Rants, Inc.
I have had a few rants building up. I know I've been rather *achem* lately, and not concerned therefore with speaking my mind (although I also know that the two are not synonymous, but rather one explains my personal actions towards the other). I oscillate between the ranting (why not? what do I have to loose?) and not ranting (still the waters, think happy thoughts). Then I do things like read LJ Friends, and it's hard not to default to something that's a fatal combination of irritation and despair. So continuing on the course of ranting:
art.
Art. Isn't. About. BSing. No, really. It isn't. I'm going to make two main postulations here, so bear with me a minute.
1) I will apply a distinction to "fine" or "high" arts here that perhaps isn't a standard.
2) I will relate it back to the education and performance of art.
1) Over the centuries in the Euro-American West, we have made certain distinctions as to what qualifies as "art" versus "low brow" media. For example, mass produced low quality demand publications like comic books or pulp novels have maintained a "low culture" status. In contrast, Trade paperback fiction, even in the last 5 years, including finer binding of graphic storytelling, get's the esteemed qualification of literature. Ballet is high culture where street dance is low brow. Advertising is low brow where printed manipulated photographs is high culture. If you can't tell, I'm leaning the argument towards "art" being defined by production and consumption rather than in terms of it's function; although I do it because I believe that's a subconscious assumption by our society with few exceptions. I want to, for purposes of this rant, turn towards my personal definition of high versus low art ;) Using theory postulated both in art history as well as literature, I will suggest a distinction between art and consumer consumption that has little to do with production -- I want to define high-art as that which fulfills two functions, and regulate everything else to "low art" (why will make sense in part two). High art here both a) challenges the world in which it presents itself (through reflection, contradiction, etc... it's not necessarily negative, in other words. It simply adds to a dialogue.) and b) challenges the medium in which it is creative. In other words, "high art" as used here is innovative both in terms of subject and in terms of form. For purposes of simplicity, I'll default this definition under the term "art". The rest I would argue exist for consumption, just at various price and quality ranges due to materials and rarity.
2) I think there is a great crime in education. Most of you have heard this on some level, from "how do high school teachers not know the Dark Ages and Middle Ages are different time periods?" to "the government is encouraging an educational system that can only produce a complacent stock workforce." But these frothings are neither here nor there. Today's educational rant is to teachers who tell their students that "you don't have to understand art as long as you have some kind of response to it". I weep for every intelligent artist who has tried to complete the above two points. Name your favorite artist who has lasted any time and there's a complex set of theory behind there work, and it's there for a reason. DeChicero? Van Gogh? Monet? Manet? Should we go back farther in time? Like any novelist, like any art-cinema producer, like any great musician, there is a reason, a message, an effort to draw the viewer into this dialogue with the painting, sculpture, installation, etc...and with the world around it. To say "art is your emotional response" is to dismiss art as readily as any other intelligent pursuit. It's as though you're saying that the only reason to read Aquinas is for the Latin, Locke for the emotional rise, that the Twilight Zone or Romero zombie flicks are only valid for being spooky, or The Pearl or The Inferno or heck Lord of the Rings is just escapism. It tosses aside the relevant work in the piece and debases the art into any other consumable product subject simply to the whim of the viewer. It debases art and dismisses it's relevance.
But this is only one in a long line of reasons I'm pissed at the education system in general. What horrifies me about art schools is the repetition of numerous art students after 4 years or more of higher art education STILL reiterating THEMSELVES, AS ARTISTS, the same schlock that we were taught in grade and high school. I'm always hearing rants about how terrible modern art is but 1) if this is the attitude of any number of our young artists today, then are we shocked at what is produced? 2) if we as viewers remain ignorant: if we don't even have a core education to be able to read art, then how can we understand it? We are just as illiterate as any other dismissing artist. 3) Modern art is that which time hasn't weeded and culled yet, tossing aside the trite and burnishing the great.
I would go so far as to say that the most intelligent people to discuss art with are art historians rather than artists. Sometimes even popular culture historians, computer technology theorists, philosophy students, etc... can speak on art when artists themselves can't. This really depresses me. In a culture at crisis as this one is supposed to be, if even our artists don't know how to produce art, what will we be left with and what are we going to become? While we could say that we're lucky to still have creators, how many of us know how to "read" or approach paintings, installations, dance, etc... While I feel that in an era where mass produced media has become almost overwhelming, if the response is simply that we have to redefine art to incorporate and distinguish amongst this production, then fine. But if all we have is dismissive escapism and a continual education of ignorance, it seems to me like we're fairly if not subtly screwed.
On an unrelated note, I picked up the new Gogol Bordello CD yesterday and I really, really dig it. A bit ago I also snagged Tom Harrell's Live at the Village Vanguard -- VERY keen, but I guess it's to be expected. I also finally got Recoil's Liquid because it was ridiculous to have half the album on my computer and not own it. Once again, behold the greatness that is sonanova for introducing the project to me.
And once again, if you're looking for fabulous new music in almost any genre, you should check out my myspace friends. Mmmm there are some upcomming SF shows at Martyr's, Tonic and the Cubby Bear too. I need to get those dates. Tom is offically obsessed with Lost and I just lent Brian the first season last night. The addiction grows.
