On the commodification of art, music, personality, the new
January 23, 2007
How can you like someone because what they do is different -
and then expect them to do it exactly the same every time there on out for everyone?
How can you like someone because what they do is different -
and then expect them to do it exactly the same every time there on out for everyone?
Ch. commented
on January 26, 2007 5:47 pm
I think the end results of the creative process are sometimes very difficult to extricate from the process and from personality of the creator for those who are not inclined to that process themselves. This gives rise to type-casting for actors, the difficult second album for musicians, etc. I think this also explains why those performers or creators who cultivate celebrity or fabricate an image are more successful than those who present themselves anonymously or in opposition to the notions of those attracted to their work.
They’re pretty much free to do what they want as long as they don’t cheat the expectations of their audience and as long as they convey that their lives mirror their art in some fundamental way…
Chris commented
on January 29, 2007 9:54 am
I think that this is why I tend to prefer artists (regardless of medium) that don’t go with “concept” works but tend to have a wide breadth of quality work from many strata.
For example some of my favorite albums contain blues, rock, electronic & other genres.
With regards to actors I’d say to a large extent the best actors with the greatest range are those who disappear into their roles rather than playing themselves as someone else.
Not limiting oneself to a specific theme tends to eliminate the abovementioned second album problem.
Of course that’s not always the case nor is it always possible. I think to a large part is the commoditizing of art or any creative endeavor is more a symptom of the consumerist centric world we’ve become. Even among the “liberal elite” (heh) who pride themselves on eco-responsibility you’ll find a large amount of disposable choice and shortcuts.
In the end I think we’re labeling trends that are the effects of far greater yet somewhat more hidden issues.
Tamara commented
on January 30, 2007 1:21 pm
Totally! What got me thinking on it was this article in the Stranger, which in itself held very little interest for me but triggered a pattern recognition. Charles, in particular I was thinking about the difficult second album thing. And Chris, spot-on with your labeling of trends thought, which I admit (despite my indignant protests against being labeled myself) is a game my marketing brain loves to play. And again of course with this discussion, we’re making gross generalizations. But I continue.
And of course, I thought of my own experiences trying to make a living while my interests vacillated weekly from dark, aggressive electronic music, to droney physical experimentations in vibration, to bouncy dancefloors, to comfort in familiar favorites and echoes of legacy, to the excitement of newness, and back.
When I started DJing, the pure joy of experimentation was contagious, and I wasn’t just a “drum and bass DJ”, it was just what loved the sound of at the time. It was intelligent and new enough for me. And it was okay to mix it up with whatever, and to come from and to go to wherever, because I was always in the “side room”, where experimentation happened.
Unfortunately a modicum of skill + that excitement turned into a thing I was expected to reproduce all the time, and honestly I often got bored with it all. The the side room and the chill room disappeared and/or were segregated, and the jungle room appeared. And there you are, pigeonholed or unemployed. And since when does what you see = what you get? I can’t go out and have the same conversation about the same 6 records for 12 years. In front of speaker stacks. Now I wince when I have to talk about being a DJ and the first question up is “Oh? What kind of music?”
It’s exactly like studying singing in a conservatory was, where you’re a mezzo or a coloratura or an “-ina” and that’s what you get to sing and study. And in repertoire up to 20th century, that’s what you get for four years. Yawn. No wonder composition stole my attention.
Now I have a particularly short attention span, so I don’t really count. But the whole point is, that mass consumption = mass assumption, and while the artistic life has always been a struggle, our culture is set up in a way now in particular that encourages the catering to the common at the expense of further experimentation, or the dumbing down of high ideas to the lower common denominator in the pursuit of food and shelter. I’m sure at the very least it cuts down the forward momentum and the fruitfulness of learning from one’s mistakes. Not that Beethoven’s genius did or did not suffer for having to stick to church music, and not that The Black Lips belong anywhere near this discussion.
I wonder how much more slowly “new” happens now, at least high quality new, now that patronage is less invested in the longer process and depends on mass appeal. I am again reassured that my decision to do my ugliest artistic growth in private for a while and work for others for a living is the right way to go. For now, anyway. Not that I’m chasing the bleeding edge - but I’m not chasing critical approval anymore, either. Just a paycheck, and some naked hours on the weekend, and a minimum of waste in between. Ives style. One can hope.
Ch. commented
on January 30, 2007 5:05 pm
A couple of points (ha - I mistyped, wrote pints; this discussion calls for drinks) that I would make:
In hindsight I wasn’t happy with my ‘difficult 2nd album’ analogy since that is also typically born of an artist or group working-on-the-fly and not having has much performance-tested material to work with as is typically the case with a first album which has usually been work-shopped for some time before it is recorded. I suppose it still applies since expectations for the second are largely set by the experience with the first, just wanted to qualify that a bit.
I would also argue that your (Tamara) attention span is no longer or shorter than it needs to be for you. I think in general we think about things as long as we need to and our attention spans are only labeled short by others who need a little more time to wrestle with ideas/concepts/artworks, etc. than we do.
So you count a lot. So much, in fact, that it takes other people longer to count for as much - or at least it would if there weren’t so many of them, y’know?
Anyway, I wouldn’t think that composition is for the short of attention span; that can be fairly involved, more so than just singing (although elements of composition and improvising can certainly take singing to another level.) Isn’t that the difference between writing a string quartet and belting it out in an American Idol try out?
