Is Music The Lowest Art Form?

[Mat Rhodes]

Chas, you'll have to pardon the lame analogy, but musicians are like farmers and painters are like hunter/gatherers. The time, method, and energy spent producing both kinds of "food" are different, but the hunter/gatherer has the potential to acquire/produce more of it in a shorter space of time. Is "more" better or result in "higher" art? I don't know. The food itself isn't as important to me as long as it's healthful and I can get it when I need it. I don't mean to belabor the point.

An unpallatable green like kale is probably more "sophisticated" than a Macintosh apple, but both are food and both grow from the same soil. Perhaps it's the length of time and the steps that must be completed that make one form of art higher than another. That was the original question.

You work with a couple of mediums outside of music if I recall correctly, so you have as good a take on this as it gets. I work with stained glass which hangs and slides in a few of the windows in my house. I don't have to turn on a switch, load in a CD, or sit in a special chair near the headphones to take stock of what I made. I just glance up at it and it's there.

Maybe music is the higher art form because of its potential level of abstraction as well. Although songs like "Ninety Nine Problems (And A B*@#! Ain't One)" leave me wondering if abstraction is a desirable/marketable element these days. I just know that I sometimes get impatient with the production process. Maybe it's time I learned CakeWalk...

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Perhaps it's the length of time and the steps that must be completed that make one form of art higher than another. That was the original question.

Matt, I've spent 30 years, so far, learning to play the steel guitar. I spent 6 1/2 years in college learning how to compose music and have been composing for the past 30 years. At the same time, I've spent 35 years as a professional welder/machinist. Most of the artists I work for are all in their 50's and 60's and have been making art for over 30 years.

Anybody can pick up a guitar and start singing. I'm sure you've heard someone brag about their 'uncle bill', who never took a lesson in his life, and probably sounds like it. By the same token, anybody can pick up a brush or crayon and push it around on paper or what not. Is it art? I don't know, maybe. Is it great art? Probably not. Is it fine art? Nope.

I have friends who were in punk bands, way back, and one of them, who is now a very successful film composer, and I were talking. He said that they wanted to play music and didn't want to have to spend the 10 years or so learning to play their instruments. They just wanted to play. Now.

So here's the thing. The music that they did didn't have technical expertise, but it had an enormous energy and force. Is it good music? Now I know that there are a lot of Forum members who would say absolutely not, it's noise, and I understand and respect the validity of their opinion. I also disagree. Do I want to listen to a lot of it? No.

Back to the length of time and steps thing. I just finished a 5 minute piece for the next Cold Blue Compilation, where Jim wanted me to write one for steel guitar and B3 Hammond.

About 2 weeks to write it, 5 days to record the parts, 3 weeks, off and on, to assemble and mix in ProTools.

The Nancy Rubins sculpture at Lincoln Center last summer took me 310 hrs to fabricate the armature out of stainless steel. The Paul McCarthy Underwater World, kinetic sculpture, took me over 2000 hours to fabricate.

Maybe music is the higher art form because of its potential level of abstraction as well....... I just know that I sometimes get impatient with the production process.

The impatience is hard to deal with. We've all been conditioned to expect that things will come easy, problems are solved in 40 minutes and discomfort can be eliminated by taking a pill. These are all goal oriented things that ignore and bypass the process. The process being what it takes to get to the goal.

I have a shop and studio here. What this gives me is an opportunity to exercise and enjoy my skills. This, in turn, validates who I think I am and is the most enjoyable thing I do, in this life.

Every now and then I'm able to save up enough to lock myself in my studio for extended periods of time, just to work on the next cd. I shut the door, time stops, the world goes away and I get to play and work with the real "magic". I rarely listen to anything I've done after it's finished because the joy is in the process.

[Bob Hickish]

Question is --- Is Music The Lowest Art Form?

Maybe so !! Rap comes to mind .

Nah !!! That ant even music !!!
OOOpsss -:oops:-- Does that make me a critic ?

[Richard Sevigny]

Does that make me a critic ?

Everybody's a critic...

[David L. Donald]

I have worked in both visual and time variable arts;
Graphics, video, 3D & 2D animation, photography,
music(s), theater, 'performance art', even a touch
of painting and clothing design/silk screening etc,
and architecture / interior design.

For myself I AM the 'Ultimate Critic'.

It is MY personal decision to say :
'Yes, this means something to me.'
'No, this is just irrelevant junk.'

It can be based on gut reaction,
or logical intepretation and analysis,
or some amorphus combination of the two extremes.

Whether or not MY opinion about art has
any relevance for OTHERS, is a moot point.

I am certain for some it does,
and for many it doesn't.

[James Cann]

We are not the ultimate critics of Art or Music.

Oh yeah? Sez who?!

. . . all of which must now cry out for Mr. Prior's further comment on who, indeed, is (are?) the ultimate critics.

Lights are up, Mr. P!

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Rap comes to mind .

