Art's Sake: Wherefore Art Thou?

First of all, a clarification

I said that Timebandit's apparent notion that an unpopular artist should either try to make his or her work more "popular"(or, from what I could read should just give up trying to be an artist if she or he wasn't willing to do that)was what was "ultraconservative".  I stand by that.  It's a market values notion, and anything tied to market values is always right-wing.  End of discussion.  I did NOT say that Timebandit her or himself(I don't know Timebandit's gender)was ultraconservative as a person. 

I might not have been quite so vehement about that had Timebandit not made a gratuituous and unjustified comment about my allegedly "bloated ego".  And, on hindsight, I might have phrased it differently.

I would like to strongly suggest that the thread title is changed. Not only had the conversation shifted away from the topic of the OP (which is fine) but it changed completely from the issues of social responsibility (however that's defined) to what counts as "real" and "good" art, and who is a "real" and "good" artist. Which is a whole other can of worms.

Ken Burch, I'm assuming you want the latter conversation to continue, yes?

I'd also like to say, right off, that there will be no personal attacks or any of the other nonsense that was going on in the latter half of the first thread.

I'd also like to say, as someone who does NOT make my financial living from the creative process, even though I have been paid for creative work in the past and will again (I hope) that working artists have a bit more of a lived reality of this than those of us who do not. This doesn't mean they have the final word or anything, just saying that living it carries a different weight than yakking about it.

And I wasn't saying that nothing that happened to achieve popularity could be creatively valid.  My point was about work that was designed to BE "popular" as a primary objective. 

I believe that uncompromised work can end up gaining popularity, because the audience is capable of advancing along with the artist. 

However, work that puts the achievement of popularity before truth and originality is seldom going to have any real creative force.  To see this, look at the work the Beatles put out before 1965(most of which put popularity first)versus most of what they put out from "Rubber Soul" on(the work that never put popularity first, but gained it nonetheless).

And yes, a lot of great artists have had to put out work "for the market" in order to survive.  But you can't find any of them that think that THAT part of their work included their major achievements.

And what offended me about the "if you're not reaching more than a small group, your art is a failure" thing was that there is an ancient tradition of various forms of creative work that never gained respect or an audience in the artist's lifetime.  What would have happened to those artists and their legacy if they'd taken the "you've failed if you don't have a huge audience in your lifetime" dictum to heart?  Van Gogh would've burned every canvas.  Kafka would've thrown out all his novels.  We wouldn't have the re-issues of "outsider" music that never sold more than 20 albums or so before the artist died.  We'd have a lot of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, though-and we'd be slowly dying culturally.

Quote from Timebandit, last thread:

"But the trope that art for money isn't art is also the sour-grapes tune of the failed wannabe who will never rise above amateur hour."

I did write something about struggling artists who get off more on the struggling than the actual art, but i decided to edit it out.

Yup, you're absolutely right.

On the other hand, who knows, the pallor, dark circles under the eyes and greasy hair thing was real big in the 90s, no?

Here's the link to the first thread.

If I don't get some suggestions on changing the thread title shortly, I'll be changing it.

Ken, who said this? Timebandit made a very clear statement about her life as a creative person who's a full time working artist. Nobody said this. 

I do want the conversation to continue.  If you want to change the thread title to something like "Do artists have a responsibility to speak out, part 2", I can live with that.

Okay how about:

Artists and their art: Sustainability and responsibility

Or if you want it short and snappy:

Art for whose sake?

As to my interpretation of Timebandit's attitude towards artists who aren't "popular"

There was THIS gem:

"If you've been writing 30 years and it only speaks to people in your immediate vicinity, you're doing it wrong."

 ("You're doing it WRONG"?)

and THIS

"if you don't have anything interesting to say beyond a very limited few in your immediate vicinity, then the truth is that you don't have anything interesting to say at all."

I'm sorry, but those statements reduce art to the question of how many people "like it", and they essentially say that any art that doesn't "sell" is a failure.  They are also grotesquely insulting to creative people all over the world who have not been arbitrarily granted the gift of "marketability".  And, they are also an insult to most of the human race.  No one is entitled to tell anyone else "you don't have ANYTHING interesting to say".  The very idea of that, of one person assuming the right to negate another, is a right-wing idea and should be abhorred by anyone who even likes their fellow humans.

Agree.

Agree.

It's not about how many people like a piece of art or whether it's marketable--it's about whether the art connects with people or not.

No one is doing that here.  Step back a bit.

If you've been building boats 30 years and you have yet to make a boat that floats, you're doing something wrong.  If you've been writing 30 years and it only speaks to people in your immediate vicinity (and you've put adequate effort into showing and promoting your work), you're doing something wrong.

Not everyone is an artist.

Ken - I don't believe Timebandit ever mentioned the words - sell or selling anywhere in these thread as you repeatedly do.   She merely said that the idea that art created for a paycheck is as much art as any other and then you started this attack.

Thanks wage zombie and Van Goghs Ear.

I worked in an independent bookstore for many years. People would come in, with chapbooks and self-published poems and novels about their lives and their thoughts, a lot of it about abuse and trauma they experienced. Clearly, writing these pieces held great emotional and healing value for them. And they thought they could share this with the world.

Unfortunately, it must translate to reaching something in another person/ other people. Youse guys said it better.

Changing the title to : Art's Sake:Wherefore Art Thou? Thanks for the inspiration, 6079_Smith_W

Oh, and Ken, if you continue to use this thread to attack Timebandit, I will close it.

I think the "30 years" comment is a bit of hyperbolae, but in the context of most modern artists, it is a truism.

Of course there are great artists like Emily Dickenson who were barely known during their lifetime, and there are some artists who just create art with no thought of public reception or financial gain, but most artists who do decide to support themselves with it either think about public reception, have a moneymaking skill on the side, or wind up doing their own marketing.

I don't imaging most people would want to work in isolation without any feedback or indication of whether people hear or understand what they are doing. And the fact is that in the real world a lot of that feedback comes in the form of work, gigs, commissions and sales.

My big secret... I've even designed advertising!!! for people. And I even *shudder* took their money!!! for it too!.

Eh what? While perhaps this might describe some artists or even some artists you personally know this sort of blanket statement about what happens to artists and the creative spirit when they start creating and selling what's popular is a generalized hunk of sculpted poo, laced with gold flecks of pirite, set within a welded frame of old car parts that are indicative of human's disconnect from the natural world.

Anyways that's just my artistic interpretation and perception....

I live in an area which over the years has drawn many diverse artists and in a nutshell, especially considering it's rural location is considered a bit of mecca. The artist community around here is self organized into several supportive nettworks where they not only support each other but work together to not only promote the arts in general but promote each other and promote 'hey look art' for people to know about and see and yes hopefully buy.

A good many of the artists are quite socially aware and more then involved in social issues in the community. The local environmental group for instance is full of artists which isn't surprising because the natural beauty of the area is what many artists who have migrated here cite as the reason. Quite a few of the artists around here, everyone from potters, to painters, photographers, sculpters, jewellers could be considered financially successful because their income or at least part of their income comes from things they sell. A few just from the nature of the 'something' in their work that many people like are free to explore and do whatever they want and people will shell out the bucks. Most though and I think this is pretty common have few 'something or others' that seem to sell well whether it's straight from their studios, an art show or out of a market or other store. Could be a particular type of small painting, particular type of photograph, a particular style of clay wine carafe or in the case of the sculptor I know a particular type of small garden spirit figurine she made on a whim and for whatever reason are really popular. You're comments suggests that once they start creating these things or variations on those things it turns to 'crafting', kills their creativity and then for some strange connections kills their politics too. Sorry but I'm actually imagining them laughing at this idea. Most artists I know would absolutely love to live in a situation where they were free to do their things as they please, whenever they please and not have to worry about where the money is going to come from for supplies, or the electricity that light their studio when they're inspired and working through the night. However reality for most is 'nope' sorry yah gotta worry and find away to look after those things." So those more popular 'creativity eroding' things are created to help with that part. Sure they might not be AS fulfilling or expressing some sort of personal mega 'truth' but they bring in some of what's needed so the artist can actually have some where withall to continue doing and working the uber creative and mega truth stuff which they don't really care as much if it sells or not. Those creativity eroding 'crafts' allow and create more space and opportunity for more 'at my pleasure, without worry sort of work." The type of stuff that you're suggesting disappears when an artist goes on a making stuff that's popular route.

