Re: art

[Brian Steven Cady <cadyb@mindspring.com>]

At 11:50 PM 10/15/98 -0400, McGoo wrote:
>Rock is not, never was,
>and never will be art.  Rock music is essentially just a very long
>lasting fad.  All you have to do to be a rock star is wear strange clothes,
>scream a lot and make loud noise.  Quality control is something that rock
never
>had.  In fact rock is perhaps the greatest example of how superficial Western
>culture is.  There have been very few people who actually tried to turn rock
>into something more than it was (Pete Townshend, Frank Zappa and maybe
>someone else), but they ended up failing because the public refused to accept
>that rock was not already the pinnacle of artistic endeavors.
Essentially, rock
>is nothing more than what it is.  It is a form a mass entertainment.  It is
>not art, it is not capable of being art.

The problem with the above is that you say that PT and Zappa tried to make
Rock art but failed because fans wouldn't accept it.  But in the rest of
your statement you say that Rock cannot be art.  Then isn't what you mean
to say is that PT and Zappa failed becuase the medium in which they worked
was incapable of sustaining art, not because the audience wouldn't accept it?

>It is critical that we recognize things for what they are.  Flies are
>bugs, baseballs are round and The Who are entertainers.

So was Mozart, Homer and in fact all artists prior to the middle of the
Nineteenth Century.

>They are a
>group of people who make a lot of noise that people like to listen to.

You mean like Wagner?  Go read his early reviews where critics talk about
how loud and obnoxious his music was.

>Now for the disclaimer.  I enjoy The Who.  But I enjoy them for what
>they are, entertainment.  I guess someone can claim that they are
>artists who produce art.  But if you are interested in lyrics, try a
>poem by Dickinson.  They are deeper, have more meaning and are generally
>better than a Townshend song.  If you are interested in good music, try
>listening to Stravinsky.  He is just a better musician.  They are
>artists, The Who are entertainers.

I read Dickinson and I listen to Stravinsky (in fact a lot of classical
music).  The Who move me more than they do.  Why?  That's my taste.  If
ability were the only requisite for art, then we can now paint over those
cave paintings in France.  In fact why not destroy Beethoven's works
because they aren't as well written as Mozart's?

Ultimately only one thing distinguishes art from trash (not entertainment;
entertainment can be art) and that is time.  If one hundred years from now
people still listen to The Who and it moves them, it's art.  If they hear
them and go "what was that all about?" it's trash.

				-Brian in Atlanta