Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hello all! OK, I'd like to take a little time here to point out that in my first post about "art theory" I described "...the generally accepted contemporary theory of art..." In case anyone hasn't noticed, I didn't formulate this theory. I was merely stating what it was. We can all argue until we're blue in the face, but this will not change the current paradigm... at least not in the short run. I only began lashing out when I was attacked personally, as if I was the person keeping artists in "boxes" by formulating horrible theories and making terrible definitions for words. Do I subscribe to the current (western) theories of art that I spoke of? You bet. Why? It all has to do with VALUE. I'm one of those people that make my living by doing art. Because I do I find it extremely crucial to define what it is that I do because NO ONE WILL PAY FOR SOMETHING UNLESS THEY KNOW WHAT IT IS. Did I cause this cultural phenomena? No. Is it real? Yes. As someone who works for a non-profit organization that receives money from the NEA, I spend a large amount of time defending artists (that I usually have nothing to do with) such as Robert Maplethorpe or Mark Rothko. "A red square isn't art! Anyone could do that! " or "My tax money shouldn't go for that homo crap!" Oh boy, if ignorance is bliss you'd expect these people to be a lot happier! You wouldn't believe how many times I hear stuff like that. About as many times as I have to defend my own minimalist works. "That's not music...it's just a drone." I'm sure we've all heard things like that. The problem with the current "art had no purpose other than to be itself" theory,is not the theory itself, but the fact that art in our culture has been devalued. (unless you happen to be a superstar) I haven't been following the last cd price thread, but haven't we been talking about this? Most club owners seem to feel that playing music is the only reward needed for being a musician, but find absolutely no problem paying to have the floor cleaned. Subsequently, most of us have to struggle at some other type of work to fund the often exorbitant cost of musical instruments and the wacky gear that we all love so much. (I'm saving for a Digitech Space Station as we speak!) This is why I feel that people have reacted so strongly against the theory I've been talking about. Artists want to be regarded as the french fry maker is regarded. By that I mean PAID. Yes, Lance, I listen to Gamalan music all the time (Cornell University has quite the Gamalan set up) and It's very nice that the Balinese people don't have a word for art. I can't say I know anything about their culture, but I'd bet that those who master the art of Gamalan are regarded very highly in their society, and compensated for it in some way. I bet they don't even have to pay to use the PA when they play out. ;-) (sorry, I just can't help being a sarcastic bastard) I'd love for our culture to be like that, but guess what? It's not. We're capitalists and unless we can find ways to fund what we do, we're probably not doing it. I agree that things are pretty sad at the moment. I hope that the free exchange of thoughts via the internet will free us from the shackles of BIG BUSINESS IN THE ART WORLD by allowing us to distribute our stuff by ourselves. Maybe then the myth of the superstar will die and we can be regarded as people who do a specific job in our society, a highly valued job. Ok, I'm rambling, so I'll shut up. Love, Mark (I'm currently defining "love" as a warm squishy feeling towards humanity)