My Pretentious Nature Compels Me
I have to respond to all the comments that have come and gone in the past day, while I was not able to participate. If nothing more, I need to organize my own thoughts, and opinions on what you all have said... and indulge my arrogance as well. I apologize for the length, but you guys have said interesting things.
As for the artist/entertainer bit. Both are enviable titles, and neither are negative terms. Not one person in "the arts" is either one or the other. Elton John, and RX Bandits are both artists and entertainers. They may swing more to one side (or hit for the other team as Elton John does), but they still share both titles' ambitions to a degree. They are at their extremes very different. YES, the semantics matter, because to communicate ideas we have to use words. In the dictionary (I looked it up) it confirms that 'entertainers' exist for OTHERS. Artists are much harder to define, because the term is much more subjective.
Maybe a little art history can help illustrate how subjective 'artist' in today's world is. I'll try to simplify this story. We live in a time when we are used to the term 'artist' and 'art' (or music) being applied to anyone, and anything. It didn't used to be that way. For centuries, an artist, and art (and music) had to be looked at, inspected, debated, and (hopefully) approved by the various esteemed academies to be considered worthy. This system led to beautiful art, but stifled creativity and progress. Many great artists never realized the success they could have in a less aristocratic art society. Van Gogh's art was viewed as degenerate and disgusting, contributing to his life-long insecurity and his committing suicide.
A ground-breaking artist named Marcel Duchamp changed this in 1917 with help from MANY wonderful contemporaries. Duchamp was a master of many different styles of painting, sculpture, and mixed-media arts. In 1917 he submitted a work of his to an art competition. What he entered was a urinal detached and cleaned, turned on it's side, and titled 'fountain' (if you look at it strictly aesthetically, it's really quite beautiful). This was such a scandalous entry that he entered it under the fake name R. Mutt. This is the first instance of an artist instituting the now ubiquitous (love that word) rule: 'It's art because I say it is.' That is the way art, and music is today, and it is a far better system. It is liberating to know that YOU can make whatever YOU want to, and it is art if YOU say it is. No pressure!
So 'artist' is subjective, let's not return to the aristocratic academies of the past in defining what good or bad music (and art) is. You and I can merely say "I like" or "I don't like." Punks, and indie-philes of today unknowingly rank themselves with the elitist snobs of the past passing judgement on everything they know little about. Isn't one of the group punks in general rebel against is the close-minded aristocracy? Don't be an art or music SNOB (I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, I just happen to agree with Scott). I would like to point out that not liking something doesn't make you close-minded, but not liking 95% of the music out there DOES make you musically close-minded. It's like saying, 'hey, I've looked at other races, talked to other races, and even kissed other races, so I know white is right. I like what I like.' There is SO much to like and dislike, that to say 'I only like one type of music', I believe, reeks of elitism and lack of experimentation.
I gotta go to bed, I could write all night. Part 2 of 433 coming soon.
As for the artist/entertainer bit. Both are enviable titles, and neither are negative terms. Not one person in "the arts" is either one or the other. Elton John, and RX Bandits are both artists and entertainers. They may swing more to one side (or hit for the other team as Elton John does), but they still share both titles' ambitions to a degree. They are at their extremes very different. YES, the semantics matter, because to communicate ideas we have to use words. In the dictionary (I looked it up) it confirms that 'entertainers' exist for OTHERS. Artists are much harder to define, because the term is much more subjective.
Maybe a little art history can help illustrate how subjective 'artist' in today's world is. I'll try to simplify this story. We live in a time when we are used to the term 'artist' and 'art' (or music) being applied to anyone, and anything. It didn't used to be that way. For centuries, an artist, and art (and music) had to be looked at, inspected, debated, and (hopefully) approved by the various esteemed academies to be considered worthy. This system led to beautiful art, but stifled creativity and progress. Many great artists never realized the success they could have in a less aristocratic art society. Van Gogh's art was viewed as degenerate and disgusting, contributing to his life-long insecurity and his committing suicide.