Nah !!! That ant even music !!!

I thought rap was poetry.

[David L. Donald]

I rhyme, therefor I am.

[Barry Blackwood]

Poetry for the "unwashed masses." IMO, of course.

[Dayna Wills]

Chas,
You say you go into the studio and the world goes away.... I get that. What I wonder about is how can ANYBODY who is a musician or a singer walk away from it? I have come to the conclusion that THEY are not terminal and that I AM! I would think that everyone on the Forum is terminal and will play til they
d-i-e!

[David L. Donald]

Most people have musical thoughts.

Like an artist, some times you just put down
the brush and think of other things.
You may not paint as fast when you start up again,
but eventually hit stride in an different direction.

Some people never get there at all,
but STILL think they can do something.

When to most of US.. it's clear they can't...

Like cream or pond scum rising to the top,
incompetence finds it's natural level,
and also tends to find a setting in which
it actually can appear at the top.

[Dave Mudgett]

Is Music The Lowest Art Form?

Not in my opinion. At a certain level, I don't even think it's a valid question. Since you use the term "art", then to begin to answer this question, you need to define it, and then have some standard to judge it. Mathematically, you're stating that there is some kind of ordering on the set of artistic objects, and I think that is a tough proposition. You can impose one if you like - but it needs to be very clearly stated, and also understood that this is just one way to do it. To me, there is no "objective" or "absolute" standard, so there is no "absolute" low or high. Geez, guys - Einstein showed that there can't be an absolute reference frame in physics. Do you really think there can be one for art?

What is art, anyway? IMO, the only invariant property of art, of any type, is that it must be made by people as a type of genuine expression. To my tastes, good art is some kind of clear and moving communication from the artist to other people. Yes, people do judge art, but those judgements are just a set of opinions. I think one can find people who like or dislike any piece of art.

Perhaps it's the length of time and the steps that must be completed that make one form of art higher than another. That was the original question.

I totally disagree. I agree that the artistic process is important from practical point of view and, as Chas says, is a big part of the pleasure. But if someone can simply and quickly intuit that which takes someone else decades to master, is it a lower form of art? I don't think so. Your notion makes it sound like there is an "algorithm" to create art, and the "level" of artistic creation is tied to the algorithm's complexity. I suppose you can define it that way, but what does that have to do with the real essence of art, which to me is the ability to communicate in a moving, personal way.

...just curious, if the consumer is not the ultimate critic, then who would that be?

Consumers determine one level of commercial "success" only. But what the artist considers to be success is another valid level of judgement. Another level of judgement is influence on other artists. Success doesn't necessarily have anything to do with technical virtuosity, popularity, or any other particular criterion. I totally agree with Chas' distinction between "art" and "product". To me, there is no "ultimate critic".

I admit that I have a bit of a thing about "art critics". I don't find the notion of formalized and quantified artistic judgement very useful. I believe art, like human nature, is fundamentally qualitative, not quantitative. Again - IMO, there's no algorithm for making or judging art - it isn't an athletic competition, even though many critics treat it as one.

As far as musicians being more "unsavory, irresponsible, and flakey", and "bottom-feeding" types of artists - that is not my experience. Think about this for a second: what is required to create art? Sure, it requires some not necessarily proper subset of time, training, talent, and resources. But I think - above all - it requires a singular and often narrow-minded dedication to it. This implies a willingness to sacrifice other goals - which may be things like regular paychecks, time with family, friends, and lovers, or a favorable view in the community - in exchange for the time and focus needed to create. I think this is true in any art form. You don't get this if you allow others to dictate what you can do and where and when you can do it. If being irresponsible about one set of goals - those which the greater society considers "acceptable" goals - allows an artist the time and focus to create, how is that "flakey"?

I'm not a visual artist - instead, my other creative outlet is mathematics and science. Before you laugh, understand that creativity is not the sole province of artists, IMO. I am often surprised at the similarities between art and science. Either can be done for the pure joy of it, and also for commercial purposes, and each usually requires an intense amount of dedication to get really good at it. But there are exceptions - some people just seem to be "naturals".

Why do scientists enjoy so much higher a higher reputation for "seriousness" than artists? I don't really understand. I think it's mostly PR and the fact that the society at large actually thinks scientists can somehow magically "fix" all our practical problems. Ha!

Of course, these are just my personal opinions.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

What I wonder about is how can ANYBODY who is a musician or a singer walk away from it?

I don't think you can. Of course, I'm not the last word in this, I also have no shortage of opinions.

If you want to look at it from a romantic point of view, that also has a sinister side. It's like once you have had a taste of playing with the "real magic", you probably can never stop, without it "burning" you up, in some way.

some times you just put down
the brush and think of other things.

This, I think, could address the reality of it. From the "world according to chas", what I think the art is, is the relationship between the artist and his or her materials. Or the artist and the group of people making something happen.

