art vs. entertainment

  • Thread starter Thread starter brandon.w
  • Start date Start date
Art surely is one of the most loosely based term in the English dictionary. Essentially it should imply something of absolute originilality. Surely once any band has been discovered they artistic credability is hindered. The emphasis for producing records to listen too is overidden by the need to produce other products such as videos, and it seems apparent that there have been no really 'ugly rock stars' since the emmergence of MTV. As for these bubble gum popstars, I cannot express my distain enough, as much as they are annoying and disgusting, they should never be viewed as art. The underlying theme of these 'artists' is money making (as with most mainstream bands). The only justification I can give for them is that they make my favourite bands sound better - the 'uglier' they sound, the better the stuff I listen to sounds.

Moreover, while I can not say this without sounding a tad contradictory, it seems that the power of mainstream music propaganda is becoming evermore powerful. Every big band is created essentially by homing in on a particular sub-culture untill that niche has been raped for all it is worth. (Whearas 20 or so years ago most of these bands created their own following). Maybe being British I should not be allowed to say this but anyway, most the so called contemporary US 'alternative' music I see on TV and hear on the radio is coming from (in my opinion) talentless corporate rock bands. There seems to be no instigators or pioneers coming from the US of recently. I can apprecite bands such as Korn and Rage against the machine, for their sheer originality, but bands such as Linkin park (allegedy a manufactured band) and Papa roach are targeted at pre-pubesant audience, there is no anger and no controvesy surrounding these bands. Before you say, yes British mainstream music at the moment is as shit as it comes.

Sorry for going on for so long but I felt it had to be said, John
 
John you are right!Music is at a all time low...As far as ugly "artists"...Macy Grey ..well shes a little ruff on the eyes..And for the all time worst sounding, looking,annoying...Da Da..Get your feak on,Get your freak on..Missy Elliott...She could scare the paint off a Buick..LOL


Don
 
John Gillard said:
Art surely is one of the most loosely based term in the English dictionary. Essentially it should imply something of absolute originilality.

"absolute originality"...I like that. It makes me want to tear the paintings off my walls, burn my CD collection, and sell my instruments on eBay. But, still, I like it.

<-peace->
 
!!Wow!!

QUOTE:
Roel
Force of Nature

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Back in Belgium...
Posts: 687

" One of my best friends is an educated visual artist, starting his career... he said...: 'art is whatever the artist says it is. If the artist puts an apple on a chair, and says it is art, then it is.' "


=====================

DA---->> OHMYGOD! THAT quote fell right in my lap!

Need I remind you, as per another conversation we had a long time ago, that THAT attitude is the direct influence of YOKO. YES, Yoko Ono.

NOT ONLY THAT, but that's a DIRECT QUOTE of Yoko's, from YEARS AGO. No doubt, Yoko's ahead of her time.

First, you hear Yoko say "'art is whatever the artist says it is. If the artist puts an apple on a chair, and says it is art, then it is." It's on tape, on record, from way-way back, before the "Reagan Era".

THEN 20 YEARS LATER, you hear COLLEGE KIDS saying that, as if it's GOSPEL!

Who says Yoko had no influence on the art world? Come on, I'll take you all on!

Yoko still Rules!

Ref: the "Yoko Rules" thread from a few months back. Thank you, I rest my case.

-thanx Roel!
 
Hey, that really is what the dude told me... But he wasn't really quoting Yoko Ono. He was discussing about what art is to a girl that was questioning the artistic value of the apple-on-a-chair artwork by whoever made that. Which was part of the statement of the apple-on-a-chair artwork.

It wasn't Yoko Ono that put the apple on the chair, right?
 
I'm sure he wasn't quoting Yoko directly, or intending to,

and I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that, no matter who said it, but Yoko said it. And as a matter of fact, Yoko is known for "an apple on a chair" as art, and other kooky things like that.

I'll be darned if that statement is not a verbatim Yoko quote, and the whole attitude is definitely very much Yoko. Yoko made that quote in the 70's, and everyone thought she was a kook.

Now, it's taught in art school, and is taken for granted, that " 'art is whatever the artist says it is. If the artist puts an apple on a chair, and says it is art, then it is.' "

That quote just rang in my head to loud. I'm sure Yoko said that, over 20 years ago. I'm sure he wasn't trying to quote her, but he did anyway.

I'll have to search the Lennon interview archives for that quote.
 
I'll ask the dude about it... Confront him with what you told me... See what happens. He might just explode in a thousand little stars, head for the moon in that state and twingle forever. That would be just a thing for him to do. Ah, I hate that stupid green goblin-dude. Says he's an artist. I always gets the blame for what he does. Art, right...

:confused:

Now that is bullshit. I'll ask the guy.
 
you need to stop assuming

I play violin, cello, flute, trombone, and trumpet.
 
about the performance is art comment.

