bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???

[ouroboros]

And in a way he's right. And wrong.
...
The trouble with so much modern art is that it has become so incredibly insular and myopic that it's audience has become limited to those within its tight little world. That particular painting in no way speaks to the majority of Canadians, regardless of how excellent a piece of work it is.

...Mind you, my own feeling is that if it's not "erotica", it's a waste of money.

I have always wondered if modern art (music or visual) could be made more accessible: I've wondered if an experience like a brief movie or display, could provide an experiential explanation of what a particualr artist or genre was attempting to do beyond the art itself: what's behind the 3 stripes

But there has got to be some sort of intellectual limit I imagine: Finnegan's Wake seems beyond me at times, and yet there is still something beautiful to me.

As for eroticism, isn't all art erotic? Otherwise it's only engineering

One issue I have with art for the evocative quality is that it runs the risk of becoming ultilitarian: art is only as good as its ability to incite. So while I can't eliminate the evocative quality of art in my definition of it, I do wonder if there is more to it than that, and if the "more" is content? Experimental, in this understanding, seems to be art for arts sake - not for the purpose of evoking response, but as an exploration of meaning and boundaries.

In that sense, I agree with Pough, that the truth lies somewhere between poles of sentimentality and abstract exploration of method and boundary.

[munchkin]

You offer Rothko as an example of emotion over intent but that's how he is fetishised. He is as calculating as Mondrain. And he fits into his category, developed with his collusion, by the sponsers of art.

This Rothko?
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html

Yes, the institution and cash cow that is know as Rothko.

Is he still a cash cow?

Not that I blame him or his art for being co-opted by the establishment. It's the nature of all great art.

Like VanGogh and Munch?

That doesn't detract from his abilities. I think the critic and the artist become warring lovers with one eye on the stock exchange and the other on the galleries/patrons.

I don't actually see that as part of the process. Many of my favorite artists do or did make too little to live on. The media circus stuff strikes me as about as important as arena shows and top 40 hits. {Actually, it strikes me as being nearly the same thing.}

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.

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. 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.

The process of creating music and art is suffused with self-criticism and the awareness of the opinions of others. We are offering our creations to the outside world. It's a gesture that is either celebrated or rejected (and sometimes a bit of both) by the rest of the world. It affects us as musicians/artists and impacts on our motivation and intentions whether we consciously recognise it or not.

[donkey tugger]

Okay, we'll start the bidding at £500 then;



Do I hear £600?

[pough]

Do I hear £600?

Not likely.

[nuffink]

k-v-r's own Keith Haring.

[donkey tugger]

k-v-r's own Keith Harris.

Shurely you jest!

[nuffink]

That made me laugh.

You watching dimblebum on the telly at the mo?

[Markleford]

My music, for the most part, is at least in some part experimental.

That is to say, it's an "experiment": I come up with a premise or question to be answered, propose a system to accomplish it, and then evaluate my results. Evaluation can include iterative refinement of the system to come closer to what I anticipated, or it may insist on taking an entirely unexpected result and turning it into a separate tangental experiment all its own.

So in part, I treat experimental music like a "puzzle" to solve, with my efforts going moreso into building tools to make it happen then actual notes and chords.

But "bleeding edge"? Hardly. My use of generative and algorithmic techniques is in no way unique or original.

Amusingly, I was once initially rejected from a website of "sound/music experimenters" because my music was *too* listenable! The moderator had a preconception of what experimental music should sound like and what tools should be used to accomplish it. However, I was able to convince him of the wrongness of his assement and prejudice, eventually.

However, waving a flag about your own uniqueness is just bullshit. Or marketing. It is pure hubris to believe that anything is original anymore.

Also, experimentation is not "let's get high and f**k with shit". That's just wanking.

Rothko: I've never been able to make a decision on him. But I do have to say that whenever large amounts of money are given to an artist that doesn't change his style in decades, the person in question is just a whore.

Mind you, art-whores are potentially wealthy and happy people: more power to them! But at some point they must admit to themselves and the world that they have turned into mere craftsmen, churning out spiritless works in the manner of an assembly line. That should be their statement of withdrawl from the museum world.

(I get passionate about such arguments: my wife is an Art Historian/Librarian!)

Speaking of penis artists being co-opted by the market: Keith Haring, anyone? (EDIT: Looks like nuffink beat me to the punchline! )

- m

[munchkin]

Okay, we'll start the bidding at £500 then;



Do I hear £600?

Sublime! Are you channeling Guy Debord?

[RTaylor]

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.

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?

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}?

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.

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.

Munch?

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.

How much of that hype is due to Vincent? How much of that really has anything to do with his art?

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 process of creating music and art is suffused with self-criticism and the awareness of the opinions of others. We are offering our creations to the outside world. It's a gesture that is either celebrated or rejected (and sometimes a bit of both) by the rest of the world. It affects us as musicians/artists and impacts on our motivation and intentions whether we consciously recognise it or not.

