# The role of artistic intention with e.g. Ravel and Goldsmith



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2015)

I decided to start a new thread since that way those who want to ignore me on this subject can more easily do so 

In my view, the first element of creating art is artistic intention.

When I was studying composition at The Boston Conservatory of Music with Avram David, I was trying to hear things in my inner ear that I had not heard before; write things that I had not written before; put them down on paper in a way that was clear to musicians who would (hopefully) play the pieces in accordance with what I was trying to achieve.

As art, most of it failed miserably. But Avram said the pieces had "significant roughness", which was his way of telling me I had talent and was heading down the right path. And as I said, the only muses I was trying to serve was music as an art form and my own creative drive. (OK, maybe also a little to impress Avram and my fellow composition majors 

But the commercial instincts in me were too strong to continue on that path so I moved to L.A. to pursue a career. In the '70's I was all about writing songs to get publishers to pitch my songs and artists to record the songs, and co-writing with lyricists for the same pursuits, while also trying (unsuccessfully) to get a recording artist deal myself. (I came really close!) In pursuit of that I no longer factored in trying to hear things in my inner ear that I had not heard before; write things that I had not written before, but I would say there was still _some_ artistic intention or at least pretension.

When I got hired to score my first film and then TV shows, I discovered that writing music for picture was far less about artistic intention and more about problem solving. I would start with the thematic material, because that is what we did back then. My main considerations were, "what am I trying to tell the audience about how to feel about this film or its specific characters." Then when I would do underscore cues it was about "what am I trying to tell the audience that is not evident on the screen or re-enforce what it on the screen."

So at that point it was, and still is for me, pretty much ALL about serving the picture and pleasing the producer and/or director and very little about my artistic intention. Much more focus on the craft.

So that is why I make a distinction between a Ravel and a Goldsmith because I know that for Jerry, by necessity, it had to be mostly about problem solving, where Maurice was trying to hear things in his inner ear that he had not heard before: write things that he had not written before.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Aug 29, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> I decided to start a new thread since that way those who want to ignore me on this subject can more easily do so
> 
> In my view, the first element of creating art is artistic intention.
> 
> When I was studying composition at The Boston Conservatory of Music with Avram David, I was trying to hear things in my inner ear that I had not heard before; write things that I had not written before; put them down on paper in a way that was clear to musicians who would (hopefully) play the pieces in accordance with what I was trying to achieve.



Yes, but once you solved the problem, there was some music there that was not there before. I say that because you created something that did not exist before, it was art.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Yes, but once you solved the problem, there was some music there that was not there before. I say that because you created something that did not exist before, it was art.




So in your view, regardless of artistic intention, or how derivative, or how poorly executed ALL music creation is art?


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Aug 29, 2015)

Yes, but there is good art and bad art. But even that assessment is in the eye of the beholder. A parent is not going to look at a 3 year old's picture on the refrigerator and say "Sorry honey. That is not art because you are not very good at it." Some say you are not a successful artist until you can sell your work. I say art is art, creativity is creativity, whether the masses like it or not. My music is not on a very high level so it is worthy of disrespect by professionals like you. But there is no other music exactly like it and no professional could possibly have more fun than I do trying. It is art, just not excellent art.

However, my software is very high level and worthy of respect. I spent thousands of hours creating this nuclear software that I share freely with the world. It is widely used worldwide. Every hour that I spent on it was a creative moment. I consider the final product art. The users consider it a cool tool, but I know better. My soul is in that software whether they recognize that or not.

You don't like creating art for money all of the time. Neither do I which is why I swore in my 20s to never do music for money again. I recorded albums that were released for free. Nobody can use money against me to make me create or help create music that I don't like or want to participate in. I record and play what I want.

By the way, this may sound like the hot dog theory, "parts is parts" but it is not. I recognize that hot dogs are junk meat. Haha


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2015)

Actually I DO like creating music for film MORE than freely because I find it so challenging and I relate much more to being a craftsman than an artist.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Aug 29, 2015)

A craftsman put shoes on horses or weaves the same basket over and over to sell them on the street. You create something unique for every film. You are an artist, whether you like it or not. ☺


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 29, 2015)

That is a pretty low bar for art. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Aug 29, 2015)

Haha I said that 18 hours ago. Just remember that I said it first. Smirk.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Aug 29, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> That is a pretty low bar for art. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.



