nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (10/30/85)
["This is pop!"] >> [Me:] ..... I do think that "avant-garde pop" [....] is the most >> important area of art today... > [Marcel Simon:] Why do you think that? Art is a form of communication. Thus it seems to me that the importance of a piece of art is strongly related to the number of people it can communicate to. Importance is different than quality, though. A certain work of art may communicate very powerfully to a very few people. In that case, for them the work of art is of high quality, but perhaps the work of art is of little importance. Another work of art may reach lots of people, but it may have nothing to say or may communicate detrimental things. In this case, the work is important, but bad. Lionel Richie's (I'll give Madonna a break, for a moment) music is so represensible because not only is it awful, but by reaching so many people, it is polluting an incredibly important area of art. I wouldn't spend much breath saying that a bad unknown artist is bad, because who cares? On the other hand, I might spend a lot of breath on saying that a great unknown artist is great, because I feel that their work has the potential for being very important, even if it isn't yet. I feel that "avant-garde pop" is the most important field of art today because such art can reach millions of people also be of extremely high quality. > [Gregory Taylor:] > In the context of his background, there's little in Eno's early work > that was not in some way derivative: He owes the notion of systems in > music to his teachers Schmit, Bryars, and the writings of Stafford > Beer. He's upfront about that as well. He ripped off Terry Riley's > two-deck tape loop system, captain Beefheart's lyrical techniques, and > so forth. But he did good work, right? I don't think you can really > mount a good case for any more than the fact that Eno took his sources > and mediated them into the marketplace..... Just because you can't isolate one specific technique or system that an artist invented, doesn't mean that their work isn't original. What's ultimately important in art is what is communicated, and that is independent of technique and mechanism. If the sensation of experiencing the work of an artist is very different from the sensation of experiencing the work of other artists, then that artist has created highly original work, even if one can't easily analyze the work to figure out just what it is about that makes the experience very different. > The "cutting edge" stuff still goes to all those awful "avant-garde" > types, though. If that doesn't satifsy you, then you could speculate > on what Eno's strictly "formal" contributions might be.... As I just said in my preceding paragragh, I don't think that "formal" contributions are the only important thing to consider. >> [Fred Vermorel] maintains that "pop" is the only form of art that >> really counts today. Now, I certainly can't agree with that, but.... > But the Post_structuralist view says that "pop" is the only art form > of the day because "art" is a function of the number of people you can > reach. They've effectively decided that the real "avant-garde" are the > ones who successfully manipulate access and image as a part of their > art in the arena of information/public taste. By that view, Madonna > herself is right out there on the cutting edge.... I dunno about the Post Structuralists, but Vermorel doen't say that art is just a function of the number of people you can reach, but that the importance of art is a function of the number of the people you can reach. He has good things to say about the painter David Hockney, but says that his art is ultimately not very important because fine art painting isn't something that reaches many people these days. I agree with him to a point, because this is basically what I said above, but Vermorel also says lots of rediculous things too. For example, he basically says that the "avant-garde" is totally worthless, but while doing so makes a good point or two: Pop is the only art which really counts today. Our most progressive -- responsive, mutable, hungry and eclectic -- form. The taskmaster and pacemake of all the arts. It now stands where painting stood in the early century, as the focus of problems and innovation: our leader art. Meanwhile the avant garde has turned itself into a display of fossilised passions and polemic as dignified and predictable as classical ballet. And no more important. A show to put on for a public of bankers, civil servants and TV producers interested merely in investment potential -- for securities or reputations. Hardly art at all, since it no longer moves, surprises or alerts us. Merely mystifies, bores or impresses. This avant garde boldly announces its allegiance to Eternal Values and sneers at hit parades. But forgets what the old modernists knew very well. That only *contigent* art interests future generations: art grounded in and fraught with the moment, art rooted in ephemera, in love with the detail and the people (not an idea) of history. As Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, no one now bothers with Rousseau's laboured "masterpiece", "Les reveries du promeneur solitaire". Or can ignore his "Confessions". But states and bureaucrats love dead art and fear the risk, excitement and danger of living art. Just as the Soviet Union mounts its Bolshoi under Czarist chandeliers, the British Arts Council mounts a symposium on John Cage. Yet who will remember John Cage in 100 years? Or not know Kate Bush? Personally, I tend to think that both will be remembered. Though I would agree that the latter is more likely. "I wanted to live forever The way that you will too" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. > I bet you even though of running out and buying the execrable "Against > All Odds" soundtrack just because PG has "walk through the fire" on > it, right? Why, is it different than what's on the 12-inch single?
