Art that "sucks"...

[The Ur-Vile [BaNe]]

(My God! Another Ur-Vile post! What is wrong w/ this guy!)

sorry... don't feel like quakin' today (he,he,he)... oh, no...
that reminds me of ANOTHER thing I wanted to post... ugh...
not sleepin before 1:00 am tonight I see ;)

But anyways, about art that sucks:

I kept thinking about this one today. How we as people quickly
label something artistic as "it sucks!" We've all done it...
"What? That's music sucks!" "Why would anyone want that damn
ugly painting?" "That block thing over there is art? Looks like
the dude was hi when he made it..." etc, etc...

But stop and think for a moment, or just listen.

I looked at my current music collection... remembered playing my
various tastes to other people... remembering their reactions.
The biggest ones are my two fabs: 0(+>/NPG and Aerosmith.
Both have been around for 2 decades or longer, and between the
two have hundred (perhaps thousands?) of songs they can account
for. But the number of people that have shot down all this work,
the music I worship, with the line "that sucks" is astounding.
"What? You listen to Prince? Your fuckin stupid! Prince sucks
dick!" and "Aerosmith? Aerosmith? What a bunch of losers...their
music fuckin' sucks..." and variations of those comments really
helped shape (or perhaps twist) my view about people as a whole.
I guess I was quickly alienated....

I mean, the music they create(d) means more to me than any of the
other songs I've ever heard put together. It hits me emotionally,
spiritually, sexually, whatever... Somedays, Steve & 0(+>'s voice
was the only thing I looked forward to in a day... or a week....
<sob> Listening to them helped me through some tough emotional times.
And to hear "they suck!" just turns/turned the knife inside of me even
more :( To hear people shove aside such brillance w/ a sentence
of 4 words or less was painful sometimes, to say the least.

But to make a long story shorter, I'm finally beginning to realize
what labeling something as "sucking" is really doing in reality.
I mean, things I pretty much dislike art-wise include: those
"weird paintings" (such as Cubists, etc), Ophra music (I spelled it
wrong, didn't I :(, Beck, Maralyn Manson, almost all of Country
Music, "boring techno", polka music, Shindler's List, Pulp Fiction,
Under Seige II <shutter>, Dracula: Dead & Loving it <shudder,
shudder! But hey, those vampire women can have me any day ;)
he,he,he>, etc, etc...

What does that odd list represent? Stuff I could easily (and sometimes
have) labeled as "this sucks!" I'm realizing that there is a different
between "not caring for this" & "this sucks!" #1 means that I do
not care for the peice of art, yet reconize that others do care
for it for their own reasons. But this sucks... what you effectivly
said is "Only morons would listen to/watch/observe this". And
I'm now realizing my stupidity.

I'm not using "not caring for this" as some Politically Correct
crap for "this sucks". I'm saying that there is a difference.
A BIG difference. A big difference that we're all been gulity of
forgetting about one time or another.

peace.

[Joel Martin McTague]

The Ur-Vile [BaNe] wrote:
> I kept thinking about this one today. How we as people quickly
> label something artistic as "it sucks!" We've all done it...
> "What? That's music sucks!" "Why would anyone want that damn
> ugly painting?" "That block thing over there is art? Looks like
> the dude was hi when he made it..." etc, etc...

Unfortunately, I think the adjective "artistic" has been degraded so
much that it can only be used to describe things that do suck. In
painting, for instance, we went down from photo-realism to impressionism
in such a short time, and then onto cubism from there. Now, today, if I
do something photo-realistic, I can sell it maybe at the flea market.
If I throw urine on a canvas, that's art. Same thing in music. After
Beehtovan spoiled us with music that could be both technical and
personal at the same time, everyone decided that we as a culture should
prefer personal statements rather than trying to strike a balance. And
anyone can create a personal statement, and the more personal it is, the
more as a culture we consider it art today. I believe the fundamental
problem is that we as a culture do not recognize the techincal aspects
of art being worth anything.

>
> But stop and think for a moment, or just listen.
>
> I looked at my current music collection... remembered playing my
> various tastes to other people... remembering their reactions.
> The biggest ones are my two fabs: 0(+>/NPG and Aerosmith.
> Both have been around for 2 decades or longer, and between the
> two have hundred (perhaps thousands?) of songs they can account
> for. But the number of people that have shot down all this work,
> the music I worship, with the line "that sucks" is astounding.
> "What? You listen to Prince? Your fuckin stupid! Prince sucks
> dick!" and "Aerosmith? Aerosmith? What a bunch of losers...their
> music fuckin' sucks..." and variations of those comments really
> helped shape (or perhaps twist) my view about people as a whole.
> I guess I was quickly alienated....

