Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Avant-garde pop?  (A question on importance)
Message-ID: <471@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 09:17:47 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.471
Posted: Mon Nov  4 09:17:47 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 22:56:14 EST
References: <249@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Distribution: net.music
Organization: The Poto Mitan in the Houmfor
Lines: 69

> Art is a form of communication.  Thus it seems to me that the importance
> of a piece of art is strongly related to the number of people it can
> communicate to.  Importance is different than quality, though.  A
> certain work of art may communicate very powerfully to a very few
> people.  In that case, for them the work of art is of high quality, but
> perhaps the work of art is of little importance.  Another work of art
> may reach lots of people, but it may have nothing to say or may
> communicate detrimental things.  In this case, the work is important,
> but bad.  Lionel Richie's (I'll give Madonna a break, for a moment)
> music is so represensible because not only is it awful, but by reaching
> so many people, it is polluting an incredibly important area of art.  I
> wouldn't spend much breath saying that a bad unknown artist is bad,
> because who cares?  On the other hand, I might spend a lot of breath on
> saying that a great unknown artist is great, because I feel that their
> work has the potential for being very important, even if it isn't yet.
> 
> I feel that "avant-garde pop" is the most important field of art today
> because such art can reach millions of people also be of extremely high
> quality.

Wait a minute. If no one ever heard Kate Bush (or if only a small number
of people ever heard Kate Bush) would that make her a less important
artist? You say that art that communicates to a few people may be "good"
but unimportant, then you turn around and claim the right to spend time
extolling the worth of an unknown artist you feel may be important.
Your argument reduces to "art is important when I think it is important."
This view is perfectly valid, in the absence of an objective mechanism for
assessing art's value (you and I have had this discussion before) but I hope
you agree that others may follow your logic and reach different conclusions.

Also, avant-garde anything that reaches millions of people will no longer
be avant-garde, wouldn't you say?

No artist consciously decides to appeal to few people. All unknown artists
will say their obscurity stems from the public's lack of understanding of
their art (this is often true). What attains mass popularity is art that
has simple appeal (note: I did not say art that is simple) *and* well
promoted. I am quite certain that if the combined weight of the music business
promoted Cecil Taylor's music as The Next Big Thing, many people would
buy his albums, although few of them might hear his message.

> [Fred Vermorel Quote]
> 	Pop is the only art which really counts today.  Our most
> 	progressive -- responsive, mutable, hungry and eclectic -- form.
> 	The taskmaster and pacemake of all the arts.

I assume this person has seen, heard, felt, smelled and tasted all art
being created today, and alone is qualified to declare a form as the
sole valid expression of humanity's creativity. Otherwise, this statement
is merely pompous.

> 	                                          ... who will remember
> 	John Cage in 100 years?  Or not know Kate Bush?

Both these questions are pointless, because none of us will be around
to see them resolved. Cage and Bush are documented by their recorded works;
their own views on their work and that of others are documented in interviews.
This trail of data *guarantees* that they will be remembered. The future may
assign them a place different from today, but so what? That does (should) not
affect the way we form opinions.

I have always felt that weighty pronouncements on artistic trends and relative
importance are simply hiding a basic ignorance of the totality of contemporary
artistic development. (this is not a flame to you Doug, but at this Vermorel
creature. You have carefully presented your argument as no more than an opinion)
-- 
Marcel-Franck Simon		ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs

	" Sot pa touye'-ou, li fe`-ou sue' "