Hip Hop Is Not Art

[jgx]

I can only follow this philosophy of understanding to a point though, especially where violence toward others is concerned.

This is a healthy discussion we are having. When all is said and done ending violence is the most important objective for humanity.

When you say that you can "only follow this philosphy of understanding to a point...when violence towards others is concerned" you actually illustrate the importance of working hard at building bridges between those who act violently and those who are the victims

The issue here is that most victims of violence would say what you have just said. The guy who got shot standing outside a corner store would say the same thing if another person wanted to figure out the deep reasons why someone shot him. I am a Jew and I know that on an emotional level I would not have too much patience for deep understanding of why the Nazis did what they did. And so women also fear that the effort to understand will turn into justification.

Now the crisis this poses is real. The black men who are supporting the violence against women will tell you that they are quite sick and tired of the violence their community is subject to. And both sides in this discussion will be reluctant to listen to each others grievances because what they are fundamentally and emotionally attached to is their condition and not the condition of the 'other'.

Couldn't you very easily imagine a scenario where a person of color gets sick and tired of the violence that has been done to them and really says exactly what you have said, that they really are a hell of alot more concerned with ending it then all this discussion, dialouge, talk and attempts at understanding.

On a fight/flight emotional survival level we are set up to care much more about our own suffering then the suffering of others. And this is most certainly the case when we are being targeted with violence.

Art, for me, is grand because it expresses that which is most human, our ability to think, create, and act in ways that go far beyond core survival modes of fight,eat,drink,sleep. We can create works of such depth, complexity and intensity that art is the affirmation of spirit.

And in that same sense, I have no doubt that humans are capable of reaching out to those very people and communities that they may hate or that may hate them; that they may be attacking or that may be attacking them.

I really see no other way out, other then blood.
We either move forward by building bridges of mutual respect and concern or we build walls, moats and castles with large iron cauldrons of oil to pour on anybody angry, desperate or brave enough to try and scale them.

I have done violence to others. Nothing that has ever resulted in serious injury but that is not what seems so crucial to me. I understand, at least on a personal level(and through the books I have read and the people I have talked to)that those who do violence are the very same who believe firmly in their heart that they have been horribly victimized as well.

If we want to hold on to the one truth that is most dear to me, that all human beings share a granite rock solid core of absolute humanity, then there can be no other explaination for violence other then the one doing it believes and feels it was first done to them.

There are other important points that you raised in your post that deserve attention. I will stop now however and perhaps get to the other points in later posts.

ghideon

[jgx]

The other night I wrote a poem and posted it on one of the forum threads. Then I discovered the poetry site that is connected to this one. I went there and logged in and tried to post the poem there. But it did not seem to work; I did not see any box or anything that I should click inorder to post. So I just assumed that I had logged in with the wrong password. I then clicked on the "forgot password" button and after going through the process I got an eight digit number emailed to me that was my new password.

Then I used that password with the same name "ghideon" and on the one hand it told me that I was only a "guest" until I registered. I did not want to register all over again with a different name. So I tried this two other times. Each time it told me I had to register again and when I tried to just go to the "ghideon" control panel with to change things it told me that there was already a user with that user name.

Ugggghhh....

Finally, this morn I caved in and created a second self (this is diffenitely vitual land) named jgx with a different email address and a different password. It is ok I guess but I do not know how to still have access to my message center and collection of past posts under the "ghideon" name.

Oh, I did send a "having problems" email to the web administrator and he sent me an email back saying that the poetry site was not working. I guess I am glad to know that now. But, one, I replied to him that, if possible, there should be some way of letting us folks know that. If I had known that my difficulties were because of the site I would never have tried to fix my password.

Also, knowing that the poetry site is not working does not resolve my password/ new identity problem. I wrote another email to him saying this but have not heard back.

Sorry this was not a short answer but I guess I figure that some of the info above is important for some boss type folks to be aware of. As well as me wanting to fix my problem.

(sorry but I guess you are in that boss group...but not really

look forward to your reply
ghideon
or am I
jgx?

[SheykAbdullah]

abdullah you ought to read ayn rand's objectivist philosophy who wrote quite extensively and borrowed from aristotle before giving me examples like the USSR and China.

I don't understand why I need to read Ayn Rand before giving you examples like the USSR and China. Am I not capable of drawing my own opinions from my reading? Is my reading of the subject matter, which has always had an interest for me and thus I can claim to be fairly well read on the issues, moot? Is my understanding of things inferior because I have gotten it from The Gulag Archipelago or Conquest Without War (excerpts of Khrushchev's speeches) and not from The Republic or Fountain Head?

I have cited examples of things to back up my statement that the USSR and China we absolutist, but aside from quoting authors you have said nothing to refute them. You have merely claimed I need to read more before stating my opinions.

The absolutism of the afore-mentioned regimes is undeniable. Their jurisprudence of thought-crimes and their belief that any act against Socialism, or any act neutral to Socialism, or any failure to act in its support are acts of political criminality should prove sufficiently that their thought process was comletely absolutist without even the tiniest allowance for realtivism. In fact, I would say that is the definition of absolutist.