Should other rants come soon? BornAgainPagans? Philosophy is Dead and Other Reconciliations? LOTR could have saved our souls? See what happens when the world pisses me off? I'm noting a theme of horrible disappointment and silence in all of these. Maybe I should go back to reading video game theory over lunch breaks instead...
art.
Art. Isn't. About. BSing. No, really. It isn't. I'm going to make two main postulations here, so bear with me a minute.
1) I will apply a distinction to "fine" or "high" arts here that perhaps isn't a standard.
2) I will relate it back to the education and performance of art.
1) Over the centuries in the Euro-American West, we have made certain distinctions as to what qualifies as "art" versus "low brow" media. For example, mass produced low quality demand publications like comic books or pulp novels have maintained a "low culture" status. In contrast, Trade paperback fiction, even in the last 5 years, including finer binding of graphic storytelling, get's the esteemed qualification of literature. Ballet is high culture where street dance is low brow. Advertising is low brow where printed manipulated photographs is high culture. If you can't tell, I'm leaning the argument towards "art" being defined by production and consumption rather than in terms of it's function; although I do it because I believe that's a subconscious assumption by our society with few exceptions. I want to, for purposes of this rant, turn towards my personal definition of high versus low art ;) Using theory postulated both in art history as well as literature, I will suggest a distinction between art and consumer consumption that has little to do with production -- I want to define high-art as that which fulfills two functions, and regulate everything else to "low art" (why will make sense in part two). High art here both a) challenges the world in which it presents itself (through reflection, contradiction, etc... it's not necessarily negative, in other words. It simply adds to a dialogue.) and b) challenges the medium in which it is creative. In other words, "high art" as used here is innovative both in terms of subject and in terms of form. For purposes of simplicity, I'll default this definition under the term "art". The rest I would argue exist for consumption, just at various price and quality ranges due to materials and rarity.
2) I think there is a great crime in education. Most of you have heard this on some level, from "how do high school teachers not know the Dark Ages and Middle Ages are different time periods?" to "the government is encouraging an educational system that can only produce a complacent stock workforce." But these frothings are neither here nor there. Today's educational rant is to teachers who tell their students that "you don't have to understand art as long as you have some kind of response to it". I weep for every intelligent artist who has tried to complete the above two points. Name your favorite artist who has lasted any time and there's a complex set of theory behind there work, and it's there for a reason. DeChicero? Van Gogh? Monet? Manet? Should we go back farther in time? Like any novelist, like any art-cinema producer, like any great musician, there is a reason, a message, an effort to draw the viewer into this dialogue with the painting, sculpture, installation, etc...and with the world around it. To say "art is your emotional response" is to dismiss art as readily as any other intelligent pursuit. It's as though you're saying that the only reason to read Aquinas is for the Latin, Locke for the emotional rise, that the Twilight Zone or Romero zombie flicks are only valid for being spooky, or The Pearl or The Inferno or heck Lord of the Rings is just escapism. It tosses aside the relevant work in the piece and debases the art into any other consumable product subject simply to the whim of the viewer. It debases art and dismisses it's relevance.
But this is only one in a long line of reasons I'm pissed at the education system in general. What horrifies me about art schools is the repetition of numerous art students after 4 years or more of higher art education STILL reiterating THEMSELVES, AS ARTISTS, the same schlock that we were taught in grade and high school. I'm always hearing rants about how terrible modern art is but 1) if this is the attitude of any number of our young artists today, then are we shocked at what is produced? 2) if we as viewers remain ignorant: if we don't even have a core education to be able to read art, then how can we understand it? We are just as illiterate as any other dismissing artist. 3) Modern art is that which time hasn't weeded and culled yet, tossing aside the trite and burnishing the great.
I would go so far as to say that the most intelligent people to discuss art with are art historians rather than artists. Sometimes even popular culture historians, computer technology theorists, philosophy students, etc... can speak on art when artists themselves can't. This really depresses me. In a culture at crisis as this one is supposed to be, if even our artists don't know how to produce art, what will we be left with and what are we going to become? While we could say that we're lucky to still have creators, how many of us know how to "read" or approach paintings, installations, dance, etc... While I feel that in an era where mass produced media has become almost overwhelming, if the response is simply that we have to redefine art to incorporate and distinguish amongst this production, then fine. But if all we have is dismissive escapism and a continual education of ignorance, it seems to me like we're fairly if not subtly screwed.
On an unrelated note, I picked up the new Gogol Bordello CD yesterday and I really, really dig it. A bit ago I also snagged Tom Harrell's Live at the Village Vanguard -- VERY keen, but I guess it's to be expected. I also finally got Recoil's Liquid because it was ridiculous to have half the album on my computer and not own it. Once again, behold the greatness that is sonanova for introducing the project to me.
And once again, if you're looking for fabulous new music in almost any genre, you should check out my myspace friends. Mmmm there are some upcomming SF shows at Martyr's, Tonic and the Cubby Bear too. I need to get those dates. Tom is offically obsessed with Lost and I just lent Brian the first season last night. The addiction grows.
Should other rants come soon? BornAgainPagans? Philosophy is Dead and Other Reconciliations? LOTR could have saved our souls? See what happens when the world pisses me off? I'm noting a theme of horrible disappointment and silence in all of these. Maybe I should go back to reading video game theory over lunch breaks instead...