So my sculptor friend spends two or three days a week on her garden spirits and although she does find it a bit dull she keeps it fresh by creating variations within that popular item. Then the rest of her time is free do whatever she wants because she has food, the studio rent is paid and her garden spirits payed for the chicken wire and clay she needs for the rest of what she does and explores.

Whither those exquisite nudes, painted on velvet, that were so popular with the masses (way back when) and, no doubt paid the rent for more than a few artistes? Awaiting the next renaissance...

@ ElizaQ

Maybe it's the medium, or maybe I'm lucky, but I tend to see it all as practice, even when I'm not doing my own stuff.

Actually speaking of arts and sustainability, anyone else here happen to go through the Search progam at Vancouver's Alliance for Arts and CUlture?

I won't be posting any more in this thread except to say this:

My intent was not to attack Timebandit AS A PERSON.  It was to respond to the ideas I heard being expressed by Timebandit.  I don't know Timebandit as a person or have any feelings at all about Timebandit as a person.

It was about the ideas I was hearing...

And again...I wasn't saying that it was evil that some artists manage to make money.  I was speakign to intent. 

People are twisting MY words far more than they said I was twisting Timebandit's.

If she had left it at saying "sometimes, artists have to pay the bills", I'd have had  no objection.  It was the "you're doing it wrong" and "you have  nothing interesting to say" things.  Those IDEAS, not Timebandit as a human being(and I actually have almost no knowledge of Timebandit as a human being and bear no ill will towards Timebandit) were what prompted my involvement in this thread.

the measure of good art has nothing to do with the size of the audience.  Is capitalism a good idea because so many seem to like it?  

For those who aren't aware, the art world is just like the political arena, with a rich and powerful elite who control the mechanisms of distribution and who directly (and undemocratically) control what most people consume as art.  While there is a viable alternative, most people either aren't aware of it or when they do encounter it it is so outside of their experience they don't know what to make of it.

It's not so much that mainstream art is "bad", but it's often a watered down version of something really cool happening in the independent art world.  In other words, it's appropriated by huge multinationals, repackaged to have mass appeal and generally molded so that it includes, rather than excludes traditional stereotypes, gender roles, mainstream political views and a healthy respect for capitalism.

Think of any major trend in art for the last hundred years and there was a better more vital version of it first in the "underground" that was co-opted and commercialized in some lesser form by big business.  

And, as soon as most artists (there are some exceptions) start making a decent living off the art they either keep making the same thing over and over again or try and follow trends to stay relevant.  Thats why most popular artists tend to make their best work right around the time they get "success" and then start creating mostly crud once they have it.  the artist that is popular AND relevant is pretty rare, and increasingly so as their career moves on, except for say certain kinds of films or huge productions such as a full orchestra, which can't be produced by non corporate funded artists.

Not disagreeing with you milo, because I know there are plenty who do follow the patterns you describe. But it is not always true. There are also many (probably just as many) artists whose creative streams are completely opposite.

Some create more mainstream or less challenging work until they are established, have notoriety, or have found their artistic vision, then they go in whatever direction they want. When I think of great musicians I know, most of them follow this pattern.

Same thing in art that requires big money - Georges Bizet didn't create his most socially-challenging work - Carmen - at the beginning of his career. It was the last thing he did, and he was pilloried for it. Beethoven was already an established composer when he wrote his most political work - Fidelio. Michael Powell, one of Britain's greatest directors, didn't get more mainstream; he made a movie that ruined his career and forced him into exile (and wasn't recognized as groundbreaking until decades later). Pasolini didn't get more mainstream; his last movie was so politically charged that it got him murdered. Eisenstein's (who definitely had to answer to the mechanisms of distribution even though they weren't corporate) last film probably would have gotten him killed had he not died first.

I said earlier in this thread though, that political vision is not always the same as artistic vision (in my opinion) A person can be very political and not necessarily express that in his or her art. Usually the two are joined, I agree, but they are two separate things.

Ken Burch, I'm sorry if I came down hard on you regarding your intent around Timebandit, and I hope you return to this thread.

And I think we disagree on what art is and what's the difference between art, being an artist, making a viable living as a working artist, and someone who draws/paints something nice once in a while, or writes/creates something once in a while that is enjoyed by some others. As I said in the other thread, I'm not a working artist and have nowhere near the nerve and the guts to take that kind of chance in this world. 

If you paint masterpieces but they're all in your basement, nobody sees them and you never sell them, either because you're too shy to show anyone or you think they're so great nobody could appreciate them, or they sell 100 years after you die, how is this art, for you the artist? Art is about creating something that connects with others, as well as being many other things.

Art, like life, can't be done well in isolation. 

Well, since you've put it that way...

I'm actually in favor of artists getting feedback from other artists and from people who partake of cultural work.  Well and good.  It's worthwhile to see what reaction your idea is getting(and I say this as someone who's done some poetry, some playwriting and some songwriting, although I'm not sure I'm arrogant enough to call myself an "artist" in a full-time sense, since I also have full time work).

But the question I'd ask is...is it actually possible to set out to MAKE your work "speak to others"?  How do you do that without ending up painting/writing/sculpting "to the audience"?  What is the line to be drawn between taking in feedback, on the one hand, and essentially letting other people tell you how to do your work?  There's a boundary that needs to be drawn in that exchange, and I'm wondering where people here would draw it.

Ken, I love that question. Many of my writer friends, and people I've taken writing workshops with, ask that question over and over and struggle with it. Especially if they're doing autobiographical writing, but even if they aren't. Nobody who I know wants to be Margaret Atwood, but they all, including me, want their work to be read by more people, however that takes place. 

It's not the topic that will speak to the audience, in my opinion. Like the books I mentioned, about personal issues of trauma and abuse. It's the way the the topic is conveyed to the audience via the artist, or art-maker, if "artist" seems to pompous (which for some it can seem that way).

I write poetry sometimes. And while all or most of my poetry speaks to real feelings and experiences I've had, or anger at various bullshit in the world, I recognize that not all my poetry, or my other written work, should be read to others, even one other. *smile* I'm not being self-deprecating. Sometimes we have to write 10 pages to have half of one that has something in it to work with. That's part of the process, for me as a writer anyways. I agree with you that hearing feedback from peers is vital, and not feedback like "that was great" or "that sucked". It takes time and effort to give quality and helpful feedback.

So, to "make" your work speak to others? Sure, that happens all the time, and you and others have made references to that in this and the previous thread I think. Few artists start from this place. Some do, and some end up at this place. I don't have a huge value judgement on that. My only critique would be (for the performing arts) that rarely does someone who doesn't conform to the current standard of beauty become recognized, rich, famous, etc. Clearly that's a bias, and we aren't getting the optimal number of good or great artists because of that.

And the fact that I like a song, let's say "Lost Together" by Blue Rodeo, which was a double platinum whatever, does that mean it's touched me more or less? No. I listen to it, it has a sound I like, lyrics I like and I like it. That particular song I continue to like, years after I first heard it. Was it written and performed to compel a connection? I have no idea. That's the other side of being an artist. Once you create your thing, people will engage with it in ways you have no control over. I find that both terrifying and way cool.

I think it's about finding the truth in what you create and staying tied to that truth...whether or not you think its what people would "want to hear".  If you do that, there will always be people, at some point, who are drawn to that truth.  This is what leads to the connection.

Let's not forget those who intentionally avoid being a working artist [25] because are at odds with the production of art as a commodity or perpetuating the passive audience/active artist relationship [26] which is typical of western culture despite the efforts of dadaists, performance and installation art or even the cacophonist.

If we want to reduce the artist to a skilled tradespersons I'd be willing to accept the boat maker analogy that was made in an earlier post.  Certainly when you devote all your time to something you will with practice be able to achieve a higher degree of technical proficiency than those who don't.

But I'd rather think of art as something that connects souls, works as a medium for strong emotional expression, helps further our understanding of self, our relationships and maybe even offers some sense of meaning to our existence.  I'd rather make an analogy with someone who grows food in a backyard garden [27] and cooks meals for their friends and family.  Is their food any less nourishing because they don't work at a public restaurant where hundreds will taste their food everyday?  Sure they may not be on the same level as a master chef but does it mean the person is not truly creating tasty meals?

