I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss my basic philosophy concerning art, culture, and life. By doing this, you will understand me and my worldview far more than a simple short bio might provide and I don't like to discuss my private life in depth in a public forum anyway.
Let's start with art. Art seems to be a necessity in human culture. It, along with with philosophy (focused ideas) and science are the elements which seem to separate us from the other animals on the planet. We still have a lot of the same desires, urges, and instincts as other animals, but only we seem to have what could be termed the imagination impulse, the need to express ourselves creatively with our imagination. This naturally takes myriad forms: painting, writing, music, cinema, photography, the list seems as limitless as human imagination itself. Yet, what separates quality art from mediocre or bad art? This is an eternal question that everyone has their own answers for. Many people that are highly influenced by mass media marketing may not even consider the question relevant, but this is a mistake if we are to ever maintain a healthy, progressive artistic culture. For me, any important art, whatever the type, contains a good amount of at least 1 of these 3 qualities: originality, intelligence, and substance. By originality, I simply mean something that isn't substantially tied to traditions that have ensconced themselves in the culture. Originality is the defining feature of many of the most visionary artists, as they choose to take the road less traveled(as the poet Robert Frost put it), or tread an entirely new path altogether. Examples of these types of artists include painter Pablo Picasso, filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, author James Joyce, and musician Aphex Twin. Intelligence in art is a controversial issue, not the least part of which is the question "how do you qualify the term?". Does it mean complexity, cerebral or progressive features, or simply having an academic or studied affect? You could include all of those ideas and more if so desired , but to me, it's a bit simpler than all that: it simply means art which stimulates thought and consideration as much or more than it does emotionalism. Not to say that emotionalism isn't an important aspect of art, because it certainly is and in fact can and often does exist concurrently with the intelligent aspects of it. Yet, it is certainly easier and some might even say shallower to evoke emotions in art without including much, if any, intelligent aspects. Musical artists like Mozart, The Velvet Underground, and John Coltrane, to name some of the most prominent, were able to mix emotionalism and intelligence in their art in a masterful way, as were the artists mentioned previously. In fact, originality and intelligence often go hand in hand in some of the best art. And now we come to substance, which is just as elusive a term as intelligence when it comes to art, perhaps more so. What is substantive art? Is it just another term to stand in for originality and intelligence? Does it simple mean art which will endure, or is it simply the direct opposite of style? Well, yes and no. Originality and intelligence can be important aspects of substance in art, but substance can go above and beyond them. Does much substantive art endure and be returned to after decades or even centuries after it was created? Yes, but not all of it does. Is it the opposite of style? In a shallow way, you could define it as that, even though much style is substantive in its own right. Substance in art is synonymous with the value and meaningfulness in it and can take on many shapes, whether it be aesthetic, intellectual, emotional, psychological, metaphorical, technological, or any other number of others. The important thing about substance in art is that it is an attempt by the artist to provide valuable and meaningful insight into what effects and defines individuals and cultures at a certain point(s) in time. Sometimes these insights are not always pleasant, and shine a critical light on those subjects such as the 70's film Taxi Driver directed by Martin Scorsese and the classic novel Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes(though with Don Quixote, while the insights aren't always pleasant, the prose and story almost always are). Taxi Driver is both a critique of the culture of the Vietnam War and of American urban society following that war and how they have an effect on one particular individual. Don Quixote is a paradoxical novel as it critiques both romantic adventure novels and a society which is bereft of romantic ideals and it is perhaps the paradox itself that is the most meaningful aspect of it. One might ask how painting and music(especially instrumental music) can have the same kind of substance as they are somewhat more abstract art forms compared to storytelling. Yet, it is in the very abstract aspects of them that the meaningfulness lies: a painting or a piece of instrumental music (obviously lyrics in music make it less abstract) can tell you a lot about the cultural, aesthetic, and individual values that produced it. For example, listen to an album of jazz music from the 30's and one from today and while you will notice basic similarities, you will notice differences too, sometimes many. These differences tell you how much the culture of jazz has changed aesthetically but they will also tell you how it(and the society it was produced in)has changed technologically, perhaps even psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually, and what values the individual artist has, as well, concerning those things from each era. The value and meaning of painting(visual arts)and music are more challenging to discern than storytelling, but it is their very abstract nature that makes them so endlessly fascinating.
