All Art and Music Is Self-Indulgent Vanity

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:19 am

^ and a great one

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:56 am

Thread TL;DR

but has anybody made this observation?

At least in music there seems to be a divide. Pop music, in almost all it's forms is geared towards selling not only a style of music, but a persona= sex.

There are groups out there, that whether we like them or not seem to be doing something completely different than that though. Music isn't just about ego and sex appeal, sometimes it's an auditory accompaniment to a mood, or story. I don't think storytellers, and people looking to affect the audience are always driven by sexual urges, although one could argue that showing talent of any kind is trying to win sexual appeal, what about groups like the Residents who have never shown their faces? How do they fit in to the ego driven thing?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:15 am

as a rule of thumb, it's the discussions on these topics that I find to be self-indulgent vanity.

'a cloud, drifting by, slowly....is like, how would you say,...a canvas, but when represented by it's volume SQUARED multiplied by it's trajectory we have a constantly changing fixed number, and from that anything is possible. even three dimensional canvases which by their very existence alone demand multiple expressions of the same moment channeled and focused independently...but in harmony'

noise, in otherwords.

john cage = good
you wankers = bad

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:31 am

b0unce wrote:as a rule of thumb, it's the discussions on these topics that I find to be self-indulgent vanity.

'a cloud, drifting by, slowly....is like, how would you say,...a canvas, but when represented by it's volume SQUARED multiplied by it's trajectory we have a constantly changing fixed number, and from that anything is possible. even three dimensional canvases which by their very existence alone demand multiple expressions of the same moment channeled and focused independently...but in harmony'

noise, in otherwords.

john cage = good
you wankers = bad

Except to explain his noise, Cage would have laid out some nonsense like your cloud analogy! How else do you think he got away with being considered modern classical?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:38 am

heh, exactly though, John Cage is the guy these wankers try to ape....and fail at it, miserably

case in point: the 'eno quote' thread.

Lazos · Post by **Lazos** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:28 am

How about creating because sometimes you just have to channel something? Joseph Campbell suggested that we follow our bliss. If that's self-gratifying, oh well . . .

pulsoc · Post by **pulsoc** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:14 pm

b0unce wrote:'a cloud, drifting by, slowly....is like, how would you say,...a canvas, but when represented by it's volume SQUARED multiplied by it's trajectory we have a constantly changing fixed number, and from that anything is possible. even three dimensional canvases which by their very existence alone demand multiple expressions of the same moment channeled and focused independently...but in harmony'

What pretentious claptrap.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:36 pm

yes, re: discussions on the matter.

the thought that one is worthy of pursuing the creation of any kind of art is maybe something of a conceit. the inability to abandon the pursuit makes one an artist.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:35 pm

pulsoc wrote:
b0unce wrote:'a cloud, drifting by, slowly....is like, how would you say,...a canvas, but when represented by it's volume SQUARED multiplied by it's trajectory we have a constantly changing fixed number, and from that anything is possible. even three dimensional canvases which by their very existence alone demand multiple expressions of the same moment channeled and focused independently...but in harmony'
What pretentious claptrap.

well spotted captain obvious!

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:06 pm

Evolution has moved on from the realm of biology, and into the realm of technology.

The rate of evolution has tapered off in the context of biology, but has exponentially increased in speed in technology. We are just the tools of a dynamic force that some call evolution, and some call God.

So essentially, we can't help it.

So I think art is definitely a lot more important than people give it credit for. Some people seem to be so stuck in an archaic mentality, and don't recognise that things change.

gjm · Post by **gjm** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:20 pm

mikemc wrote:the thought that one is worthy of pursuing the creation of any kind of art is maybe something of a conceit. the inability to abandon the pursuit makes one an artist.

There is still room for the consideration of those who simply play the part of delivering the message. They don't start out to make 'art', neither do they engage in a 'cookie cutter' approach either. They may be a fulltime 'artist', or an 'xxyyzz' (you fill in the blank). They will describe their participation in the activity of 'creation', as simply a channel. There is no vanity, no self indulgence, perhaps even a slight annoyance with the continious barrage of 'prompting' they recieve. These people will often tell you that they feel humbled by the experience. They will tell you that they don't feel special or even particularly gifted in any way. They do however just get on with it.

A significant proportion of the Angst that an 'artist' (in the general sense) often feels is self generated. My observation is that it is an extension of 'Art for Art's sake.' There are many seasoned 'artists' that will often tell you of a time when they figured out that it was not all about them, but about what was being created, and their participation in that amazing process. Much of their happiness comes from realizing that they, like everyone else around them, are part of a bigger process. They will also describe the realized ability to simply 'detach' themselves. They offer no criticism, no judgement and no praise. They let others do that and don't take it personally. To the OP, just get on with it, what ever your choice, you might be surprised with what you discover.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:25 pm

Amberience wrote: So I think art is definitely a lot more important than people give it credit for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._Collingwood

gjm · Post by **gjm** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:33 pm

mikemc wrote:
Amberience wrote: So I think art is definitely a lot more important than people give it credit for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._Collingwood

What's your point?

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:40 pm

gjm wrote:
mikemc wrote:
Amberience wrote: So I think art is definitely a lot more important than people give it credit for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._Collingwood
What's your point?

+1 I ain't reading all that.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:46 pm

Tone Deft wrote:
gjm wrote:
mikemc wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._Collingwood
What's your point?
+1 I ain't reading all that.

Collingwood maintained that "art is a language" by which the universal human condition is expressed in an eternal manner. The artist is not aware of this, nor do they need to be: their intent is secondary and even inconsequential to what is ultimately expressed.

In post-Jungian terms, this has been expanded by some to mean the most 'pure' art is the means whereby the human collective unconscious speaks to us-- it embodies the dreams (in the psychological sense, not aspirations) of once and future humanity.