Since I do believe everyone is an artist [29] I don't have a problem with creating art for the audience.  I actually think that is important.  In the creation of a piece of art you should think of yourself as entering into a conversation. You should be replying to what has gone on before in the culture and should be as much entitled to a reply as you would be in a typical verbal discussion. 

I know I'm not above posting threads where I just talk to myself on this forum but generally speaking would you post on this forum if nobody ever responded to what you wrote?  Would it make any sense to reply to threads without acknowledging anything that the previous posters had brought up?  Why do you bother engaging in a open forum rather than just reading the edited articles published in a newspaper?  Why would do you believe art should be thought of any differently [30]? Unless it's just a matter of thinking working within the currently accepted cultural paradigm [31] might help in subverting it?

"I" think it works like this. I'll let you think other wise ;).

Every artist is trying to make art that sells or loved by everyone.

Everyone in a Capitalist society understands if you don't have money you can't, eat, have shelter, buy more matterials, go out on dates, have fun with friends, travel, buy new clothing.

The thing is, life is chance. Some people love paintings of Elvis and some don't. Maybe abstract is in or maybe you're 20 years to early. Maybe you are naturally gifted but people don't discover you. Or maybe you're just throwing mud at a wall and everyone wants it.

The point being. You can try and try to be financially viable but that doesn't mean it will happen. So the really thing is you must first start from a point of just doing it because you enjoy doing it.

i think every artist starts from a point of just doing it because they like it, or want to.  But that motivation for every artist is different.

There are some people who want to do it because they like the attention, like the idea of being famous, like the possibility of having money and influence etc.  Those people to me are not really artists, and they generally don't make the best art.

There are others who are driven by things like creativity, personal connection to the art form, desire to effect change, desire to "return the favour" of having been touched by art, etc.

seems one constant though is that the art that becomes commercially successful is usually created by the first group, while the art that seems to really affect people and become important in their lives is created by the second group, who usually remain relatively obscure during the majority of their lifetimes and usually obtain large followings long after their dead.

to me that's the difference.  Will the artists still create that great work, even if it won't turn a financial profit in their lifetimes?  Or will they chuck their integrity to the side and go for the immediate reward?

I'm not convinced an artist is avoiding the 'great work' or chucking their integrity if they are going for the immediate reward.  I like your analysis of the two different types of artist.  The first category would probably not think of themselves as ditching integrity would they?  They might even believe they are working hard to make people happy.  I'd be interested in how you would analyze the audience that supports those two different kinds of artists.

yeah, i'd agree the artists are most likely thinking they are doing it "for the people".  Of course they love the fans, and thank them every chance they get, after all if they didn't have that many fans they wouldn't get the checks.  i think what Chomsky said to that BBC reporter who just didn't get the idea of media control :I'm sure you believe your a dedicated reporter who looks for the facts, and takes pride in being an honest, objective reporter.  What i'm saying is that if you didn't think the way you do, you wouldn't be here, you'd have been weeded out of the institution long ago.

same with music.  i'm sure lady gaga thinks she's "pushing boundaries" and is very subversive and creative and a real talent.  but anyone who listens to music knows she's just another cookie-cutter pop star.

in terms of the audience, i think again the media comparison is good.  people believe what they read because they don't generally read anything different.  But if you read outside the mainstream or experience outside the mainstream, you instantly recognize the media as generally misrepresenting the truth.  

same with art i think.  most of the mainstream audiences generally are not connected to the grassroots art community, or really aware of it,  because the mainstream can BUY access and they can't.  So there is TV and radio, newspapers, entertainment magazines, billboards, distribution networks that deal with all the retailers of art, payola, etc that ensure who gets paid attention to.  that's where most people find out about art.

By chance, some people get exposed (much like how you get exposed to alternative politics) to the reality of art that isn't portrayed in the mainstream, and branch out and progress from there.  i think (from another post) that we both like hip hop.  When you look at the stuff in the mainstream, it doesn't really resemble all the progress and great ideas and creativity that's going on in the hip hop community.  On one hand you have people thinking lil' wayne is the "best rapper ever" because he's saying so and is pushed by huge promo budgets and fits the mold, when in reality there are plenty of mc's who get far less exposure and make him look like an amateur like MF doom, percee p, lord finesse or whoever.  

KRS makes some interesting points on this, along with chuck d.  can you imagine if all the great mc's went for the immediate reward and dumbed down to sound like lil' wayne or whoever instead of making classic records we'll be listening to for decades to come?  the artform would suffer in my opinion.  

Milo204 #28

What you just said about Lady Gaga is your subjective opinion.

And thats what it all boils down to in art; subjectiveness.

Look there are only two types of art.

1- popular art.

2- unpopular art.

You can subject each piece of art according to level of accepted skill or what ever, but really that don't matter.It's either you like it or not, with differing degrees of grey.

Every person is doing art for two reasons as well

1- to kill time, in an enjoyable way to them, while waiting for death.

2- To be accepted by their social, or a social, group.

This piece to me, is amazing...

It's called Crows Copia at.... http://www.copronason.com/nicolettaweb/pages/crows%20copia.html

That is freaky deaky. Someone has talent. LA is where the artists go for sure. L.A. and art - art and L.A. It's the city of angels.

trippie, i think that's a gross oversimplification.

there are more forces at play than people just liking it or not liking it, and there are more reasons people make art than just to kill time or be liked by other people.

As far as gaga goes, in a way it's my subjective opinion, but i'm not just pulling it out of thin air, i'm comparing her to other examples of artists that did make creative music and push boundaries.  my statement was she is a cookie cutter pop star and think that's correct.  Her music is very formulaic and traditional mainstream pop/dance music, and as a dj i can say it matches up perfectly with any number of 90's dance hits.  same tempos, same song structures, same keys etc.

as for her image, she's not subversive.  She's doing the predictable mainstream female pop star thing.  she's singing about sex, getting undressed in her videos, promoting cell phones and repping for huge corporations like polaroid, etc, etc.

compare that to those that came before her like wendy o williams, joan jett, nina simone or whoever and to use the word subversive or "pushing boundaries" makes a mockery of their accomplishments.  i think those points can be made of gaga irrespective of whether or not you like her music.  

"People used to make records
As in a record of an event
The event of people playing music in a room"

I like seeing you're dichotomies even if they don't take account for all the nuances that exist within culture. 

The way they sometimes try to get around giving a grade, which is meant to be objective, to a work of art, in which the quality is often subjective, in schools is to try and judge how well a piece communicates the artists intentions.  Milo204 you're are setting out a definite criteria which lady gaga may very well not meet so you as a DJ might not play it, but another DJ who might see the purpose of their art as giving people a place to let off steam and be physically active in a fun communal setting may very well see it as a song the meets their artistic goals as it may very well get a large people up and dancing.

Of course the question that always gets asked of the art student before "what are you intending to communicate?" is "who is you're intended audience?"  Her music may not have the intended effect if played at a country and western bar in small town Montana for example.

"And we keep on paying those freaks on the TV,
Who claim they will save us but want to enslave us.
And sweating like demons they scream through our speakers
But we leave the sound on 'cause silence is harder."

I'd ask tripple the why would the audience support one kind of art over another, but the reasons giving for making art could probably work as reasons for liking art as well.   I'd also add the thing about liking mainstream mass media is that it provides you common ground with a very broad social group and in a place like toronto where figuring out how you can relate to your neighbours can be a bit of a guessing game I think that common ground might be seen as being much more valuable than it would have been 100 years ago.

Milo given you're critisim of media power in post #28 I'd be interested in knowing how vital you think the mode of distribution is to a work of art.  does a piece of art found scribbled on an ad on a bathroom wall hold the same meaning if it was done on canvas and framed in a prestigious museum?

