Is it a good thing to be open-minded in small genres such as Noise, Power Electronics (even Black Metal these days)? There are all too many people out there who record their static hiss onto a cassette, xerox the cover art and call it a solid release. This is not exciting. Words like "art" and "creative medium" are no excuse. An attention to detail and a clear explanation for action should be upheld as they are in any other genre. The argument that art is not art until it is communicated is a true statement. But what the fuck makes everyone think that they are an artist, or at least that their choice of expression is the correct fit for them? The phrase "I create art in order to _______" (fill in the blank) is a good starting point. Why bother if your answer is "I create art in order to fill in the blank"? Before you set out there and play with your pedals please do keep in mind that bad art is bad because it does not evoke the feelings in which it is supposed to be representing, not because it isn't "pretty" or understood in mass. The lack of intention and sincerity can be picked up on easily.
"...If it is not admitted that art must be intelligible and comprehensible, then any unintelligible or incomprehensible expression of thoughts or feelings may be called "art." If any incomprehensible form of personal expression may be called "art," then the definition of art gradually loses its meaning, until it has no meaning at all."
"...If it is not admitted that art must be intelligible and comprehensible, then any unintelligible or incomprehensible expression of thoughts or feelings may be called "art." If any incomprehensible form of personal expression may be called "art," then the definition of art gradually loses its meaning, until it has no meaning at all."
Two main things you're not taking into consideration. One is that art is subjective. Some people really like renaissance era portraits, i for one, find that boring, yet it survives as art. You certainly also don't see any Frazetta hanging anywhere NEAR those renaissance portraits, like not even in the same building, yet we see this fantasy ART everywhere. Then there is Modernism, something your average Joe cannot see the value in, again it's art, and you may not like all three of my examples, but that doesn't stop them from being art. The SECOND thing you forget is the technological age in which we live, that makes it easier to share whatever arts we seeks as individuals. Maybe these arts aren't as glossy or clean cut as you'd like, maybe they exist as a more modern "folk" style art. Something rough and certainly not worth "gallery" attention, but it has a charming quality that there is a market for, albeit a very small market, and as long as there are people who support the art, it is valid as art.
ReplyDeleteI agree that art is very subjective. It is actually one of the only forms of communication that remains "completely personal". There is that which is perceiving the art, that which created the art to be persceived and the act, itself, of perceiving it. If "that which created the art to be persceived" has no intention behind it than, I personally believe, the process is severed at that point and the act of perceiving is reduced to the same level of communication as mopping the floor. I don't want people to think that what this little paragraph means is that if I don't like or understand the art than it isn't art. That's not true, although I can definitely see where it comes off as such (especially with the Tolstoy quote). It is only when the art is created in vain, with no intention, that it is "bad art". As one would imagine this presents itself more frequently once you start getting towards more abstract forms such as Noise. But this doesn't mean that a standard of some sort should not be upheld. I believe that if this standard, however loose it is, collapses than the genre is in trouble of dying. And when it does then these "anti-art" people sweep it up and add the tag "post-whatever" as if they are proud that they killed it.
ReplyDelete