A ground-breaking artist named Marcel Duchamp changed this in 1917 with help from MANY wonderful contemporaries. Duchamp was a master of many different styles of painting, sculpture, and mixed-media arts. In 1917 he submitted a work of his to an art competition. What he entered was a urinal detached and cleaned, turned on it's side, and titled 'fountain' (if you look at it strictly aesthetically, it's really quite beautiful). This was such a scandalous entry that he entered it under the fake name R. Mutt. This is the first instance of an artist instituting the now ubiquitous (love that word) rule: 'It's art because I say it is.' That is the way art, and music is today, and it is a far better system. It is liberating to know that YOU can make whatever YOU want to, and it is art if YOU say it is. No pressure!
So 'artist' is subjective, let's not return to the aristocratic academies of the past in defining what good or bad music (and art) is. You and I can merely say "I like" or "I don't like." Punks, and indie-philes of today unknowingly rank themselves with the elitist snobs of the past passing judgement on everything they know little about. Isn't one of the group punks in general rebel against is the close-minded aristocracy? Don't be an art or music SNOB (I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, I just happen to agree with Scott). I would like to point out that not liking something doesn't make you close-minded, but not liking 95% of the music out there DOES make you musically close-minded. It's like saying, 'hey, I've looked at other races, talked to other races, and even kissed other races, so I know white is right. I like what I like.' There is SO much to like and dislike, that to say 'I only like one type of music', I believe, reeks of elitism and lack of experimentation.
I gotta go to bed, I could write all night. Part 2 of 433 coming soon.
posted by El Dorko at 8/09/2006 11:08:00 PM
3 Comments:
Erasure, The Pet Shop Boys, Elton John, Phil Collins, are all things I dont like. Thats mostly what I give Scott a hard time about. Not liking them doesn't mean I dont like 95% of the music out there. I'm not saying thats what you meant but I feel all this close-minded talk is somewhat directed at me. Not liking most pop music doesn't make me close-minded. Not liking ERASURE!!!!! that doesnt make me close minded. Show me one other person besides Scott, who is not gay, and likes Erasure.
I have not stated, nor even implied, in any of my replies that punk or Rx Bandits are the pinnacle of music perfection. Ok I take that back the Rxbandits are!!!..but, my only idea is that I don't like the majority of stupid, emotionless, boring, overlyproduced for the masses, greedy pop!!!! That does not amke me close minded. I do hear some pop that I like and I do give a lot of it a fair chance.
I'm not saying you are close-minded, I can't do that. I can only determine if I, myself, am close-minded. The reason no one can call anyone that is only I can tell if I give things a true shot in my own mind. I just gave a simple test to see if you find you are close-minded musically. Close-minded means among other things-stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. I take 'unreceptive' to mean in our discussion 'not liking.' Not liking Erasure, and Phil Collins doesn't make you close-minded. But take a sampling of these music genre's and see what you like:
Classical, Gospel, Jazz, Blues, Funk, Rock, Pop, Electronica, Country, Ska, Reggae, Dub, Hip Hop, Rap, Hardcore, Punk, Grunge, New Wave, Rockabilly, House, R & B, Soul, Ragtime, Salsa, Latin Pop. Prog Rock, Folk, Metal, Bluegrass... and more.
If you GENERALLY only like two of those genre's than, yes, you probably are close-minded. I can't tell you. I'm pretty close-minded myself, but I find I'm breaking out of it slowly.
It's like my food tastes. I am VERY close-minded when it comes to food. I have tried almost every fruit I know of, and most other foods, but based on my reactions to those foods, I don't even try somethings. I have my habits, and they influence my disposition when it comes to new food. I don't give some food a shot, because in my mind it's from the family of food that 'sucks.' That is 'stubbornly unreceptive.' I've come to accept it, and I'd like to change, but I haven't yet.
by the way... I like a couple of the Erasure songs Scott gave me.
Post a Comment
<< Home