For me the power relationships implicit in how a work of art is presented are as important as the content of the message itself in determining how much I like it.

ebody, i'd agree with your statement about gaga.  it's got a beat and you can dance to it so it does serve that function.  My only point was about her image as a progressive, subversive artist.  What i'm wondering is, without the phony image and all the hype and promo around her, would dj's play it and would people choose to listen to gaga compared to the more forward thinking and truly boundary pushing artists?

as for modes of distro, i think it plays a big role in that when a very concentrated group of corporations control the means of distribution, it means that like everything else the product they produce reflects their interests which are often counter to the interests of the public.  This means that artists that don't "fit the mold" are often denied access to those means of distro and therefore access to the public.  This isn't unique in art, i think it's more the result of art being made in a society that values capital over all else and you'd find the same dynamics at play in a bunch of areas.

does the means of distribution matter, to an extent yeah.  When you look at graf artists, part of what makes the art what it is is the way it's displayed.  It doesn't have the same meaning or allure when it's on a canvas as opposed to thrown up in a public space.  It doesn't have the same kind of limitations such as time, being busted, you can only use what you can carry on your back, being in public etc. being on a canvas to me makes it different (no less pretty to look at but not the same meaning or appeal) then agian it would depend on what the piece is trying to say...

i think it's just a matter of evaluating a piece of art on it's individual merits and seeing it for what it really is.  That was my reason for using the gaga reference.  many people accept at face value the image presented by her management team, label and PR people without really questioning or examining it and seeing if it's even accurate.  whereas if people actually looked at it, and placed her in the history of music through the years, she's quite unremarkable and i really doubt people would make such a big deal out of her act.  sure they might still dance to her tunes, but would she be so universally heralded as a game changing artist? i doubt it.

my thinking is that without the commercialization and control of art by a handful of really powerful companies, people would generally not ingest what they do on a such a mass scale and would be open to the benefits of great art that is happening all around us in relative obscurity.  and also that the direction and evolution of art would be very different if you take the possibility of capital rewards on a massive scale out of the equation.  But of course the same is true of almost any human endeavor.

i doubt there's many people on this board who think the shape of our political system, shape of industry, science etc would look the same if it weren't for the massive financial and societal rewards for conformity. 

Milo'

I don't remember Lady Gaga ever saying she was pushing the boundry. Do you have a quote for that? Or is it something someone else imposed on her to bring her down?

And at what time didn't people do what you have suggested? It's all been done befoe, everything. It's just the angle you spin it at.

ebodyknows:

If I could tell you the magic formula of how one piece of art becomes more accepted over another, I'd be rich.

Milo:

Ill tell you why I like Lady Gaga. Her first video and song, Poker Face.

The way she sings the chorus, the synth sounds she uses, the image she portrays stands out from the rest. The lyrics. She puts an interesting spin on an old act, she is only in her young tweenties.Yup , there are many reasons why I like her act. Originality never does it for me, cause in my opinion it will never happen.

Watch her video for Alexandro. She has something to say and it comes through in how she expresses it.

Lady Gaga has the talent to do what she is doing, it's not fake. I've seen old band footage of her playing  piano and singing Led Zeppelin. That shows a person paying their duos.

Don't judge just enjoy.

Lady Gaga can, apparently...and has scads of $$$ to prove it.  She's a master semiotician who has the zeitgeist by the balls.  What other vindivation does she need? That her firm grasp of Populist imagery doesn't extend beyond artifice is surperflous to the art of making money...which is the only popular measure of success today.  Blame the MSM, if you will, but this woman is an iconoclast who's sexual power plays the mechanism like a fiddle-- a symbiotic relationship that seems to have reached it's limit within the mainstream, at least.  Can she render the sensibilities of Mapplethorpe, et al acceptable to the masses?  We'll see, but I doubt it.  It's too dangerous.

no, like i said it's her management team, her label, pr people and all the people who go on ad nauseum about how forward thinking and artistic her music is.  You like it, that's fine i'm not saying you shouldn't.  but it is straight up formula pop music, no more than that.  

And when i see that video of her playing zepplin, it convinces me she IS fake.  look a the huge difference between then and now.  is it even the same person?  different sound, total image makeover...that's not paying your dues, thats getting a major label contract.  paying your dues is slugging it out when your art isn't trendy or popular because you're dedicated to and care about the artform, not jumping on the latest bandwagon so you can become a "star".  

Did it appear like that was what I was trying to find out? Ooops!  I would like to know a formula for how to reinstate a wide spread belief in the importance of non-mediated participatory conviviality in North American cultural practices which will subsequently result in behaviour that will favour the decline of the artistic elite and investment in the creative potential of all.

Milo I agree about your idea that lady gaga is not particularly remarkable and it certainty is frustrating to see the same old thing re-packaged and marketed as cutting edge.  The thing is I'm not sure anyone is really remarkable enough to be elevated and worshipped as a cultural hero.  As far as conformity goes I'm not certain conformity precludes the profundity of a cultural experience...Cultural traditions which link a people to their past where the intention is to repeat what has been done before can potential carry great depth.  Plus triple might be on to something with the 'it's all been done before comment'.   I do agree whole-heartedly with the "true of almost any human endeavour" statement.  I guess I just tend to get weary at the excitement big media disseminating messages I approve of....Because I run the risk of falling in love with those kinds of artifacts that give a voice to my politics, beliefs, desires etc.  This is a risk because I have little hope for any political change that doesn't see change in cultural behaviour as one of the first steps.

...so if you don't have ideas on how to affect wide spread change in cultural behaviours I also be willing to accept ideas on how to best situate myself so as to personally experience as much non-mediated participatory conviviality in North American culture as possible.

See to me i keep hearing music for example that is new and exciting all the time, music that is pushing boundaries both artistically and message wise.  Although you certainly won't hear that from mainstream channels.  Then again what is new and exciting isn't always really new, i get stoked on music going back and discovering stuff from generations past.  There's loads of great music that also really clashes with mainstream values.

mid sixties era jazz is good for that, 70's-80's punk rock, classic funk/soul (even early motown stuff had a big political message), jamiacan dub from the 70's etc.  

also, to get away from north american culture, try listening to music from other countries.  there's a rich history of great music from all over the place.  south america, africa, etc.  

You're right milo, her music is formulaic, and she's a product of the industry, but it's the refined sensibility of that formula that I'm interested in (even if it's not art as such).  For me, the art is in the making of Lady Gaga, and the artist, it that sense, is whoever produced her.  How much input does she actually have?  Only her hairdresser, and everyone else involved with the production, knows for sure.  Fortunately, or not, if you have an idea and the financial backing, you don't always have to slug it out, and 'pay your dues'. Not everyone does,  Quite often, blood, sweat and tears results in just that.

For me, if you like it you like it, and if you don't you don't.

Analyzing art is fine, but trying to analyze whether it should make your toes tap or not is a pointless exercise.

If you want to look at formula and factory-style control of music the definitive modern example is motown, and that didn't stop some of their artists from making relevant music - and some of it was pretty danceable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s

It wasn't that I want to get away from North American culture, it's that I wanted to be surrounded by non-mediated, convivial and participartory culture in north america...I'm not sure how much I can participate in African culture from canada....but I guess it is possible to a degree with those who have brought their African culture to Canada.  There was this time I had stumbled upon a convivial group of musicians practicing in the cafe where I was eating the half-price monday pizzas. I was intrigued about their unusual instruments which at first sounded a lot like gamelan music. 

(Side note: people keep telling me there is no word for artist in Bali. Is this true?

"As I said this morning to Charlie,
There is far too much music in Bali.
And although as a place it's entrancing,
There is also a thought too much dancing.
It appears that each Balinese native
From the womb to the tomb is creative,
And although the results are quite clever,
There is too much artistic endeavor."
~noel coward")

So back at the cafe in Toronto I went over and asked them what the instument was they were playing and where I could get one and they asked me to join the band.  In the year that I played with them we only twice performed on a stage [54] and both times it was for a charity event, We were happy enough playing together at the cafe, in a park or in our homes and at the end of each session there was the ritual thanking of each other for coming.  I ended up in that situation by chance circumstances...I'd really like for something like that(18:25-20:45 and 25:05-28:15) [55] to happen again without depending on chance circumstances.  

Been awhile since we had a dichotomy posted. Let's have another one:

Eugene Delacroix said " You who know that there is always something new, reveal that to others in that which they may have over looked."  I think that this allows for the most traditional types of art as much as it does for the most contemporary experimental art.  It asks artists to try to make something that reveals something that is meaningful about being alive, and it implies that if it is achieved, artists may inspire others in ways that are potentially life changing.  I believe that a serious artist is driven to inspire in others the sense that there is always hope, there is always a new way to look at a situation that may seem limited.  In the face of our fears and limitations art can lead us to see potential for a little more personal human liberty.  I think that great art is a document left by some human that basically testifies to what they felt was worth spending their time on.  It is that simple.  What is popular during any era, well that is simply the cumulative expression of what that era valued.  It is obvious to us all that what was valued at any one time is not what may be valued at some other point, so artists may not inspire as sense of camarderie and encouragement only to their era, they might send inspiration far forward into the a quiet moment for just one other human far in the future.  And even inspiring just one other human is of value.  The audience and the artist validate an appreciation in each other for a shared sense of value or truth.

There is no question that a popular artist might inspire many in their era, and there should be acknowledgement that this is truly some achievement.  It seems to me that we should use our wisdom as a society to provide a search and protection for those artists who might actually be doing something that will lead our tastes, lead our vision, and may be ahead of popular tastes and values, because we all know so many examples of famous artists who made genuine personally inspiring art in the face of oppressive forces and many of those artists mean the world to us now. Mozart, Van Gogh, Kathe Kollwitz, etc......

Canada always has admired the explorer and the adventurer, and now that google provides images of every mountain goat pass that there is, maybe it is cultural explorers who should dare to go into uncharted territory?  Maybe we as individual patrons have to put our money and votes where we can slowly affect change.  Start at home with what you spend money on, what you vote for with cash....our world revolves around that in this era...make a statement using cash...buy original art, go to live performances, expect your regional government to build more venues to support these activities and the world changes from the grass roots up!  Thanks, be well.

I agree with you fully in-so-far as one feels compeled to indulge the capatalist system that currently prevails in north america.  However, if you can see another way of fulfilling your arts and entertainment needs outside of the market then why indulge it?  If someone who pays or steals to watch one movie per week were to spend one month using that time to learn a story, a song, a dance, painting, juggling or whatever then spend 1/4 of that time the next month just giving it away, 1/4 of the time appreciating the talents of other gifting [58] artists in your community as they continue to make new art I'm not sure there is a lot to lose.  It would seem to me like a good place to start subverting the capitalist system. If worse comes to worse and you didn't get any art back it's not like you've given up your food or your shelter for the month. You'll at the very least survive...and perhaps most terrifying of all, as you explore your own creative potential and that of your community you might actually start to flourish.

You are all missing the boat on this one...

Most people do not care about pushing the boundries.

It's an elitist thought, to think that only new and unheard or never before seen art, is the only real art worth liking.

Poeple are not inferiour if they like what is popular. Jazz is dead quit fankly. The only reason it was ever popular  was because it was relevent in it's time.

People like Lagy Gaga because she can sing well, her songs sound good and she puts on a great show, that is relevent in this day and age.

Slugging it out in obscurity is not paying your dues. It's wasting your time.

I've played in enough bands to now that everytime you bring in a new song and it sounds catchy and people actually might like it, The rest of the band does not want to play it.

Until otherwise noted, we live in a capitalist world. If an artist makes conviluted art that no one wants, but is new and challanging, that artist will either do one of two things.

- starve

- or get a job and not have enough time to explore their talent.

I've been at this , "What is an artist?'" thing for a long time now.

There is only one thing an artict should ever try to do.

Reflect life back at people.

Artists are mirrors.

How they reflect, is irrelevent.

How the viewer senses the art is peraonal and subjective.

"It's an elitist thought, to think that only new and unheard or never before seen art, is the only real art worth liking."

agreed.

"Artists are mirrors.
How they reflect, is irrelevent."

I'll entertain the notion that artists are mirrors but still waters in the right light can reflect as much as gilded mirrors in the Palace of Versailles.  You're going to have to tell me why any distinction between the two is not important.  I may have missed the boat, but I know I'll be happy to sit here and wait for the disturbed water to calm.  Have fun on your trip.

The thing about water [62], as you look at it over the sand, is that it only sometimes reflects and sometimes will refract [63] and even when it's not totally limpid it's nice to entertain something other [64] than your own reflection every so often.  If you can pay your bills contructing songs in the mass media pop song trade that's great but wouldn't you still want to feel connected to a more personal culture [65] in your leisure time?

trippie, first off, no one said the ONLY art worth ingesting is that which is new and unheard of.  What i've said is that the new and unheard art is what it is because of a huge corporate influence and control over the mode of distribution.  Are our political beliefs here irrelevant because they're not held by the majority of the population?  

I also never said people are "inferior" because they like what is popular.  In fact i think i explained exactly why so many people like what is popular (corporate dominance).  I simply took issue with the misrepresentation of popular art as being "subversive".

your attitude on jazz says a lot: it's dead precisely because it isn't popular mainstream music.  Who cares if millions of people worldwide still love it, and many great new artists are pushing the limits on their instruments, and thousands of people are attending concerts every year.  It's not mainstream, so it's "dead"....seriously?

Perhaps a better analogy would be food:

you can make a nice pizza from fresh dough, with fresh ingredients that actually have some nutritional value (real art), or you can buy a frozen microwavable pizza with processed cheese and loaded with preservatives and sodium that will ultimately make you sick (mass produced art)

sure they're both pizza. and once in a while i'll eat the frozen crap if it's around, it still fills your belly...but the mass produced version, while it's much more popular, pales in comparison to the real thing in every way, even though mccains will tell you that it's "straight from momma's kitchen", we all know it was produced in a dirty salmonella laced  factory with only one objective: make a quick profit.

my point is: you are here on rabble because you (hopefully) recognize the influence of corporate dominance in almost every facet of our society.  Why is art specifically excluded from your analysis?

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Look you don't know my attitude about anything, Jazz is dead. Just like Theatre. They are old styles of communication. Yes many people still like them but that's just like Classic Rock still being viable, people living in the past.

Look, I like Classical music but really, it's like 400 years old. That's why orchestras around the world are struggling with attendance. It's not relevant to modern life.

There is nothing wrong with mass produced art. That is your subjective view of the situation. Your analogy of the frozen pizza is bad art.

The art that you label mass produced is actually modern art. That’s the modern way of producing art, massively on a world wide scale. We live in a globilized capitalist world, art should reflect that.

If you want art to be different then change the world and art will follow. It doesn't work the other way. Art always mimics life, life never mimics art.

Jazz was popular in its time because it sounded as chaotic, as the times.. Think about it. There were two world wars. Life was drastically changed by industry in America. The assemble line, and cars everywhere etc. And besides, I have the album “A love Supreme by John Coltrane. And unlike most people I know, I can follow along and find it so soothing that I can fall asleep to it.

Everyday Capitalism promotes female singers by the dozen and how many of them become famous? Only the ones that connect with people. Only the ones that can reflect life back.

From your attitude about Lady Gaga I will surmise that you don't like looking at modern life. That's really what you feel. But you are having a hard time expressing it, so you rally against the obvious.

Right now as I write this, some of my neighbours are listening to Rush outside my window, I wish they would stop. I used to love Rush. That was a long time ago. Now I prefer Electronic sounding music

.

I'm using the word 'Mirror" more as a metaphor. As the most obvious medium of reflecting. Could be water, could be a spoon.

That is why I said it is irrelevant of how they do it.

Also, people are products of their environment. That means the artists thoughts are shaped by the world around them. So not reflecting life in expressing accordingly, as an artist, is impossible.

We as viewers, I think, can expect artists to advance their skill through out there lives. Constantly improving, manipulation, exploring, redefining, rediscovering, being ever more honest in their reflection.

Can we hold them to a higher standard? We can ask, but ultimately , people can only reflect on what they sense.

"The art that you label mass produced is actually modern art. That’s the modern way of producing art, massively on a world wide scale. We live in a globilized capitalist world, art should reflect that."

I know art DOES reflect that but you really think it SHOULD? Also, does it have to reflect that in a positive light?  Why shouldn't artists question capitalism, because that seems to be what you're saying in your support of mainstream art.  My point is that an artist that questioned capitalism would most likely not be in the top 40 or whatever.  whereas artists that support capitalism openly (lady gaga, etc, etc) do very well.  Just like in the media, status quo views get plenty of attention while the rest gets ignored.  I know that's how it is, but i don't agree with it or support it, and there is a great alternative available.

This doesn't mean i can't enjoy a mainstream artist, it just means i'm honest about what it is and what it's all about.  But i'd much rather listen to some of the truly amazing and progressive music coming out now (including electronic) that just doesn't happen to be played on tv or the radio.  Your view seems to exclude any possibility of that, and i'm not sure why.  Especially if you're into electronic music, aren't you missing out on some really great music if you don't look outside the mainstream as well?

