Louigi Verona wrote:
I will comment on this Romantic idea how I relate to it.
Some other parts of what I see in the Romantic idea:
* The artist has no control over their art or themselves, and has no
obligation to control their art or themselves.
Depending on what it means. An artist should have the responsibility of
what he is doing. This is one of the reasons why he puts his name on the
work.
No, artist puts name on the work for recognition. In modern time, that
form of recognition is quite often money.
* The artist does art for his or her own needs, not those of others.
This is a tough statement. If an artist does work for the glory of God,
then he is doing it for his own needs and needs of others at the same
time. Taken literally, I do not agree that an artist does art for his
own needs - this is very inaccurate to me.
Not many Romantics did any work for the glory of God. It is certainly
possible to do one thing for both reasons simultaneously. But my studies
of Romantic poets included none that did it for others' needs.
My poetry writing was for my own needs, and was sent out for sale. Some
sold, some didn't. Some was turned into songs, some of which were
performed for money and some of which weren't.
Well, one difference between poetry back when I was writing/selling and
music today is that there were tens of thousands of poetry publishers
offering an enormous variety of poetry styles. I'm not sure there are
that many music publishers around today.
And I think someone else somewhere in this meandering thread described
the big commercial music industry as 'all the same'. In the fiction
writing field, formula work.
* The artist is supposed to shock and offend others, and if others
react with shock and offense, the others are wrong and the artist is
right.
This is ridiculous.
Read up about Arthur Rimbaud sometime.
* Others owe the artist support simply because he's an artist. If
others don't support the artist the way the artist wants to be
supported, the others are wrong/evil/the enemy/inferior.
Even more ridiculous,
But still quite true. I'm sure you've never met anyone who has put some
genre of music or another on a pedestal, and looks down on others who
don't gather around that same pedestal. I have. (No offense to the fine
jazz musicians on the list, but most of my encounters with such people
were with ones who had put Jazz on the pedestal. One jazz musician I
knew (not on this list!) even told me once that if you were a real
musician, you played jazz. Nothing else was music.
although today copyright law assumes just that.
While I think some implementations of copyright law might assume that, I
don't know of any that simply pay an artist because they say they're an
artist. You actually have to produce work. (Unlike some of recipients of
art grants, in my opinion.)
* The artist is exempt from the laws that apply to others simply
because they're artists.
Same as above.
Not quite. I should have been clearer. The "laws" were the social laws
of behavior. If some drunk wandered into your party, pissed in your
fireplace, and loudly declared that art, you'd probably consider him
nuts and hustle him out. Unless he was Jackson Pollock.
Basically you are repeating the same idea, these are just
conclusions - that an artist stands above the public. I oppose that idea
greatly.
No, I'm saying that the Romantic movement considered the artist as
standing above the public.
Some artists - particularly the French Romantic poets such as
Rimbaud - would be quite reasonably considered as severely
traumatized and insane today. Also, chronic alcoholics and drug abusers.
Art at the expense of ones mental health is not something I would
support. If a person cannot do art and keep himself in balance, perhaps
he is not up for art.
I agree with that, plus go a little farther. If an artist doesn't
respect his own gift/talent enough to keep himself healthy and balanced
to use it, I'd question if the person is really an artist. One can be a
natural at painting, lets say, but if you don't have the will to use it,
you're not an artist. Real artist is talent/training plus will-to-do.
(Like oh so many people who will come to our weekly writers group, toss
out three paragraphs of great prose, tell us about this wonderful book
they'd like to write someday - and never write their book.)
Everytime I hear someone say, "Legalize drugs, drugs never hurt anyone,"
I start going down my mental list of artists done in by drugs ...
I think way too many artists are simply wrapped up in their own
egos. The modern popular music industry is partly to blame for that,
as is the modern media industry (that meaningless frothing of spray
blown about by the wind over the waves!) that has turned players of
games into exorbitantly overpaid "stars". Much of it seems to be the
behavior of a spoiled child demanding attention: "LOOK AT ME! LOOK
AT WHAT I DID! AREN'T I GREAT?"
This happens thanks to the music industry who make it all about
personality. I argue that in times of Bach personality of a composer
meant many levels less.
True. Culturally, the Romantic movement hadn't happened. The only
"special personalities" were clergy (the higher, the better) and the
nobles. Musicians were craftsmen back then. You hired a musician to make
music for you, just like you hired a blacksmith to shoe your horse.
I like that quote about Bach viewing himself as a craftsman.
But in Bach's time there were still elements of the old concept of
"glory" (reknown, making sure that others were aware of your
achievements). When Beowulf and his buddies hang around the dinner table
and Beowulf starts telling how he outswam his cousin (or some such)
after days of swimming across the sea and fighting sea monsters as he
went, he's not bragging that he's "better than you" or putting you down.
He's saying, "This is what I did."
Not personalities - deeds. Personality (particularly ego) is what says
"I'm better than you." The craftsman says, "Here is the work you hired
me to do."
This is why I was sad for someone to label my views "art for art's
sake". My views have nothing in common with this Romantic idea, if you
are sure we did not make this up here.
I didn't label your views "art of art's sake". An intense need to write
music isn't "art for art's sake". It's "art for the artist's sake" (if
you'll forgive an admittedly-simplistic label just for clarity). Doesn't
mean it can't also be "art for paying the mortgage's sake" or "art to
fight social injustice" or "art to thumb one's nose at the world". IIRC,
one of the members of the Sex Pistols said afterwards, "We didn't do it
to start new music or anything else, we did it to get a recording
contract." IOW, for money.
I think that one can do both, or all. Note: if one's particular form of
musical expression is to drop rocks from the top of a cliff, don't be
surprised if it doesn't make enough money to live on. (Well, given the
distribution channel known as YouTube, perhaps one could. There are
certainly "sillier" vids up there that seem to be highly popular!)
Having practiced "art for artist's sake" myself, I don't see anything
wrong with that! :-)
--
David
gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
