I'm heavily reminded of the quote "The opposite of death isn't life; it's creation."
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.