Which brings us to culture: what is culture? Though there are many definitions out there, it seems to me that culture is the elements which influence and define society: everything from art to politics to sports to philosophy to (unfortunately) corporations. Culture is the amalgamation of all of these elements and more which make up society. There are basically two ways to approach culture: one way is to study it objectively and another is to look at it critically. Both are valid. As long as there have been groups of people organizing society together, culture has existed. In fact, society is literally built on the culture underneath it. In groups of people, ideas form individually(though often built up from or added to other ideas), ideas become words, words become actions, actions become norms. And then norms either stick around a long time or a relatively short time depending on the proceeding stasis or change in the element(s) of culture that maintains the specific norms. And of course, there are subcultures, which are types of culture usually maintained by relatively smaller groups of people as a reaction to and/or as a direct alternative to mainstream culture. As far as what constitutes good or bad culture, it is a very controversial subject. For me, a staunch anti-authoritarian, I see government, religion, and corporations as institutions which have helped build up our now massive global village, but that will eventually at some point in our social and cultural evolution, need to be left behind(at least in the way they exist today), much as a child eventually grows up and leaves their parents to make their own way. Obviously, this seems to be far from now. The Corporation(documentary)
Ah, Life. We finally come to ye. How do I approach the subject of life? To understand that, you have to understand 3 of the aspects which probably define my life the most: introversion, anti-authoritarianism and for lack of a better word, idleness. Truth be told, I am not a "highly" introverted person, more like "weakly" introverted, as I only need about 60% of my time alone, but I do cherish it. Extroverts make up the majority of the population and this is as much a result of culture as it is "naturalness", for the highly systematized society in which we now live depends on extroversion to keep it going. If most people weren't taught from a very young age to be extroverted, we would not have an industrial society that depends on the extroverted qualities of materialism, greed, and consumerism to thrive. Introverts tend to get energized and be more comfortable when alone(or with a few good friends), are less attention seeking, and perhaps think more about the nature and meaning of society and how to fit into it doing what they want to, instead of becoming a cog in its machine or using the other cogs to get rich. Extroverts tend to get energized and be more comfortable when around other people (including strangers and groups), are more attention seeking, and perhaps think less about the nature and meaning of society, preferring instead to fit in with the "normal" customs and expectations of mainstream society(e.g. the striving for money, power, status, possessions). Scientists, Philosophers and Artists of all types tend to be introverted. Politicians, Athletes, and Businesspeople tend to be extroverted. These are generalities: there are of course always exceptions(considering we almost all have both sides to us in varying degrees, and in fact, when I speak of introverts and extroverts, I am including those who fall in the middle -most of us - but favor one or the other type to a degree). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion I am a natural anti-authoritarian and am staunchly against the misuse and abuse of authoritarian government, religion, and industry, as well as individual authoritarian features such as aggressiveness, exploitation, and serious(e.g. non-playful)competitiveness. By idleness, I don't mean simple laziness, though at times that can be very enjoyable too. What I mean by idleness is the deliberate lifestyle of doing what you enjoy doing for most hours of the day, whatever that may be. If we cannot enjoy most of the hours of our lives due to so-called social responsibilities, then are our lives really meaningful? In other words, be creative, have fun, be comfortable. If you are stuck at a job you hate with a spouse you no longer love, you aren't being very responsible to yourself and if you can't be responsible to yourself, can you hope to be with others? Some things to think about. http://www.idler.co.uk/
Normally, my posts will not be this long, but I thought it was a good idea to outline my philosophy about the subjects I will be discussing in my blog posts. Starting next week, I will start my regular blogs concerning my life, my music, and reviews of albums and movies. Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment