EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE VOYCE

When did you decide that you would become an artist?

I was around 5 or 6 years old when I began to deal with the subject. I admired the actors on TV and in the movies and I thought they were born to be artists. Later I began to wonder whether I was born to be an artist, too.

When did you first step onto a stage?

I was 7 when I played the first lead in a play. I didn’t learn my lines, because I figured if I was a born artist then it should to come naturally. Of course, my eyes were so bad even then that I wouldn’t have been able to read the lines anyway. I then started to enter art competitions, and won one after the other.

How did you prepare for your career as an artist?

As an adult, I lived among the country's leading artists for 20 years; I watched them, and learned from them during that period most of what I know today. They were mainly actors, who opened up during late night discussions, and voiced some unforgettably thought-provoking ideas I found shocking at the time. We are talking about acknowledged stars, important artists, who said, “To be an actor is the most humiliating and vulnerable JOB in the world;” or, “Even a successful actor can only live through a few truly inspired and cathartic moments in his career.”

What art forms intrigued you and which branches of art have you tried your hand in?

I wanted to and I did try everything I saw and admired. I painted pictures; I was a playwright, wrote dramas, poems, lyrics and composed music. Then I performed them, as well. I learned to play several instruments, sang in almost every genre of music, engaged in musicological research, performed prose and poetry, directed A-list actors and, finally, I became a composer/performer/producer organizing my own mega-concerts with enormous crews.

You were always in the center of things, right?

Yes, however, I came to the important, albeit not too happy realization that the pursuit of art is quite a lonely road. Later I discovered that I couldn’t fit in with any troupe because of some conflicts I simply couldn’t resolve. I began to search in myself and others the factors that determine “What is art?” to begin with and “Who is an artist?”

This is a fascinating topic. Where did you start and, above all, what did you find?

First of all, I created the SUCCESS CLUB ART AWARD. I had a small bronze statue manufactured for it, and I presented these awards in a festive ceremony at one of the most prestigious of venues, with a large-scale concert and a party.

What did these award honor?

It was a personal award anyone could give for the artistic endeavor that had a decisive impact on their lives and offered a significant emotional value or enlightenment. This meant undoubtedly the understanding of the essence of art for me at that time, but it was only much later that I reached my conclusions to abandon some entrenched paradigms.

What were these?

Most musicians are not artists. Most actors are not artists. Most dancers are not artists, and I could go on.

These are pretty radical statements; I’m not even sure how to interpret them…

It means that being a musician, actor, dancer or singer in itself doesn’t mean to be an artist even at the highest level of technical perfection. Technique does not equal art. You can learn technique but you can’t learn to be an artist. “Art education” may help the process of becoming an artist with technical or theoretical training. But it rarely produces real artists, and very few “art students” become true artists as a result.

Astonishing! Then I don’t get it at all...

I had another quite interesting observation:
What we think of as genuine artistic performance is, in most cases, nothing more than a SPORT achievement. They display a sportsman’s abilities: physical skills, diligence, perseverance and fanatic determination. Virtuosity is not yet art, not even at the highest level of technical perfection. That’s why artistic “competitions” have very little to do with art, at least not with respect to the competitors. A race is a game, even when taken seriously, whereas art is profound and serious.

It makes sense...

Even though technique should not be underestimated, higher technical level doesn’t automatically mean higher artistic level, as well. Technical virtuosity in itself doesn’t prevail over an artist of more modest technique but significant internal content, who creates his own artistic world. Of course, these things are quite impossible to quantify.

This is exciting. So, how do you separate a true artist from those who are surely not?

There are no clear boundaries, of course, but I'll try to assemble the criteria:
Only an artist is able to present an independent world drawn on his own personality and his own fate. The artist's fate, impressions, experiences, age, message, imagination, a philosophical personality, a highly sensitive artist's soul and a specially tuned artist's brain are indispensable to achieve this and, of course, the technical skills and physical abilities necessary to conjure it as well into an artistic form. True artists possess the power and the sensibility with which they view the world that enables them to express their important message in more than one form of art at the same artistic level, limited only by their technical skills, which anyone can acquire, and their on physical abilities.

These are pretty strongly worded values, but they are beginning to make sense. It seems totally logical. There is no doubt that these are destroying the paradigms.

Oh yes, and art is not industry, not an occupation but a self-induced way of life – that manifests itself in a sort of “poetic existence”.

I agree!  It’s quite clear now…

Those who don’t convey their own thoughts, who copy, imitate, even if in a professional manner, from routine; who interpret like "sportsmen," following fashion trends; those, who don’t blaze their own trail but merely aim to entertain or serve the audience; who are just cogs in a machine, who are "played on” like the keys of the piano, by a conductor or a director have very little to do with art. Neither do those guided by money, who compromise too often, sell out, or chase popularity.

Who are those unable to deliver a real artistic performance?