Besides, I have read Ayn Rand and I disagree wih her on many things. I believe I have also disagreed with almost every political opinion of Aristotle and Plato (which in truth I disagree with many of their views on government) you have brought up thus far.

However, if you believe the mentioned regimes were not absolutist perhaps you should explain how they were not, even if it requires the reiteration of other's words. After all, I have explained myself in simple enough terms.

i want to respond to this right now briefly, asking whether you are unaware that the United States fought a bloody civil war and it was such a sensitive issue that lincoln himself acknowledged the slave owner ideology and made compromises regarding the institution leading up to it. the slave owner, however, felt as much the "right" to own as the rapper to make his smut. if you don't buy this argument, i recommend glancing John Calhoun's Union and Liberty. scholars today are baffled by it's logical precision in its establishment of a natural, absolute, and inviolable right to own slaves. he was from the south and was removed from Jackson's administration as Vice President - quite interesting. again, you need to learn the history and philosophy before making false analogies.

I should point out here I made no analogies, false or true, as far as the slavery argument is concerned. You made the analogy. I only pointed out how it is a false one.

The difference between slavery and rap are the sources they draw their legitimacy from, which is why outlawing one was be effective where outlawing the other will only encourage it.

Slavery drew its justifications from a tradition in the legal system, both legislated and by common interpretation. Rap draws its legitimacy from the street, from its OPPOSING tradition in both society and the legal system. Its current cachet is that it is on the edge, that is scares people. If we outlawed it we would be proving to rappers and their listeners that it is on the edge and that we are afraid of it, the very reasons they participate in the 'hip-hop culture.'

The difference between the two is, again, the source of the legitimacy of each. Just because they were both social questions, and social problems, does not make them the same.

and your point that i have a superficial understanding of history because i'm not objective in my reading of it is just not true. how do you know my disposition when i read history?? look, everything is perspectival -- even great historians like gordon wood and john keegan (and jacques barzun) acknowledge that. this idea that we can somehow be transcendant eyes perusing the annals is gibberish. i've removed myself in the same spirit as you and the rest, but you deny me the right to have an informed opinion on history, and that's where you're wrong.

Great historians like Gordon Wood admit they have a prejudiced view of history when they turn back to it, that's true, but the marker of a good historian is the minimilzation of such prejudices. Every historian will inevitably analyze history in a personal way, according to a material dialectic, according to a Hegelian dialectic, etc, but they try as hard as they can to avoid value judgements. As such, they never say such in books "Calligula was evil" or "Hitler was a dark, sinister man who deserved to die, and the allies glorious and they triumphed as justice would have it." Which is the kind of historical analysis required to outlaw historical documents.

As to how I know your view of history, it is again from what you said. You said there is no room for relativism, which means there is no room for perspective. If there is not room for relativism, if there is only a righteous truth, then history is not a study of the events of humanity but a morality tale frought with victories and defeats.

You said we should outlaw Mein Kampf because it encourages undesirable ideas and opinions, again not something a historian trained in his discipline (Gordon Wood included) would ever say.

I would also make the interesting point that you are arguing that a perspectival view (relativistic) of history is acceptable, where the same relativism is unacceptable elsewhere. Could you explain why. After all, if there is a moral truth, why is everything perspectival?

As to GimmyDiamond comments, I think they hold the solution to the problem of hip-hop, which you are so concerned with Jon. It is not by ignoring it and illegalizing it that the ideas it currently popularly expresses are overcome, rather it is by the concerted efforts of certain individuals that have the courage to overcome the situation they find themselves in and act. If the person in his story had simply closed up shop and pretended nothing was going on around him, tried to reject the reality of where he lived by maintaining an internal censor he never would have been able to do anything about it and the corruption would continue going on around him.

[SheykAbdullah]

JGX/Ghideon's post is a perfect example of why we can not censor rap, regardless of how low-brow it is.

[Petrarch's Love]

I am not responding to any one individual, but reading through this entire thread all I've noticed is the lack of any one persons experiences while they give quote after quote.
I, me, I have lived in violence.

GimmyDiamond--I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to share your experience with this thread, and the wisdom and insight you have managed to take from truly terrible experiences. You have summed up very eloquently some things that I think Ghideon and I have been trying to sort out.

So I say without reservation, ANYTHING that GLORIFIES violence, is NOT ART!!! Any lyrics, in any song, in any genre, or any book, or show or ANYTHING which GLORIFIES THAT(!), is NOT ART!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you. I think that speaks for itself.

Do I think it should be censored? Perhaps to your surprise, no, I don't. Darkness cannot exist where there is light. My late pastor taught me that...

Your pastor sounds like a very wise man. We cannot just ignore the darkness, we must see it, acknowledge it, and find a way to shine light upon it. This must be a very difficult thing to do, and I have nothing but admiration for those like your pastor who have the strength to try it.

