Perfection of Imperfection - is this a win/win or a lose/lose?

            Looking at the two qualities that Leland attributes to the Beat generation artists, the “aesthetic of imperfection” (140) and the “license of living in the present tense” (155) and trying to sort out the influence of one on the other is a little like trying to solve the age-old question of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” They are interminably intertwined and co-dependent upon one another.

             One has to wonder if the Beats would have so readily embraced the idea of putting their most imperfect work on display if they had not simultaneously exercised the license of living in the present tense. If there is no future, consequences for past mistakes will never have the opportunity to wreak their havoc. If the consequences will never come to fruition, there is no need to worry about the imperfections that would have spawned them. It’s either a win/win proposition or a lose/lose proposition but so long as the future doesn’t really exist, who really cares? By embracing the idea of the eternal present the Beats erased the threat that putting their mistakes on display would have posed to the time-bound mortal.

            I don’t believe that art is an act that necessarily must strive for perfection. That is what mathematics is for. Or engineering. It is the imperfections in art that allow the audience to see that the product is created by human minds and hands, and the flaws can serve to inspire the creative genious of the audience. Just like when you go to the movies to see a film such as Inception and you leave the theater puzzling over the loose ends of the threads that weren’t quite neatly tied up by the film’s end; these imperfections allow you to insinuate your own ideas into the art and perpetuate the creative process.