Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

The "Art" of B.S.'ing...


Jason Hoyt

Recommended Posts

"...This is obviously the artist's attempt at depicting the futility of society, and its continuing dillemma of dealing with the human tragedy, that encompasses the growing feeling of resentment and disillusionment..." ":Dude, its a picture of a fire extinguisher..."

 

... :D Music is obviously an art form, but, to what degree do you all think it is subjected to this kind of a treatment? Are musicians more inclined to listen and respect the mediums contained, based on personal preferences? Or, are we increasingly becoming subjected/victim to more sensationalistic opinions and tastes? Is part of our view(s) of musical success (or marketability) based on the ability to sell it in the world of artists (keeping it real), or,the (potentially larger)general audience(selling out). Do we still have the ability to ingest or create music, and accept it or reject it based "gut feeling"? Does that make us close minded, or just honest? I had some time to think about this today...

 

P.S.I heard a great quote today in political debates. "A young man who is not a Liberal, has no heart. An old man who is not a Conservative, has no head." Does this apply to music as well, to some extent? Sure, I play real juvenile, heavy stuff now, but what will I play in twenty years?... Just looking for thoughts on this... :D

"Suppose you were an idiot ... And suppose you were a member of Congress

... But I repeat myself."

-Mark Twain

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/63/condition_1.html (my old band)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Jason, check the "tuning in fifths" thread for props. Then, fix my problems.

 

You know, the troublesome thing about sensation for sensation's sake and calling it art is that they accused Beethoven of the same thing.

 

So you can never be quite sure.

 

I'm not a fan of a lot of what is foisted as "art" these days.

 

I believe "art" is some form of human expression that moves or teaches another human; it causes another human to come closer to their own identity, or to question that identity.

 

And to understand it, the consumer of art must have some basic understanding of both the culture that the art is produced from, and the technique used by the artist.

 

In Ft. Worth we have one of the greatest art museums in the world (go figure); the Kimball.

 

And there, hanging on the wall, is Rembrandt's "Portrait of a Young Jew." On first view, I was profoundly moved. After I understood more about Rembrandt, I was moved more. After I understood more about painting, I was moved more...and so on.

 

So artists can say, I suppose, you don't respect my "art" because you don't understand it.

 

Of course, with the greatest art, I was moved "prior" to understanding, and understanding merely deepened the experience.

 

So, I listen to the music of Philip Glass, I'm not moved. I listen to Krystof Penderecki and I am. And when someone presents "art" to me (such as Glass) and tries to convince me that I should be moved, I work toward an understanding.

 

As far as BS, yeah. It's rampant. Most of this is due to people's selfishness. You can't appreciate art, like you can't appreciate religion, by thinking; "What good will this do for me?" You get a much more profound experience when you give yourself to the art, and how it relates to the common human experience.

 

But selfish people want their hands in every pie; as a result, they can be BS'd into accepting, and funding, unworthy ideas.

"Let's raise the level of this conversation" -- Jeremy Cohen, in the Picasso Thread.

 

Still spendin' that political capital far faster than I can earn it...stretched way out on a limb here and looking for a better interest rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling out is not exclusive from art for art's sake. There is a thing called "bills" and even musicians have them, and they do have to be paid.

A musician can do both- create true art and make money, the latter being exclusive of the prior. I think that everybody searches for a way to do both in one fell swoop.

But the term "selling out" is so ambiguous that it really has no place. A member of the general populous can accuse one of "selling out" selling out, but he cannot prove it (to do so would require that he be inside the artists' head); an artist can suspect it of himself, but cannot be sure unless he has knowingly forsaken his principles for fame or money, which few artists will ever do. My point- the term "sell out" can never be appropriately used as an adjective.

 

And as far as art, it's in the eye of the beholder. Right now, I am digging a track of a Chris Botti CD, I mean REALLY getting into his groove. But most of the people I associate with any given day would dismiss this motivated modern jazz as elevator music. Does either viewpoint accomplish anything? Nope. I still dig it, though.

 

As far as juvenile heavy music goes, I don't think there's anything juvenile about it. It conveys your emotions, energy and vision. This is not juvenile, but inspired. I know that it can be hard explaining this to someone who doesn't share your philosophy in music, so don't bother explaining anything. If you are doing what you want to do, then nothing else matters.

Feeling ashamed of what you play is the first step on the road to selling out.

...think funky thoughts... :freak:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I am usually turned off by states like your first quote that make some far off "synopsis of the divulged human phsyche to profound and distinc realization of societies own pitfalls". I cold keep throwing more words that don't relate, but you get the point. I think that the only time it is appropriate to state an artwork's actual meaning and purpose is if it come strait from the artist. You don't know what Shakespeare meant in act3, scene2, line 47 of Macbeth unless you asked him specifically (and don't tell me you can talk to the dead). I think art often suffers from overzealost critics, often totally scewing the real meaning, and many times placing meaning where there was none. As much as those critics would hate to admit, some works were create for the heck of it, with no deeper meaning or purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...