Yup. Totally agree. What doesn't suck is people who couldn't play
musical instruments if it was a Fisher Price xylophone if their life
depended on it singing about suicide in a voice that reminded me of
someone with emphasema (sarcasm).

>
> I mean, the music they create(d) means more to me than any of the
> other songs I've ever heard put together. It hits me emotionally,
> spiritually, sexually, whatever... Somedays, Steve & 0(+>'s voice
> was the only thing I looked forward to in a day... or a week....
> <sob> Listening to them helped me through some tough emotional times.
> And to hear "they suck!" just turns/turned the knife inside of me even
> more :( To hear people shove aside such brillance w/ a sentence
> of 4 words or less was painful sometimes, to say the least.

Hasn't society always shunned genious?

>
> But to make a long story shorter, I'm finally beginning to realize
> what labeling something as "sucking" is really doing in reality.
> I mean, things I pretty much dislike art-wise include: those
> "weird paintings" (such as Cubists, etc), Ophra music (I spelled it
> wrong, didn't I :(, Beck, Maralyn Manson, almost all of Country
> Music, "boring techno", polka music, Shindler's List, Pulp Fiction,
> Under Seige II <shutter>, Dracula: Dead & Loving it <shudder,
> shudder! But hey, those vampire women can have me any day ;)
> he,he,he>, etc, etc...

I take exception at Opra (if you like 0+>'s stuff you should check out
Wagner's work; I was so amazed at the fact that both have tried to
accomplish the same thing musically, i.e., defining emotions through
sounds, and doing it so well. For instance, the guitar solo at the end
of Gold is for me reminisent of hope; the prelude to Act Three and Die
Liebstrond (I hope I spelled it right) of Tristan und Isolda does pretty
much the same thing). I assume you're putting symphonic music in the
same chategory, and if that is the case I refer you to Prince's
references to Mahler's Symphony No. 3 in his song Good Love from Bright
Lights, Big City.

>
> What does that odd list represent? Stuff I could easily (and sometimes
> have) labeled as "this sucks!" I'm realizing that there is a different
> between "not caring for this" & "this sucks!" #1 means that I do
> not care for the peice of art, yet reconize that others do care
> for it for their own reasons. But this sucks... what you effectivly
> said is "Only morons would listen to/watch/observe this". And
> I'm now realizing my stupidity.

Perhaps they are just too scared to admit their own stupidity they'll
put another down.

>
> I'm not using "not caring for this" as some Politically Correct
> crap for "this sucks". I'm saying that there is a difference.
> A BIG difference. A big difference that we're all been gulity of
> forgetting about one time or another.
>
> peace.

------------------
. . . and so I sold the stock at 83 and made a killing on it. Sure, my
partners went to jail, but that's how I got my own business . . .

. . . I got a trig exam tommorrow morning and I'm being chased by Guido,
the Killer Pimp . . .

http://www.cropcircles.com
http://joel.cropcircles.com

[Hyperpessimist]

Joel Martin McTague wrote:

>I believe the fundamental
> problem is that we as a culture do not recognize the techincal aspects
> of art being worth anything.

Why is that a problem? Technology enables us to do pretty much anything
we want to these days. Why should we be dazzled by special effects? Isn't it
time we concentrate on IDEAS instead?

> What doesn't suck is people who couldn't play
> musical instruments if it was a Fisher Price xylophone if their life
> depended on it singing about suicide in a voice that reminded me of
> someone with emphasema (sarcasm).

Why does art have to be about perpetuating established concepts of beauty
and skills? Art is not about showing off skills or a naive "feel good". It's
about breaking new ground and enriching you. And yes, sometimes that
implies dealing with ugly stuff (ugly in the sense that it makes one
uncomfortable because one can't understand it).
I'm not saying there isn't bad, pretentious avant-garde out there. There is
a LOT of that. But we can't just dump everything together and say "they
can't play / sing / paint / whatever". That is called... arrogance.

> Hasn't society always shunned genious?

