Where is it written that the audience must be a paying audience or that the artist must travel?munchkin wrote:But art does not have value without an audience. Bedroom artists and musicians who don't take their work to an audience don't get anywhere. Comparing Depeche Mode with Teardrop Explodes is not the point. They are commercial artists who produce a hybrid of pop and rock. They aren't creating experimental music. That's what the title of this discussion is about.RTaylor wrote:None of this makes art any better or worse. It's not integral to art in any way shape or form. How much cash do you think the whole of the concrete movement made? How much do you think most musicians make?munchkin wrote: Either art is celebrated and makes profit or it lives in the gutter without an audience. That's how art is celebrated in capitalism. It's nothing new. Rembrandt and Da Vinci would not have been able to paint had they not been celebrated and rewarded financially by their patrons.
Did Depeche Mode make better music than Teardrop Explodes? Do Eminem or Britney, who pull down tons of cash, make better art than {name your favorite band here}?
You've forgotten that we have the internet now?The point I'm making is that art and experimental music need patronage to become successful. And success is what shapes the culture and conciousness of society. Charles Saatchi funds upcoming artists. His patronage influences who we see and know about over the next 5 years. Whether we like this arrangement or not.
Most of that's been documented. I'm sure that he suffered a bit because of his lack of success. I don't think that has anything to do with his art. He made art regardless of success.RTaylor wrote:How do you know he had a medical condition that could be treated with modern medicine? This is your interpretation. His depression might've been reactive - based on the fact that only his brother offered him patronage. The failure of his art to become popular and lucrative could have been the primary reason for his suffering. But where does he fit into a discussion about experimentation in art? His art didn't bring us modernism. That was Picasso and his use of montage.He suffered because he had some mental problems that medicine at the time couldn't take care of, he had some unfortunate relationships, he was broke and hungry and got made fun of a lot. I think his art was the only thing in his life that didn't make him suffer.The romantic notion of Van Gogh suffering for arts sake is a fantasy used to feed the myth that sells his calendars and posters. He hungered for success and suffered terribly because he failed to achieve it in his own lifetime.
Munch?
Van Gogh is dead. Hiis work is a commodity which various folk buy and sell. You're simply confusing the sales pitch with the commodity itself. The commodity exists apart from the sales pitch. The quality of the commodity will remain unchanged regardless of sales.RTaylor wrote:Van Gogh has been turned into a commodity. This has more to tell us about the way art is used in modern society than all of Van Goghs paintings put together. The point I'm making is that this commodification (hype) has a direct bearing on what art and experimental music we have access to. Hype shapes the careers of artist and musicians. Hype is shaped by political and fiscal agendas. Hype is perpetuated by critics, patrons, the state, companies and artist and musicians in order to promote a product and protect a brand. This impacts directly upon the artist and musician. It shapes the direction that art and music have taken in the previous and present century.How much of that hype is due to Vincent? How much of that really has anything to do with his art?His art is celebrated because it's beautiful, valuable and is wrapped up in the Van Gogh legend. That's where it's resonance comes from. The hype is considered as valuable as the process of creation in the celebration of art/music in modern society. One cannot exist without the other.
Hype is just hype. It has no bearing on the quality of the art it "represents". Art rarely has any bearing on the hype it generates. Hype is a gift given to us by salesmen and advertising firms. Salesmen and advertising firms sell what they get paid to sell. They don't sell things simply to celebrate them.
One can very easily exist without the other.
The artist and musician don't stand seperately from society and culture. Social and cultural influences are all prevasive. When people complain that there is nothing new in art or music they are identifying the very essence of modernism - montage. And montage is the process of taking the culture and ideas around us (including all the hype) to create something new.
There's a post way back there in which I quote a sentence very much like this one and answer "yeah".Lunch Money wrote: To put it to you bluntly-- do you think that valid and new musical expression can come from within 'typical' pop and rock formats, or not?
Steven West wrote:Just to respond to the BetaBugs comment about Madonna - I don't see her as a artist at all!
if the whole of kvr had the amount of talent in one of maddonas toenail clippings this would be a far better world,in which rabbits and foxes lived side by side in harmony,where we see trees instead of roads and skyscrapers,we would all learn to appreciate inner beauty rather than materialism,the sun wouldnt shine on tv,the sun wouldnt go down on nik kershaw 
I think I did that once with some fingerpaintsshamann wrote: Mostly it is conceptual rather than the appreciation of a formal aesthetic. It is eliminating from painting all embellishment, whittling it down to its absolute extreme minimum.
nah she's a hag. Nice baps tho...vurt wrote:Steven West wrote:Just to respond to the BetaBugs comment about Madonna - I don't see her as a artist at all!
how dare you
her rendition of american pie was a classic in its own right.
let there be sunshine in your heart PRAISE BE TO MADDONA RITCHEY a true goddess
aim...
fire!
tranquiliser should take effect about n
yes it's probably wrong to assume all experimental art stems from a plan or conceptpHz wrote: in YOUR opinion i guess ... i think its absolutely wrong to assume that ALL experimental art (of whatever nature - my background is in visual / fine art so thats whats in my mind as i type this) must be expected to stem from a rigourous intellectual plan or concept ... to do so is to deny (as you point out in the 2nd half of your post) the visceral / emotional impact of art in favour of cold intellectualism ... to SOME extent at least
unfortunately they don't always wait til they've got something goodsplattabreakz wrote: surely the experimental people have to make a lot of bullshit before something good comes out and then they can present that to the world.
People tend to forget that 'experimental' music is like any other musical genre - 99.9% is shite and you have to dig for the really good stuff.opiadream wrote:unfortunately they don't always wait til they've got something goodsplattabreakz wrote: surely the experimental people have to make a lot of bullshit before something good comes out and then they can present that to the world.
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2026