By the way, how many Ravel compositions are available to listen to at the Met? You can listen to Buck Owens at the Nashville Country Music Hall of Fame though. You finally turned me around. Ravel is no artist but Buck Owens is because his music is in a museum and Ravel's is not. I say that with all of the sarcasm available to me. ☺


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 29, 2015)

Beauty is in the eye of the Beer-holder.

To me it's all artistic and can be referred to as organized sound.


----------



## wolf (Aug 30, 2015)

apologies - this has gotten longer than I expected…

aahh, ye olde discussion of what constitutes art and artist vs craftsman. here’s a little play with words. “That is a pretty low bar for art.” becomes: “That is a pretty low fart.” I DO apologize. But a lot of good creative juice is wasted on attempts to judge, classify, over analyze what is and isn’t art; and a lot of it ends up being a big “brain-fart”. omg, please Do excuse my language (I hope I don’t get banned).
btw, I'm right now welcoming the opportunity to procrastinate on editing work... no creative juice wasted.

I’m with SpeakPianissimo when he says: “You create something unique for every film. You are an artist.” although I’d not worry about the label.

with chimuelo with some reservation - beer taints our arts-appreciation powers. at least it does for me. Then again, what is otherwise dismissed as not notehworthy can become quite impressive with the help of perception altering substances.

"what am I trying to tell the audience about how to feel about this film or its specific characters." seems close to Expressionistic thought, no? or are you writing the music without feeling anything yourself? (I doubt it)
besides, that’s not the only way to approach the task.

“writing music for picture was far less about artistic intention and more about problem solving.” and “So at that point it was, and still is for me, pretty much ALL about serving the picture and pleasing the producer and/or director and very little about my artistic intention.” In my view that’s the ego (not in the New Age sense) getting in the way. Like: it’s only art (or artistic intention) if it comes out of own mind, ideally from divine inspiration, not touched by any other imbecile who dares tell me what to do (notice the sarcasm…). No, your artistic intention has just been channeled into a certain, more or less narrowly defined, direction. Don’t turn yourself into “just” a craftsman because of that. and I apologize - I do not mean this as a personal attack.
a lot - A LOT - of problem solving goes into the creation of any art.

a few random thoughts:

When a “true artist” (notice the quotation marks  ) works on a commission where there is a clear demand on what the “art” is to convey - say Handel creating the Water and Fire Works music; or Stravinsky’s ballets - is the outcome necessarily not art? I say Handel + S prove that wrong (and countless other examples). - then again, it never crossed my mind to ask “is this real art” when listening to that music. I’m just totally taken by it. Same when I’m swept away by a movie - I often can’t even tell details about the music afterwards. That’s great! because the whole experience was so intense. And I’ll watch it again paying attention to the music.

I believe “creating music freely” as in no boundaries set by others or no consideration what others might feel of it - is largely a myth - or a nice hobby.

also, I think what some deem (romantically) a “real artist”, is just a creator who hasn’t learned to take care of business.

much artistic thought can go into good, functional design. Yes, a craftsman then replicates the design over and over. Sometimes the craftsmanship becomes so high that we say “there’s an art to it”. More and more, robots/machines do the replicating.

do we artificially want to elevate ourselves to a higher consciousness or functioning when we claim to create art? My guess: most creators whom we label as artists are so deeply into doing their thing that they don’t worry about this. And then there’s those who deliberately do the opposite - create outlandish stuff and fabricate a mystery around it.

When Pollock did many of his drip paintings because he was urged to do so, was it still art? could this be a rhetorical question?

Picasso had no qualms about making lots of money from his creations (so I heard).

Van Gogh’s art would have been considered to “have failed miserably” during most of his life time. (well, he also died too early) Seems to be a theme for many artists. so sad.

the line between craftsmanship and art is blurry.

Had a composition teacher in Vienna who was very opinionated about art music vs commercial music. Film music was junk to him - oh the ignorance. Making money from “art” was suspect to him. He’s still poor. And I never got anything that touched me from his music. I only had this teacher for 1 semester…

artistic intention (emphasis on artistic) can become the greatest hinderance to creating meaningful art.

the only reason why I worry about writing something that has been written before by somebody else are lawyers.

I don’t believe one finds his/her voice by trying to be different (emphasis on trying). That may be a phase in the development, but it’ll pass.

There’s no good or bad art, like SpeakP suggests somehow roundaboutedly  I find there’s art displaying various levels of craftsmanship. sometimes I enjoy creations showing a high level of such, sometimes I enjoy the simplest stuff, even when not greatly executed. Sometimes It’s the opposite. What touches us is very personal. (and yet, there are universal principles of craft, design, music… that are mathematically precise)

Please watch the movie Untitled (that’s the name of it, really): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132193/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4 and share what you think. I thought it’s witty and hilarious. Just thinking of the “kicking the bucket” stuff makes me crack up.

in summary: cheer up  it’s all good. it’s all art - or not. don’t fret.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Yes, but once you solved the problem, there was some music there that was not there before. I say that because you created something that did not exist before, it was art.



Please forgive me, but in the morning when I awaken I go to the toilet to do what nature dictates I must do daily. In the bowl I have "created something that did not exist before." 

I suppose Maplethorpe might say the result was art, but I would not.


----------



## Malo (Aug 30, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> I would start with the thematic material, because that is what we did back then.



Pay attention, kids! Film scoring nostalgia and comedy baked into one single sentence.
I like your style, Jay!


----------



## bbunker (Aug 30, 2015)

I think your original thoughts imagine a Steppenwolf (the dualism of wolf and man, not the rock band, just for the record!) where none exists: you suggest that your 'real composition' is entirely based in exploration and discovery, while your 'work composition' is entirely based on problem solving. I wouldn't say this opposition is fair by any means - there must be both exploration and problem solving in any piece, whether high or low art.

The problem in the language seems to be that when you THOUGHT you were creating art, that your problem solving was seen as musical exploration. Let's say that you were Messiaen, writing the Modes d' valeur; clearly coming up with the process that would define the piece is a bit of creative inspiration. But once that inspiration has created the process, then the problem solving work begins: since you only have control over the 'modes' of pitch content, duration and intensity, how do you shape those modes so that the result is the best possible? It's relatively clear that Messiaen exerted a lot of energy to control the modes in artistic ways, since tinkering with the details of the modes leads to lesser results - I can attest to this from personal experience!  I wonder if you would consider the tinkering with these modes to be exploration and discovery, instead of problem solving, simply because it leads to new and interesting results? Do you see it as "Pioneering problem solving" in opposition to "Workmanlike problem solving?"

What about working with fugues? I'd imagine we've both worked with enough to know that both exist in parallel: clearly there's a sound 'in your head' of what you want the result to be, but there's also a lot of attention to solving basic problems of counterpoint, to get to that sound.

So maybe the whole time you were working to picture, you were being just as creative, just as explorative, and just as astute in your problem-solving, but put up a linguistic barrier because the 'original' source material wasn't yours? Maybe "problem solving" became for you a way to semantically distance yourself from material that you might have thought would be harshly judged by the mentors that you'd internalized, who you would imagine looking down on your 'lesser' works?

And as an aside, there's the issue that artistic intention sometimes seems wrapped up very much in problem solving - like in Kuhlau sonatinas! The point is definitely not to break new ground, to make some grand statement, or any of those other gestures that 19th century piano composers aim for. Clearly the goal is to write some pleasant pedagogical piano material for beginners who can get around the keyboard to work on technique and expressiveness, and they've succeeded for generations. They might very well be 'lesser' art...but how much 'not art' are they?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

What, what a great post. You given me much to digest and think about. 

My gut reaction is that rather than grade it as creating "lesser art" which in my mind at least film music CLEARLY is, I prefer to focus on the craft, which because it involves serving a different master, it clearly isn't necessarily "lesser."

To clarify, we have no idea whether Ravel could ever have enhanced a film as well as Goldsmith did. Maybe yes, maybe no. Most concert hall composers who tried were not all that good at it, Prokofiev being a notable exception.


----------



## scarred bunny (Aug 30, 2015)

Interesting thoughts from everyone.

Jay (spoken with genuine curiosity btw), do you feel there is a danger in applying the concept of 'art' too widely? Making the definition so inclusive that it becomes essentially diluted and meaningless? Do you feel that something must necessarily be new or original to qualify as art (with the reference to 'writing things that have not been written before')?

I don't care so much personally about the descriptive labels. Words matter but are also just metaphors (map vs. territory and all of that), but I think it can be useful and interesting to discuss if only to gain some insight into how different people use and apply the words and what the reasoning behind it is. I do agree that intent matters at least to some degree, and that one could make some sort of distiction there. But to me the lines also get blurry really fast. I don't think it's an either/or scenario - you said, for example, that your songwriting endeavours still had some degree of artistic intent, and I suspect your film composition ventures have elements of that too, even if it's not the main motivation. Many classical or baroque era composers, as I understand it, wrote a lot of music on commission - much of which is generally regarded as 'high art' today, although perhaps you would disagree with that.

Regarding problem solving, if I may think out loud for a bit. I don't know how other people approach writing music, and obviously I have never written for film or anything like that; but when I do write (which I do just for myself and for people I know, really) there's often a strong aspect of practical problem solving there as well. I start with an idea of what a piece is about or what it intends to say, and then start thinking about how to say it. The way you describe film composing doesn't sound entirely dissimilar per se; in both cases the composer comes up with a solution via creative and practical problem-solving, but in one case the composer also gets to define the 'problem' hirself (which I suppose is an act of creativity in itself), and in the other case the 'problem' is defined by an outside force (producer, director, script). Maybe that makes a distinction between the two right there. Maybe others approach the process differently.

Ultimately though, I guess art or not art doesn't matter terribly to me; when I listen to something the most relevant question is simply whether it elicits an "oh, I like this"-type response or not. And certainly, having grown up on home-made tracker music and noisy garage rock, much of what I like to listen to is not what I or most people would generally rate as 'high art'. But there's something to be said for separating personal listening preferences from these kinds of assessments, isn't there? 

Anyway, just some thoughts while I recharge my caffeine batteries.


----------



## wst3 (Aug 30, 2015)

really cool couple of threads, and whether intended or not, very helpful to an older, and not yet successful... what's the opposite of 'newbie'?

My two cents... I think I understand Jay's perspective, but I do not agree with it completely... there is a difference between art and craft, but it is a continuum, not a collection of quantum (yes, this goes completely opposite of my schooling<G>!)

So sometimes we write for the pure joy of writing, to create something we heard in our mind or heart that has never been heard by others. And we call that art I guess, for lack of a better word. And sometimes we write to solve a problem, which is a bit coarse I think, but very descriptive. How do I move from this scene to that scene, or how do I reinforce the emotion, or sometimes even how can I distract the audience so that this next bit will take them by surprise.

Or for our songwriter friends (and I do believe there is a difference between composing and songwriting) - how do I reinforce the lyric, or hide the intent or pretty much all of the same stuff, just in a different setting...

The craft, to me anyway, is solving the problem when you don't necessarily have the artistic muse pushing you forward, since the work must be completed satisfactorily and on time. The craft is letting art take a back seat to the problem solving.

In a way, I think the craft is every bit as much an art as the art, but with different drivers, and maybe one can argue a different outcome (or outcomes, if one includes supporting one's self and one's family<G>!)

I've written (far too infrequently) for commercial projects, but by far the pieces I am most proud of were written for live theatre as part of a volunteer company. Part of the attraction, for me, is collaborating with all the other artists to create something new that has never been experienced before - but with the caveat that we still need to put "cheeks in seats", and in this specific setting, we still feel the need to challenge the audience, and send a message.

There is no question that this music was crafted. It was crafted to fit the action, to fit the mood, to solve specific problems. And yet the sum of the music, the direction, the lighting, set, costumes, and yes, acting is art. Or at least I'd consider it art... and craft.

Here's an irony - the first couple scores were played live and sadly no recordings exist. But later on I ended up producing finished pieces, and they were recorded to fit the application, the speech portion of the spectrum is attenuated, timing is rigid, percussion is way overdone, and so on. I keep meaning to go back and remix them so I can share them, but there is always another project. But these things - making the sound itself fit into the production - are part of the craft. My most recent score did not end up at all as I envisioned because at the last minute (quite literally) we needed to add significantly more music, and I ended up cutting and pasting to fill in the blanks. The audience would (hopefully) never notice because the action on stage is the thing (yeah, I was going to say "the play's the thing", but couldn't!) and the music was in a supporting role.

AHA! Perhaps that is part of the distinction between art and craft? Geez, at my age you'd think I'd have figured that out long ago!

I consider music written by craft to at least have the potential to also be art. Or partly art, if that is possible. 

Jay, I've listened to your music for Zorro, and I think it's really good. What makes it good, to me as a listener, is I can listen to it without the picture and still see things in my mind. That is pretty artful.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

This is really turning out to be a nice discussion.