Ok.

[RTaylor]

However, waving a flag about your own uniqueness is just bullshit. Or marketing. It is pure hubris to believe that anything is original anymore.

There's no reason it can't be or that it shouldn't be a goal.

[RTaylor]

So should the government buy works that resonate better with a more lowbrow crowd? Tough call. That would appease people like my brother-in-law and maybe even do a better job of expanding minds; but it would be sending a pretty negative message to our artists and some might argue that it takes support away from the best and gives it to the worst.

Look at "the bean" in downtown Chicago. It's not particularly high or lowbrow... It's fun. It's interesting. It's a great big mirror that reflects its surroundings and freaks out little kids. It fits its surroundings... It has a purpose.

There's a mural on the wall in my local post office. It looks like something that the WPA might have funded. It's one of those things that has a bunch of people working in it... it's educational... reflects a bit of Chicago history and a lot of Chicago attitude.

Look at Arlington national cemetary... Row after row after row of crosses... each of which represents one American who fought for his country. It's one huge testament to the horrors of war.

[Markleford]

However, waving a flag about your own uniqueness is just bullshit. Or marketing. It is pure hubris to believe that anything is original anymore.

There's no reason it can't be or that it shouldn't be a goal.

Well... there is much truth in that. I am, of course, speaking in a reactionary way to the posers out there.

However, they must still ask themselves if their uniqueness, in the end, is worth anything more than the challenge itself. But I certainly hope that my words won't disuade anyone who thinks they have it in them if they think they have *fun* with it.

And let it not be said that "Cotton Eyed Joe" by Rednex wasn't original, but I think there's a reason for that. I imagine one could come up with innumerable permutations of genre-crossing, "A meets B", to create something "original". As for myself, however, I'll try to stay out of the novelty act bin.

Still, setting out with the explicit goal of "I'm going to create something 100% original" is a bit of a lark, no? Genuine, *listenable* originality evolves from small growths rather than grand gestures.

- m

[VicDiesel]

The trouble with so much modern art is that it has become so incredibly insular and myopic that it's audience has become limited to those within its tight little world.

Says you. Want to look up the number of visitors to the Amsterdam Stedelijk, the Tate Modern, MOMA, MOcA (Los Angeles) and then tell me again about a tight little world?

Around 1985 the retiring director of the Stedelijk organized a farewell exhibition of only work after 1945. It drew more visitors than the big Rembrand and Picasso exhibitions that had held the record in Amsterdam until then.

V.

[Lunch Money]

Would you be so kind as to explain in plain words why and how it is more than 'just 3 stripes of paint'?

It's three really big stripes of paint.

Yeah.

It's exactly what made folk lose their respect for the arts.

I guess that all depends on which folk you're talking about. What most people forget is that it's not even close to the most expensive piece the Art Gallery owns. There are far more expensive pieces (portraits, mainly) that nobody ever looks at, cares about, or even KNOW are more expensive. If they knew, would they say, "WHAT? We paid 2.5 million for this painting of some dude that's not even famous?"

I don't think anybody lost respect for the arts out of the Voice of Fire controversy. The people who were outraged are likely people who aren't very interested in arts in the first place, and at least this gave them a jumping-off point. Quite simply put, if they didn't like the painting, they had to decide WHY, and at the same time evaluate what THEY think is good art. And that can't be a bad thing.

And, strictly from a business perspective-- owning a Barnett Newman collection was a good investment. It's not like the money was wasted. It's a piece that will appreciate in value, AND it brought a lot of people to the Art Gallery to see it.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but at first gander at the title, all I can wonder is who wants to be bleeding edge? Bleh, what a cold restrictive box to be in, forced to limit your thinking to process only.

Cheers,
Steve

Why would you want to be anything else?

The answer's right there... because it's a cold restrictive box to be in.


To answer Jens-- Voice of Fire, as with many things, is much more impressive in person. It dominates your vision when you're viewing it from the right distance, and the effect of the colours combined with the nature of peripheral vision create a faint sensation of motion. Part of it is no more deep or complex than, "It's fookin big!", but why can't that be a valid part of the artist expressing himself? Clearly he consciously chose a huge canvas for a reason, and that's a part of the message.

Apart from that... there is a Zen-like minimalism to it that can either be appreciated or not.

It's a mistake to think too deeply about it. Go to it, stare at it, and just let the mind take it in, and its value will be seen. Quite frankly, I don't think it's the best piece of art I've ever seen, and I don't mean to make it sound like more than it is. But the reason I called these people "fools" is not because of their inability to judge art (hey, their opinions are valid), but because of their inability to see the big picture (no pun intended), which caused them to dismiss it out of hand. It's the quick dismissal and overly acute outrage that makes them fools.

Greg