Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[Zasterz]

I think a lot of the problem here stems from people’s idea that your main activity as a listener or art-viewer should be deciding if something is good or bad, art or not-art, music or not music. When someone makes something, it simply exists. When you encounter it, you have whatever experience you have because the artist made something. That’s all there is to it.

The people who think Yoko Ono sang a certain way so that they would think “Oh what a beautiful voice!” are misunderstanding the entire experience as well as the importance of their own approval. Same with Brotzmann etc. There are many potential experiences an artist might evoke- it’s not limited to beauty, to liking, to sadness or poignancy. Whatever you’re experiencing, you shouldn’t assume the artist wasn’t intending it.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Again, my reply to the face-punching was facetious...The piles of trash in themselves are probably of no artistic value without an artist somehow intervening in some way to make it one...

I am not sure what you are getting at, honestly (?)

We were discussing Jazz...then Art installations.

My comments were only addressing the fact (aptly displayed in this thread at the moment) that perhaps consideration can be given to things in the visual arts world which we dismiss as having zero value.....

....in the same way a layman music listener might dismiss an Ornette recording as cacophonous assault on the ears which is just "pulling a big con on all of us"....

The "Drawing a line" thing...I am not sure why that even comes into it (?)

Ornette, or anyone similar is nothing like a similar example to an installation of cardboard boxes, a pile of trash or Emmin’s Unmade Bed - as Ornette exhibits skills as a player and musician even though many might not like his note choices.

 

[LostCircuits]

Whatever you’re experiencing, you shouldn’t assume the artist wasn’t intending it.

Which brings me back to Beuys, IIRC, a janitor decided to clean up the turd and Beuys sued him for destruction of his art.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Which brings me back to Beuys, IIRC, a janitor decided to clean up the turd and Beuys sued him for destruction of his art.

And unfortunately, the curator probably kept their job.

 

[Zasterz]

Which brings me back to Beuys, IIRC, a janitor decided to clean up the turd and Beuys sued him for destruction of his art.

I never knew this about Beuys but I found a lot of his work deeply affecting. Love the drawings and performance films.

 

[r. giuseppe]

So far I haven’t been around here a lot and I’m somewhat limited to really engage in this discussion (learning new adjectives here). But I find it interesting, how strong the feelings are that come up in an art forum in a wider sense. Strong reactions is what art is about, if it is serious.

We are surrounded by rules, some of them vital for our survival, others less obviously useful. If art is not the place where we accept absolute freedom (within the laws of the country it is performed in), where else would that be? On X, formerly known as twitter? Or rather nowhere? I prefer art.

Freedom of art is a fundamental consideration, and I am aware that the consequences may be extremely painful at times. Nevertheless, so far I still believe that freedom in art is worth it to endure bad art, bad taste. I believe there will be a line where I’d say stop. But the anti-art examples from random objects over trash to the “Fettecke” are not severe enough for me to justify giving up the idea of freedom.

 

[mizmar]

When you encounter it, you have whatever experience you have because the artist made something.

OK buy

That’s all there is to it.

Is it?
It's not just you and the work/music/turd in a vacuum. Things are performed or exhibited somewhere (in a national gallery or shop or studio or park; in a town or village) with a few or not, alone or with smart people sipping prosecco, that you visited because of a review or invite or invite... There's so much context, expectations, individual and collective history...
A cardboard box in the Guggenheim is just not the same fact as the cardboard box in my basement. 4′33 of silence that I'm now hearing is just not the same fact as 4′33 in the Festival Hall, with professional musicians in tails, a conductor etc.

Artists are never completely; just free to explore, should they wish, the bars of the cage.

 

[Pete Effamy]

A cardboard box in the Guggenheim is just not the same fact as the cardboard box in my basement. 4′33 of silence that I'm now hearing is just not the same fact as 4′33 in the Festival Hall, with professional musicians in tails, a conductor etc.

You’re being conned. The Guggenheim get boxes of stuff delivered every day, different no doubt to the ones strewn “in special fashion “ about the floor with a hapless public trudging through them all day long.

Those boxes were in the artists basement once too, but apparently just a few old cardboard boxes then.

 

[Targa]

OK buy

Is it?
It's not just you and the work/music/turd in a vacuum. Things are performed or exhibited somewhere (in a national gallery or shop or studio or park; in a town or village) with a few or not, alone or with smart people sipping prosecco, that you visited because of a review or invite or invite... There's so much context, expectations, individual and collective history...
A cardboard box in the Guggenheim is just not the same fact as the cardboard box in my basement. 4′33 of silence that I'm now hearing is just not the same fact as 4′33 in the Festival Hall, with professional musicians in tails, a conductor etc.

Artists are never completely; just free to explore, should they wish, the bars of the cage.

If you buy the cardboard boxes from the Guggenheim and put them in your basement what are they then and would they artistically be different to cardboard boxes from your basement placed in the Guggenheim?

 

[Wade Cornell]

Hopefully all agree that art, music, etc. is some sort of communication. It's created with the intent of being seen heard, experienced, etc. So that can include almost any message... however mundane.

My "line" at which there is a divide will not be the same as others, yet it's a pretty simple test/measurement. The experience needs to have stuck with me in a way that has invited me to want think abut it or continue to experience it.