In the theater, primarily the playwright and the director have the opportunity to express themselves artistically. We could say, with a slight exaggeration, that everyone else are tools in their hands. A musician who plays in a symphony orchestra, for instance, who has no significant role as a soloists, has basically forfeit even the possibility to play an artistic role and can only contribute to the creation with his professional skills. He is no more than an instrumentalist.

Wow!

A symphonic orchestra requires musicians, a theater actors, a ballet dancers, in addition of course, to a breakthrough artist who will define and author the show.

Would you say that popular music is entertainment, whereas classical music provides artistic value?

These artificial separations give birth to crazy misunderstandings. Ever since these pointless categories were created, many tried to explain why they made no sense, yet failed to eradicate them from the public discourse. At some point in time, these terms were created to separate classical music from the contemporary music that followed, however, they entered into the public awareness as qualifiers. Therefore the superficial, naïve listener doesn’t realize that classical music has its share of extremely light or weak pieces, as well as not so great, or even terrible performances and musicians. Meanwhile, the genres categorized as “light music” produce some serious artistic achievements. It is interesting, however, that it is pop culture where most of the artists with mediocre or meager technical skills operate. It is no coincidence that musicians, actors, singers and dancers with an ability to express themselves artistically are searching for an opportunity there to break free from the limitations and find their own way to express themselves by becoming authors, directors or choreographers. Although this does not guarantee an accomplishment as an artist, it may create the opportunity to get there.

Would you say that popular music is entertainment, whereas classical music provides artistic value?

These artificial separations give birth to crazy misunderstandings. Ever since these pointless categories were created, many tried to explain why they made no sense, yet failed to eradicate them from the public discourse. At some point in time, these terms were created to separate classical music from the contemporary music that followed, however, they entered into the public awareness as qualifiers. Therefore the superficial, naïve listener doesn’t realize that classical music has its share of extremely light or weak pieces, as well as not so great, or even terrible performances and musicians. Meanwhile, the genres categorized as “light music” produce some serious artistic achievements. It is interesting, however, that it is pop culture where most of the artists with mediocre or meager technical skills operate. It is no coincidence that musicians, actors, singers and dancers with an ability to express themselves artistically are searching for an opportunity there to break free from the limitations and find their own way to express themselves by becoming authors, directors or choreographers. Although this does not guarantee an accomplishment as an artist, it may create the opportunity to get there.

It sometimes seems to me that "artists" aren’t free at all; that the world of art operates as an industry. I barely dare to utter “artist” any more.

It may seem deceptive, but it is no coincidence that the entertainment industry encompasses the majority of real artists and performers, as well. This includes theaters, opera houses or concert halls, agencies, record labels and the media, as well. They operate like an industry, fueled by money, which is also fatal for art. Apart from a few exceptions, this is how this world works. It is the principal cause of artists’ tragedies. A significant number of true artists can’t tolerate this, but there are some, who manage to adapt to it. The "athlete" types, who use technique and routine and the con artists fit right in - this world was invented for them. Wherever you put them, they’ll sing, dance, perform poetry, prose or music.

One would think that the people on stage are artists but on the basis of the above, it doesn’t seem to be true.

It may sound strange, but it has to be said that the entertainment industry and the media decide who the "great artists" are, and then "feed them" to the public, but it does occur, too, that they will ease the path of a true artist, if he is lucky enough to find a manager who is able to protect the artist’s sensitivity from abuse, if they can develop a serious, trusting, personal relationship. So watch out! Many of those considered among the greatest artists in the media are not GREAT artists, perhaps aren’t artists at all.

So, are you saying that many of the well-known artists are just media products, in other words, frauds?

Something like that.

What are the telltale signs that let you recognize a "fake artists"?

The real artists are usually not businessmen. They don’t accept any job, don’t push for more performances, don’t try to become managers, don’t strive for power, have difficulty selling themselves, their shows are not “neat” or outrageous, they don’t hunt media appearances, abuse fans, exploit their celebrity status, don’t crush others, do not steal ideas, thoughts or content, and do not imitate others. They are introverted and their self-expression is limited to their creations. They are unable to simply jump in or out of a dramatic role. The most professional, most problem free performers are most likely not the greatest artists, but they are certainly more pleasant company.  Real artists manifest themselves in a purely amateur manner, with true emotions with authentic power and content. On the other hand, they are not so easy to handle, because they have a lot of problems mostly arising from their uncompromising exigency. They don’t teach art - they live it through their works. And it is very important that they do not have any humility, they are self-governed - never the followers, but always the flag bearers.

Based on the above should we dramatically re-evaluate artists, big and small alike?

It is important to point out here that I don’t mean that those who cannot be classified real or great artists are worthless. Not at all, in fact... as in sports, there are those in the arts, who are important and perform at a high level, and even those performing at a lower level may play an important role. They are entertainers, idols to their fans; they give joy, and are all-important players in the entertainment industry.

