Saturday, December 31, 2005
Liza has a blog
I's called Art History For The Unrefined and it can be found here. Again, that's Art History for the Unrefined.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Advocacy and Bad Art
As a comment to the previous post, I didn't see the Joe Dante Voting Zombies thing, and not just becuase I don't have cable.
It's because certain types of advocacy/activist art are consistently Bad Art. And I figured this would probably be the case with that. (Not to put down Joe Dante. Gremlins rule.)
But something bad happens when the aesthetics of cultural product take a major back seat to the advocacy of a certain ideology. This is the difference between Christian rock and JS Bach. Art can glorify God, absolutely, but only insofar as it still cares about being art.
In the case of Creed, we have two-bit Eddie Vedder impersonator at vocals, and a bunch of recycled grunge instrumentals beside, all over a bunch of fake spirituality. You can tell it's "Christian" because it sounds like bad advertising.
That's why Michael Moore Hates America, although I've never seen it, is almost certainly bad. Because the motivation, much more than for Moore, is to make a point. I don't too much like Michael Moore, but he is entertaining, and knows how to make an engaging film.
It certainly isn't the case that only the right engages in this kind of bankrupt art practice. The contemporary scene is littered with advocates without vision or perspective, people whose work gains nothing going from the page out into the world.
If I could change one thing about the tendencies of contemporary art practice, I would have more art in it, fewer picnics. Picnic art is only going to get paying customers out of that weird communal sense of guilt that sends art-worlders to shows that are "important" but ghastly.
And if picnic art wants to forego paying customers, it can go right ahead. But art without paying customers is like a sandwich shop without paying customers.
It's because certain types of advocacy/activist art are consistently Bad Art. And I figured this would probably be the case with that. (Not to put down Joe Dante. Gremlins rule.)
But something bad happens when the aesthetics of cultural product take a major back seat to the advocacy of a certain ideology. This is the difference between Christian rock and JS Bach. Art can glorify God, absolutely, but only insofar as it still cares about being art.
In the case of Creed, we have two-bit Eddie Vedder impersonator at vocals, and a bunch of recycled grunge instrumentals beside, all over a bunch of fake spirituality. You can tell it's "Christian" because it sounds like bad advertising.
That's why Michael Moore Hates America, although I've never seen it, is almost certainly bad. Because the motivation, much more than for Moore, is to make a point. I don't too much like Michael Moore, but he is entertaining, and knows how to make an engaging film.
It certainly isn't the case that only the right engages in this kind of bankrupt art practice. The contemporary scene is littered with advocates without vision or perspective, people whose work gains nothing going from the page out into the world.
If I could change one thing about the tendencies of contemporary art practice, I would have more art in it, fewer picnics. Picnic art is only going to get paying customers out of that weird communal sense of guilt that sends art-worlders to shows that are "important" but ghastly.
And if picnic art wants to forego paying customers, it can go right ahead. But art without paying customers is like a sandwich shop without paying customers.
What is it about artists
I was following some links about the Joe Dante voting zombies Showtime thing tonight and I found this link from some right-wing website I've never been to.
It's basically a diatribe against artists. We're parasites, as usual. Propagandists. Perpetually adolescent. Worst of all, liberal. The post itself ends with a call to support conservatiove filmmakers like the Orson Welles behind Michael Moore Hates America.
And so it continues through the comments. A bunch of libertarians and conservatives patting themselves on the back for having no imagination and for being logical.
Only a Daniel Myers came to it with any apparent familiarity with what it is to be an artist and an openness to see what's actually there. What he writes isn't perfect, but is much better than what I expect from such a blog.
More representative:
(There was a lot of talk about the Myers-Briggs on that blog as some sort of scientific, authoratative test- I kind of figured most people think of M-B as a step or two above astrology, but whatever)
In my world, as a graduate art student at a University, and before that as an art student at a private art college, the "withdrawal" is into long nights in the studio working through ideas, producing, discussing work and ideas, etc. Art students, they tell me, are more prone toward all-nighters than any except medical students.
I know a lot of artists are actually lazy, parasitic good-for-nothings who have no intellectual curiousity or any true creativity. These people do not tend to make a living of it. Those that do tend to be industrious, competitive, and fairly charismatic.
Why do these people tend, overwhelmingly, to be on the left side of the aisle? I think Mr. Myers' explanations are good. I would expand the part about an antipathy toward "regular people." It is certainly a two way street. Certain marginalized groups have a long history of association with the arts. I'm thinking particularly of gays and Jewish people. It is no secret that the proportion of these groups in the fine art world and the entertainment industry is higher than outside them.
Conservatives tend, far more than liberals, to demand conformity. Those outcast by conservative authority tend to reject conservatism. This is where the notion that artists and liberals don't think for themselves is just baffling. I guess, when you get down to it, I'm a liberal in large part because I spent my formative years constantly chastized for think for, and being, myself, by figures who were overwhelmingly conservative.
Artists, and people with similar temperments, tend to be vilified by most of society as weirdos and parasites. We don't tend to be paid very well. We're not particularly well represented or lobbied for politically. We tend to share circles with other marginal and marginalized groups. And we tend to be less religious than the majority of the population. What a shock, then, that we aren't, by and large, keen on Republicans.
It's basically a diatribe against artists. We're parasites, as usual. Propagandists. Perpetually adolescent. Worst of all, liberal. The post itself ends with a call to support conservatiove filmmakers like the Orson Welles behind Michael Moore Hates America.
And so it continues through the comments. A bunch of libertarians and conservatives patting themselves on the back for having no imagination and for being logical.
Only a Daniel Myers came to it with any apparent familiarity with what it is to be an artist and an openness to see what's actually there. What he writes isn't perfect, but is much better than what I expect from such a blog.
More representative:
"Contemplate the fact that "artists," as we usually interpret the word, are and have been for centuries social parasites. Their withdraw from the stressful humdrum into a make-believe world of "creative pursuits" is justified by self-serving rationale. Some very few produce enduring works. The overwhelming remainder produce dreck that, with some luck, reduces to recyclable refuse. "
(There was a lot of talk about the Myers-Briggs on that blog as some sort of scientific, authoratative test- I kind of figured most people think of M-B as a step or two above astrology, but whatever)
In my world, as a graduate art student at a University, and before that as an art student at a private art college, the "withdrawal" is into long nights in the studio working through ideas, producing, discussing work and ideas, etc. Art students, they tell me, are more prone toward all-nighters than any except medical students.
I know a lot of artists are actually lazy, parasitic good-for-nothings who have no intellectual curiousity or any true creativity. These people do not tend to make a living of it. Those that do tend to be industrious, competitive, and fairly charismatic.
Why do these people tend, overwhelmingly, to be on the left side of the aisle? I think Mr. Myers' explanations are good. I would expand the part about an antipathy toward "regular people." It is certainly a two way street. Certain marginalized groups have a long history of association with the arts. I'm thinking particularly of gays and Jewish people. It is no secret that the proportion of these groups in the fine art world and the entertainment industry is higher than outside them.
Conservatives tend, far more than liberals, to demand conformity. Those outcast by conservative authority tend to reject conservatism. This is where the notion that artists and liberals don't think for themselves is just baffling. I guess, when you get down to it, I'm a liberal in large part because I spent my formative years constantly chastized for think for, and being, myself, by figures who were overwhelmingly conservative.
Artists, and people with similar temperments, tend to be vilified by most of society as weirdos and parasites. We don't tend to be paid very well. We're not particularly well represented or lobbied for politically. We tend to share circles with other marginal and marginalized groups. And we tend to be less religious than the majority of the population. What a shock, then, that we aren't, by and large, keen on Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
