Obstacles can't be removed.. bridges can't be built.. without communication... that is what I'd prefer to call it..
Reply to this
I don't think explanations are really necessary in your case. Excrement is universal and so is masturbation. Just putting word manipulation and punning doesn't make it less clear or more clear.
It just makes some people like it more or less. After all it is art, isn't it?
Reply to this
ouch...
Reply to this
I believe you've just unintentionally proved my point, Elena.
Reply to this
He wrote a poem, and you're a friend who needs an explanation, because you apparently thought it was really about masturbation and excrement and manipulating words just for the sake of manipulating them -- a misunderstanding that persists in the absence of any explanation on his part. But that's okay. Such misunderstandings aren't always a sign of a failing on the writer's part (though they can be). I think the reader has a responsibility, too - particularly if he or she decides to take it further and be a critic.
Because a lotta people don't get Moby Dick doesn't mean Melville fucked up writing it. And by the way, it's not really about dick -- or Moby.
Reply to this
Why do you think I need an explanation?
I am not a critic just a friend, I hope, who sees, reads the words, and I really believe the words explain themselves perfectly well. Ouch, means just that: words that sometimes hurt even if they didn't mean what you thought they meant. But I am not a mind reader, nor a psychic, just a reader and do have a dictionary and a few books on psychology. Perhaps it isn't an explanation I need, but a closer look at the meaning that maybe is not really clear since I may have overlooked some really deep feeling or intensity in your artistic poem that I totally missed.
Reply to this
Hoe Boe, you can't be serious...
Reply to this
Now you've changed your name again.
Is it Hoe Boe, Hoe Beau or just HO?
Reply to this
Though the neigh mmm has been changed to protect the inn o' scent, apparently, none this has nothing to do with a model train scale or a water molecule missing one atom of hydrogen. Ore duh sit?
Reply to this
Geezus Cry Sis is in a scent of all zens.
He is both a Bud Heist, Eee piss co-pale
yen not a zenner. He is hole ee her than
must and has a lot of ee ma gin neigh shun.
Reply to this
I like the fact that you attack Hubbard's explanation of 'no explanation necessary.' And in regards to art, oftentimes a brief explanation breaks the boundary between accessibility and obscurity...
Reply to this
I'm impressed with how you took that quote and tore it to shreds, just like that! I immediately started thinking about relationships- between friends, family or whathaveyou. Seems like with a lack of communication, a misunderstanding can so easily snowball based on one person's assumptions.
And that also happens in art as well. But I believe it has something to do with the individual who is taking it in. His own perceptions are strongly influenced by his thought processes and life experiences. One person can be so very different from the next.
In a perfect world artists would never have this concern in the back of their minds, but I'd hope they wouldn't let it stifle them. That would be awful, in my opinion.
Reply to this
as the old testicle sez, nothing in and of itself is good or evil - it always depends on the how and why, not the what.
Reply to this
I don't know.. there is a lot of complaining about explaining.. but there was no explaining of anything that I saw yet.
So wondering why all the fuss.?
Reply to this
I don't want to ex-plane,
I want to de-plane
and come down to earth.
Reply to this
First, let me say that I think Mr. Hubbard wasn't speaking of art per se and was trying to do a fair imitation of Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, or Dorothy Parker and get his witticism in a book of quotations.
Is it really all complaining about explaining? I don't think so and I don't think you made that argument in your brief essay above. (Though it-the essay-seemed to go both ways really. You shouldn't have to explain, but sometime you will have to it... And I tend to agree with that opinion, too; so nobody get their back up over it!)
But, as I think I've mentioned here before, I come from a prose background where clarity is prized and, if you've got to explain then you definitely did something wrong. That attitude is also fed by years of editing and proofreading. I would expect the same would be true in translating foreign languages... you would want to to be sure there was no ambiguity.
But, of course, none of this applies to "art." But then, as Chris asked, what is art? Sometimes, these days, I think what passes for literary art is particularly obscure because the educational system encourages students to look for deeper meanings in works which are written to fit that bill. Anything else is "lyrics" or "pop fiction."
It's almost as if it's a club you get to join when you learn how to "interpret" the feminist or sexual or psychological or political or whatever symbols or themes or what else in some piece of "art." I know--I took those classes and deconstructed a lot of poetry and prose.
I think maybe I gave up on grad school when I had a seminar on a single modern novel that I would have loved if I'd been able to read it for pleasure but, because I had to rip it to shreds and spit in back out in horrid little blocks of critical soylent green, came to hate it.
But, anyway, to get back to explaining. I think that the one good thing about explaining may be that it starts a conversation. Maybe that conversation isn't even with the author, maybe it's with a friend or with the next person you see reading it. That's one of the best things about the internet, I think. People who would never in a million years get to speak to one another, get to exchange views and opinions, and maybe even explain...just a little.
Reply to this
Excellent comments! Thank you!
Reply to this