Yes - it has put loads of geniuses on a throne and turned them into pseudo
gods that ultimately lose touch with their actual genius because of all that
manipulation.
Geniuses don't need worshipped, they just need to be left alone. Guess who's
done that?

> I take exception at Opra

opera, maybe? ;-)

My point? Don't concentrate on the art object - concentrate on what the
object triggers in you, on your experience. This whole hip genius stuff
will fall apart as soon as we realize that it's not a question of skills or
popularity. It's a question of being surrounded by objects that have
different effects on different people - and it's those effects / experiences
that are worth discussing, not the validity of this or that art object (be it a
painting, song, opera, whatever).
As long as there's honesty in what you do, it can't suck. It may not appeal to
me, but it doesn't suck.

h.

[Joel Martin McTague]

Hyperpessimist wrote:

>
> Joel Martin McTague wrote:
>
> >I believe the fundamental
> > problem is that we as a culture do not recognize the techincal aspects
> > of art being worth anything.
>

> Why is that a problem? Technology enables us to do pretty much anything
> we want to these days. Why should we be dazzled by special effects? Isn't it
> time we concentrate on IDEAS instead?

By technology, I mean a painter's skill at drawing a picture, or a
songwirters ability to compose a lyric. Not just having a computer do
that for you. For me, art has at least three components: the medium,
the message and the skill at which the message is transferred through
the medium. What I think is lacking today is the last part, which is a
technical aspect of art.

>
> > What doesn't suck is people who couldn't play
> > musical instruments if it was a Fisher Price xylophone if their life
> > depended on it singing about suicide in a voice that reminded me of
> > someone with emphasema (sarcasm).
>

> Why does art have to be about perpetuating established concepts of beauty
> and skills? Art is not about showing off skills or a naive "feel good". It's
> about breaking new ground and enriching you. And yes, sometimes that
> implies dealing with ugly stuff (ugly in the sense that it makes one
> uncomfortable because one can't understand it).
> I'm not saying there isn't bad, pretentious avant-garde out there. There is
> a LOT of that. But we can't just dump everything together and say "they
> can't play / sing / paint / whatever". That is called... arrogance.

As Beadoulaire (sp.?) said, art is the intersection of the eternal and
the present. It is more than just breaking ground and enriching you.
The discovery of quantum mechanics broke new ground and enriched us as a
culture, but that's not art. And yes, art sometimes requires us to feel
uncomfortable, but the there is a difference between making us feel
comfortable and being subjected to dissonance. I don't believe I lumped
everyone together. Just the ones who can't do. That's were art sucks.
The good ones I would seperate, including some members of the
avant-garde.

>
> > Hasn't society always shunned genious?
>

> Yes - it has put loads of geniuses on a throne and turned them into pseudo
> gods that ultimately lose touch with their actual genius because of all that
> manipulation.
> Geniuses don't need worshipped, they just need to be left alone. Guess who's
> done that?

I don't think geniuses need to be left alone, but should be recognized
for their skill. Yes, they shouldn't be turned into psuedo-gods (Noam
Chomsky, anyone), but they shouldn't be put in the closet either.

>
> > I take exception at Opra
>

> opera, maybe? ;-)
>
> My point? Don't concentrate on the art object - concentrate on what the
> object triggers in you, on your experience. This whole hip genius stuff
> will fall apart as soon as we realize that it's not a question of skills or
> popularity. It's a question of being surrounded by objects that have
> different effects on different people - and it's those effects / experiences
> that are worth discussing, not the validity of this or that art object (be it a
> painting, song, opera, whatever).
> As long as there's honesty in what you do, it can't suck. It may not appeal to
> me, but it doesn't suck.

And I'm OK and you're OK and the world is OK. The art object is
important because that is the triggering mechanism to make you feel
something. If there were no objects, you would have no consciousness of
anything. Consciousness (and therefore, feelings) does not exist
independent of an object. Consciouness has always been consciousness of
something. The two are so intertwined psychologically they can't be
seperated as you propose to do.