A bumper sticker doesn't require multiple viewing (and neither does 99.9% of "conceptual art"). It may have had something to say, yet I don't need or want to see it again and again. Exhibitions of turds or boxes? I'm certainly not going to bother to go out of my way.

Music that touches me, paintings, sculptures, murals and buildings that challenge or delight can get multiple visits if there is something that I found which works for me on a personal level.

If I don't understand what's happening in music that seems "foreign" to my understanding, then I can try to find out more about it (or not). The same can be true with any art, however if taking the time and then still finding that the experience was unsatisfying or banal, then that time was wasted.

Markets, critics, and promotion are intertwined with the arts. Many people don't know what they are seeing/hearing/experiencing. Got to any museum and watch the public and how they experience art (that's not even controversial). The majority go to look at the card first and read that. Then glance at the artwork... usually for less time than it took to read the card. So what was the communication if they didn't or couldn't see the work first and get something from it?

My only wish to create a "conceptual art work" to hang in a gallery or museum would be a giant one of those explanation cards and then have a little painting down where the card usually is.

People buy art as an "investment". Media companies (what used to be record companies) invest in "talent" that they can hype and make money from by picking a look, someone who is "pliable" and will follow the "formulae". There are exceptions, but not many.

The public is willing to be told what to like/buy/collect. Media companies, critics and the plethora of stuff on the internet tell people what to like (what's popular). As individuals we can go our own way, yet must recognize that in doing so you're in an extreme minority in today's world. "JUSTIFICATION" is anyone's game for making $$ down to being honest with yourself.

 

[mizmar]

You’re being conned.

Not in the least.

Obviously

The Guggenheim get boxes of stuff delivered every day, different no doubt to the ones strewn “in special fashion “ about the floor with a hapless public trudging through them all day long.

Those boxes were in the artists basement once too, but apparently just a few old cardboard boxes then.

A box, in and of itself is a box.
But, context. As I outlined.

 

[mark_addy]

You’re being conned. The Guggenheim get boxes of stuff delivered every day, different no doubt to the ones strewn “in special fashion “ about the floor with a hapless public trudging through them all day long.

Those boxes were in the artists basement once too, but apparently just a few old cardboard boxes then.

I know we've done Duchamp in this thread already, but I seem to remember that along with the urinal (sorry, Urinal) when I saw the exhibit, was something entitled 'The Artist's Breath'. This was a kid's rubber balloon, which had once held the artist (I think it was also Duchamp) 's breath. But it was even more 'meta', because being very old the balloon was only a balloon in concept (it was now a very old flappy bit of very perished red rubber, stuck to a base board) and the breath had long since escaped. This comes to mind because Duchamp was already p*ssed off with (or at least playing with) these ideas a long time ago.

All this makes me glad a work in a lab, where the beam breaks at a load of N Newtons and if you're unsure, you can do it six times and put some stats around that 🙂 And I hope that a bunch of mostly-elderly folks next Sunday enjoy our music well-enough (big band gig) to be glad they supported whatever charity it is we're playing the church hall in aid of. It won't be Art, but it might be not unpleasant. Mostly. I suspect our gigs are a bit like watching the special Olympics (Oh, I am going to draw some heat here, but I mean it!). Rooting for people doing their very best under apparently trying circumstances 🙂

 

[Vlad]

If you buy the cardboard boxes from the Guggenheim and put them in your basement what are they then and would they artistically be different to cardboard boxes from your basement placed in the Guggenheim?

And would there be a cat inside one ?...

 

[Targa]

And would there be a cat inside one ?...

Possibly if it was after a mouse; then there would likely be several insects and a spider.
A digression, (really, another one). I was in the natural history section of the Museum looking at a new exhibit that day which was a large box with glass top several common insects and two spiders one was continuously chasing the other. I called the attendant and pointed that out to him suggesting they take one out, he said it’s new they’ll settle down. I had to tell him that it would only stop when one killed the other. So much for the natural history experts who set it up.

 

[Targa]

I know we've done Duchamp in this thread already, but I seem to remember that along with the urinal (sorry, Urinal) when I saw the exhibit, was something entitled 'The Artist's Breath'. This was a kid's rubber balloon, which had once held the artist (I think it was also Duchamp) 's breath. But it was even more 'meta', because being very old the balloon was only a balloon in concept (it was now a very old flappy bit of very perished red rubber, stuck to a base board) and the breath had long since escaped. This comes to mind because Duchamp was already p*ssed off with (or at least playing with) these ideas a long time ago.

Pierro Manzoni.
It’s at the Tate.

 

[r. giuseppe]

And would there be a cat inside one ?...

And if so, would it have been alive? 🙂

 

[Pete Thomas]

I had to tell him that it would only stop when one killed the other.

Or mated (or attempted to mate) with them. Assuming them was the spider’s pronoun of choice.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Not in the least.

Obviously

A box, in and of itself is a box.
But, context. As I outlined.

yeah. Just a box with a higher price tag.

 

[Targa]

Or mated (or attempted to mate) with them. Assuming them was the spider’s pronoun of choice.

Both females; and nothing like arachnid mating behaviour so I don’t think there were any misguided intentions.

 

[Targa]

yeah. Just a box with a higher price tag.

The boxes themselves must be worthless if it is only art within the context of the museum.
Therefore only the museum could buy the ‘artwork’, no doubt using public funds, the directors wouldn’t ’put their money where their mouth is’.