As you may recall, one of the questions on the Political Compass test was "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all." To get Clintonian, my reaction depends on the definition of "anything."
If "anything" in this case literally means "anything," I'm inclined to agree with the premise that it's not art. But I thought it appropriate to read the question as "anything visible," instead of "anything at all." This is an important distinction to me, because the thing that draws me to any given piece of art is not the content, but the emotion. I love Kandinsky and Dali because I feel something of their personality and passion when I look at their works.
The little lady happens to be quite knowledgable on the visual arts, while I am quite ignorant, and we playfully disagree on these matters. I'm into Jackson Pollock: she just sees splatter. She's into Rothko: I just see squares. Which leads me, of course, to the bass guitar.
Playing a fretted bass, each bassline is exactly what you make of it: it's C#, F, G, B, with a reggae feel and a triplet on three. Or it's straight eighth note chord-following. Or a slap-pluck groove in A minor. Or whatever. The possibilities are almost endless.
Playing a fretless, the possibilities actually are endless. Notes are not played: they're sculpted. The bassline is now a physical entity, each note a symphony in itself. Emotion pours through you and into the strings, which become like living, magical things. Think of knights or rabbits, water or death; feel angry or afraid, melancholy or boastful; say "oiseau" with your fingers; tremble, glide, slip, stumble: every nuance, every mistake, every lightest touch shines through. You can hide nothing, and you can express the deepest, most heartfelt sounds imaginable, more emotion than music.
Or you can sound like a big douchebag. That happens too. But it's worth it, in the end.
Posted by Chris at November 3, 2003 10:21 PM | TrackBackI like the fretless bass. Beeeow. Beeeeeeeoooooow.
Does a big douchbag make a different noize than a small one?
It is my opinion that it is impossible for one thing, say a canvas, to be affected either by being altered or viewed, without representing anything. That's not to say that it doesn't necessarily represent something like 'suckiness' etc... but I suppose that all depends on ones definition of 'represent'
Posted by: Dr.Dana at November 4, 2003 09:19 AMI'm no artist, and as far as visual art is concerned, I'm not a fan. Paint on canvas is a waste of paint and canvas as far as I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I would not call it art. Nor would I consider any other form of visual art not art. I assumed that this question related to gov't funded art grants or art education. I would be ignorant to say that art is not beneficial and that we shouldn't support it or fund it just because it holds no value to me. We cannot let the gov't decide what is abstract and what is not, because some asshole like me would come along and look at splatters on canvas and cut funding for everything that involved putting it there. Then such a person would say that it has to look like something to be funded. Pretty soon, all funding would be cut to any paint on canvas that wasn't photo quality or specifically measured out splatters on canvas.
My view is, if we are going to fund art, then fund art. Despite the republican fear that everyone would then just splatter paint on canvas, put it up in a public park, call themselves an artist, and live off the gov't buck. Trying to make it as an artist is a hard life. Not many would do it unless they had the love for it. Children in school need to study art, including abstract art, and it needs to be funded. Sure, there will always be people who get nothing out of it (like me), but who the hell am I to deprive our children and society of the beauty and emotion that art brings us. I wish all of our politicians would take such a stance.
Posted by: Dave at November 4, 2003 01:40 PMDave's right. Do we really want John ("Ack, I can see her boobies, put a towel over it!") Ashcroft deciding what is and isn't art? Rumsfeld gets to evaluate thought, and Ashcroft gets expression?
Even aside from the evil twins, no single person should be deciding these things. It's a very slippery slope, even more slippery than marijuana or teaching kids about condoms. I mean, the government funds lots of things that may or may not benefit humanity. I strongly believe in the importance of artistic expression, and I also believe in the importance of research. And yeah, I usually groan when the government gives out hundreds of thousands of dollars so the University of Kalamazoo can study salamander intestines, but who knows what they might find? To me, it's government's way of giving back to the community: "Sorry we keep fucking stuff up. Here's $100,000: go study your amphibian guts. If you find a cure for cancer, let us know."
Bottom line, if the administration can decide some art is worth funding and some isn't, why not some research? (Don't worry, physicists, the study of things that go BOOM will always be fully funded.) What if a state school teaches creationism? Or what if they refuse to teach creationism?
Posted by: Brother Root Beer at November 4, 2003 08:55 PMEuropean countries tend to have a better appreciation for art and artists than Americans do. Did you know that in Ireland, professional artists and poets don't pay taxes?
As for the research stuff... it IS easy to get irritated when research grants go out to seemingly inane random science projects while other programs that you support more get cut. It sucks. But don't get mad at the grantees, nor the grantors.. get mad that there isn't more money being taken out of defense budgets and other crap to go into both the arts AND the sciences.
Your lizard guts comment actually reminded me for a recent article I found talking about how several researchers are currently studying Gila Monster saliva for a cure for Alzheimers, as a chemical in that spit apparently can serve to reopen and stimulate decaying neural pathways.
:)
Posted by: Nabil at November 4, 2003 09:04 PMThat's right folks! The all-new patented cure-all for all your dim-witted days, your forgetful social flubs, your propensity for forgetting your pedicure, and your wandering around not knowing who in the hell you are or why you're wandering around! Absolutely guaranteed to prevent and cure Alzheimer's, or you won't remember who to get your money back from! Gila spit! Yes, that's right, those lovable lizards from the deserts of death valley will provide you with the single greatest medical miracle of the modern age! That's Gila Spit, folks! Next time you're in the desert look for G-I-L-A spit and you won't lose your mind in the madness of sad, sad senility.
Gila Spit! For only $49.95 (per day)!
Posted by: Snack Master at November 5, 2003 04:07 PMwhat would I do without my madness or senility?