i woke up early this morning after having fallen asleep on the livingroom couch, with the tv on, the classic movie channel. and there, in low volume indistinctly noirish b&w, was an old newsreel interview with the actor david niven.
he told this story: he had taken a leather jacket to the cleaners, it had been covered with fake blood and various other sticky substances during a movie scene. when he picked it up, it was fine and smooth again, but there was a note attached from the cleaner "it distresses us to return work that is not perfect". he went on to say that it had become his motto as an artist. he smiled and brushed his lapel, settling back in his chair, chin up. all this before my first cup of coffee.
i am a perfectionist and it does distress me to do any work that doesnt meet the criteria. however, perfection as modus operandi can become so tight that freedom to experiment, to go beyond strict lines of creative reasoning, can become impeded. likewise from the opposite angle of perfectionism, if anything in the perceptual field is clouded then other issues become fuzzy. and one can not fully feel or see if even one part of vision is not addressed. the perfectionist in me will refer to the adage: even one tiny drop of black ink will change the entire color of the water in a large glass jug. one glance at a dust puff at the edge of peripheral vision becomes anathematic, while you can not wear blinders and still see clearly. everything must be taken into account, especially that which you are practiced in not looking at. i need to look at perfectionism and admit the semi-anality of it. so the exercise for today is in opening the angle. from a narrow 45 degrees or so to a complete 360. since perfectionism is in question today, i will be satisfied with at least a 180.