That IS a difficult thing to argue, to a degree I can completely see your point and agree...a performance of a piece can be varied and inturpreted, and in a way, performance is an artform in itself...however, I was refering to the actual product of art, the materialistic manifestation of it. And I like to consider emotional and social impact. I really do NOT believe mandy moore, nsynch, backstreet boys, brittney spears, or any of these syndicated pop groups have anything to offer on ANY scale...except what was mentioned, immediate gradification, and that falls into my social ethics, I believe that is damaging, and not good in any way at all. I don't have a distain for my audience, because the average american is NOT my audience, my audience is a bit brighter. I would thank you not to jump to conclutions about my musical training or skills.

love,
brandon.
 
"Better still, write a song that's one half as catchy, impeccably arranged, and well-recorded as Mandy Moore's song, "In My Pocket". Let me know when you're done, because I'll be first in line to buy your album."

are you saying Mandy Moore wrote and recorded it? Because I seriously doubt it. I WOULD believe that a team of classically trained profesinal producers and studio musicians with no sense of artistic responcibility did, recorded it in a multi-million dollar studio payed for by preteens with raging hormones and underdeveloped senses of importiance, and then handed it to an anorexic 14 year old that can sing.

If I were pretty enough I COULD do what she does. I might require 4 more abercrombie and fitch models to do it with me, but I could do it, then you'd be singing my praises.
 
Eating disorders are extremely serious, and not good comedic material.

Otherwise, I see nothing there worth commenting on.
 
Perfomance = Entertainment.....Perception = Art...


Don
 
wasn't a comedy bit...it was social commentary. And I disagree Don, I believe good art is entertaining itself...but popular, generalized and mass distributed entertainment for the most part is damaging crap...so...

art = entertaining

entertainment = crap.
 
I consider Andy Warhol crap...Some think its great..Its pop art...Or should I say poop art..LOL..The thing about art..its like beauty its in the eye {perseption} of the beholder..I like Norman Rockwell however many critics did not consider him art.I say F'em I connect with it!Brandon, like you, all here are artists so to see our craft done ..well what we consider poorly{and unemotionly}its agravating!If you wer'nt passionate about it wouldn't phase you..But someone connects with it ..so to me its art,good art no, but art none the less...But we can agree to disagree


Don
 
I think you misunderstand me. I believe ART's worth truly IS in the eye of the beholder...I just don't believe manufactured entertainment to be art...Andy Worhol's work was art, many loved it, a lot hated it, that was up to the viewer...but if he set out to make money, and designed his art around that...it would be entertainment...see my point? Mandy Moore, and all that rubbish is DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY, not simply created for it's own sake...as art is. I'm not saying that all art is good at all, there's plenty of crap out there (in my opinion) that is perfectly valid as art. But there is probably more crap out there that I consider to be entertainment, not art.
 
In other words, it's art if Brandon likes it. I think I'm clear on this now.
 
Brandon this is a interesting debate,So if I continue it is not for anything other than that! Mandy Moore is "marketed" so they use her sex..But if you think about her doin her vox in the studio doin her best to "deliver" a great performance..Thats her art{her interpertaion of the lyric} it maybe weak for you,but to her its not..Her art/the songwriters may be vapid..Its the marketing that is insidious...Dont hate the singer, hate the record company for being the patron ...

Don
 
Re: I'm sure he wasn't quoting Yoko directly, or intending to,

A Reel Person said:
That quote just rang in my head to loud. I'm sure Yoko said that, over 20 years ago. I'm sure he wasn't trying to quote her, but he did anyway.

Well... Apparently Yoko wasn't the first to say it either... :D

It's a work of Duchamp... One of the most important artists in the evolution of visual arts. Kindof their Stravinsky...

I found this somewhere on the net:
"Marcel Duchamp painted a moustache and beard on the famous Mona Lisa. He also produced a series of 'ready-made' objects for display in art galleries: a urinal, bottle rack, a bicycle wheel, and so on. His theory: if these ordinary objects are displayed in an art gallery, they must be Art! Also the world was already full of 'interesting' objects, the artist need not make any more. Just choose a ready-made one and this act was an act of creation."
 
Thanx Roel,

-that was an informative and interesting post. Well done.:)
 
Chew on this...

I visited Yoko's touring "ART SHOW" at Cranbrook Institute about 11 years ago. IMHO it was the work of a woman with too much money and not enough to do. It was neither artistic nor entertaining. Maybe she hung out with Warhol and got into some kind of WANNABE mode. I have also heard lots of crappy songs from no-talent writers who call themselves "artists" (lower case). Most of them do it to justify the lifestyle . If Yoko had not been associated w/ J.L her "art" (lower case) would have gone begging at a garage sale . Uninspired and poorly executed ain't gonna fly, boys and girls. Wait a couple of hundred years and then decide if it's Art. To quote Lenny Bruce " Is there anyone out there that I havent offended?" Don't get me started on how she screwed up JL's writing....
chazba
 
Back
Top