@ scarred bunny: Yes, I do indeed think that there has been and continues to be a dumbing down of what is art. If everything is art, then nothing is art because art is a departure from the norm in terms of creativity and emotional power. Once again, to me "art" begins with "artistic intent." While it need not be the sole factor (money, fame, etc. can also be components) it must be the prime factor. For _me_, there is no "accidental art", you create art by deciding to create art. I guess I am an anti-Warholian that way.

@ Bill. Of course, it is a continuum and we can only discuss this in broad strokes. And thank you for the compliments about my "Zorro" work. It literally as it turns out, has thousands of fans.

But the truth is I was doing my version of the music of Bill Lava, who did the Disney "Zorro", and Bill was doing a sort of "pidgin Spanish" version of authentic Spanish music, as did the late Jamie Horner in the movie version of "Zorro" years later. All of us I think did a nice job but none one of us came even _close_ to creating anything I would classify as "art."


----------



## rJames (Aug 30, 2015)

If everything (with artistic intention) is art, then it is obvious that there are degrees of quality in that art. Jay, I assume you wanted your craftsmanship to be artistic above all others so that you might get asked to do another show and another and another.
By your own definition, an artist starts out with an artistic intention. They take that vague plan and mold it into a final polished piece using craftsmanship. Is John Williams not an artist? Is Hans Zimmer not an artist? Haven't most artists taken a commission for what we now value as art? Is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel not art because he was commissioned to paint it.
I don't know why you continually portray your work as "not art," just because it doesn't spring from you by accident. Honestly, I think that is LESS artistic. Because, when we write down what our inner ear tells us, we are usually just regurgitating what our culture has been pouring into our ears.
Artistic intent gives us a challenge and we either rise to the occasion or not. It is either bad art or great art (or somewhere in between). But it is art. I guess the question for me is, "does the intent have to come from within?"
Or can the intent be the solution to a commission?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

As I said, money CAN be a component in the creation of art, just not the primary. I don't think any of us start composing music because our first impulse is " I want to make a lot of money." I could have made more money if I took my parents up on their offer to join their antique business but I love creating music.

And no, I never aspired to have my "craftsmanship to be artistic above all others so that you might get asked to do another show and another and another." That would not have been realistic. What I wanted was my craftsmanship to be at a level that it did not prevent me from doing a good job when I got the job. You get the jobs by whether the client likes you, likes your music, your track record, etc. There are people working more than me with a superior level of craft and people working more than me with an inferior level of craft.

I don't know if John or Hans feel they intend to create art when they sit down to compose or when it is done if they feel they have created art. And if they do, I don't know if they think it is higher or lesser art than e.g. Ravel.

I hear people talk about their "art" who are creating dreadful, derivative, and technically inept work and I think they thinks that by calling it their "art" that they are somehow elevating it from shoddy work but IMHO they are just kidding themselves.

I think, just to name two of my favorites of their scores, Williams' "Superman" and Hans' "Black Rain" are _terrific_ scores that work great with the picture and make for interesting listening but strictly as music, strictly as art, they pale compared to "Daphnis Et Chloe."


----------



## dgburns (Aug 30, 2015)

Just wanted to say I liked your first post.Scoring seems to me all about problem solving for sure.But I also think creating some sort of thematic "something" is still the thing today.Maybe not as melodic as before but....


----------



## rJames (Aug 30, 2015)

A friend of mine who is in the antique business once told me, "You know how to make a small fortune in antiques? ...start with a large one."

I think one thing you were missing in your early years was that naive optimism that you could be better than anyone...that you could rise to the top.

If you had that, you would have said to yourself, "I'm going to do this job better than anyone else can so that I can get the next job and the next."

I think you are incorrectly defining "art," as only "great art." Surely the score to Superman (both Williams' and Zimmer's) are art!

You don't think those guys poured their soul into those works? What else defines "art?"

If you exchange the word, "art," in all of your posts with "great art," then we can agree.

When you compare the Superman scores to Daphnis Et Chloe, certainly you are comparing craftsmanship, not level of art.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

My parents have done very well for themselves. Trust me, I would have made more money working for them and would have eventually inherited the business. As it is, when they pass away, which I hope will not be for a long time, my brother and I are going to split a nice inheritance.