As for music that 'speaks out against' this, it is no doubt going to have controversial content, but to ban it would be to sweep it under the rug. It would be to take everyone living in the midst of terror and abuse and tell them, we don't want to hear about it because it is 'unpleasant'. It would be to take a drug dealer, a hooker, an addict, like one of my brothers, or anyone and tell them you aren't a person to me, in need of love, and consideration and understanding. And who are we to decide who is worth 'saving' and who isn't. Let us not be so quick to judge, ANY music, rap and hip hop included, that denounces such things, is both necessary and ART! Deeply moving and beyond placing a value upon.

I am in complete agreement with this as well. I do not have a problem with lyrics that describe hard or "unpleasant" things in a serious way in order to bring these problems "into the light" as you might say. Thank you so much for this heartfelt and thoughtful post.

[jgx]

Jon1:

I am gaining clarity as this thread goes on. I do not have any problem with your passionate dislike of hip-hop music. I do not think anybody has attacked your personal take on that music.

Nor does anybody defended the violence that is glamorized in the songs.

Nobody has argued in favor of rape or other forms of mysogyny.

You certainly have an absolute right to your opinion, thesis, beliefs and perspective. And, if I may speak for the entire thread, we all defend your right to express your opinions.

What angers me is your absolute designation of those who create the music of violence as "other". You may not have written that but it is a fundamental pre-condition for many of your consequent positions.

I simply ask that you recognize the humanity of those who write the songs, sing the songs, buy the cds and go to the concerts. Hate them if you so choose. Loathe them. Buy 100 cds and smash them in front of some popular hip-hop store. I really could care less about how you personally feel about the music or even about the people behind the music.

I simply ask that you recognize that, in the most fundamental of ways, they are human beings. They are human beings who, in many peoples minds, have made and continue to make great errors. In fact there are many who would say that they are supportive of criminal acts or even that their music ought be considered criminal.

Believe it or not I would not have a problem with any of those positions from a(reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements) perspective.

I insist, though, that you cease in your repeated language of negation of soul/spirit/self.

I say this from a rather pragmatic position, believe it or not.

I do not see how your idea could ever actually work. And I do hope that you are willing to step into the dirty, messy, angry, passionated, lonely,terrifying, joyous, bloody, beautiful, piss,coffee,lipstick,make love concrete day to day world that is out there right now. In that world I see now way, short of some fascistic governmental policy and action, that any music could be censored.

Have you actually stopped and reconsidered what you have written. Do you believe that it is even possible to censor hip-hop. I am not talking about the possiblity that it would come back even if censored. I mean how? Would you suggest some long list of words and phrases that could never be used? Would you suggest some list of images that could never be represented? And if you could come up with some list would you insist that it be applied to hip-hop music and only hip-hop? If so then that does leave one wondering if you are dedicated to ending violence or simply dedicated to ending hip-hop? And how would it be enforced? Would musicians go to jail if they violated the lists? Would audiences be committing a crime if they listened to someone sing a blacklisted song?

And if censorship is not the way then we are right back where we are now and it thus demands a different approach.

You continually talk about those who strive for greatness and I sense that, in your opinion, there are artists of many different genres who have achieved such heights.

Well, I can not think of one, not one, whose greatness was not at its core the capacity made manifest to touch deeply the human. Now some touches have been quite challenging and others are more gentle. King Lear is not a picnic nor are the many operas of loss, regret and betrayl. Yet, from the pictures of Diane Arbus to the landscapes of Monet these speak in ways sublime.

If you want such greatness to increase and if you want others to, at the very least, strive for such then do you believe your current position calling for censorship and brazenly refering to a music that has both huge faults and important virtues "smut"...do you think that will be of any lasting benefit? Or are you actually as far from the aspiration of "art" as those you so easily attack. And if you are then perhaps that needs to be given as much attention as the faults and errors of others. Because, in that sense of having erred, we are all far more alike then apart.

If truth be told, when I am able to step away from some of your heat I can not imagine someone calling for what you do being a person grounded in the world around us all. I will say that I certainly struggle each moment with confronting and accepting the real. In fact even the feeling of confrontation must come after a prior acceptance.

I am happy in this one simple way. I have learned that turning others into an 'other' harms me at least as much as it does those who I objectify. And so with the knowledge my life is harder, messy, emotional, and even full of feelings of alienation and my own day to day neurosis. But when I look at others I do not see 'other' I actually see me. And in that one way I am blessed and, if I can say, even a bit proud. It is what I have worked for from my childhood in Harlem and I have come along way.

[dramasnot6]

may i commend you on your clarity of writing jgx? it has a nice flow and is very easy to read.

[Petrarch's Love]

This is a healthy discussion we are having. When all is said and done ending violence is the most important objective for humanity.

When you say that you can "only follow this philosphy of understanding to a point...when violence towards others is concerned" you actually illustrate the importance of working hard at building bridges between those who act violently and those who are the victims

The issue here is that most victims of violence would say what you have just said. The guy who got shot standing outside a corner store would say the same thing if another person wanted to figure out the deep reasons why someone shot him. I am a Jew and I know that on an emotional level I would not have too much patience for deep understanding of why the Nazis did what they did. And so women also fear that the effort to understand will turn into justification.

