Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[Vlad]

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.

Maybe it's some kind of Gladatorial Flea Circus type show...

 

[Vlad]

And if so, would it have been alive? 🙂

Yeah, just having a snooze...

 

[Pete Effamy]

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’.

So the insiders known it’s a con!

 

[Targa]

So the insiders known it’s a con!

The ‘insiders’ have to show that they know more than annyone else and in order to justify themselves have to be continually challenging, breaking the boundaries and all the other meaningless phrases.
Rather than the public seeing art which might be printed on a tea towel they would rather show what was mopped up by the floor cloth.

 

[Pete Effamy]

The ‘insiders’ have to show that they know more than annyone else and in order to justify themselves have to be continually challenging, breaking the boundaries and all the other meaningless phrases.
Rather than the public seeing art which might be printed on a tea towel they would rather show what was mopped up by the floor cloth.

Has anyone tried the equivalent art exhibition of John Cage’s 4’33” ?
You pay £35 and get to look around a series of empty rooms.

“Challenges the mind / makes you stop and ponder…” - you know, all those justifications.

 

[Targa]

Has anyone tried the equivalent art exhibition of John Cage’s 4’33” ?
You pay £35 and get to look around a series of empty rooms.

“Challenges the mind / makes you stop and ponder…” - you know, all those justifications.

Sort of. Tate Liverpool ten years or more ago. Fortunately it was free.
The ‘rooms’ were about twenty foot square, I think four of them, interiors painted different colours.
It was combined with a Turner exhibition in the other half of the gallery.
Guess which half the ignorant public spent their time in.

 

[skeller047]

When I judge art or music (or dance or poetry or…) for myself, I can rely on the “Does this speak to me?” test. If I had to justify going somewhere to play music that nobody wants to hear, and losing money in addition, I would be able to do that. I usually have a reason, sometimes many reasons, to go somewhere to play.

If I had to justify the music I played at that venue, I would have a harder time. I might talk about my artistic intent, or throw some other shady BS out there. The truth is I play it because I like it. I like the way it sounds, it means something to me, it feels good.

If I go somewhere to play something I wouldn’t play on my own, it’s because I am getting paid. I sometimes get paid to play something that I WOULD play on my own, in which case I will have a good time. If not, at least I will eat that day. My justification, if asked, would be “I am getting paid to do this.”

I don’t know if the guy who made the fecal bathtub had some intent other than “making a statement”. And perhaps making some money…. The fact that he sued the gallery, rather than just repairing the installation (seems like it would be easy to do), indicates to me that he was more concerned with making money than making a statement. Which in turn makes it fail my “Speak to me” test.

All that to make my point - if the intent of the artist is to communicate something, no matter what, then I don’t think it needs any justification. Speech, in all its forms, is a sacred concept to me. I may or may not like the content, but it’s still part of the human record. But if the artist/performer is merely trying to get rich, then no justification is going to make me respect or appreciate that effort.

I do believe that artists should be paid for their work. Speech has value. More importantly, art in any form is important for the well-being of humanity. But creating content solely to “cash in” is dishonest, and I use my internal BS meter to detect that.

 

[Jimmymack]

Has anyone tried the equivalent art exhibition of John Cage’s 4’33” ?
You pay £35 and get to look around a series of empty rooms.

“Challenges the mind / makes you stop and ponder…” - you know, all those justifications.

Back in the days of Stuctural film making, yes it was a thing, somebody made a film that lasted around 2 hours that was just a blank screen. Pretty much the same idea as Cage’s. The screenings were free though so as not to upset the sensitive.

 

[Jimmymack]

When I was at art school the tutors came round every week and I had to justify what I was doing. The art got worse but my skill in justification was beyond brilliant.

 

[Pete Effamy]

When I was at art school the tutors came round every week and I had to justify what I was doing. The art got worse but my skill in justification was beyond brilliant.

Even that seems odd. Works with the empty room thing: “why have you done that?” ; but seems odd to ask Turner the same question.

 

[Pete Effamy]

When I judge art or music (or dance or poetry or…) for myself, I can rely on the “Does this speak to me?” test. If I had to justify going somewhere to play music that nobody wants to hear, and losing money in addition, I would be able to do that. I usually have a reason, sometimes many reasons, to go somewhere to play.

If I had to justify the music I played at that venue, I would have a harder time. I might talk about my artistic intent, or throw some other shady BS out there. The truth is I play it because I like it. I like the way it sounds, it means something to me, it feels good.

If I go somewhere to play something I wouldn’t play on my own, it’s because I am getting paid. I sometimes get paid to play something that I WOULD play on my own, in which case I will have a good time. If not, at least I will eat that day. My justification, if asked, would be “I am getting paid to do this.”

