Pop as Art

[Kensterberg]

mary said:

...I can go with a lot of what you guys are saying, but I have to draw the line at Paris Hilton. I just don't see "artist" in spoiled rich brat. Edie Sedgwick is a different case, she had a genuinely haunting presence as both a model and an actress.

But doesn't this just mean that Sedgwick was "good" art and Paris isn't? I don't think you can say that if it's succesful it's "art" but if it isn't good, it's "not art." Just doesn't seem like a viable distinction to me.

[Matheus]

kenholzman said:

mary said:

...I can go with a lot of what you guys are saying, but I have to draw the line at Paris Hilton. I just don't see "artist" in spoiled rich brat. Edie Sedgwick is a different case, she had a genuinely haunting presence as both a model and an actress.

But doesn't this just mean that Sedgwick was "good" art and Paris isn't? I don't think you can say that if it's succesful it's "art" but if it isn't good, it's "not art." Just doesn't seem like a viable distinction to me.

I agree with Ken, and furthermore, what one person deems "bad art" or not art at all could be another person's gold.

For example, I have friends who love Van Gogh, and I can't stand it. His stuff looks like a better version of finger painting to me, yet they think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

[Rit]

matheus said:

kenholzman said:

But doesn't this just mean that Sedgwick was "good" art and Paris isn't? I don't think you can say that if it's succesful it's "art" but if it isn't good, it's "not art." Just doesn't seem like a viable distinction to me.

I agree with Ken, and furthermore, what one person deems "bad art" or not art at all could be another person's gold.

there's that trash-aesthetic again.
not that i'm saying it's a bad thing.. just trying to point out the obvious.

[Matheus]

ritalinpants said:

matheus said:

I agree with Ken, and furthermore, what one person deems "bad art" or not art at all could be another person's gold.

there's that trash-aesthetic again.
not that i'm saying it's a bad thing.. just trying to point out the obvious.

You're right, it is a trash-aesthetic, and I love it. It's an aspect of our culture, and it's an aspect of me. I like trash just as much as I like thoughtfulness... although the trash makes me think, too.

[Matheus]

pcook said:

E-Gads! This has turned into a Paris Spears thread!!!

I would love to see the video come back - what a novel idea, and one MTV has murdered! Do they even still have the audacity to have the VMAs?

I love videos, too. And yeah, the Beastie Boys make some of the best. I bought their video anthology several years ago, and I still put that bitch in a lot.

And in spirit of this board... a video... that no one will probably watch... lol. If you do, what do you think of it?

It goes with this latest conversation quite well.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVdde-qVTQQ

[Kensterberg]

It strikes me funny that we're having a conversation about where to draw the line with "art" on a message board that exists primarily to discuss rock and roll music and pop culture generally. Everything we love here is someone's "trash."

Cheap Trick's "Surrender" is one of the all-time classic rock and roll songs. I think that I can safely say that (have you met anyone who loves rock that doesn't love "Surrender?" c'mon!). We're saying that Paris Hilton can't be considered some sort of performance art, and we will acclaim a song whose final verse involves mom and dad making out on the couch to Kiss records?

IMO most people draw the line at "that's not art" when they either (a) are offended by it, or (b) don't like it. It would be easy for me to try to exclude Billy Joel or Nickleback from the category of art, but really I'm just saying that they're bad at their art. It isn't that they aren't creating "art," it's that they suck.

So you might think Paris is an example of badly done life as performance art, but it's still art (if you recognize such conceptual pieces as meeting the criteria for "art").

[Rit]

You're right, it is a trash-aesthetic, and I love it. It's an aspect of our culture, and it's an aspect of me. I like trash just as much as I like thoughtfulness... although the trash makes me think, too.

that was grammatically inconsistent. you opposed the notion of 'trash' to the notion of 'thoughfulness', but then said that trash makes you thoughful anyway. where's the distinction?

there is none.

you're just trying to justify in a roundabout way that you think Paris Hilton is a symbol of a deeper reality, despite herself. Is this art? or is this religious sublimation?

All symbols and tokens are being justified as symbolic of an inner continuity and relevance.

It's an exceedingly broad (and pantheistic) notion. All that lives is holy, and worthy of investigation.

But i'm coming from a different perspective. Art is an activity which people engage in, usually consciously, and with purpose. And as a craft, it also applies directly to excellence as a fundamental criteria. In fact, any activity can be considered artistic in this sense, as long as the fundamental criteria of applied and reached for excellence is present.

[Kensterberg]

ritalinpants said:

But i'm coming from a different perspective. Art is an activity which people engage in, usually consciously, and with purpose. And as a craft, it also applies directly to excellence as a fundamental criteria. In fact, any activity can be considered artistic in this sense, as long as the fundamental criteria of applied and reached for excellence is present.

So it's only art if it's good? How do you know if it's any good? Is there some sort of Platonic ideal form that is out there for each type of art?