When there are objects involved, like paintings or sculpture, those things are the residue, and documentation, of that experience, and I don't mean to diminish the intensity and "value" of the objects.

In turn, as the viewer, I have my connection and relationship with the painting, sculpture or environment. The collector probably has a different relationship and in that regard, the object is generating or responsible for a lot of really complex situations.

So you could say, well I have a very pleasurable and deep relationship with my garden, for instance. (I know that at least one of you is thinking, well I have a deep and intense relationship with my bottle of tequila, and I understand that, but it's not the same thing). Back to the garden, is that art? I think so. I have a very close friend who has an MFA and decided that she didn't want to have to deal with galleries and that world, so she draws for herself and redirected some of her energy into the garden. So again, I think it's all about how you relate and connect to things. What does your guitar really mean?

[Mat Rhodes]

Dave,

Do you play in a band or by yourself?

I ask because my limited experience has taught me that most band members who don't play a multi-voiced instrument (bassists and drummers), who don't write, and who don't or can't sing are a challenge to motivate and are usually not self-starter types. I find more of these people than I care to admit, yet they're still lumped in the "artist" category. It could be my location, but I stand by my "flake" statement.

[Dave Mudgett]

I mainly play in bands - lots of them over the years. I rarely play solo, but sometimes as a duo.

I also have worked on corporate and academic teams, played on softball teams, been on student government when in grad school, and been in lots of other team settings. IMHO, the problem of free-riding on teams is far from unique to musicians specifically, or artists in general.

I routinely have to deal with free-riding as a college teacher in very technical areas - math, programming, system design, engineering, and so on. Unless I do something about it, some students wind up having to do all the work on team projects while others just loaf. I think this is more a general human-nature trait, and has nothing to do with "artists" per se.

So I think it's highly innaccurate to label musicians generically as "flakes". Most of the "serious" musicians I have dealt with over the years - people who either make a full-time living at it or are serious semi-pros - are generally well motivated. Naturally, some are more motivated than others, but such is the case in every other facet of my life. YMMV, but perhaps you need to just find better musicians.

I'm not lumping casual hobbyists into this discussion. I occasionally play with people who like to hack around for fun occasionally. They're good guys and sometimes it is fun, but I think it would be a mistake to expect too much. If it gets too ragged, I just don't go back.

[Mike Neer]

Today, the amateur culture is prevalent, particularly in music.

[Barry Blackwood]

Mike, you said it all!

[Dave Mudgett]

Amateur dabblers have been in most art forms for a long time. Painting by numbers and other amateur painting and drawing? Amateur craft pottery and other visual arts? Local amateur theatre? Don't get me wrong - I think it's good that people express themselves artistically in whatever way they want or can. Just as in music, there is a also a range of talent.

I think the negativity about this in music is because there is so much visibility and, in some cases, a large amount of money associated with this. From ubiquitous and annoying karaoke singers to a few talentless hacks in the big-time entertainment world who are given way too much attention, it gives music a bad name. But I think it's way over the top to just write off the art form as, somehow, "lower".

I still haven't heard anybody state any kind of method to put any type of ordering on art. I guess that's just the mathematician in me, but this is necessary if you want to talk about "higher" or "lower", which are mathematical concepts.

My other problem is that I don't see any value in rank-ordering art forms. What is the point?

[Mat Rhodes]

Dave, this is of utmost importance and relevance. In my world, the order of "importance", prestige, and contribution to cultural evolution and improvement among creative folks is as follows (1 being the most supreme):

1. Writers and Poets
2. Scientists
3. Painters, Sculptors, "hands-on" types
4. Composers
5. Actors
6. Dancers
7. Musicians
8. Mathematicians

[Dave Mudgett]

And the basis of this? Oh, I forgot - you're an artist, so you have free license to just use mathematics without justifying any part of it.

[Mat Rhodes]

Divine intervention/inspiration takes over where reason fails. Or something like that. (Where's Hankey when I need him?)

[Dave Mudgett]

Interesting you should place scientists so high in the pecking order. I think most scientists would be inclined to disagree with giving up on reason so quickly.

Also interesting to note that mathematics is the language of science - without it being developed to a very high state, much of what we know as science wouldn't exist. Many scientists are, to a large extent, applied mathematicians.

Another point - it is true that sometimes mathematics follows physical discovery, and is used to explain it. But other times, the discovery of mathematical forms sometimes presages physical discovery, and leads to new creative ideas on its own.

[Mat Rhodes]

Yeah, but chicks aren't into it. They'd rather have songs written about them and their pictures painted. So you're right, it is irrelevant.

[Dave Mudgett]

Yeah, but chicks aren't into it. They'd rather have songs written about them and their pictures painted.

Hey, if you're talking about serious math, science, or arts - I think the US is waning as a culture right now. So let's just fuggedaboudit, crack another beer, and wait for the rest of the world to do our hard work for us, eh? We can just be the world's huckster culture.

[Jim Cohen]

ok.