I was using water as a 'pataphor. The thing is water can be a mirror but a mirror can not be water.  Like a measured quantity of sand in an hour glass a mirror always looks at things in relationship to what was previously measured. It reflects the past(even if it is imperceptibly the past)  Water can reflect the past but also can refract showing a new perspective on the present  and imply the future through its momentum or capacity to change forms.  You may be reflecting something that you are familiar with in your metaphor, however, it is not familiar to me, you can't expect me to be in your mind, in a situation like this you need to refract; explain your thoughts in a way I can understand.  You have to tell me WHY it is irrelevant what the reflecting medium is to your metaphor.

After choosing what medium will do the reflecting there is also the question of what we will reflect.  We can not reflect all there is. That would be as useless as a map with a 1:1 scale.  The artist must make choices about where to point their mirror if a mirror is indeed a part of their artistic repertoire. 

We live in a multifaceted world. Capitalism may be a part of the world but there is still more than just capitalism in the world.  Even in choosing how to feed myself I can choose to follow the ads dropped in my mail slot and pick up a slice of industrial pizza, I can go to the local park and make pizza with the community [71] or I can do a few other things [72].  It is reasonable to believe one choice may be preferable to another based on desired outcomes.  The themes an artist chooses to deal with(global capitalism for example) and the way they choose to deal with them(Selling their work in an established gallery or giving their work away for free on top of billboard signs for example) are going to be influenced by the society and culture in which they live but an artist might be wise to assume their artistic choices will also create particular cultural outcomes.(That may seem like a lot to ask of an artist but I'm not saying they need be monumental outcomes [73].....)

Sure, but scientists get to do experiments and thereby form a new understanding of the world around them.  As a 'pataphysist I of course believe in the responsibility of the artist to perform cultural experiments and thereby form a new understanding [74] of the world around them.

Milo024:

Look, I just want artists to be honest. I don't care if they are making pop art or something eclectic. I have no prefrence other then it being relevent.

I would expect an artist to refine thier techiques. To look at the world with understanding and then express what they sense, in the way they choice to express it.

Then I, as a viewer, see if it speaks to me, If it makes me move, If I have feelings for it.

What I would say to you is. If there is something missing out there, then maybe you need to fill that void. With your own voice.

@ebodyknows:

hhhhuuummm.

Artists are scientist in a different light.

They both reflect life back at us.

The artist lives and experiences life and then comunicates their highly subjective opinons to the world in the medium of their choice.

The scientist looks at life, does experiments to figure out how it works and then reports what they find, objectively as possible.

Both looking at life, both reflecting back what they sense.

When I say irrelevent, I mean something like this.

a person experiences a broken heart, this person wants to express it in art. How does this person do it? Will it be pastels? maybe photography? Or maybe Mime? could be punk rock or punk disco? or in poetry, or dance? or pottery? A play, a movie? A book? Water colours? abstract scolpture?

Can an artist bring their medium of choice one step further down the road? Maybe, if they're lucky or a genious.

Were does refraction come into the equation?  I would think that's what happens when the art is sensed by the viewer.

well I was thinking art can show the viewer something they are familiar with...the audience can have their lives reflected back at them from a new point of view, but if an artist were to refract, the artist can try to make themselves as transparent as possible or to express themselves as clear as possible to an audience who may not ordinarily be able to relate/empathize with/ or understand very well that point of view the artist is expressing.

Is anyone familiar with the winking circle?  Would you call them artists? Normal people in a world of zombies? or a bunch of self-aggrandizing fools [78]?

and here, why not I'll give you another free song to download [79]. I modeled it on sonnet #109, written in 2005 during my lunch break* between computer teaching sessions I ran voluntarily while sitting watching traffic and saying high to friends as they went by on one of mae sot [80]'s main streets.

*The cool thing about the street markets in mae sot is that little is pre packaged.  It's quite eaxy to avoid any unneccesary extra  waste while feeding yourself. A feat that takes a considerable greater degree of effort here.

heres some music I wrote tthat was influenced by my time hanging out at a Toronto Goth Club. and a coulpe of other tunes I demoed form my last attempt at putting a band together in Windsor, before I left.

www.myspace.com/ronnysmusicrox

Ya that refraction thing make ssense.

Thanks trippie.  Outside of poems in the writers circle your the first person to share something of your own personally created culture with me on babble.  That means a lot.  I've been listening and enjoying the music.

Anyone in the GTA going to nuit blanche tonight?  Anyone exhibiting officially or unofficially for it? 

If yes to any of the above you should get an award.

I just posted a new song. It's about Zombies. It's all for fun really. I'm glad to connect with others here myself, it's one of the reasons I write comments.

I'm happy that you are enjoying yourself, in your art, in your connections. Keep it up, never loose faith in other people, even the ones that put you down.

Now that you mentioned poetry, I have a short little sad love one.

You,

The woman of my dreams.

Me,

The man you wished I would have been.

Us,

Impotent leaves, fluttering in autumn breeze

Thanks Trippie, I love things about zombies. I also love autumn...How even when plants/leaves die off there is a unique beauty to it all.

Nuit blanche was a blast.  Many people stopped to play with us and exercise a bit of creativity and we gave out many awards.  Though the concept was for people to give themselves awards many gave awards to their friends.  What was truly beautiful [87] was seeing the blushing smiling faces of award winners returning to their grinning group of friends.  There was a certain joy that was palpable on the street corner where people were constantly invited to cheer for each other and I certainly missed it later in the evening as I moved on to view other exhibits.

I also missed the human interaction.  So much so that in one exhibit in an abandoned subway station where the public was supposed to interact with rods of plastic sticking out of a long strip on the floor like wheat, which would light up some leds at the end of the rod and make beeping noises in response, I couldn't help myself from continuing to play with other people.  I realized 99% of the people simply walked along one side of the strip of glowing beeping wheat brushing their hands over top.  I had walked to the other side and started asking people to "come to the other side"  apparently that was a bit intimidating so I changed my approach.  I starting informing people "You can walk right through it. you are allowed."  And most of the people who received this permission did do so.  I gave the first person a high five and congratulated her saying "way to go, so few people make it to this side"  when her friends, who were at first a bit hesitant to cross over, heard that they immediately made their way over in defiance.  It was fun.

So, maybe I should rephrase the idea I've been trying to communicate in these threads: you can be an artist.  You don't have to get famous or even show your art to 100's of people.  You can be an artist without making money at it. It's allowed.

Was that at Trinity Bellwoods Park? Cause I got an award for Awesomeness and my friend got one for being a Narcissistic Prick. We were the ones with the bottle of wine and gave ourselves a toast.

We went on for a will on that shtick. Even got interviewed by a couple of guys doing film school doc and met a couple for hot chics too. It was fun.

Ya, you don't have to make money at art. But it sure does help. when you live in a capitalist society.

If I had the money, I could make even better art.

You see, I decided to be my own installation that night. I was the art snob drinking wine at the art gallery. In this case the whole downtown was the gallery.

It helped that my friend played along very nicely.

Ohhh that was you!  I totally remember you guys.  You gave me a great interview:

http://www.beekeeping.isgood.ca/ronny_is_awesome.mp3

Glad you guys came out in a playful mood and took some responsibility for your own fun.
A lot of people I talked about nuit blanche in general seemed to be saying they didn't see anything that great...but I don't think they were taking any personal responsibility for that.

What would money allow you to do that would improve your art?

money doesn't help you make better art.  it only helps you make more expensive art.  Look at movies: the budgets are way bigger, but the movies themselves haven't gotten any better (some would say they've gotten worse), and the most expensive movies are often the ones that drop the ball the hardest.  remember "water world"...or take most of the big budget films in the last ten years...big on paying bad actors millions, and making crazy animations but in terms of a good story/film experience the budget doesn't seem to help, with the odd exception.

same with music.  the bigger the budget, the less the focus is on the actual music.  It becomes insane production costs, expensive promotional vehicles, flashy stage sets with video monitors and pyro, but on the whole a less satisfying experience than just seeing a musician who s amazing at what they do stand there and do it.