Then why was it important to make this distinction at all?
Simply because it may be useful to better understand the essence of art and true artists. To realize how art and artists are different from entertainment and entertainers. It’s not merely about singing technique, voice, instruments or brushstrokes. It is a much more intimate, a profound relationship, a merging of souls, an intimate friendship, platonic love, a common fate and dramatic encounter.
Most importantly: these people are hypersensitive, and therefore should be treated differently, as well.
For me, it was quite instructive to reflect on the topic because recently I have found that, primarily at the media’s instigation, the circle of those considered artists is getting ever broader.

And what do you think of today’s fashionable talent shows on TV?

Your question is painfully obvious.  "Commercial talent scouts" are destructive, because they devalue the meaning of “artist” and “art.” The “talent shows” where children compete against one another are a recent phenomenon. Here at least they are not pitched against adults, which is horribly demeaning for the adults. It is often mentioned even, how the children are putting the adults to shame... When they dress up a child as an adult, like a performing monkey or parrot, make them sing adult songs, or dance erotically, it is really hard to take. Children should remain children for as long as possible, and should not provide entertainment to adults, especially not in a grotesque adult role. A child’s innocence, playfulness and lack of inhibition are by no means the same as talent. That is the reason why most of the best child actors won’t become actors when they grow up.

Does this mean that you reject all talent shows?

Not at all. I mainly object to those that are done unprofessionally. When they use the humiliation of well-intentioned contenders to entertain their audience. Or those that create fake celebrities of non-artists, who don’t belong into the “profession.” Then new talent shows again and again manufacture new “sensations” casting the previous ones back into obscurity. This is an especially big problem in countries with smaller populations. Anyway, the talent shows don’t measure or appreciate talent, only the mood of the moment or the quality of the show itself.

Indeed, this is true.

What I do agree with is that it is important to pay attention to the talent of clever, hardworking children, who are not merely cute kids. They can be carefully shown to the world, discovered early. But we must always keep in mind: they are not artists yet, because art is a very adult thing, something they will have to grow into becoming. They may only become artists, when they will have an independent message supported by their own life experience. But it is also possible that they will become “simple,” good or even virtuoso interpreters.  There is no jury in the world that can tell this in advance. This will be determined only by their individual lives and destinies. Commercial television only worships viewership scores at any cost. Almost everything else is secondary, so it is hard to believe that they would care at all about the future of the contestants of the show or the safeguarding of their talent, unless the most conscientious contestants do it themselves, or it is in the immediate interest of the show.

And where do you place yourself in this "artist/non-artist” world?

Whether there could have been some truth in what I thought as a child… Whether I was born to be an artist? You want me to classify myself where I belong? In order to avoid this uncomfortable situation, but still give you an answer, I suggest filling out a test based on what was said here, and then let’s see the results. By the way, this could be done by almost anyone in relation to anyone. But taking the question more seriously: unfortunately, as I look back, I lived the life of a true artist, a drama or film could be written about it – and I have written both. I fought my way through several painful stages.  My own life was the source of my music, as well as other people’s music. I play and sing about myself, I represent my own life with my own dramaturgy and direction. I have a real body of work behind me. I have already written about the moment of my death and even about my existence beyond it. Every day my fans discover and confirm me. Actually (I’m being modest here) I know it from them that I have reached perhaps the highest artistic level. I receive letters of thanks from all over the world, letting me know that I have inadvertently healed, moved, touched and awed them with my recordings and songs. I even try to give an opportunity to some of them to live through the process of true creation – to have them create with me.

That was really touching and makes me feel ashamed that I even asked the question.

I’ve realized everything I could ever dream of, growing up as an orphan in a simple, poor family, limited by my circumstances. I was nine months old when my mother was hit by a train – her last action was to throw me from the tracks to save my life. My father got rid of me. I only found my foster parents years later, when I could already walk and talk. Throughout my childhood I struggled with my vision, which I almost entirely lost, and didn’t recover entirely until a few weeks ago. I found out after the death of my foster parents that my foster-father was not my true father and my foster mother not my true mother. Finding out the truth meant losing my personal history, as I have lost repeatedly everything throughout my career, having to build it back up piece by piece.

This innocently launched "artist/art analysis" conversation has suddenly taken a dramatic turn. Honestly, I am quite moved. What's next? What is to come?

I know one thing that my fans expect of me.  A lot of people from all over the world, and perhaps many among them haven’t even heard much about me, want to see and hear me perform live on a large stage.
Honestly, I do not chase popularity. I am not motivated by money at all. I can’t achieve much more than this by myself, as in my own genre I have reached perhaps the highest level.  I am ready, as the last step of my life, to show the whole world the often dramatic and full of turmoil, yet magical world, in which I live and have lived. It is my creation, my destiny and my essence. This is what I achieved during my existence on Earth. This is what I can give to my contemporaries and maybe to posterity, despite the fact that I always created strictly for myself, in order to live or relive something I had experienced I dreamed of or dreamed about my entire life.

And WHAT IS THAT? Do you remember? This was the question I asked myself as a child.
This is something I know, without a shadow of doubt: THIS IS MY EXISTENCE AS AN ARTIST. THIS IS MY FATE.

by Endre Hules