Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Avant-garde pop? (A question on importance) Message-ID: <5811@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 15:01:27 EST Article-I.D.: tekecs.5811 Posted: Sat Nov 2 15:01:27 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 02:03:20 EST References: <249@mit-eddie.UUCP> Distribution: net.music Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 51 > I dunno about the Post Structuralists, but Vermorel doen't say that art > is just a function of the number of people you can reach, but that the > importance of art is a function of the number of the people you can > reach. He has good things to say about the painter David Hockney, but > says that his art is ultimately not very important because fine art > painting isn't something that reaches many people these days. Of course, if Hockney's painting becomes even more popular in 50 years than Madonna is today, that sort of changes things, doesn't it? Defining "importance" (phew, give me unimportant music any day) as a function of the number of people you reach TODAY strikes me as artificial. You *do* believe that importance should be related to quality, don't you? Since the majority of people (myself included) have only mediocre understanding (intuitive or otherwise) of anything, it is unlikely that the popularity of a given work has anything to do with quality. Or importance. I'll even go further and suggest that popularity of any given art is pure chance. Just a thought. To misquote Doug Alan - "Vermorel also says lots of rediculous things too. For example:" > Meanwhile the avant garde has turned itself into a display of > fossilised passions and polemic as dignified and predictable as > classical ballet. And no more important. A show to put on for > a public of bankers, civil servants and TV producers interested > merely in investment potential -- for securities or reputations. Well now, this is pretty good. Artists have known for years that one way to make ends meet when thay face a non-understanding world is to try to impress some rich patron. It beats starving to death. But now, if one tries anything like that, Pow! Sorry, Bud, your stuff stinks 'cause a banker was fooled into paying money for it. > Hardly art at all, since it no longer moves, surprises or alerts > us. Merely mystifies, bores or impresses. Of course, this attitude is indistinguishable from that of someone who is simply too dull or ignorant to respond. I don't mean to imply that everything avant-garde is great. 90% of everything is crap, right? But too often people look for excuses when they don't understand something, and the easiest excuse is "It's their problem, not mine". Jeff Winslow