[Joel Martin McTague]

Hyperpessimist wrote:
>
> Joel Martin McTague wrote, among other things:

>
> > By technology, I mean a painter's skill at drawing a picture, or a
> > songwirters ability to compose a lyric. Not just having a computer do
> > that for you. For me, art has at least three components: the medium,
> > the message and the skill at which the message is transferred through
> > the medium. What I think is lacking today is the last part, which is a
> > technical aspect of art.
>

> I stongly disagree. Never before it's been so easy (and there's nothing
> wrong with being easy; art doesn't have to be "difficult to make") to make
> art that both corresponds to the authors idea and appeals to the receiver.
> What it is seriously lacking is content and empathy between the individuals
> involved, and I don't think that can be attributed to lack of skills. For the
> most part, I think it's either due to information overload or not having too
> much to say but saying it anyway.

Well, sometimes you don't need art to appeal to both the sender and the
receiver.
Although it would be nice, the sender and the receiver may be in
seperate times
(hence, "he's ahead of his times") and therefore confuse the message.
As to your
point, I believe it is precisely this lack of skill that makes art so
bad today,
along with the artist having nothing to say.

>
> > As Beadoulaire (sp.?) said, art is the intersection of the eternal and
> > the present. It is more than just breaking ground and enriching you.
>

> It sure is. But, from what you originally said, I got the impression it
> wouldn't be much more than a vain display of skills.

Art is nothing more than vanity of the artist. Nietzche pointed out
that artists
don't understand their own work because they are too vain. And as Rand
stressed,
there's no reason why to "do" art other than to please oneself. An
artist's vanity
and selfishness are his two greatest strengths. But the artist must
work within
the nexus of the eternal and the present and at the same time do
something more
than what has already been done.

>
> > The discovery of quantum mechanics broke new ground and enriched us as a
> > culture, but that's not art. And yes, art sometimes requires us to feel
> > uncomfortable, but the there is a difference between making us feel
> > comfortable and being subjected to dissonance.
>

> agreed.

>
> > And I'm OK and you're OK and the world is OK.
>

> skip the irony, please...

>
> >If there were no objects, you would have no consciousness of
> > anything. Consciousness (and therefore, feelings) does not exist
> > independent of an object.
>

> I never said it did. What I'm saying is an art object is not an END in itself,
> it's a means to an end: communication, empathy, growth (aesthetic /
> spiritual / emotional).

Now I'm confused. Are we discussing the art object as the objected
represented,
or as the message being delivered? If it is the former, I belive it's
just as
important in judging the quality of the work as how well it comes
across. If
it be the later, it is the most important element being judged. For
instance,
if you read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis, the picture of this
yuppie
who goes around murdering people (I have questions of whether he really
does
or if it is just in his mind) comes across quite clearly. The message,
however,
is lacking (if there is one and you happen to know it, please let me
know).
When this essential element is missing, it seperates this work from, oh,
let's say
The Bible (as an aesthetic piece, not as a religious one).

>
> > Consciouness has always been consciousness of
> > something. The two are so intertwined psychologically they can't be
> > seperated as you propose to do.
> >
>

> I didn't propose we separate them. I propose we concentrate on one of them.
> We can focus our thoughts / attention on a certain aspect without losing
> touch with the big picture.

I think we have already lost touch with the big picutre by focusing on
one item
and not the other.

[Hyperpessimist]

Joel Martin McTague wrote, among other things:

>Art is nothing more than vanity of the artist.

ok. if you say so... case closed.

>Now I'm confused. Are we discussing the art object as the objected
>represented, or as the message being delivered?

Neither one. The object represented would be the SUBJECT;
the message would be the idea, the point one tries to make.
The art object would be the actual piece, not a "window" to some other
space or time, but its actual, physical presence.

>If you read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis, the picture of this

>yuppie who goes around murdering people (I have questions of whether he really does or if it is just in his mind) comes across quite clearly. The message, however, is lacking (if there is one and you happen to know it, please let me know).

I know what you mean. But I believe Ellis was never too engaging, not
because of lack of message - we can always draw our conclusions from the
book and give it some use, and we'll do that no matter what - but because of
the overabundant cynicism. Not enough honesty (if you remeber my other
post).

I'm not too fond of consensual masterpieces. I'd rather have disparate
references and the possibility of different viewpoints, and the richness
that can grow from there. I guess that's why I always feel uncomfortable
when I hear people in this NG hoping that O(+> will return to mega-hit
making.

>I think we have already lost touch with the big picutre by focusing on one >item and not the other.

Probably because we focused on the wrong item.
Forget art as an end, bring art as a starting point.

Well, shall we bring back the big picture? ;-)

h.