I won't quote your post as a whole due to it's length, but I'm taking the rest of what you said into account in my respose. I see what you're saying about there being a cycle of violence at work here. When I said that I would only take a philosophy of understanding up to a point in regard to violence, I did not mean to say that violence was the point at which an attempt at understanding should stop cold, but that understanding, especially where violence is concerned, should stop at the point at which it turns into justification. I agree with you that part of stopping this sort of thing would be that victims need to find a way of finding forgiveness within themselves rather than lashing out at others from a sense of retribution. I do not think that forgiveness on the victim's part necessarily means that he/she needs to fully understand the person who did them wrong and certainly doesn't mean that they need to think it was right or justified, but it does mean coming to peace with it within themselves in some way (which may mean understanding the other person in some cases).

At the same time, as you have shared from your own experience (and thank you for sharing how you yourself have worked through these issues), I agree that a whole human being can not be dismissed as bad because of a few thoughtless acts and that we should be able to recognize that there is at least a spark of humanity in everyone. This does get more and more difficult, the more violent and pointless the act is. The person who commits a violent act is most certainly caring a lot more about him/herself and thinking not at all about the suffering of others, at least at the time, so I think there is a great burden on the part of the perpetrator to understand the pain they have inflicted upon others and to go through some sort of process of contrition and penance (which would of course vary greatly depending upon what sort of act we're talking about) in order to insure that they do not continue to disregard the suffering of others.

In short, we should be able to acknowledge everyone's status as a human being and try to see them clearly for what is best and worst in them, but never condone inhumane behavior in any person.

[stlukesguild]

Boucher and Fragonard did paint pornography, it just is not at the same level of pornography that we acknowledge today. Their paintings were boudoir paintings intended to glorify the sexuality of a mistress or of woman with the thin verneer of occasional classical acceptability. Titian's Venus D'Urbino served the same purpose.

SLG- I suppose what we come down to here is a need to define "pornography". If "pornography" simply denotes any work (of art?) that arouses a sexual response, then I suppose just about anything might be defined as such. Certainly Van Gogh's paintings of his old shoes might arouse a someone with a hard-core foot fetish. If, we define "pornography" as any work having the intention of arousing a sexual reaction then things become more difficult. It is always a challenge to be certain of the artist's intention. For example, in the case of the Boucher painting of Mme. O'Murphy the first intention was to create a portrait of the likeness of the mistress of the King of France:


Without a doubt it is rather unusual as a portrait... but then again... perhaps it was the young lady's... ummm... postierior that the King was most enamored with. Does the fact that this painting also has the intention of presenting Miss O'Muphy as sexually enticing immediately raise the work to the level of "pornography"? Then I might ask... in a like manner... does the fact that certain works with a religious intention also arouse erotic feelings immediately make them "pornographic"? What of this Saint Sebastian?



Does it matter that the artist was a notorious homosexual known as "Il Sodoma"? What then of Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Theresa? Endless writers and critics have spoken of the erotic nature of this work... on the manner in which she recieves God's love (thrust into her by a handsome angel with the point of his arrow that at once made her burn in pain and yet filled her with exquisite pleasure)?



Or perhaps we might describe "pornography" as something lacking any artistic worth with the sole intention of sexually arousing the viewer. Personally, I lean toward this final definition. Even certain works of a quite graphic (X-rated) nature can be quite artful (I think of Aubrey Beardsley, certain Greek and Roman sculptures, paintings by Boucher, Watteau, and Fragonard that are rarely ever on view in public galleries and are certainly far more risque than the works discussed here, and many, many prints (would you like to come up and look at my etchings? wink, wink) by Raimondi (after Raphael), Rembrandt, Picasso, etc...

Just because something is not x (pornography for example) as we recognize it today does not mean it is (what we call it today). The fact that their paintings were mostly made for pornographic purposes may or may not affect how you view them as art, and it may not dismiss them automatically as art, but everything must be looked at in its proper historical context in order to understand why it exists and what purpose it ultimately serves, in other words to get to the heart of the matter, and that means understanding why it was made. Boucher and Fragonard painted their greatest works to titilate their viewer, and such an action recieves the definition of pornography.

