The
idea of art is all based on perception in my opinion. Music, painting, writing, as well as everything else along
those lines are all subjective, which is why people have so many different
tastes. I do not believe there is
a one lone, true “goal” towards which all art is created either as many
different artists with different reasons for what they do. One artist may work to make an audience
laugh or be entertained while another is attempting to start a revolutionary coup
d’etat in his or her country
I saw a film earlier in the quarter
called RiP!: A Remix Manifesto about
how the copyright laws have become progressively and ridiculously more strict
in the past decades on creative property of artists. The prime example used in the documentary was mash-up artist
Girl Talk, and his utilization of
pieces of other artists’ music to make a new product and call them his own (Ex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bMM7tGV9MI). While, Girl Talk’s goal is simply to entertain and make half naked women
and sweaty bros dance til heart attack, the film itself is an artistic piece
created to raise awareness about a claimed issue and get people thinking or
choosing sides.
Although
this specific example may not cause the social change it would like -simply
because the laws won’t bend so easily- it is still having a go at the
unreasonable “grey areas” of our government’s rules on copyright. At the same time, it is also informing
a specific group of society (music pirates, mash-up artists, cartoonists, etc.)
what exactly is going on. As a
musician, I never really knew what was going on with big corporation ownership
and creative licenses.
For instance, a little day care
center was sued for having Disney characters painted on some of the walls. The irony is that, Mr. Walt Disney
borrowed almost every idea he turned into an animated film from past creations
(Alice in Wonderland, Steamboat Willie,
Fantasia). Once that point is
dropped, I am now against these bullshit copyright laws and want to get angry
at “The Man” and protest and on and on. You get the point...
On the other hand, you have the
purpose of entertainment and leisure, which really doesn’t have to be
explained. This is why we have our
Ke$ha, our Justin Beiber, our T-pain, and
reality TV. People would probably avoid shit like that if art was
only used to become smarter or make changes in the world. Though I put those select artists and
concepts in a negative light, 50 years from now, Ke$ha will be there on the out-dated technology that is the Compact
Disc to show a newer generation what we were working with. God forbid if there are any reruns of Jersey Shore, our kids will gain
perspective. And therein, laugh at us (hopefully).
Lastly,
I wanted to address the idea of efficacy and reproduction stated in the final
bullet of the assignment:
A friend of mine recently released
an EP with his new musical project, Wooden
Teeth. I had heard a few of
their originals that were awesome pieces, but one that was really exciting to
hear was the group’s cover of “My Girl” by The
Temptations (http://woodenteeth.bandcamp.com/track/my-girl-cover-by-temptations). With a driving, almost dub-reggae rhythm, and pretty, delay
guitar based melodies, the song is a whole new look on the Motown classic, and
an enjoyable one at that.
If by some crazy chance that there
is a person who hates the original, classic cut of “My Girl,” the Wooden Teeth cover may still come
through to the weird guy that is unimpressed by The Temptations as the best song he’s ever heard.
The accessibility is increased thanks to a re-creation of an old
masterpiece. The Girl Talk song I have posted above can
hold the same concept. A girl could hate Black
Sabbath and love Ludacris. When she hears how Girl Talk has portrayed the two artists,
she may be tickled pink by Sabbath in
such a light.
I've only got one obvious discussion question that might spark a debate: Given that people agree with the first sentence of this post, is art so subjective as to allow one to claim that a 5th grader's artwork on the fridge rivals that of a Michael Angelo or a Pablo Picasso? If there is a line to be drawn, how can one decide where?
-Jon
I completely agree that art is based on perception. There are people out there who firmly believe that a few blobs on a canvas is not considered art, but it still evokes thought and causes discussions to happen, which I think is a big aspect of something being considered art. I think what simply sets apart good art from great art, art which will be remembered is how creative it seems to be. The sheer complexity of a work whether it's written, performed, or painted, is what can make it great art. Also, though I suppose "simple" art can be complex in its own right as well... Regardless, it all depends on whether or not we want to try to define what message the art may be bringing it to us, or what comparison we can make with a work of art to the world, even if it is a 5th grader's art project.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is possible to draw the line between what is art and what isn't. It is drawn, painted, performed, etc for different reasons and in different venues so a comparison would be neither logical nor conclusive. The subjectivity of art is an integral piece to its existence. In other words, it is what makes art any combination of critical, symbolic, meaningful, and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWhile artwork's value or level of greatness is held solely in the eyes of the beholder, and is entirely based on the perception of each individual, I think that we can collectively agree on what's amazing and what isn't. Different people appreciate different things, but i think that concluding whether an artwork is worth 5 million dollars is simply based on popular understanding. Whatever seems to be more "important' or 'creative" by the majority is what I would say distinguishes the good from the great on a larger scale.
ReplyDelete