I think this is the same reason why almost every trend is ultimately started by some underground movement or generally poor artist and co-opted by major media conglomerates.  It doesn't cost much to make great art (in most cases) but it does require a big investment to make someone a superstar.

Money would buy me better equipment. More supplies and the time to indulge. Unfortunately we live in a Capitalist economy and capital buys you the time and the stuff.

you can't record with out recording equipment.

No the quality of film has vastly improved over the years. Just because the capitalisst don't know how to tell a good story does not mean the quality of the media is bad.

A great story can be told better with high production, better then it can be told with second rate production.

Same with music.. The richer the sound the better.

You got me on that tape there. Im busted......;)

While I see what your saying, a photographer with only a shoe box camera is going to have a hard time being ansel adams, I get a little apprehensive when I think you are talking in absolutes. I think the kind of production or format you use should reflect the story or image or idea you are trying to express. I mean people who have access to colour still will make b+w films. 

If we are going to talk about production quality, I think it's also a useful mental exercise to take a step back in this discussion and ask yourself if your art must be presented as some form of recorded media.  You did state a few posts back that "the whole downtown was the gallery" so I believe you are open minded enough to entertain this train of thought.  So now let's take music as an example.  Stereo is still pretty much the standard for distributing recorded music. To me this represents an extreme loss in quality from live performances.  Rather than each sound coming from a seperate instrument sounds are limited to coming from only 2 sources.  This creates problems, particularly in the low frequencies when mixing sound for stereo.  Imagine trying to mix an upright bass with a booming bass drum, a tuba, a big didgeridoo, a bass harmonica, and chords on the low end of the piano.  I think the best equipped studio in the world would have a hard time getting anywhere near the quality you'd experience if you where to hear the sounds coming directly from the instruments being played together.  Once your listening to the live band playing those instruments you also have to ask yourself what quality does the building lend to the sound, are you stuck in a seat or do you have the freedom to walk around the room? to walk closer or farther to the different musicians as they are playing? My feeling is everything has it's limitations and even a high end studio is working within it's particular limits and misses some of the qualities [96] the guy banging on plastic pails on the street has at his disposal.

I do hear you on the time thing. I've been working on this song from last year: http://www.beekeeping.isgood.ca/Love_of_the_Scorpion.mp3 [97]

Partly it's taken this long because I think it's a fall song and I should play it in the fall, partly because I don't know how to play piano, partly because I don't have a band and would have to play all the parts myself to fill out the track but If I didn't have a job to work I'd probably would have finished it by now.  On the other hand maybe I've done enough.  It's entertained me for a while and after all entertaining myself without the aid of pop stars was my goal.  (Btw I did this on an old slightly broken piano in the house I was living in at the time, I had access to an expensive modern keyboard with a million samples in that house too but I found the piano more fun for me to play on at the time.)

but "better" equipment and more time doesn't mean better art.  look at all the DIY art revolutions that made mind altering works with some of the cheapest crappiest gear around.  And in many instances it's the fact that such great art was made with minimal cost that makes it so great.  There are photocopied zines that had more impact than any big budget magazine, there are bands with shitty gear that made great records, there are records recorded on the worst gear but still sound great.

It's not that you can't make great music with great gear, but you don't need great gear to make good music/art.  Also, expensive equipment isn't always good.  I'd rather have a real fender rhodes than a four thousand dollar digital piano that emulates it, because it sounds better.

in terms of film, i agree the technological part has improved over the years, but often at the expense of good storytelling.  It's no coincidence.  I think it's precisely because there are so many options in terms of cgi, effects, etc that the emphasis on story is diminished.  That's why some of the best stories have low budgets..they only have the story to make the film.  

I think the high production ruins the story in some cases.  Because there is so much invested in the budget, the film HAS to sell, so the story is watered down for mass appeal.  When the budget is lower, there isn't that pressure from the studios to sell big, so the filmmaker can do what they want.  like any other business, the more money is involved, the more control the people spending it want for fear of losing their investment. 

Look you can create art with a leaf and some bird poop. but that's besides the point. It's a joke really. Most people aren't into it.

What would you rather hear.  A gifted violin player playing a balsa wood violin or  a million dollar Stradivarius? And don't say, it depends on what he's trying to accomplish. The fact is, the Stradivarius would be more pleasing to the ear.

Art is subjective, I view many different forms presented in many different ways. I don't disregard anything. I like what I like, but the best to me, time and again, comes from the people that spend years developing their talents, creating with the best tools available and making it express the here and now.

I enjoy when people expand the traditional, experimenting, learning and growing. But again, I don't want to hear some hack playing an out of tune cheap-o-matic guitar, calling it art and expecting to be taken seriously. Or some other hack, finding some rusted cans, nailing them to aboard, hanging it on a wall and calling it " Modern Life at time of Decay".

And if this sounds like it's all about me, it's not. I'm a very average guy. I have found that if I really like something, most likely, the majority of people will too.

Yes I love live instruments. But I view recorded music and live music differently.

I don't really like live recorded music for the most part. I like live, live .And I expect recorded music to be recorded well and to sound different then how it is played live.It's like two different mediums to me.

I have produced some really nice sounding home recordings on my computer, but still, I can not compete with top notch producers using top notch equipment with top notch players.

 I can draw, but my skills are weak. I don't call what I draw art, I call it practice, learning.

Ya the piano piece you got going there has potential.

As a producer I would tell you to keep practicing the part untill it feels and sounds fluid. Then record it on a good piano. Project your voice with confidence. Throw a rythem section behind it (bass and drummer playing brushes) give it that old time feel to sound like autumn. And record it live off the floor in the studio, but not live from a bar gig.

If you wanted it to sound modern, YOu could use some drum loop, one with brushes on the snare, but make it sound very obvious that it's a loop. Start the song off with just the piano using an old sounding record effect that transitions into a modern piano. You know, stuff like that.

The truth of the matter is.. the movie Avatar, was a great movie to watch. The effects were great and the story flowed very nicely. Millions of people watched it and enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm sure there are a lot of snotty nosed, art film buffs that would disagree. But that's there problem. They can live in a world of pettiness.

Me, Im going to enjoy the latest and greatest.

but your example on the violin assumes it's the same player.  I'd rather hear a virtuoso on a shitty violin than a hack on a great one, that's what i'm trying to say.

same with your example of the guitar thing.  I mean neil young played a tiny 15 watt practice amp made in 1959 in stadiums and sounded better than many people with thousands of dollars worth of gear, precisely because he spent years refining his craft.  My point is that you can make a crappy musician sound good if you put them with a 200 000 dollar a song producer in a nice studio and plenty of auto tune.  That doesn't make them a great artist, and it's obvious because when they perform live they need a backing track and they're still off.

a good or great artist could use that stuff, but they don't "need" it.  Your stance seems to imply that the cream always rises to the top.  Which seems to ignore the fact that art in the mainstream is treated as a commodity, and follows the rules of the system under which it's produced and distributed, which is a major capitalist enterprise and suffers the same pitfalls as all the others.

Which means those who are eager to be exploited by these companies by compromising their art and following trends, agreeing to egregious product placement in films and music videos, those who use sexist imagery to sell their art, those who "tone it down" and don't question the general status quo etc. will be supported by the major companies and given mass expose leading to fame and fortune.

just like anything else under this system.  Would someone with radical but sensible political beliefs be given a fair shot to reach out to the public, even though it's a democracy?  Of course not.  They would be shut out of any mainstream channels and kept to the sidelines by the corporate media, meaning they can never get their message to the vast majority of people who may agree with them.

i'm not sure why art is any different...

"Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it."  ~Author Unknown

I'd rather the everyday people I am surrounded with practised their art in their free time than give that up to spend our time watching a select few who spend all their time practising an art.  You are free to think of live and recorded music as two different things but for me recorded music has a long way to go before I can conceive of it as anything but a lower quality musical experience.

I'd like to extend the idea in the above quote by saying the degree to which I enjoy a piece of art has a strong correlation to the context in which it was produced. Listening to a some guy play a stradivarius who started at the age of 4 receiving lessons paid for by a ruthless multinational ceo daddy who pressured him to achieve and limited his social time with other kids in glamorous concert hall built with materials mined under unsustainable, exploitative conditions surrounded by an audience of uptight folks dressed in expensive and uncomfortable sweatshop manufactured clothes is not going to be as enjoyable to me as someone playing an instrument made from stuff they found in the garbage wearing second hand clothes out on the street for anyone who walks by.  Your welcome to disagree but I don't appreciate you telling me your opinion is fact.  For the art to beautiful to me it must contribute to the beauty of the culture as a whole(the culture of the neighbourhood, city, country, continent, globe.). Art is not beautiful to me when it beautifies for some to the detriment of others. Or judge someones success by that which they have denied from others in order to obtain it.