I don’t know if the guy who made the fecal bathtub had some intent other than “making a statement”. And perhaps making some money…. The fact that he sued the gallery, rather than just repairing the installation (seems like it would be easy to do), indicates to me that he was more concerned with making money than making a statement. Which in turn makes it fail my “Speak to me” test.

All that to make my point - if the intent of the artist is to communicate something, no matter what, then I don’t think it needs any justification. Speech, in all its forms, is a sacred concept to me. I may or may not like the content, but it’s still part of the human record. But if the artist/performer is merely trying to get rich, then no justification is going to make me respect or appreciate that effort.

I do believe that artists should be paid for their work. Speech has value. More importantly, art in any form is important for the well-being of humanity. But creating content solely to “cash in” is dishonest, and I use my internal BS meter to detect that.

Yes, the ‘get rich off the stupidity of people to look at my talentless offerings, masquerading as “beyond cool” ‘ is a large part of my grumbling about this subject.

We’ve had enough of it in music but perhaps it isn’t quite to the same extent.

I find it interesting that people who have the standpoint that all art should be allowed to exist without critique (either like or dislike without judgement) don’t necessarily follow that direction when it comes to music. Simply, it seems, because of the idea that it gets you thinking etc. well, music is supposed to get you feeling, so the same applies. And yes, the words can be used for both art forms.

 

[mizmar]

people who have the standpoint that all art should be allowed to exist without critique

Who said that?

And, also, when you say "allowed" allowed by who? Or, worse, banned by who?

 

[Pete Effamy]

Who said that?

And, also, when you say "allowed" allowed by who? Or, worse, banned by who?

Ok semantics - should be able to exist just because it does.

 

[Targa]

Would it be a fair question, along the lines of what music are you listening to, to ask what art anyone is looking at?
When you are sitting at home that is.

 

[mizmar]

Ok semantics - should be able to exist just because it does.

Yeah. Nobody said "without critique" or anything like it.
There's an interesting, recent, article on Tracy Emmin in the Grawniad with the strap line "She scandalised the art world in the 1990"... The critical reaction was entirely part is the project with our Trac, Hurst etc. interestingly, she's now putting into Margate everything she never had. Him? Nufink.

 

[Grumps]

The people who think Yoko Ono sang a certain way...

She sang???

Seriously though, I have no problem with Yoko Ono. It's just funny is funny. Or not... apparently.

 

[Zasterz]

don’t know if the guy who made the fecal bathtub had some intent other than “making a statement”. And perhaps making some money…. The fact that he sued the gallery, rather than just repairing the installation (seems like it would be easy to do), indicates to me that he was more concerned with making money than making a statement. Which in turn makes it fail my “Speak to me” test.

That “guy” was Joseph Beuys, a major and influential figure of 20th century art. Saying he was “more after money than making a statement” is as ill-informed as the post earlier suggesting Herbie Hancock was just trying to show off how many notes he can play fast.

Like, these are objectively incorrect readings that are more to serve an “I already know all I need to know about the world” sense of superiority than any curiosity or learning. I don’t know what makes some people gravitate towards this default stance towards unfamiliar art, music, etc but I believe it’s unfortunate and that resisting it will keep you young longer, lol.

Also, I had to Google this Beuys bathtub incident and there is no mention anywhere of fecal matter. It seems to have been a sculpture legitimately altered by maintenance at a museum. (Note: the damages were paid to the owner, not to the artist.)

Joseph Beuys "Untitled (Badewanne)" (1960)

In 1973, this work (comprised of a bathtub for infants, in which allegedly the artist himself was bathed, which he then treated with gauze, adhesive plaster, fat and copper wire) was loaned by collector Lothar Schirmer to be presented as part of a travelling exhibition on "Reality, Realism and Reality". It was stored at Castle Morsbroich in Leverkusen, Germany, in preparation of the exhibition. Members of the local branch of the Social Democrat Party (SPD) found the work and accidentally destroyed it by removing the gauze, plaster and fat. (They were in search of a tub or container for cleaning the glasses used at a party at the museum and did not realize it was in fact an artwork.)

In a subsequent lawsuit, the city of Wuppertal (to which it had been loaned) was ordered to pay damages of 58.000 DM.

On commission of Schirmer, the artist restored the work in 1977 in Munich, using the original materials, insofar as they had been found and preserved.

 

[Targa]

One thing I’ve never understood about some artists is why they title the work ‘untitled’ like it’s too much trouble to name it after doing all that work which in the case of ‘found objects’ isn’t much.
Then there is such as ‘untitled number 17 in blue’ which is even more ridiculous sort of a title but not one.
A far cry from when the artist would title the work with a short descriptive sentence.

 

[Grumps]

Good people... I do hope you realize modern art is simply a means for money laundering.

 

[mizmar]

Good people... I do hope you realize modern art is simply a means for money laundering.

So are many bottles of wine