Playing the saxophone How do you justify jazz?

[JayeNM]

Saxophone as lampshade.

You mean a lamp ?

How about "Brick as Percussion Instrument" ?

 

[JayeNM]

But the problem is that much of the art made in service to that philosophy isn't - well - very pleasing, or interesting, or informative, to the viewer.

Does visual art have to be "pleasing" or "informative" necessarily ?

Does music, when you think about it ?

Is it not enough simply to create something to either communicate something ? Or simply have it evoke a response ? Or better yet, a reconsideration, perhaps a path to a new perspective, or even a debate ?

 

[JayeNM]

When does the conversation dip its toe into addressing the music played by black musicians with a degree in jazz? Poor white musicians? Economics crosses race boundaries, ya know. What makes music "authentic?"

My intent was to more address the reality that Jazz, today, "serious jazz", which would exclude Trad Jaz and Smooth jazz...which are considered pandering or 'easy way out' forms of the genre...is mostly being championed, embraced, and performed by folks with a fairly high level of academic background.

It BECAME academicized...this exciting think was developed and evolved, and NOW we gotta somehow figure out how we can turn it into a syylabus - and the result of that (just like many other things) is that it becomes a canonized and "precious-ized".

Someone mentioned the Ken Burns film, and where an opportunity was missed.

But at the end of it, he nails something which was so PRESCIENT, it is a bit scary:

Towards the end, in discussing the (Marsalis-led 80's) "rebirth of straight ahead"...the narrator questions (paraphrasing here) something along the lines as to whether this is an exciting rebirth and a dynamic movement, or something which will ultimately just make straight ahead a museum piece...purveyed by its adherents, but disconnected from the pulse of contemporary culture....

 

[JayeNM]

I wasn't.

Look. There's a thread that runs through art, music, literature, science, most disciplines really; which is about challenging assumptions. It's not the only thing, obviously. It's always been around, I'd guess, but became particularly prevalent in, what? Late medieval times? Modernity? Anyway, it just is a thing.
And the thing about changing assumptions is - almost always - while some find it stimulating, amusing, thrilling even; others find it anywhere from boring to viscerally repugnant... And very often it's folks who are deeply invested in some activity who get most annoyed or push back hardest.
The boxes in the Guggenheim, the plinky-plonky music, etc. are, I've argued, are just that: challenging assumptions right at the edge. Other people challenge assumptions closer to the center - and in music, they're the people history is constructed around... Ya Bachs, Beethovens, Birds etc. stuff that immediately or eventually accepted and which, often, shows up "the establishment" as being stuffy.

Folks who are stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements about the boxes or plinky-plonky music are just part of that history. It's the pushback that lets the artist know it's working.

That was very good

 

[Targa]

Folks who are stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements about the boxes or plinky-plonky music are just part of that history. It's the pushback that lets the artist know it's working.

‘Stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements’ is rather derogatory, just maybe they’ve seen more, have studied more, know more about art than you do?
That’s always a possibility.

 

[Targa]

You mean a lamp ?

How about "Brick as Percussion Instrument" ?

Probably yes, ‘autofill’ as usual, but then why not a lampshade?
As for the brick - seen it done forty or more years ago.

 

[mizmar]

‘Stomping their feet and making dogmatic judgements’ is rather derogatory, just maybe they’ve seen more, have studied more, know more about art than you do?
That’s always a possibility.

Possible. Hard to know from some of the replies... All I've got to go on.

 

[Targa]

Possible. Hard to know from some of the replies... All I've got to go on.

Have you got any original artwork around the house, that is not prints however limited the edition, or do you feel you don’t know enough to spend your hard earned money on what would only be either your judgement or what the ‘experts’ said you should buy?

 

[mizmar]

Have you got any original artwork around the house, that is not prints however limited the edition, or do you feel you don’t know enough to spend your hard earned money on what would only be either your judgement or what the ‘experts’ said you should buy?

I will answer you.
But first, say what conclusion you'll draw with either answer.

 

[Dr G]

Have you got any original artwork around the house, that is not prints however limited the edition, or do you feel you don’t know enough to spend your hard earned money on what would only be either your judgement or what the ‘experts’ said you should buy?

I do - oils and acrylics, and handcrafted jewelry. I buy it because I like it. I really don’t care if anyone else does - they don’t live with it.

 

[Targa]

I will answer you.
But first, say what conclusion you'll draw with either answer.

The answer yes is easier, you are prepared to follow your own ‘beliefs’.
If no, it could be a range of reasons which I would not ask you to elucidate, not follow your ‘beliefs’, no spare cash, a preference for the minimalist look, fear of burglars, etc.

 

[mizmar]

The answer yes is easier, you are prepared to follow your own ‘beliefs’.

Yes - everything on the walls is original and reflect someone or somewhere or sometime.

But.

No - there's no Damian Hirst or Tracey Emmin or Picasso or Lucian Freud ... So No, I'm not following my beliefs... Or am I?

If no, it could be a range of reasons which I would not ask you to elucidate, not follow your ‘beliefs’, no spare cash, a preference for the minimalist look, fear of burglars, etc

So not really informative either way

 

[Targa]

Yes - everything on the walls is original and reflect someone or somewhere or sometime.

But.

No - there's no Damian Hirst or Tracey Emmin or Picasso or Lucian Freud ... So No, I'm not following my beliefs... Or am I?


