Is Music The Lowest Art Form?

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Probably a good thing I don't have billions, this kind of stuff can get to be a disease.

Then you have to have a place to store it all, that's secure, then you have to maintain it and and and. There were some things I thought I really wanted, but then it occurred to me, what am I going to do with them... And then there was my 2nd and 3rd exes....

Actually I was just thinking of the earlier child of three comment and my flippant remark.

The reason the child of 3 could not come up with that painting is because the child of 3 doesn't know or understand the history and lineage of art and/or how Pollock arrived at the point where he would make a painting like that.

And if you question whether lineage and history is very important, you may recall a lot of "ink being spilled" on this Forum over whether or not a certain famous steel player can play the country stuff, our "lineage and history".

There are lots of history books that will explain the significance of what Pollock did. What I think is important here is the concept of what level do you want to play on?

Years ago I used to play a lot of chess, but I didn't have the devotion, or brain power, to get above a 'B' level. In a simplistic analogy, chess has multiple levels of play. You can move the pieces around, and that's playing the game. Or on a different level it becomes patterns and pattern-recognition or on another level it becomes problems in space, time and force.

There's nothing wrong with just wanting to move the pieces around, but all of our heroes, on the steel guitar, put in the extra effort to get to their level.

[David L. Donald]

Dave, the Pollock would probably have greater appreciation monetarily.

I have seen several Pollock's in person and enjoyed them.
They may not have 'said' much, but they were BIG,
and they held place in a room very well,
and they made you feel comfortable.
I like Pollock and can't really say why.
I wouldn't pay that much, but it does appreciate well.

Art can/should not just be stories,
but can be just be the feeling of colors
and how they affect you.

Thais can be auditory colors also,
a la Susan Alcorns steel playing.
Or some of Chas's work too.

I like Elvis, but can't imagine having this
portrait in my sight for long...

Above the Elvis on velvet is Hieronymus Bosch.

He was one of the great early allegorical painters.
His images have HUGE amounts of commentary,
much of it theologically based.
By the time of Vigee LeBrun,
there was less said, and more subtly.
~But in Bosch's day they'd LAY IT ON THICK.

Ship of Fools and,
Hell, as seen from the dawning 16th century


The above brings little joy. It is none the less great art.
I have seen several Bosch works in person.
Including the 3 above.

The below has 'something',
but is from the Museum of Bad Art,
And rightly so.

Lucy In The Field With Flowers


Dog ( a landscape study)


Inspiration (What hath God wrought)


Think Again ( what I like about U)

"This disturbing work "makes an offer you can't refuse". The chilling, matter-of-fact manner in which the subject presents the severed head to us is a poignant reminder of just how numb we have become. The understated violence implicit in the scene speaks volumes on our own desensitization, our society's reflexive use of force, and the artist's inability to deal with the hindquarters of the animal."

Or notably lost on the concept from
store.thebadartgallerydublin.com

Mending Nets


All That Jazz


I would much prefer the Drop Cloth on the back of the studio wall,
than any of these last efforts.

The Bosch I would prefer across from the commode
for drawn out contemplative moments...

[Donny Hinson]

I agree, the Pollack work is more "drop-cloth" than art. I don't care if it sold for 20 million, it's still not much in the art category, and it merely shows the ignorance and arrogance of the art world. (A 5 year-old could do as well.) In fact, I think Picasso did exactly that...he took a painting by a 5-year-old, signed his name to it, and then sold it for many thousands of dollars (after all...it was a Picasso). I read a definition of "abstract art" long, long ago. It went something like this...

Abstract art - art, by the untrained, judged by the unethical, sold to the uneducated, by the unscrupulous, for unspeakable amounts of money.

[Duane Reese]

I've seen some art that's both great and abstract. Those paintings above aren't bad enough to justify being in a "bad art" museum either, I don't think (although "Mending Nets" doesn't do that much for me, and I don't know about "Dog" either). If I tried to paint any of those I'd fail miserably, because I'm not an artist. I can draw stick men.

The reason the child of 3 could not come up with that painting is because the child of 3 doesn't know or understand the history and lineage of art and/or how Pollock arrived at the point where he would make a painting like that.

