Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
This thread must die !!! Regards, JP Mark Sottilaro wrote: > Hello all! > > OK, I'd like to take a little time here to point out that in my first > post about "art theory" I described "...the generally accepted > contemporary theory of art..." In case anyone hasn't noticed, I didn't > formulate this theory. I was merely stating what it was. We can all > argue until we're blue in the face, but this will not change the current > paradigm... at least not in the short run. I only began lashing out > when I was attacked personally, as if I was the person keeping artists > in "boxes" by formulating horrible theories and making terrible > definitions for words. > > Do I subscribe to the current (western) theories of art that I spoke > of? You bet. > > Why? > > It all has to do with VALUE. I'm one of those people that make my > living by doing art. Because I do I find it extremely crucial to define > what it is that I do because NO ONE WILL PAY FOR SOMETHING UNLESS THEY > KNOW WHAT IT IS. Did I cause this cultural phenomena? No. Is it > real? Yes. As someone who works for a non-profit organization that > receives money from the NEA, I spend a large amount of time defending > artists (that I usually have nothing to do with) such as Robert > Maplethorpe or Mark Rothko. "A red square isn't art! Anyone could do > that! " or "My tax money shouldn't go for that homo crap!" Oh boy, if > ignorance is bliss you'd expect these people to be a lot happier! You > wouldn't believe how many times I hear stuff like that. About as many > times as I have to defend my own minimalist works. "That's not > music...it's just a drone." I'm sure we've all heard things like that. > > The problem with the current "art had no purpose other than to be > itself" theory,is not the theory itself, but the fact that art in our > culture has been devalued. (unless you happen to be a superstar) I > haven't been following the last cd price thread, but haven't we been > talking about this? Most club owners seem to feel that playing music is > the only reward needed for being a musician, but find absolutely no > problem paying to have the floor cleaned. Subsequently, most of us have > to struggle at some other type of work to fund the often exorbitant cost > of musical instruments and the wacky gear that we all love so much. > (I'm saving for a Digitech Space Station as we speak!) This is why I > feel that people have reacted so strongly against the theory I've been > talking about. Artists want to be regarded as the french fry maker is > regarded. By that I mean PAID. Yes, Lance, I listen to Gamalan music > all the time (Cornell University has quite the Gamalan set up) and It's > very nice that the Balinese people don't have a word for art. I can't > say I know anything about their culture, but I'd bet that those who > master the art of Gamalan are regarded very highly in their society, and > compensated for it in some way. I bet they don't even have to pay to > use the PA when they play out. ;-) (sorry, I just can't help being a > sarcastic bastard) I'd love for our culture to be like that, but guess > what? It's not. We're capitalists and unless we can find ways to fund > what we do, we're probably not doing it. I agree that things are pretty > sad at the moment. I hope that the free exchange of thoughts via the > internet will free us from the shackles of BIG BUSINESS IN THE ART WORLD > by allowing us to distribute our stuff by ourselves. Maybe then the > myth of the superstar will die and we can be regarded as people who do a > specific job in our society, a highly valued job. > > Ok, I'm rambling, so I'll shut up. > > Love, > > Mark > > (I'm currently defining "love" as a warm squishy feeling towards > humanity)