BTW, I think that the only definition of "art" which doesn't collapse under close examination is a very, very broad one such as what (I think) Matt is advocating. (I say "I think" b/c I haven't read any of this board -- I just jumped in here today). Anything less winds up falling apart when you look closely and see that it's ultimately just drawing an arbitrary line and saying "X is art" and "Y is not art."

[Rit]

art is an activity, that's all. it is done by people trying to achieve (or extemporize) an inner ideal. i don't really think that there are prescribed Platonic forms for this.

just activity. and applied, at that.

But there is a distinction i'm willing to make. Very hard to prove, usually, and a source of endless debate, but i don't think that activity done in the name of consumerism or commercial gain can ever qualify as art.

[Kensterberg]

Rit -- what about art that is casually approached, or even consciously created with the idea of being spontaneous and off-hand, deliberately sloppy? If Bob Dylan records an album to fulfill his contract and it sucks, is it still art? Was it art when the Replacements played shows completely drunk off their collective asses? How about when Johnny Rotten snarled "no fun" at the audience in San Francisco and stormed off the stage in their last show? If Sid Viscious was "art" on-stage, did he suddenly become "non-art" when he left?

I just don't think you can apply the attitude of "the artist has to be reaching for excellence" as a yardstick for "what is art?". How many killer tossed-off demos have you heard that eclipse the same artist working for weeks in the studio on the same song? I don't think that artist intent is really relevant when determining if something is art -- that decision has to rest, if not with the audience, then certainly in some sort of mediated relationship between the two. (Which then raises the question of what do we do with "art" that was never meant for public view? If you find a stash of sketches from Andrew Wyeth that he did for his own pleasure, are those art or not? For that matter, how about things like Dylan's 'Bootleg' series, not a note of which was recorded with the intention to put it out to the public.)

[Kensterberg]

ritalinpants said:

But there is a distinction i'm willing to make. Very hard to prove, usually, and a source of endless debate, but i don't think that activity done in the name of consumerism or commercial gain can ever qualify as art.

So if the artist is using his "art" to put food on the table, it is no longer "art"? Can't say I buy that one, as the argument pretty much collapses as you exclude Dali, Picasso, the Beatles, Mozart, Beethoven, Twila Tharp, etc. Commerce can produce art, I think that fact is self-evident from the last fifty years (if not more).

Also, I don't think you can back out of defining excellence by saying that it is an inner ideal that comes from the artist. An artist can "just throw something together" in order to meet a deadline and wind up with great art. And an artist can slave for months (or years) on a project and never wind up with anything of substance.

[Rit]

very good points. Dylan is a conscious artist though, and it interests the general public to hear his working demos.

True though, there are songs that are tossed off quickly that often sound far more compelling than finished product. (as a lover of garage rock and Captain Beefheart, i'd be wildly oblivious if i said otherwise)

Still, i wouldn't take some ad executive's tossed off demo as worth anything. I'd want to see Dylan's. and why Dylan? because i'd have encountered his works before, recognized the compelling spirit within them, the fierce intelligence, the dedication to folk metamorphoses, and a host of other things that it would take a while to recall right now. And so, yes, i would love to hear his Bootlegs.

Johnny Rotten? is he an artist? He might be able to answer that question for you himself. He felt thoroughly insincere by the end of the Sex Pistols, had a psychic breakdown, berated the punk audiences, retreated from the (highly artificial) punk world, and formed PiL. Which was defiantly playing be different metaphysical assumptions. Why would he have done a thing like that? He was too honest with himself.

[Rit]

kenholzman said:

ritalinpants said:

But there is a distinction i'm willing to make. Very hard to prove, usually, and a source of endless debate, but i don't think that activity done in the name of consumerism or commercial gain can ever qualify as art.

So if the artist is using his "art" to put food on the table, it is no longer "art"? Can't say I buy that one, as the argument pretty much collapses as you exclude Dali, Picasso, the Beatles, Mozart, Beethoven, Twila Tharp, etc. Commerce can produce art, I think that fact is self-evident from the last fifty years (if not more).

Also, I don't think you can back out of defining excellence by saying that it is an inner ideal that comes from the artist. An artist can "just throw something together" in order to meet a deadline and wind up with great art. And an artist can slave for months (or years) on a project and never wind up with anything of substance.

fair enough. artists must eat. they have needs and wants. they want attention, they want some sort of recognition. All good things. i don't dispute at all.

But they must also have an inner drive, and inner sense of seeing things, and an ability to express it relevantly.

Paris Hilton? i dunno, she's a shamefully shallow celebrity. We confuse too many distinctions here.

Paul Westerberg is no Hilton.

[Rit]

i'll be back in a bit. gotta eat lunch. Thai food, OMG, i'd expect Thai food to be served in heaven.

[Kensterberg]

ritalinpants said:

Paul Westerberg is no Hilton.

This is the same as saying that Westerberg = good art, Hilton = bad art (or maybe "art badly done"?).

It's a distinction of degree, not of kind.