I'm sure Chas is right about the 3-year-old not having an understanding of art history or Pollock's inspiration, but the 3-year-old <i>would</i> have the ability to make comparable splatters of paint on a canvas. Anyone would. Who would be able to tell the difference?

Again, I really believe that art has to be able to stand alone to be good. If a painting has no value without an understanding of the artist, the inspiration, the historical setting, the notoriety, or other details which I think amount to "crutches", does it really have any value anyway? Why can't anyone just look at the thing, and say 'ya' or 'nay'?

If I have to make one exception, I'd say a detail that's often important to the painting is the title. That can change the whole meaning of what you are seeing. For example, I did a simple watercolor picture when I was a kid that was just 5 guys crossing a suspension bridge in the distance, and two of them had a pack on sticks between them. It's value or effect might be different if it were titled "The Traveling Five", instead of the title it actually ended up with, "The Returning Six". Too bad I don't have it with me or I'd show it to you.

That Pollock picture I posted is titled "Number 12, 1949"... Wow - great. He could've called it "The Washing Machine" and I'd have at least 4 times the respect for it I have now. Heck, I would've called it, "2,500 Miles of Windshield Neglect".

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Again, I really believe that art has to be able to stand alone to be good. If a painting has no value without an understanding of the artist, the inspiration, the historical setting, the notoriety, or other details which I think amount to "crutches", does it really have any value anyway?

So what you're saying is, if the artist doesn't dumb-down the work to be understood by the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have any value.

There's no point in debating whether paintings of familiar things, representational, or abstract paintings, non-representational, are good or bad or are easily done by the 3-5yr old. Of course, I think they can't because just as figurative painting requires a well-developed skill set, so does the best abstract art. Then again, if you feel that all abstract art is bad and without merit, then there is no conversation.

I'm reminded that some of my relatives were totally happy with a cold beer, a comfortable chair and the tv remote. Can't argue with that. But again, I think it gets back to, what level do you want to play on?

About 15yrs ago I had a session, at The Village, on a film score and these were the "ambient" sections in between the orchestra sections. The control room was filled with the musicians and I was sitting there with my steel and rack. Somehow, during the conversation, it came out that I had a couple degrees in music. The room was gobsmacked. Their "image" of the steel player was that of an ignorant redneck.

To be honest, I grew up in a part of the country where people were proud of their ignorance and there were "social penalties" to pay if you acted like you were intelligent.

Back to the session. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contingent, here on the Forum, that felt that anything with more than 3 or 4 chords or something that couldn't be solved with an A and B pedal wank, is crap and shouldn't be played on. So be it.

What we were playing on didn't have chords and in fact, it had to be kept "neutral". Again, you could call it crap or you could look at it like; what's going on here, what does neutral mean, how do I fit in and what can I add. Not to mention that it paid double-scale union.

Years ago I was working on a thing for an artist, who is on the high end of the scale. After delivering the armature, I was looking at one of his works, which I didn't get, and I asked him, what am I looking at?

The thing about understanding something is, in order for us to understand it, we have to compare it to something we do understand and thus we are limited by our experience.

So here's my point. If I see a painting or what-not, that I don't get, rather than dismiss it, I want to know why did the artist do that, what's going on here.

[Jerry Gleason]

Donny Hinson wrote:

I agree, the Pollack work is more "drop-cloth" than art. I don't care if it sold for 20 million, it's still not much in the art category, and it merely shows the ignorance and arrogance of the art world. (A 5 year-old could do as well.)

I used to think that about Pollock, too, until I met physicist Richard Taylor, who has conducted an extensive analysis of Pollock's work using fractals. You can read an article about it here, and his own research paper here.

Taylor's work is controversial, but it certainly made me take a closer look at Jackson Pollock.

[Archie Nicol R.I.P.]

I don't know if this youngster's work has been featured here, in the Music Section(?), but if she's for real, then she's just as rank rotten as Picasso and Pollack/Pollock..Bollock, IMIO.

http://marlaolmstead.com/

Keep it surreal.

Arch.