So not really informative either way

You could be following your beliefs depending on if what you have is a nice picture of granny or ‘chocolate box’ view of the garden or some ‘avant garde’ ‘challenging’ which upsets the vicar.
Then again tennis player scratching her bum would do that.

 

[Zasterz]

I’m pretty sure you can like an artwork without feeling like it would work in your home. I wouldn’t turn down a free (or just affordable) Jackson Pollock but it doesn’t exactly suit my decor.

 

[mark_addy]

Oh yes.
I normally drink tap water while practicing. I'm hoping that shifting to upmarket mineral water will improve my artistry.
Thanks for the insight

You remind me of a famous quote from the playwright Alan Bennet, who, at a time when the press was more prurient about such things, was asked by a journalist if he was a homosexual. His retort was that this was like asking a man dying of thirst in the Sahara whether he preferred Evian or Perrier 🙂

 

[r. giuseppe]

I asked google for a few examples of music criticism from the past. I only picked pieces or composers that are no longer suspicious of pushing the boarders from today's perspective.

Ludwig Spohr about Beethovens 9th final movement: "so ugly, in such bad taste, and in the conception of Schiller's Ode so cheap that I cannot even now understand how such a genius as Beethoven could write it down."

Eduard Hanslick on Tchaikovsky's violin concerto: "the violin is no longer played; it is tugged about, torn, beaten black and blue. ...(his) concerto brings to us for the first time the horrid idea that there may be music that stinks in the ear."

Chopin about Schumann's Carnaval: "...not music at all."

Clara Schumann about Liszt's sonata: "truly appalling, and even worse that I have to thank him for it."

Gustav Engel on Liszt's sonata: “The structure rests on harmonic and rhythmic effusions that have not the slightest connection with beauty. Even the first theme must be dismissed as completely inartistic. Admittedly, what we get during the development is yet worse.”

Eduard Hanslick on the same piece: “Here all criticism, all discussion must cease. Anyone who has heard this and found it beautiful is beyond help.”

John Ruskin to John Brown: "Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of bags of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer."

I find it quite refreshing to read this and try to put myself in the critique's position. And in the end it seems that art has a magic anarchistic impetus that is driven by good art, bad art, fraud, excitement and anger. By cymbal incidents and sometimes unfortunately even assault.

If you ask me, the cardboard boxes are part of the game, part of a bigger picture, as is the anger and indignation about them. Will the cardboard boxes survive over time? Probably not, although I am not sure if I'd bet. But the fact, that art CAN do this and still be art (and at the same time be challenged to not be art) is what art is all about. When we look at the fruits of an era, we usually don't see the bad art and mediocre art of the era that set the stage for something outstanding to be created.

 

[Pete Effamy]

But the fact, that art CAN do this and still be art (

This is my struggle. Who decrees that it is, and why can’t someone else decree it not to be?

 

[r. giuseppe]

This is my struggle. Who decrees that it is, and why can’t someone else decree it not to be?

In understand your struggle. There is maybe some kind of agreement in the art community or in the artist's head that art is supposed to be free, and art turns art by declaration.

Art hasn't always been free. Actually for long times it hasn't been free merely because of economic pressure. But whenever art was or is not free from an outside perspective, artists express their longing for freedom.
And not everyone in the art community (including the audience) agrees with a freedom of art, which is what we are talking about. Of course a curator can say something is no art and refuse to display it. In some countries certain works will be not allowed to be displayed and officially be declared not being art. But in the end, history mostly refuses official declarations of what is being art or not - luckily.

So where does the idea of freedom in art come from? I think it comes from creativity itself. When you are creative, your creativity does not accept borders. When you select work for an exhibition or pieces for recording, it may be a different story. Taste, money. But creativity is free.

However, I believe anyone can give his or her judgement that something is not art. "Decree" does not really fit for me here or suggests a political component rather than an artistic view in criticism. I think honest criticism is an important part of art, including if you think that a certain piece does not qualify as art. But maybe the content of criticism (lack of artistry, lack of craftsmanship) is even more important than a discussion of what is art and what isn't. Otherwise, one would have to start defining for every piece of art if it really qualifies as art. I don't think this is important and maybe even a waste of time. "Art" is not a protected label and should not be. "Good art" however is something different, this is a label given by the audience, by peers and critics.

 

[Zasterz]

This is my struggle. Who decrees that it is, and why can’t someone else decree it not to be?

The more interesting question to me is why “decree” in the first place? Why not just say “it doesn’t speak to me” and move on? I really dislike roasted red pepper. It doesn’t make me feel I have to convince anyone else that it’s bad though, I simple accept that I don’t like this thing and other people like it.

 

[Pete Effamy]

The more interesting question to me is why “decree” in the first place? Why not just say “it doesn’t speak to me” and move on? I really dislike roasted red pepper. It doesn’t make me feel I have to convince anyone else that it’s bad though, I simple accept that I don’t like this thing and other people like it.

Because that is not the words that have appeared in this thread several times. I don’t have a problem with that, but as soon as anyone says (a subjective thing) IS this; then someone can just as well say that it isn’t.

If a curator is basically saying - here’s my collection this autumn, come down, hope you enjoy it as I do - then that’s an entirely different thing. Even “this is my take on art”.