SLG- Again, I would question your assertion on several accounts. 1. I don't agree that the primary intention in most paintings by Boucher, Watteau, Fragonard, etc... was merely to titilate. Many of thes paintings were produced as part of decorative cycles to deck the rooms of the queen and mistresses such as Mme. Pompadour. 2. Even if the primary intention was to arouse a sexual response I do not see this as immediately qualifying such work as "pornography". certainly endless poems and poetic passages have the intention of singing the praises of someone's sexual attractiveness. Is Milton's description of Eve from Paradise Lost nothing but pornography? Eroticism, certainly... but "pornography"? 3. I question your suggestion that the definition of pornography has changed over time because of the fact that we, so you seem to suggest, are less likely to be aroused by the simple sight of naked flesh. I would suggest that in many ways the reverse were true. prior to the Industrial Revolution nearly 90% of humanity was involved in agriculture in some way or another... many living on the farms. Add to this the fact that the majority also lived crammed into small, one room dwellings. When you consider the lack of "privacy" and the continued exposure to the "facts of life" (in both human and animal form) you will find that many of our predecessors had a much more intimate understanding or relationship with the cycles of sex, birth and death. This doesn't even take into consideration the preliferation of state sanctioned or even state sponsered brothels intended to offset the "frustrations" of the younger male population which was unable to marry until they could support a wife... which usually meant well into one's 30s (if not later) when one inherited the farm or a master position opened up in one's field (carpentry, blacksmith, etc...). There are endless examples of "bawdy songs", filthy stories (prior even to the Marquise de Sade), and pornographic prints and grafitti that circulated. None of it, however, made the slightest pretentions toward "Art". Of course... in our time... when we no longer seem able to define ART at al, the boundaries between what is art and what is not have become increasingly blurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
SLG- Again, I have no qualms with death, violence, sex etc... portrayed in art. Art should be able to address all aspects of the world. On the other hand... the "meaningless" or "emptiness" needs to be trascended through the art. Goya, for example, presents images of horror and ugliness that he certainly lived through during the dark days of the Napoleonic wars. However, he attempts to transcend these... to give them some "meaning" if you will by giving them the beauty an artist can lend. The bravado and sexism and racism and anti-social behavior presented in a great deal of rap music is not the expression of an invented character... it is rather the rather mindless ranting of an angry and simple minded "performer". It has about as much artistic worth as the rambling and self-centered agrandizing affected in most teenager's diaries, the "stories" of familial dysfuctionality explored on Jerry Springer or even the hate-filled racism and sexism spouted forth by the unemployed drunk in the local bar.

Art, as I said before, is too meaningless a word to argue about its meaning. If we used the Webster's definition of the word art, which is

"The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principals, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"

Then rap is art. It is a production according to aesthetic principals (granted a dark aethetic, but aesthetic is not necesarily beautiful as commonly precieved), which has for some people more than ordinary significance.

If we are going to get into a metaphysical debate about art, then I supose that would depend on your definition. I've never met two people who had the same definition of art, strange as it may sound, which is why I stopped caring long ago about what is art and am more concerned about what is significant, because almost everything is, in fact, art in one way or another, depending on your perspective.

As for the empty violence and pointless sexism I agree. I'm not arguing about that.

SLG- Again, I don't believe I stated that Rap/Hip-Hop was not art. As you noted, and I concur, ART has become far too difficult to define for me to exclude the whole of any musical form. On the other hand, I have no problem with defining the majority of it as crap... crap art if you will. Much of it is demeaning, insulting, misogynistic, violent and juvenile without any serious aesthetic worth.

continued...

[stlukesguild]

...continued from previous post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
SLG- Again, the gratuitous violence alone does not negate our taking a work seriously as art. Certainly, Cormac McCarthy's masterful novel, Blood Meridian is disturbing in the extreme... and it is easy to understand why many balk at Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, Nabokov's Lolita, or Gore Vidal's Myra Breckenridge. In all of these instances, however, there is an undoubtable artistic brilliance. There certainly may be many precedents in other forms of music and art for the violence inherent in Rap/Hip Hop. In most cases, however, these were not afforded the commercial support that establishes Rappers as role-models among society. As for the suggestion that there is no difference between violent hip-hop and violent close-minded calls to murder and torture a political solution and The Charge of the Light Brigade... I guess that such an analogy is only possible to one unable to discern the difference between Boucher's rather harmless (even... dare I say it?... cute) eroticism and pornography. The next step would seem to be to suggest that there is no actual difference between the real act of murder and Shakespeare's portrayal of such in his plays.
What is brilliance?

There is no functional difference between Boucher and pornography, the only difference is the value we currently assign to each. Boucher's paintings were intended to titilate in the boudoir, to illicit a sexual feeling, and pronography is intended to do the same. I'm not calling into question that value either, to tell you the truth I don't care much for Boucher or pornography, though I like Boucher more. We must look to what something is intended to accomplish before we can judge what it really is.


SLG- I'm sorry, but too much of this echoes 1990s "relativist" theories which put forth the notion that there is no good or bad in art... that Shakespeare and Milton and Dante and Michelangelo and Mozart have simply been acknowledged as "great art" by the power elite because they represent the values of a certain class and culture but the values of Joe-Sixpack who enjoys Arnold Schwarzenegger movies (or a good "snuff film"), headbanger music, and engaging in auto-erotic activites with a good porno mag should be taken just as seriously when defining what is or is not "significant" as art. Rap is art... its just that most of it is poor art. This fact on its own should not make us wish to censure or restrict it. On the other hand... the fact that it is blatantly violent, sexually explicit, hateful and misogynistic should most certainly give us the right to do so. I personally don't think that Lolita, Miss Lonleyhearts, Blood Meridian, nor certain films or works of art should be accessible to minors, let alone promoted as entertainment on public airwaves. While as an artist I am completely in support of the artist's right to express himself however he or she sees fit... I do not believe this supercede's the right of the public to deny support for works of art that do not meet the community's standards or to limit access to such works.