While, I frequently use that label on myself, it’s generally for the benefit of others, to make it clear to them that I don’t generally want to belabor something that is not interesting to me. I’m giving them a cue not to expect me to stick to a single idea or topic for an extended period of time. I suppose that I’m hoping to create a foundation for a better working relationship by setting expectations appropriately: “Most people find me flighty, abstract and esoteric so I should interpolate that into my representation of self so that others can adjust accordingly and avoid the friction caused by the discovery that I move quickly…”
Sometimes I also use it as a criticism of myself, although it really has less to do with my ability to hold a plot or thread for a given amount of time than it is an expression of disappointment that I haven’t been able to come up with some more meaningful results in thinking about whatever it was for exactly the right amount of time. “I can make neither heads nor tails of this and really want to think about something else now. If only my attention span were longer (I might produce more meaningful thought on this matter.)”
‘New’ is problematic. Many ‘new’ works are not ‘new’ in conception or execution. If there is a slowing of the ‘new’ it is probably more out of an increased awareness of history.
The internet centralizes and facilitates our knowledge of ‘all that has gone before’ to a vast degree, in the process it equalizes the marginal and the central to a degree; the works of Beethoven and those of the Black Lips achieve a kind equality when they are documented with the same assiduity. Or Henry Darger and Picasso.
Take this, for instance:
http://www.balticmill.com/whatsOn/future/ExhibitionDetail.php?exhibID=64
Brian Eno’s bazillions-of-paintings exhibition. Is it a new work? Sure, it’s new to exhibition. Is it really new? I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head that is the same. But is it really, really new? Nah - indeterminacy and stochastic systems have been used in art before. Xenakis, Jackson Pollock leap to mind.
Patronage doesn’t seem to exist to a meaningful degree anymore. Capitalism is the model that replaced it; money is used to aggregate talent capital that is then leveraged into more money. The actual output is no longer the point in that model, just a byproduct of the economic engine. Mass appeal is necessary to sustaining that. The only long term process that is invested in is that of turning money into more money through a kind of alchemical transformation of talent.
Experimentation is essential to that process, if more so at some times than at others. The 60s and 70s were incredibly fertile in the arts in terms of experimentation with new technologies, new forms, structures, concepts, narrative threads, etc. The 80s, 90s seemed a sort of retrenchment in comparison. I’m not sure what to make of the oughts yet. Seems like technology and new social spaces are beginning to work a transformation again.
I think you’ve sort of caged yourself with the labels and logic that you’ve used. “Joy of experimentation”, “bleeding edge”, “critical approval”, etc. You lay out the things that are meaningful to you and then you describe how you’ve decided to actually retreat from that: I am again reassured that my decision to do my ugliest artistic growth in private for a while and work for others for a living is the right way to go.
You cite the lack of ‘high quality new’ as the validation for your decision. Is that to say it’s ok to withdraw from public expression since no one else is doing anything all that exciting either?
Is art/creativity meaningful without an audience? I wonder; you don’t have to pander to an audience or court one, but isn’t it a necessary apart of the communication model to have one. Or at least the possibility of one?
Can one truly grow in private, without feedback, without being challenged by others? If art is expression, isn’t that like talking to yourself in an empty room?
How do you measure whether you are on the path to ‘newness’ without someone saying, ‘I’m reminded of…’ or ‘What on Earth led you to do that?’
And besides, sometimes the magic is just in the realization of something. How much might you miss in your own work that someone else could point out to you?
Certainly not attacking you or your position, just trying to point out the pitfalls in your labels and logic. It seems like it could be treacherous.
I think there’s something to be said for airing your ugliest artistic growth. That’s what the best rock music has always been about. I remember reading about how the audience would very nearly riot at old Suicide gigs. I thought, ‘How gratifying it must be to make such an impression on people.’ I’m sure it gets old after a while, having beer bottles lobbed at you, and I’m sure as an audience member I would feel that something was missing if I went to a gig that was full of menace and a hint of danger to one where people were just standing there - I might feel like the artist had lost the ability to produce such a strong reaction, either through weaker material, concession to convention, whatever - and the artist no doubt wearies of being expected to manufacturer that element of danger for me, the jaded audience member who always wants something crazy…
But through it all that feedback loop is there, the communication and exchange is there.
It seems that art is a little like the sound a falling tree makes, you know?
A bit of a digression, I guess.
Maybe it’s less about doing the same thing over and over again than it is about finding the right context or outlet or audience for what it is you do want to do. I almost always want to get my head around things that challenge my notions, my aesthetics, my assumptions. I can usually foster an appreciation for those things, even if I don’t end up loving it. I think there’s definitely an audience out there for experimentation and difficulty, maybe it’s just a matter of finding that audience or finding that venue.
I know: fine talk coming from a non-artist. Just a further digression, thinking out loud.
Once definitely hope. I just fear that, ultimately, one must do as well - the clock is ticking for me and I really need to get off my ass and go do something…
Ch. commented
on January 30, 2007 5:22 pm
Something I forgot to mention: I think that, if nothing else, public artistic growth (ugly or otherwise) will assure of the change and growth that you need and perhaps in the process define or redefine your audience to one that expects growth or change or challenge. I think the growth of the audience is an integral part of the art experience.
Of course, you cultivate an audience of demanding hard asses and they’ll totally slag you off the first time they see you ‘repeating yourself’…