Re: Nice calm, flameless art theory from Mark

["John Price" <jprice@intcpi.com>]

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)