(ps. I don't go in much for rococo myself, although I quite admire the sensual and fluttering brushwork of Fragonard, especially.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
SLG- Certainly, I would not think to dismiss all such music out of hand... and certainly not upon grounds that it tackles themes which make me uncomfortable. On the other hand... I can dismiss a good deal of it as juvenile and rather uncreative... using violence merely for shock value... or because the "artist" himself is is simply a rather hateful person. As for the notion that the music represents what the audience wants... this has long been claimed by the music and etertainment industry. This may indeed say something about our culture. It may say more about the whoremongering industry that will provide whatever is desired for a price. Do we, however, allow for the lowest common denominator to direct our culture? Because there are many teenage boys who can think of nothing more to which to aspire to than becoming a pimp does that justify not merely providing images and soundtracks for this market, but the backing of a great commercial industry to publicize such work?

continued...
If the music were not what the audience wants wouldn't it stop selling? I realize there is a market that manufactures ideas and brands and markets 'cool,' but the fact of the matter is one way or the other people buy ever increasing volumes of this freely. What would you do about it?

SLG- Then we should simply give the public what it wants? Right now "the public" (or a certain portion of it) wants the mindless sex and violence of Jerry Springer, football, pro wrestling, a rap. There are many in the neighborhoods in which I teach that find dog fights to the death to be entertaining. The Romans loved their gladitorial bloodbaths. Do we reach a point where we are willing to suggest that simply because there is an audience for something does not mean we should be automatically filling this demand... all in the name of "freedom of expression"?

We do not have to allow for 'the lowest common denominator' to govern society, I never said we did. I said that the status of music is determined by its popularity. I would ask you, if most of America listens to rap, or at least a significant percentage of the youth population, a plurality I would imagine, are they then the 'lowest common denominator'? I believe that we may find ourselves soon in the 'lowest common denominator' if rap keep growing the way it does, and then what will we have to say for ourselves? That what we value is superior to the many? That the majority of society is trash? Society has no values, only individuals have values and the values respected by society reflect the values held by the majority of its members, in a democracy at least. The important thing to do is to understand rap, study it, so that you can understand what the phenomenon is as opposed to dismissing it off the cuff because its importance is measured in the quantity of its adherents.

SLG- Again, as an artist, I have no problem with the idea of proclaiming myself an "elitist". This is one of the reasons that art and democracy have long had an uncomfortable relationship. Art has never been about pandering to the values of the masses, equality, or egalitarianism. The aesthetic values of the majority ARE almost always trash and I see no reason to concern myself with exploring why a certain art speaks to them. In the field of painting the giant among the masses is Thomas Kinkade:



I see absolutely no reason to concern myself with why he is so admired. neither could I care less why Jackie Collins sold so many novels. She has nothing to do with quality literature just because she has a fanatic audience.
The aesthetic values of the masses are almost always temporal... a moment's infatuation with the latest novelty. Today it's Madonna, tomorrow it's Britney Spears, and then...? How many of this mass rap audience have developed their musical preferences after some serious exploration of a broad range of musical styles: medieval, classical, romantic, modernist, jazz, blues, etc... How many that acclaim the Harry Potter novels or The Lord of the Rings
as the single greatest literary work ever written have actually read (on their own and not forced through some school curriculum) Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Cervantes, etc...? The notion that because something is admired by the masses it must be taken seriously as art is absurd because the opinions of the masses almost never matter in the long run. They change. They are disinterested. The works of art that survive are those that continue to speak to later generations of serious art lovers... those who invest the time and effort into the study and appreciation of art. James Joyce is almost certainly not so acclaimed because of his appeal with the masses. By that standard, he is completely irrelevent. However, he has been a major impact upon many later writers; his work continues to speak to critics, literary scholars, serious lovers of literature. Certainly, some artists were quite popular during their time and have continued to remain popular (Dickens, Hawthorne, Thomas Hardy, Verdi, Ellington, etc...) I would never immediately assume that popularity equates with a lack of aesthetic worth... with having "sold out"... howver, the notion that popularity is in any way a standard to measure importance is purely absurd to me.

[stlukesguild]

quote: SheykAbdullah-
Popularity does not necesarily restrict itself to the mass population. Fame is dictated by the popularity not just of the public, but the popularity a certain work has with the intellectuals. If a work were not popular with them it would not be handed down as genius. It would become lost to time, rotting away on a shelf. Perhaps there are a hundred better (in either my oinion or yours) Shakespeares in such a state who were relegated to molder because the professors, academics, intellectuals, theologians and scientists of the time considered them to be terrible, base and uninteresting.

Again, what makes brilliant artistic form? Quantify that term. It is wishy-washy and easily bent into anything the speaker wants. Is brilliance allegory? Aethetics? Treatment? Color comprehension? Structuralism? Tonality? Pleasant manipulation of the scales? Intended disharmony?