No, that is true I never believed I could be "better than anyone." I believed I could be as good or better than most.
And I still do. No disrespect to him but when I was studying orchestration with Albert Harris he flat out told me that I was better than a well-known guy I will not name here who had a similar background.He also told my my orchestration work was not as good as Ira Hearshen's 

Art is more than just effort. Art is a combination of talent, effort, and once again IMHO the intention to create art. If like me, one is totally focused on trying to serve the picture with music one thinks sounds good and please the client, while that is no small task and requires a good level of skill, that is not the intention to create art.

And i totally disagree about your last statement. Williams level of craft takes a back seat to no one, not even Ravel, but the level of art is lesser, if indeed it is art at all.

Clearly, my views are different from what is fashionable now, but 30 years ago it would have been quite different.

Once when Jerry Fielding was very upset about changes in his score that a director was demanding, Albert, who orchestrated for him said to him, "Jerry, what are you eating your kishkes out about? We are not creating music for the ages here in Hollywood, we are selling soap."

Jerry agreed, but still had a hard time making changes and aggravated himself into 3 heart attacks, the last one fatal.


----------



## wolf (Aug 30, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Most concert hall composers who tried were not all that good at it, Prokofiev being a notable exception.


a few more exceptions that come to mind:

Philip Glass
Elliot Goldenthal
Miklós Rózsa
Nino Rota
Erich Wolfgang Korngold
Aaron Copland
John Corigliano: _The Red Violin
..._


----------



## kunst91 (Aug 30, 2015)

wolf said:


> a few more exceptions that come to mind:
> 
> Philip Glass
> Elliot Goldenthal
> ...



Takemitsu!


----------



## rJames (Aug 30, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> I believed I could be as good or better than most.


So, "most," are not artists?

I think that most people have different definitions of commonly agreed upon things.

Even though "blue" is a common color that we all agree upon, you'd probably get hundreds of different colors if you asked people to provide you with a swatch of blue.

"Fun," many different definitions. "Beautiful," ...well, you get the idea.

If we are just trying to pin down YOUR definition of art, then its sort of pointless isn't it? I think most people agree that there are degrees of art from world-class to just plain bad art. But that its still art.

Your child's painting on the refrigerator proves the point.

To say that John Williams (even when he is scoring a film) is just a technician is just having a whole different definition of art than is commonly held. 

Is it art when the actor plays a role written by a screenwriter? Is it art when a director brings his vision to life in the camera?

BTW Ron (or Jay) doesn't have to like it or approve of it for it to be art.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2015)

I don't know how else to say it. In my view film scoring, even really good film scoring, is mostly craft, only rarely reaching transcending craft into something I would also call art, and even then not art on the level of "Daphnis Et Chloe."

If you disagree, you disagree.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Aug 30, 2015)

I can't relate to the notion that a work cannot be art if it's rooted in "high culture", or even "worse", embedded in some form of popular, mainstream or entertainment culture outlet.

Why would that be the case? Why not see "art" as the product of a deliberate and thoughtful symbiosis of craft, good intention, wit, creativity, playfulness and insticts? Why not see it as the spirited pooling of the human potential to greatness? Humans, at their best, have those qualities. Intelligence, emotion, ingenuity, diligence, communication. The channeling of these qualities is an example of being human in a good way. Why would that be categorically excluded from any venue of life?

Why wouldn't something like film music - something that serves a practical purpose - not be art? Why would functional purpose disqualify it? Other than for reasons of stubborn and ultimately useless ideology? Our whole existence is about making sense, about solving problems. The sublimated man strives for sense and structure. Unless you've decided that you're gonna be a Zen buddhist or something and devote your time to sitting around, watching grass grow and trying to get out of the eternal loop. There is no point in life without the chance - and the striving - to concernful action.

I've heard wonderful music in films, even video games. Enchanting works that can hold their own even outside of their original context. And why wouldn't they? Art can manifest itself anywhere and everywhere in life, it only needs a way, and it takes the right person to do it.

I would even claim that the people who categorically disqualify these things from artistic potency, in reality don't know what they're looking for. They can say what they _don't_ consider art left and right, they will _speak_ about artistic intention that they can't specify, and they will usually invoke the greats and the masters and works of "high culture", but in reality, their idea of art is a unicorn that only exists on some detached plane in an aloof and self-indulgent mind. If nothing rooted in the mundane functions of everyday life is art, but can only manifest itself in some kind of ethereal self-purpose, then it's a practice for the truly detached.


----------

