(no subject)
Apr. 7th, 2005 05:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rusty_haloI've been thinking lately. Mostly about art.
There was a Marilyn Manson quote, about art being the equivalent of god, something like that. Like instead of organized religion to give life meaning, you find it in art, in creation. Sort of sprituality based around the expression of the "human spirit" through creativity, something like this. (I was reading something else similar, I think related to William Blake, but I'm too lazy to figure out what it was.)
I'm always arguing with my dad--he always finds my interest in art/music/books/tv to be irrelevant and useless, and takes every opportunity to criticize me for wasting my time, and not making money or doing math or whatever the hell he thinks of as a valid pursuit. And I try to explain to him that to me, art is what makes life worth living... in fact it's pretty much the only thing that gives life meaning....
Random sort of related thoughts....
One recurring thought pattern is about the role of image and marketing in music, from a sort of artistic perspective rather than a commercial perspective. Can the "art" of a musical group be more than the music, but sort of extend to a whole creatively coherent scheme--video, posters, images, logo, etc.
Like, for the new Nine Inch Nails record, they've been putting signs around NYC that have just the
/\/ | \/\
logo, nothing else. If you get it, you get it, and if you're don't, you don't. Building excitement among those who know, I guess. At the listening party, their visual motifs were almost as integral as their music: their videos were playing and their logo was projected on several screens.
I just saw someone write <PIG> in reference to that band, because it sort of resembles their logo (the word PIG inside a red diamond shape). Like, I sort of mentally think of Pig as that logo, and I think of Nirvana as their skinny serif font logo, or Pearl Jam as that Jeff Ament handwriting logo....
Or KMFDM, there's a great example. They've been celebrating their 20th anniversary with a t-shirt that says TWO DECADES OF CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY. Their art designer, Brute!, is almost as integral as any of the musicians. And can you imagine any KMFDM album title not in all caps?
How much of this stuff is a marketing scheme directed by some art designer at a record label, and how much comes from the band itself? At what point does it become part of the art... a band as like, building a creative project, concepts and images and music all interlinked.... [and there's lyrical stuff and conceptual stuff, like the way that Raymond Watts uses alliteration in song titles, or Trent Reznor uses the word "pig," or KMFDM satirizes mainstream culture and right-wing politics ... which is musical but also conceptual...]
And then I was thinking about the connections between creativity and sexuality. There's this evolutionary psychology idea that art is really just a human version of a mating display. (I disagree and find that simplistic, but there are clearly elements of that in some art.) But creativity is often tied to sexuality; look at some of the NC-17 fic out there. We are lucky that, in the BtVS fic community, people put amazing amounts of effort into creating works of art that are also NC-17 fic stories. Does their sexually charged nature mean the writer is more passionate about the story and so it's a better story, or is something to look down upon, a trivialization, not "real art" because it's [in part] sexually driven...?
I've read a lot of criticisms of aging performers that basically center around the fact that the performer is no longer sexually appealing (according to the particular audience member). "[insert band name here] should break up because they're too old." But if their music is as good as ever, if they're still creating worthwhile art, why should they stop just because they are no longer in their sexual prime? Or does creative energy decrease along with sexual energy? Maybe depending on how significant an element it is to the art....?
I am almost always attracted to creative people. In high school, my biggest crush was the best artist in the class, and I swooned when I found out he played guitar... then it was another artist and photographer ... then to a musician and performer... creativity is the most appealing quality I can think of. Why is that?
Lately I enjoy <PIG> on an intellectual level, on an emotional level... and on a sexual level, totally. Would I like PIG as much if I didn't find Raymond Watts totally hot? I like Pearl Jam and I'm not sexually attracted to any of them, it's not like a requirement, but to what extent is sexual attraction part of my appreciation of the art and does that trivialize my appreciation of the art? Would I have liked Spike as much if he wasn't gorgeous, would I have felt so completely sympathetic and drawn to him at first? I also related very deeply on a non-sexual level to the story of free will overcoming fate (which I saw even if the writers didn't), so it's not purely a sexual thing, but there's that element... same with Jaime Lannister....