SLG- Certainly, "popularity" applies within the field of intellectuals... and I would never suggest that within that group... or within those who have applied serious efforts to the study and appreciation of art that there is anything approaching a common mind. There are disagreements... but these are certainly based upon a good degree of experience. if I dismiss the paintings of Thomas Kinkade out of hand it is because of the experience I have with art that leads me to see nothing of any real artistic worth in the work. As such can I quantify what qualities are necessary to define "great art" or "artistic brilliance"? As much as I hate the aesthetic relativism that suggests that as there are no absolutes there is no way to truly assertain "good" or "bad", I will freely admit that ART always eludes any absolutes or objective standards. No matter what standards we establish we will find some work of art that subverts or avoids such will great result.

I don't know whether I would say popularity of the masses has never been the route to survival by great art. There are many art styles that have survived due to poularity despite having little real contribution to the history of art itself. I might point out styles such as Art Nouveau which continues to be popular, but gave us little in the way of new techniques or vision. The Pre-Raphaelites are another popular movement for their time that have little of great worth to communicate to use. Sometimes popular movements do die, and then sometimes they last. There is no explanation and no way to predict what lasts. It's just whatever catches people's fancy.

SLG- Certainly, it is rare. I might agree that the survival of The Three Musketeers or the works of Rachmininoff and Puccini owe more to the opinions of the public than to the scholars and critics. But then again... we're not exactly speaking of a mass public when we speak of opera or 1200 page novels from a century ago, are we? As for Art Nouveau and the Pre-Raphaelites... how popular were they in their time? How popular are they now? Certainly Gustav Klimpt, who employed a great deal borrowed from Art Nouveau has maintained a greater popularity with the art public (again a rather limited... dare I say, "elitist?... group) than many far more important artists thanks largely to his famous Kiss and the recent $135 Million sale of the Portrait of Adele Bloch Bauer:





On the other hand... I would say that the PreRaphaelites are seriously underrated if anything. I suppose there is a certain camp which hold Victorian painting in high esteem (as the last bastian of "real art" before Modernism) but I don't see all that many running out to purchase the poetry of Dante Rossetti (a shame... he's quite good) or William Morris' book arts.

You fail to understand what I said, I did not mean that I dislike Shakespeare
because he is not simplistic, perhaps I mischose my words. I dislike Shakespeare because (and I don't really dislike Shakespeare, but I don't really like him, this is for argument's sake a bit of an exaggeration of my actual opinion) he is not a minimalist and I like minimalists. I like authors who are, in the words of Sabatini;

"...the modern realistic school, by which I mean a synthetic author, an uninspired university product, a chronicler of unimportant and mainly sordid trifles, whose unimaginative and uninventive art lies somewhere between the arts of photography and journalism, whilst expressing, with that presumption which is the chief asset of his class, his contempt of the modern historical romance"

Which is a little unfair because while I revere those he derides I don't hate historical romance. In any case, Shakespeare is not one of those uninspired university products that chronicle unimportant and sordid trifles. It is the glory and scale of Shakespeare I object to and for that reason I say that Greene's The Heart of the Matter is infinitely better for its simplicity of both expression and theme. In accordance I will freely admit I prefer Charlie Parker to Mozart and Edward Hopper to Leonardo.

SLG- Of course, as I freely admit, even those who have spent the time seriously exploring this or that art form have their own preferences which do not always agree with that of the cognicienti/intellectuals/scholars/art lovers (whatever you will) as a mass. Personally, I prefer Shakespeare to almost anyone... but then again... in spite of my own Modernist/Minimalist leanings as an artist... I am also greatly enamored of baroque grandure... sensuality... complexity. As such, I prefer Proust to Joyce... although I might like Kafka and Borges even more. I would probably take Bach over anyone... although I do love my jazz as well (although I lean more toward Miles, Monk, Ellington, and Lennie Tristano). I might even agree with you on Hopper. His work certainly inspired me to a greater degree than Leonardo... much as I acknowledge him as one of the 4 or 5 absolute Gods of visual art. Michealangelo, Titian, Vermeer, Velazquez, Rubens on the other hand... I'm afraid Hopper had nothing on them.

[stlukesguild]

Art must be relative, else who are we to judge it? Who defines what 'art' is? How can that defnition be made when there are a thousand conflicting opinions even among the educated? If I were to make a definition of art, and I am educated on the subject, well-read, versed and spend a lot of time in the study of both literature and painting, I would say that almost every famous painter since and including Rothko with the exception of Botero, whom I do not like either, is the farthest thing from an artist and are instead mere opportunists, rogues, self-delluded or egoists striving for a piece of Modernism's greatness, but what would be the point in me saying something like that? Would it change how their art is percieved? Would it change what they did? I have studied Pollock, Rothko and Warhol despite the fact I find them no more interesting the the ingredients on the actual soup can one of them painted, but they need to be understood within their context and with their own unique ideas in the same way rap does.

