What is art?

[glatt]

Those could be Springsteen lyrics.

[Undertoad]

The screen door slams
Mary's dress waves
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely
Hey that's me and I want you only

[glatt]

That's actually the tune I heard in my head as I read the poem.

[Undertoad]

I do believe the song has replaced the poem as how we express ourselves in this way. Each word carefully chosen, and Bly and Springsteen create very vivid pictures in our heads with as few words as possible.

Like, we see the porch Mary is dancing on, even though it wasn't mentioned. We can hear that screen door. We can feel that mailbox.

[lumberjim]

fuckin right

And he was standing
At the corner
Where the road turned dark
A part of shiny wet
Like blood the rain fell
Black down on the street

And kissed his feet she fell
Her head an inch away from heaven
And her face pressed tight
And all around the night sang out
Like cockatoos

[Undertoad]

NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art.

In another sense though --

If a piece of art becomes well-known, and is thought to be important enough to pay attention to, it actually then contributes to all future art.

When someone sits down to write music, or a novel, or paint a landscape, they start with what they know, which is roughly a summary of everything that was well-shared and appreciated in history.

All western music was changed by Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. Were there better writers than McCartney/Lennon, yes but they won't have changed all music. And so in 100 years their music is likely to sound seem uninteresting or even strange.

Doesn't even have to be a hit or a critical success to change everything. The Velvet Underground and Nico sold 30,000 copies, not enough to even be a minor hit or make any lists. Brian Eno later said "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band."

[xoxoxoBruce]

And when they started those bands what did they play? Did they want to sound like Velvet underground, or make money for nothin' and chicks for free like the Beatles? Would Bach and Beethoven have changed music if they hadn't become the rage with European patrons(money), so they became the cool kids? Should we play what we have been for free grog at the tavern or play what the rich people want to hear hoping for better gigs?

Of course I admit I'm rather soured on the music business, so lets take paintings. Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas. But is it that good, or just better than most from it's era, so became the standard among the patrons(there's that word again), when most of the people in the world never heard of it. In fact most of the people of the world hadn't seen a painting outside of maybe the church, or a cave, at that time. There isn't much from the period to compare it to now.

My point is all these accolades come from critics or promoters who steer the hoi polloi. Now back when people bought record albums you had thousands of releases every year to choose from. But damn few people heard any of them if the didn't get airplay, which was dictated by critics and coughpayolacough promoters. The old, I don't know much about art..., is certainly true, but unfortunately what we're exposed to in order to make that choice, is more orchestrated than we care to admit. Sure, with the internet there's more opportunity to find stuff, but ain't nobody got time for that.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas.

I'll bite...

The Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas.






Sorry, couldn't help m'self.

[Gravdigr]

So...Is this art?

Artist Creates “Secret Friends” by Drawing On People’s Backs

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sure it is, performance art.

[Gravdigr]

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bass player!

[DanaC]

Magnificent

[Griff]

Cool!

[fargon]

I like it.