To me the defense of your side of the argument is strongly rooted in the technical aspects of art and I'm wondering if you can offer any arguments that might appeal more directly to the emotional, sentimental and human-inter-connectivity aspects of art.  As I personally place a much higher value on those elements than technical proficiency.

BTW I think your producer recomendations are great.  I might just add that in once I find a drummer and a bass player interested in my kind of art.

true

except time is limited

Thanks Thanks, but in what sense do you think time is limited?

limited time:

before the sun devours the earth?
before the collapse of western civilization?
before we die?
in between working jobs to pay for rent/mortgages/cars/food/vacations/instruments/acquiring media/going to shows?
to play in the sand box before it becomes socially unacceptable?
to ingest all the mass media ever produced?
to spend time with friends/family?
to experience technical proficiency?
to play catch?

I say time is bent. [107]

and now for the copied statistics portion of this post:

[108]

4 days sinse last post. Craving more information input. Resorting to pop culture:

"time.. time is a ship on a merciless sea
Drifting toward an average of nothingness
Until it can be retarded for it's own destiny
Time is an inanimate object
Praying and praying and praying for '
Time is dancing, moving lingering all memories of past.."

Okay I've had my fill. Will perform further test to determine if I'm satisfied.

It isn't if, in exchange for being given the Strad, the violinist is contractually obligated to let her corporate underwriters dictate to her that she can only play the four or five "mainstream" classical pieces most people know, is forbidden to play anything obscure or original, and is required to work advertising jingles into every concert performance.

Post # 79

What I'm assuming is that the artist has spent the time developing there talent, to a respectable level. Or will be doing so, as time passes.

So its' talent and quality of tools, that brings me to my conclusions.

Look, everyone and their monkey can make art. That does not mean it will be good or that I should accept it as good.

These are the facts. Until other wise noted, we live in a Capitalist world. Money helps an artist out, end of discussion. Money helps buy materials, food, and most of all, the time to develope.

We can go on and on about how capitalism has a negative effect on art. That does not mean someone that gets paid by a major contributor is dismissed.

They are dismissed only if their art sucks. Which is usually a result of underachieved talent and not using the proper tools.

You know why Justin Bieber sounds great? Not because he himself is a great talent, but because everyone else around him is. Now if this kid keeps at it, eventually he will improve himself and hopefully that translates onto his art.

Look I spend most of my time looking at and being around art and talking about it. I'm not into fringe underdeveloped art thinking its great because it's not mainstream.

9 times out of ten, Id rather see the Canadian Ballet perform the Nut Cracker then some start ups dancing around in some back alley, acting like they're all edgy.

The better the talent, the better the tools and equipment, the better the intellectual knowledge, the better chance the art is more contagious

@ebodynows

Ya, finding players to hook up with is one of the hardest parts.

I've always hooked up with composers and tried to help them out, trying to make a career out of it. It never worked, mostly the people were jsut pulling me along so they could get out of the house a few times a week. That's all good, if they were up front about it.

i've resorted to learning guitar and piano myself. I'm constantly developing these two skills through composition and recording myself.

Basicly I looked at painters. They work alone making their own art. I want to be like that. Instead of painting, it will be music compositions. I'm just going to keep at it. When I need to record Ill find some players and pay them for their time or Ill play for them and they play for me kinda thing.

I have a few goals in mind, and you guessed it. Money would help big time in achieveing them.

It's all about life chances according to Gladwell and Marx.

"It's all about life chances according to Gladwell and Marx."

Marx talks about artist talent too?  I don't have much belief in people being inantely gifted or talented. 

Good point Ken!

I do believe in putting in a good amount of effort, love and intention into whatever you're doing but I don't like getting obsessive and compulsive about anything which seems to be the secret to most peoples success in our society.  I just think extreme obsession which may lead to success in one area often results in an unbalanced life and wouldn't meet my personal criteria for success.  I like beekeeping, I like felting, I like music, I like computers and babbling to people on the internet, I like sunny afternoons with a lover picking berries, cooking up a tasty meal, sharing things with friends.  I don't like driving around to beeyards, spending hours in a studio, dancing while others sit, or isolating myself too long to work on art(I find when I do this the art becomes more about me being alone and the experience of the isolated obsessed artist).

You've stated a few times trippie that we live in a capitalist society.  I think I've said something like what I'm about to say before too.  That's fine if you have to sell commodities [117] to survive in this society. However, if what you are selling is primarily concerned with techniclal proficiency you are talking about skilled trades people.  I can respect them and would would want poorly produced music as much as I'd want bad plumbing in my home.  That doesn't mean I want davinci reproductions on my wall more than my young childs paintings.

 This thread was nicely defined earlier as being about "what counts as "real" and "good" art, and who is a "real" and "good" artist. Which is a whole other can of worms."  We are on the internet and I'm free to be idealistic and steadfast in my determination to remind you that the entertainment commodities the general population calls art in our present day capitalist society are lacking many important features I think art should have.  Anyone and their monkey can and should make art.  It doesn't mean that it will all be good but technical proficiency is but one minor element in a boquet of elements that make art good.  If we combine techinal proficiency with disembodied and depersonalized mass distribution as the pinical goal of art my heart begins to ache.

You mentioned goth clubs earlier didn't you?  Would goth music really be as important to people without the whole goth scene that goes with it?

I personally think it all comes down to this... Art and how you appreciate it, is highly subjective.

As much as I have taken the position of skill and refined tools. I always try to approach all art, with indifference. Meaning that I hold my judgement, until after I experience it.

Over the years I have had to recalibrate my thoughts and ideas about the art I experience. A constant evolution, taking down walls and building new rooms.

Debates like this make me think about my position as well. I live in Parkdale, Toronto, I have the opportunity to visit many galleries, something I enjoy immensely. I think Ill go to  a few galleries today and see what I see, walk around enjoy the city, the people and then hopefully be inspired to give back through, musical composition.

What came first, the Goth or the Goth music? I'd say it was a combination of the two. A human feeling looking for expression. On the one side you have the artist and the other side the appreciater. Both needing each other.

Fidel:

Yup, I would agree. Good or bad, talent or technology... In the end, chance decides.

I was talking about the goth scene. I think there's more to it than just an audience/performer relationship.  You have audience/audience relationships as well.

i would think every social scene is like that. You know posers, hipsters, shi shi foo foo... every scene has them. Im not like that man, I like people, I dress that way I want and think and act the way I want. I just try to keep it real.

You know the Goth scene, or what's left of it, it's full of lonely people.

You live in Toronto right? We should hang out some time, do some art thing or something.

Ya it's true of all scene.  I wasn't trying to say your like that...or even that it's a bad thing.  I actually think it's more interesting when a community forms around a genre than when it's just a bunch of random people who don't speak to each other going to shows.  Shame when people feel they all have to think, act, dress the same though.

I'm in toronto.  I'd be interested in doing collaborative art making.

What instruments do you play? I'm trying to get some jams together at my buddies place.

What are "shi shi foo foo"? ...I'm not from Toronto.

i play guitar and have a djembe.  Don't have a dideridoo anymore, but have a mouth harp.  I do have an electric guitar too but if everyone is going to be plugging in I need to keep volumes moderate in order to be comfortable.  Feel free to send me a personal message through the site as I expect the mods will close for length any post now.

I think they're the hot new breed of purse dogs.  Paris Hilton already owns four of them, in all liklihood.

Thanks, Ken Burch...I'll sleep more soundly knowing that.

Carefull about the celebrity refrences! They are the cornerstone to the erosion of democratic culture.

Well, technically, I could be referring to a luxury hotel in the capital city of France.  You can't be sure, can you?

Does the Hilton in Paris allow pets...?

Shi Shi Foo Foo

the uppity crowd that's full of themselves. Or anything tha'st full of itself. They hang out at art galleries and parties, talking about nothing really.

Each class has them.. poseurs, hipsters and shi shi foo foo.

Closing for length.