[Duane Reese]

So what you're saying is, if the artist doesn't dumb-down the work to be understood by the lowest common denominator, it doesn't have any value...
...I'm reminded that some of my relatives were totally happy with a cold beer, a comfortable chair and the tv remote. Can't argue with that. But again, I think it gets back to, what level do you want to play on...
...To be honest, I grew up in a part of the country where people were proud of their ignorance and there were "social penalties" to pay if you acted like you were intelligent...
...I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contingent, here on the Forum, that felt that anything with more than 3 or 4 chords or something that couldn't be solved with an A and B pedal wank, is crap and shouldn't be played on. So be it.

Now Chas, is it my imagination, or are we starting to stray into the territory of artistic/intellectual elitism? Because if you feel that the root of our misunderstanding is a shortcoming on my part or other skeptics, then we really don't have a conversation.

If I have to come right out and say it, I will: in my judgment, something that reaches the level of "Number 12, 1949", or as I have called it, the "drop cloth", looks to be the work of a charlatan, or a person who is disturbed beyond the point of being able to honestly claim they fully get it themselves.

Pollock had a drip technique that he used to create the said painting and others in the mid-to-late '40s, and although it doesn't sound far-fetched that he felt he was "in" the painting so to speak, his claim that he knew just where and how the drops would fall at times does. Some even go so far as to say his paintings had properties of mathematical fractals and chaos theory. To me, that's as much of a stretch as the "face on Mars" thing.

When a person doesn't see anything there in the splatters, why does the explanation have to be that they're unsophisticated or intellectually bankrupt? Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, there really isn't anything there? I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm an ignorant redneck if I don't see millions of dollars in value in that stuff; to me, being honest with myself is more important. Are those that support Pollocks splatters as masterpieces truly honest with themselves about what they are seeing? Doesn't matter to me - I'm not bidding on the paintings.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Now Chas, is it my imagination, or are we starting to stray into the territory of artistic/intellectual elitism? Because if you feel that the root of our misunderstanding is a shortcoming on my part or other skeptics, then we really don't have a conversation.

Duane, sorry, it wasn't intended as a personal attack, it was a reaction to Donny's comment, " it merely shows the ignorance and arrogance of the art world." and some of the other, previous comments that hit one of my "hot buttons".

When a person doesn't see anything there in the splatters, why does the explanation have to be that they're unsophisticated or intellectually bankrupt?

Duane, that's a lot different than your earlier comments:

Well, ain't that special? I'll bet artist Jackson Pollock would be flattered by such words. Well, he ought to be, considering it's a STINKIN' DROP CLOTH!
...What I personally find "bad" about that is that it's not a picture of anything. It's a bunch of splattered paint. I wouldn't pay $10.60 for that thing, let alone $11.6 million. I think it's a shame that someone would.
...by "innovator" Jackson Pollock, famous for having produced other works of high-dollar rubbish.... To me, that's not what art should be about.

To me, these comments seem to be hostile and they are directed towards the art world, that I work in and that I think has value. Whether or not someone likes or dislikes Pollock doesn't matter to me, especially since I don't own any. But hostility toward the arts is endemic in this country and it affects me on a number of levels.

I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm an ignorant redneck if I don't see millions of dollars in value in that stuff; to me, being honest with myself is more important.

I actually have a hard time with the millions of dollars because now it's no longer about art, it's about investments and Pollock didn't get that money. I care if someone thinks I'm an ignorant redneck when I need the work and I don't get the call. I agree, being honest with oneself is important.

Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, there really isn't anything there?

What if there was...

[Earnest Bovine]

This one went for $25,000 a couple of years ago:



Who was the artist? Hint:

[Duane Reese]

Well I'm sorry, Chas, if you felt I was attacking the art community. If there's any hostility in my comments over those paintings, it is directed at Jackson Pollock himself, and I guess it's possible that I'm misjudging him. I'd feel bad in that case.

I admit I've have had a few bad experiences that left me feeling like "artistic/intellectual elitism" is endemic in the art community, and perhaps Donny has too... Not that it's an excuse for rushing to judgment, but hopefully it also puts things in perspective.

Art has a tendency to divide us; we'll inevitably wind up misunderstanding and being misunderstood... I guess it's sometimes better to keep that misunderstanding to oneself, to prevent hostility from going back and fourth and making things worse. That's what I'll take form this.

What if there was...

I'm not going to stand in anyone's way, but then again, no one can stand in the way. One more thing to love about our country. Now when it comes to funding it with tax dollars, that's a different story...