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/02/85)
> I dunno about the Post Structuralists, but Vermorel doen't say that art > is just a function of the number of people you can reach, but that the > importance of art is a function of the number of the people you can > reach. He has good things to say about the painter David Hockney, but > says that his art is ultimately not very important because fine art > painting isn't something that reaches many people these days. Of course, if Hockney's painting becomes even more popular in 50 years than Madonna is today, that sort of changes things, doesn't it? Defining "importance" (phew, give me unimportant music any day) as a function of the number of people you reach TODAY strikes me as artificial. You *do* believe that importance should be related to quality, don't you? Since the majority of people (myself included) have only mediocre understanding (intuitive or otherwise) of anything, it is unlikely that the popularity of a given work has anything to do with quality. Or importance. I'll even go further and suggest that popularity of any given art is pure chance. Just a thought. To misquote Doug Alan - "Vermorel also says lots of rediculous things too. For example:" > Meanwhile the avant garde has turned itself into a display of > fossilised passions and polemic as dignified and predictable as > classical ballet. And no more important. A show to put on for > a public of bankers, civil servants and TV producers interested > merely in investment potential -- for securities or reputations. Well now, this is pretty good. Artists have known for years that one way to make ends meet when thay face a non-understanding world is to try to impress some rich patron. It beats starving to death. But now, if one tries anything like that, Pow! Sorry, Bud, your stuff stinks 'cause a banker was fooled into paying money for it. > Hardly art at all, since it no longer moves, surprises or alerts > us. Merely mystifies, bores or impresses. Of course, this attitude is indistinguishable from that of someone who is simply too dull or ignorant to respond. I don't mean to imply that everything avant-garde is great. 90% of everything is crap, right? But too often people look for excuses when they don't understand something, and the easiest excuse is "It's their problem, not mine". Jeff Winslow
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (11/04/85)
> Art is a form of communication. Thus it seems to me that the importance > of a piece of art is strongly related to the number of people it can > communicate to. Importance is different than quality, though. A > certain work of art may communicate very powerfully to a very few > people. In that case, for them the work of art is of high quality, but > perhaps the work of art is of little importance. Another work of art > may reach lots of people, but it may have nothing to say or may > communicate detrimental things. In this case, the work is important, > but bad. Lionel Richie's (I'll give Madonna a break, for a moment) > music is so represensible because not only is it awful, but by reaching > so many people, it is polluting an incredibly important area of art. I > wouldn't spend much breath saying that a bad unknown artist is bad, > because who cares? On the other hand, I might spend a lot of breath on > saying that a great unknown artist is great, because I feel that their > work has the potential for being very important, even if it isn't yet. > > I feel that "avant-garde pop" is the most important field of art today > because such art can reach millions of people also be of extremely high > quality. Wait a minute. If no one ever heard Kate Bush (or if only a small number of people ever heard Kate Bush) would that make her a less important artist? You say that art that communicates to a few people may be "good" but unimportant, then you turn around and claim the right to spend time extolling the worth of an unknown artist you feel may be important. Your argument reduces to "art is important when I think it is important." This view is perfectly valid, in the absence of an objective mechanism for assessing art's value (you and I have had this discussion before) but I hope you agree that others may follow your logic and reach different conclusions. Also, avant-garde anything that reaches millions of people will no longer be avant-garde, wouldn't you say? No artist consciously decides to appeal to few people. All unknown artists will say their obscurity stems from the public's lack of understanding of their art (this is often true). What attains mass popularity is art that has simple appeal (note: I did not say art that is simple) *and* well promoted. I am quite certain that if the combined weight of the music business promoted Cecil Taylor's music as The Next Big Thing, many people would buy his albums, although few of them might hear his message. > [Fred Vermorel Quote] > Pop is the only art which really counts today. Our most > progressive -- responsive, mutable, hungry and eclectic -- form. > The taskmaster and pacemake of all the arts. I assume this person has seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted all art being created today, and alone is qualified to declare a form as the sole valid expression of humanity's creativity. Otherwise, this statement is merely pompous. > ... who will remember > John Cage in 100 years? Or not know Kate Bush? Both these questions are pointless, because none of us will be around to see them resolved. Cage and Bush are documented by their recorded works; their own views on their work and that of others are documented in interviews. This trail of data *guarantees* that they will be remembered. The future may assign them a place different from today, but so what? That does (should) not affect the way we form opinions. I have always felt that weighty pronouncements on artistic trends and relative importance are simply hiding a basic ignorance of the totality of contemporary artistic development. (this is not a flame to you Doug, but at this Vermorel creature. You have carefully presented your argument as no more than an opinion) -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Sot pa touye'-ou, li fe`-ou sue' "
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (11/05/85)
> From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) > Of course, if Hockney's painting becomes even more popular in 50 years > than Madonna is today, that sort of changes things, doesn't it? I agree. > Defining "importance" (phew, give me unimportant music any day) as a > function of the number of people you reach TODAY strikes me as > artificial. Well it depends on whether you mean important now, or important 100 years from now. I guess you could say "ultimate importance" is a function of how many people you reach over all of time. Since I'm living now and since it doesn't seem very easy to predict who will be remembered 100 years from now, that doesn't seem quite as... um... important... to me, now. Also, Vermorel claimed, I think, that for the most part, what will be remembered in the future is not art that was designed to be "eternal", but art that was caught up in the passion of the time (not necessarily what was popular at the time, though). He claims that most of the "avant-garde" is not caught up in the passion of the times, but strives to be "eternal". And thus won't be remembered. I'm not much of a historian, so don't really know how valid his claim is. > You *do* believe that importance should be related to quality, don't > you? It should be! But it seems like most often it isn't. For instance, Reagan is an important dude, right. But does he have one desirable quality in him? I don't see any. It really depends on what one means when one is using the word "important". If I say Madonna is "important", I mean that she (unfortunately) has a lot of effect on the world. When I said "avant-garde pop" is the most "important" art today, I didn't mean that it would necessarily have the most effect on the world of any area of art, but that it is the art that best combines quality and being able to reach many people. In either case, it's a function of the number of people that are reached. > I'll even go further and suggest that popularity of any given art is > pure chance. Just a thought. Well, pure chance is an important force in the world. >> Hardly art at all, since it no longer moves, surprises or alerts >> us. Merely mystifies, bores or impresses. > Of course, this attitude is indistinguishable from that of someone who > is simply too dull or ignorant to respond. I think what Vermorel was getting at, is that most of the "avant-garde" doesn't care about making art that is emotionally powerful. That they are not really interested in communication, but in making something that is *theoretically* interesting. I agree with that, but only to a point since often the results are emotionally powerful. It seems to be they'd do a better job, though, if their purpose was to make communicative music, rather than theoretically interesting music. If I were interested in theories, I'd go off an read a book on General Relativity, rather than contemplate what makes theoretically interesting music. "I want to be lawyer. I want to be a scholar But I really can't be bothered Ooh, just gimme gimme gimme it quick" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)