And like, to what extent is creating art necessary to living a worthwhile life...? If you're not creating, what are you contributing to the world? I mean, I think there are intellectual contributions, scientific contributions... but most of us don't do that either, we just exist and get through the day, and it sort of makes things easier because you're not feeling such passionate feelings and ups and downs..... Tammy and I were having this discussion the other day, about how we could be creative and what we could do to contribute more to the world, and whether it's necessary to be recognized on a large scale or to just feel yourself that you have created something... even to just write for yourself privately, maybe.
I actually think most of what I'm saying is kind of offensive and not very interesting, so I'll stop. I have no conclusions, just unfinished half-assed thoughts that I'm too lazy to write up properly.
There was a Marilyn Manson quote, about art being the equivalent of god, something like that. Like instead of organized religion to give life meaning, you find it in art, in creation. Sort of sprituality based around the expression of the "human spirit" through creativity, something like this. (I was reading something else similar, I think related to William Blake, but I'm too lazy to figure out what it was.)
I'm always arguing with my dad--he always finds my interest in art/music/books/tv to be irrelevant and useless, and takes every opportunity to criticize me for wasting my time, and not making money or doing math or whatever the hell he thinks of as a valid pursuit. And I try to explain to him that to me, art is what makes life worth living... in fact it's pretty much the only thing that gives life meaning....
Random sort of related thoughts....
One recurring thought pattern is about the role of image and marketing in music, from a sort of artistic perspective rather than a commercial perspective. Can the "art" of a musical group be more than the music, but sort of extend to a whole creatively coherent scheme--video, posters, images, logo, etc.
Like, for the new Nine Inch Nails record, they've been putting signs around NYC that have just the
/\/ | \/\
logo, nothing else. If you get it, you get it, and if you're don't, you don't. Building excitement among those who know, I guess. At the listening party, their visual motifs were almost as integral as their music: their videos were playing and their logo was projected on several screens.
I just saw someone write <PIG> in reference to that band, because it sort of resembles their logo (the word PIG inside a red diamond shape). Like, I sort of mentally think of Pig as that logo, and I think of Nirvana as their skinny serif font logo, or Pearl Jam as that Jeff Ament handwriting logo....
Or KMFDM, there's a great example. They've been celebrating their 20th anniversary with a t-shirt that says TWO DECADES OF CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY. Their art designer, Brute!, is almost as integral as any of the musicians. And can you imagine any KMFDM album title not in all caps?
How much of this stuff is a marketing scheme directed by some art designer at a record label, and how much comes from the band itself? At what point does it become part of the art... a band as like, building a creative project, concepts and images and music all interlinked.... [and there's lyrical stuff and conceptual stuff, like the way that Raymond Watts uses alliteration in song titles, or Trent Reznor uses the word "pig," or KMFDM satirizes mainstream culture and right-wing politics ... which is musical but also conceptual...]
And then I was thinking about the connections between creativity and sexuality. There's this evolutionary psychology idea that art is really just a human version of a mating display. (I disagree and find that simplistic, but there are clearly elements of that in some art.) But creativity is often tied to sexuality; look at some of the NC-17 fic out there. We are lucky that, in the BtVS fic community, people put amazing amounts of effort into creating works of art that are also NC-17 fic stories. Does their sexually charged nature mean the writer is more passionate about the story and so it's a better story, or is something to look down upon, a trivialization, not "real art" because it's [in part] sexually driven...?
I've read a lot of criticisms of aging performers that basically center around the fact that the performer is no longer sexually appealing (according to the particular audience member). "[insert band name here] should break up because they're too old." But if their music is as good as ever, if they're still creating worthwhile art, why should they stop just because they are no longer in their sexual prime? Or does creative energy decrease along with sexual energy? Maybe depending on how significant an element it is to the art....?