[Dave Mudgett]

Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, there really isn't anything there?

Well, clearly there's something there - it's just a matter of what one thinks of its value as art, and that ultimately is personal.

I personally think there's way too much judgementalism going on in the arts. To me, art is an act of personal expression, and there's no metric to judge it unless someone or a group of people simply decree "OK, here's the metric." But even that's completely arbitrary, IMO.

But then, I'll admit that I have relatively strong opinions about what I like and don't like. But even then, I think it's important to keep a corner in one's mind open. Those epiphanies of understanding can definitely come up and bite you in the butt if you get too arrogant and think you really have it all figured out, IMHO.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

I admit I've have had a few bad experiences that left me feeling like "artistic/intellectual elitism" is endemic in the art community,

It is, and I've had my share, but from my experience it's much more from the wanna-be's and the people hanging around the openings, than the artists themselves, especially if they are on the upper levels. Actually, if you really want to see arrogance, spend some time in the film business. There's always going to be d*ckheads around, and for those situations, fortunately, I have some "credentials" that I can whip out when needed.

it is directed at Jackson Pollock himself, and I guess it's possible that I'm misjudging him.

You might want to read up a bit on Pollock, he wasn't sitting around sipping martinis with his little finger up in the air.
One of my composition teachers, Earle Brown, got to watch him work on some of them. He described it as being very physical so that the painting becomes a "document" to the choreography that we don't get to witness.
Here's the thing, this guy did a painting that you had an intense reaction to. Any time something creates a strong reaction, either positive or negative, as long as it's not a "cheap shot", to me that's a powerful thing. There's a lot of stuff I don't care for and a lot of stuff I don't get, sometimes I need to know why they did that and a lot of times, I just enjoy it for what-ever-it-is. The thing or the criterion I like the most, now, is if it has the WTF factor, the What The F**k is that, factor.

[Jim Kennedy]

What about art verses entertainment? Music is just as much entrtainment as art. Is MTV art? Saturday night live?? How do we seperate the two?? If music is art, does that mkae Karaoke art?? Just a thought.

[Barry Blackwood]

Here, you can be your own Jackson Pollock ....
http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

[Richard Sevigny]

Sometimes, Art is all in the interpretation...

[chas smith R.I.P.]

What about art verses entertainment? Music is just as much entrtainment as art. Is MTV art? Saturday night live?? How do we seperate the two??

Personally, I think art and music, that isn't "pop", is a form of entertainment. How could it not be? But the point that I think you're bringing up here is, are the pop culture forms art?

I don't know, maybe, Andy Warhol did some art addressing that issue. But from my perspective, typically, pop culture entertainment, such as pop music, tv, Hollywood movies etc, are products made, designed, formulated to appeal to the consumer and in regards to television and commercial radio, to appeal to a specific demographic that the advertisers want to reach. For example, the commercials on the afternoon soap operas are different than the ones that run on MTV are different than the ones that run on sport events.

I can think of some art that is made for a specific clientele, but you usually don't see in the top museums. So you could say that the museums are elitist and I would hope so. I want to see stuff in there that I can't see anywhere else.

[David L. Donald]

All the below major world class galleries seem to
think Jackson Pollock has something to offer the viewer.
I tend to agree with them.

How can ALL these purvyors of much of the worlds
highest level of art, be so wrong about him?

Dallas Museum of Art, Texas

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

Guggenheim Museum, New York City

Jackson Pollock at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

Metropolitan Museum of Art
Timetable of Art History, New York City

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas

Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas Online

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Museum of Modern Art, New York City

National Galleries of Scotland, Edinburgh

Jackson Pollock at the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

Jackson Pollock at the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
Online exhibit built around Pollock's Number 1, 1950 (Lavender Mist)

National Gallery of Australia, Canberra

Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice

Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
Guardians of the Secret, 1943

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Städel Museum, Frankfurt

The Phillips Collection, Washington D.C.

Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut

Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut

Addison Gallery of American Art, Andover, Massachusetts

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York
Convergence, 1952

Arkansas Arts Center, Little Rock

Art Gallery of the University of Rochester, New York
Red

Art Institute of Chicago

Art Institute of Chicago

Berkeley Art Museum + Pacific Film Archive

Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio

Daros Exhibitions, Zurich, Switzerland

Harvard University Art Museums, Massachusetts NEW!