SLG- As an artist I have certainly studied works of art that I did not like because I realized that those with educated opinions had deemed them "important"... "good"..."great". In some instances, my opinions changed. Certainly not because x, y, and z have deemed that such and such is great, but rather because I changed. You will never learn to love Rothko or Picasso merely because someone else has told you they were "great". There are artists who now rank among my favorites whom I was simply unprepared for upon first coming upon their work. There are others... Andy Warhol... whom I still find trifling, at best, in spite of... or perhaps because of all I have experienced as an artist and an art lover. As for the taste of the mass public dictating what I should need to understand. I will admit that I am amused by the publics obsessions with Britney Spears, Harry Potter, Thomas Kinkade, etc... however, I don't see that as any reason to spend time in serious exploration of such "art".

[stlukesguild]

Plato also suggested we have a philospher king. Would you agree to such a tyranny?

SLG- I doubt it would be far worse than the idiot "king" we now have. Seriously, I don't half disagree with G.B. Shaw:

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few".

I'm not certain that I neccessarily find one system inherently better than another. Rather, it would seem to me that the system is only as good as the individuals involved. American democracy has certainly given us Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, the "Bill or Rights", Jackson Pollack, Walt Whitman, Aaron Copland, etc... but it also allowed for slavery, the slaughter of the Native Americans, and inequality of rights for women. Italy under the tyrants such as the DeMedicis, Sforzas, Barberini, Borgias, etc... produced years of endless external and internal feuds... but it also produced Michelangelo, Leonardo, Titian, Dante, Petrarch, etc... Ezra Pound argued that the only true measure of a culture was its support for the arts. In the lond run this may be true. Certainly Egypt, Greece and Rome survive in our imaginations because of what they achieved artistically. Carthage and Babylon are mere footnotes. Still I don't know that I completely agree with Pound. A better measure might be the standard of living of the polulation as a whole. In spite of the wealth of the US (as much as the next 7... is it 8?... nations combined) we never fare well here. How do we fare against many of the monarchies and constitutional monarchies in the world, including those of Scandanavia?

Would you agree to such a tyranny? I never would. Even a philosopher king of art. After all, didn't the entire scope of modern art evolve from the necesity of breaking the dictatorship of artistic elitism? What was the cry of the Salon des Refuses in 1863? Didn't Manet, Cezanne, Whistler and Pisarro decry the dictation of the elite, the Academy, in marking the quality and veracity of art in accepting any who would submit? What would art be today if no one stood up to challenge the authority of 'legitimate' taste? What did Modigliani's entire life stand for if not an empahtic statement of the unacceptability of the dictation of taste? His empty eyes, his long necks?

SLG- Don't confuse the Modernism with some sort of populist rebellion against the old, entrenched aristocracy. If anything, Modernism was even more elitist (certainly less populist). What we simply had was the rebellion of one elitist camp against another. Clement Greenberg, at the peak of Abstract Expressionism and dominance of Modernist thought made it clear just how entrenched and "elitist" Modernism had become.

We have never had an academy in this country, not for language, art or les belles lettres, and we do not need it because we are a country where the aesthetic is not dictated to us, and nor should it be, because such dication necesarily means certain important movements and ideas will be left in the cold and progress prohibited.

SLG- And so you believe the academies of art and the ministries of culture are such a bad thing... in comparison to American democracy? Might I suggest that what we are really discussing here is the success of such academies vs that of capitalism. The opera, the orchestra, the theater, the ballet, poetry, literature, painting, etc... survive because there are a wealthy educated elite who believe in their worth and invest in their survival. These same institutions survive in other countries because the very government has taken the point of view that such cultural institutions are of great worth to the nation as a whole. On the other hand... how good is capitalism at supporting the new works of art that may challenge the views held by the masses or may lack great public appeal. Or perhaps we should frame the question historically: how well do the opinions of the De Medicis, Sforzas, Barberini, Borgias, the Kings of France, Spain, England, etc... stack up against that of American presidents. Are not our museums all actually endowed with monies and art works collected by such elitists as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Guggenheim, Hirschhorn, Frick, Getty, etc...?

Art, as it exists as an idea, must necesarily be unfettered. Movements must be allowed to run their course without intervention...

SLG- Certainly, to the degree that an artist is not above the law and as such art must abide by the same laws as that which is not art, I concur. However, as a society we do not abdicate our rights to limit access of certain art forms from public display. We can ban any "art" that meets the society's standard as "obscene" (child pornography, for example), and we can decide that other works of art should not be freely accessible to any and all (including minors) on public airwaves, etc... This is not akin to banning the artist's "freedom of expression". How quickly, we might ask ourselves, would the recording industry and the rappers churning out profanity and sexist-laden tunes change were they to suddenly find they had no audience?

[stlukesguild]

Ghideon- I would even suggest that when something becomes important to millions of people there must be depth going on.

I wouldn't.

[jgx]

Errr....folks. The thread here was entitled hip-hop. Now I recognize that there have been many many connected topics and issues that have been brought up in relation to the key subject.

However, at this point I would suggest that there be another thread with a subject such as: "what is art" or "what is pornography" or whatever...but do you get my general drift?

ghideon