I am almost always attracted to creative people. In high school, my biggest crush was the best artist in the class, and I swooned when I found out he played guitar... then it was another artist and photographer ... then to a musician and performer... creativity is the most appealing quality I can think of. Why is that?
Lately I enjoy <PIG> on an intellectual level, on an emotional level... and on a sexual level, totally. Would I like PIG as much if I didn't find Raymond Watts totally hot? I like Pearl Jam and I'm not sexually attracted to any of them, it's not like a requirement, but to what extent is sexual attraction part of my appreciation of the art and does that trivialize my appreciation of the art? Would I have liked Spike as much if he wasn't gorgeous, would I have felt so completely sympathetic and drawn to him at first? I also related very deeply on a non-sexual level to the story of free will overcoming fate (which I saw even if the writers didn't), so it's not purely a sexual thing, but there's that element... same with Jaime Lannister....
And like, to what extent is creating art necessary to living a worthwhile life...? If you're not creating, what are you contributing to the world? I mean, I think there are intellectual contributions, scientific contributions... but most of us don't do that either, we just exist and get through the day, and it sort of makes things easier because you're not feeling such passionate feelings and ups and downs..... Tammy and I were having this discussion the other day, about how we could be creative and what we could do to contribute more to the world, and whether it's necessary to be recognized on a large scale or to just feel yourself that you have created something... even to just write for yourself privately, maybe.
I actually think most of what I'm saying is kind of offensive and not very interesting, so I'll stop. I have no conclusions, just unfinished half-assed thoughts that I'm too lazy to write up properly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-07 06:28 pm (UTC)Told ya! ;-) What is it with you fans and your fictional crushes? I on the other hand... *choke* *gigle*
Btw, a visitor to NY looking for goth fashion needs your help! http://www.livejournal.com/community/new_to_nyc/85259.html
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-10 09:53 pm (UTC)Yeah, your fictional crushes are never driven by sexual attraction.... *cough* *sputter*
(Well, and there was that Barbosa crush ... *shudders ... )
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-07 08:10 pm (UTC)My 2 cents?
On music and visual imagery: I honestly think the visual imagery of music is a rather odd concept. Music used to be a pretty visual-free medium. It was heard, not seen, but then it began being heavily marketed, and along with that came the sort of "brand recognition" you're describing. I'm aware many, many artists hate the idea of imagery with their music, and certainly the dawn of the music video tremendously changed the landscape there. I don't believe the majority of musical artists design their own marketing, so it is somewhat separate although inspire by the musicians, I suppose.
On creativity and sexuality: Sure, there's a link. That's not all it is, though. This is possibly what drives me most nuts about current society. We went through about a hundred years or so of sexual repression: the Victorian age, etc. Then, sexual issues in art weren't "supposed" to exist... of course they did, covertly, but people discussed other things besides the sexuality of art (music, poetry, paintings, whatever). We're in this extreme backlash now where it seems that critics rarely talk about anything else but the sexual nature of art. We're at the point where we use sex to sell toothpaste and Uncle Ben's Wild Rice. It's ludicrous.
This feeds into the sexuality/attractiveness of performers equalling their ability to create art: Louis Armstrong, musical genius that he was, wouldn't sell today because he wasn't overtly hyper-sexual. The same goes for Beethoven and Buddy Holly, neither of whom could be described as looking "sexy." Sure, I think Bono is hot, but that's not why I love U2. We've become obsessed with the concept of beauty = right to have a voice in society, sexuality = interest, to the exclusion of anyone else having a voice or being interesting. It's a bit like being trapped in the seventh grade mindset of being popular and pretty is the be-all-end-all of existence.
As for creation of art being necessary to a worthwhile life: I believe it is, but the definition of art may vary from person to person enormously. A person doesn't have to create a symphony or a mural or a play or a poem that's a masterwork for that person to have a valuable life. Life itself is a form of art, painted with the brushes of individual choices a person makes each day and shaded by intents and purposes. Human beings themselves, in my opinion, are works of art.
Uh... that got rambly. Sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-11 02:42 pm (UTC)