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington D.C.

Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art, Kansas City, Missouri

Kunsthaus Zurich

Kunstmuseum Basel, Switzerland

Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Dusseldorf, Germany

Jackson Pollock in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Database

Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, St. Louis, Missouri

Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, Texas

Montclair Art Museum, New Jersey

Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires,

Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles

Norton Museum of Art, West Palm Beach, Florida

Philadelphia Museum of Art

Pierpont Morgan Library, New York City

Sheldon Art Gallery, Lincoln, Nebraska

Jackson Pollock at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington D.C.

Jackson Pollock at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, Washington D.C.

Staatsgalerie Stuttgart

Studio Esseci, Italy

Tate Gallery, London, UK

Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel

Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum, Madrid

Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Connecticut

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York City

I note there are a few in Texas Missouri Arkansas
as well as the 2 coasts.

One must assume we are less informed than they are.

You can not like it, sure, your choice.

But to write it off blithely as having no value,
seems to be swimming up stream vs a strong tide.

And why is it a stretch than an intelligent ape
can also see in the abstract?

[Dave Mudgett]

How can ALL these purvyors of much of the worlds highest level of art, be so wrong about him?

Well, I won't say they're wrong - in fact I don't exactly know what "right" or "wrong" is in the arts.

But if you're arguing that the "authoritative" figures in a field can't be out in left field, I have to disagree. Remember the standard medical practices of applying leeches and bleeding to fix many, many ailments? Or how about the German physicists at the turn of the 20th century who insisted that there was an absolute reference frame - the ether - until Einstein came along and showed them otherwise. Or how about Einstein's "I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." argument against certain implications of quantum physics? Nobody is invulnerable.

IMO, neither authority nor numbers makes a very good argument against a well thought out set of ideas with good data to back it up. Of course, in the arts, there's no "data", so anybody can argue pretty much any line they want with impunity, to a large extent. There's no real way to validate or invalidate any approach, except in the context of a particular set of - IMO, fairly arbitrary - premises. I think this is, perhaps, part of what makes people so suspicious about artistic things they don't understand.

To me, a lot of this is about what club one belongs to. Most humans do seem to love to aggregate into interest groups where there is strength in numbers. It's tough to stand alone, which is why I tend to at least listen to people who doggedly pursue their own vision.

[Duane Reese]

One must assume we are less informed than they are...To write it off blithely as having no value,
seems to be swimming up stream vs a strong tide.

Perhaps they assume we are less informed than they are. More power to them. But for every one person in these areas who sees something worthwhile in the Pollock paintings, there's probably going to be a dozen or two more Texas/Missouri/Arkansas "rednecks", who also appreciate art on some level, and feel otherwise about Pollock. That's swimming up an even stronger tide, but does that mean the "rednecks" are right and the others wrong? No, it just means the same thing - more power to them, too.

And why is it a stretch than an intelligent ape
can also see in the abstract?

Show me an ape that can paint something even slightly figurative, then we'll talk.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

there's probably going to be a dozen or two more Texas/Missouri/Arkansas "rednecks", who also appreciate art on some level

Rothko Chapel is in Houston. Rothko being one of my favorites.

[Donny Hinson]

All the below major world class galleries seem to
think Jackson Pollock has something to offer the viewer.

Yes, it's called "variety", David. If you offered only true classical art, few might visit. So you throw in a little "tripe" for people who can't appreciate Rembrandt or Vermeer. In similar fashion, you'll probably find both Shakesperian epics and comic books at the Biliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg.



Popularity and quality often have little in common.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

epics and comic books

Last year at MOCA and the Hammer museums, they had an exhibition of the masters of American comics:

http://www.state-of-art.org/state-of-ar ... omix4.html
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/200 ... oon-canon/
http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/94/

Again, on a "safe" scale, it addresses the question, what is art? (There's a lot of stuff that "pushes the line" on, what is art)

Last spring I did a performance (not steel guitar) at a gallery that specialized in showing, what they term as, low-brow art. Fun stuff.

http://www.heliomag.com/tim-biskup-ether.html
http://www.billyshirefinearts.com/