quoted 351 lines "Gause, Brian" wrote:
>
>
> "Gause, Brian" wrote:
>
>>
>> With regard to the consequences of art becoming pop, I wonder about
>> how the
>> urge to create (i.e. the foundation of art and now, suddenly, Pop,
>> in all
>> its guises) has mutated over time. I mean, was there a pop mentality
>> in
>> existence when Michaelangelo was working on the sistine chapel? Did
>> he have
>> to compete with so-called lesser artists with a more pop mentality
>> than his
>> own? Sure, there were pretenders, but was there a public that
>> recognized
>> this enough to accept it? Is pop a natural cultural phenomenon that
>> has only
>> recently come into existence through the aid of mass media?
>
> I think we need a book on the sociological aspects of pop, but yeah,
> It's obvious the media is encouraging and perpetuating this today, I
> think they probably always were, just not as consciously. I think it
> happened this century. Michaelangelo? I can't imagine he was
> concerned with people that were trying to compete with him. It would
> have been too distracting. I can't imagine he had a hard time finding
> jobs.
>
>>
>> It strikesme that what we could be seeing here is the beginning of a
>> major
>> shift in our socio-psychological understanding of ourselves.
>
> No, that's always shifting, but it's shifting faster, maybe even
> exponentially, like the advance of technology.
>
>> If you couple
>> this phenomenon with the decreasing insistence on privacy, for
>> example, is
>> it possible to claim that we're moving into a new world? A world
>> where more
>> and more people are recognized as creative and accepted into the
>> social
>> landscape as real people?
>
> I don't know about that one. We're definitely moving into a new world
> via the technological revolution, more creative people are needed now,
> it makes sense that creative people would become more accepted,
> because they're in demand. What bothers me is that everyone always
> talks about the eccentric creative type having a hard time being
> accepted. I never hear mention of how the creative types set
> themselves up so that can be themselves and still survive(thrive) in
> society coexisting with what you call "real people". The root of
> the whole problem is that with "real people" or "anybodys" as I like
> to refer to them, anything or anyone out of the accepted ordinary, as
> in appearance, opinion, etc. induces fear and hatred. Sometimes we
> get lucky and it becomes popular anyway, like Willie Wonka, which was
> banned in the US when first published. Never mind the Constitution or
> anything... A sign of the technological revolution: we're burning
> books instead of witches now! What's next, MD's?
>
>> Art was always about some sense of superior vision
>> or talent or some strange, but undeniable gift. Have we moved beyond
>> this to
>> a world where everyone is gifted and talented in this way, where
>> everyone
>> has vision AND, on top of everything else, where we accept the
>> consequences
>> of this?
>
> I wish! People with artistic talent are (still) loved by few and
> resented by many. For example, many people on this list resent
> Autechre. Many people on this list resent people in general,
> especially opinionated people. I feel that everyone is born with a
> certain amount of potential that they and only they decide to develop
> or not; a sense of superior vision and strange undeniable "gifts"
> (I'll say abilities). Because we have so many creative type jobs
> available now, it's easier for someone to get paid and accepted to be
> creative, and they don't have to feel the societal pressure of being
> an "artist". The way things are now, if you have an urge to do
> something creative, like, sketch a self portrait for fun, it gets
> critiqued and ridiculed like you were submitting it to a gallery.
> "What are you, some kind of artist?" The worst though is singing.
> People (including myself) are so critical of singing. You can't sit
> around and fuck with your voice like you can with a guitar, or a Hacky
> Sack. I challenge you to sing for fun (not parody) and just see what
> the people around you have to say about it. Always something, as if
> you'd asked. The truth is, we're such a superficial and materialistic
> society that "anybody" doesn't take art seriously unless the artist is
> getting PAID for it. That's why I always try to check out links to
> mp3's people post. You never know what to expect exactly, unless
> there's a caption like "semi-dark idm with a jungle edge and some
> video game sounding samples".
>
>> If you begin tolook at the increasing loss of privacy, you see
>
>> that not only are we losing privacy more and more every day, but
>> that we're
>> not complaining much about it. Social factors have brought us to
>> this place
>> where we can begin to accept pop sentimentalities...where we can
>> look at
>> other people and grant them their talents without giving up our
>> own...because art is no longer the last bastion of geniuses and
>> "artists".
>> It is for everyone who wants to give it a shot.
>
> It's getting more like that, which is really cool. This has happened
> for musicians more than anyone in the last 10-20 years. 50 years ago,
> it was reasonable to create "fine" art with the same tools and
> materials that the masters were using. This was not the case with
> music. If you had the vision, motivation, and talent, and you wanted
> to create music akin to the popular music you were listening to at the
> time, you had to be either incredibly rich or incredibly funded. In
> the 80's/90's, all of a sudden it seemed to me, people were able to
> create music akin to the production values of the popular music they
> were listening to, all in the comfort of their own homes, on equipment
> purchased with their reasonable incomes. Now it's such a cliché we
> have a name for them; "bedroom producers" is it?. I think this is
> really exciting and the implications even more so. Everyone knows the
> music industry has been gouging artists since the ghet-go, and with
> the audacious presumption that WE need THEM! Now we have the freedom
> to do what we want. We don't have to adhere to their wishes in order
> to get into the studio or produce masters or even manufacture and
> distribute! Anyone wishing to sign a "slavery contract" with a major
> label now totally deserves it. The major labels are scrambling for
> talent right now. Their sales are still good, but the more people who
> employ the new means for making and buying music, the more they'll
> realize that it is they who need us.
>
> I still don't understand what all this has to do with the loss of
> privacy, though. I don't even agree that there is less privacy now,
> unless you're in the public eye, then it's excruciating. My neighbors
> don't even know my name. This wouldn't have been the case 50 years
> ago. We would have been borrowing sugar and flour from each other all
> the time.
>
>>
>>
>> I think the interesting aspect of this for me relates to the
>> increasing loss
>> of privacy and our failure to really care about it. Look at Bill
>> Clinton,
>> Heidi Fleis (the hollywood madam with the little black book of
>> names), OJ,
>> on and on. Most of the well-publicized court cases in the past 5-10
>> years
>> have given us a smaller and smaller view of what is private, of what
>> can be
>> held back from others (i.e. the public). Clinton is the perfect
>> example...he
>> just doesn't care that we know about his sex life. What happens when
>> we live
>> in a world where everyone feels this way? Would this be an
>> intolerably naked
>> place or is THIS the definition of true freedom?
>
>>
>> And I think the art becoming pop phenomenon is a perfect lead-in to
>> this
>> question.
>
> --brian
>
>
> ----------------------------------
> Brian W. Gause
> Senior Technical Writer
> SECTORBASE.com
> 568 Howard Street
> First Floor
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> Direct: (415) 365-8203
> Fax: (415) 365-8263
>
>
> To suggest that a disregard for privacy is the definition of true
> freedom is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? Maybe you mean a
> disregard for other people's attention/opinions, which makes more
> sense to me. I agree that it's interesting; the lack of respect for
> someone's privacy who's in the public eye. People are so interested
> in the color of someone's panties, you know? Their annual gross
> income, dog's name, whatev. I think people are trying to displace the
> disinterest in themselves, but that's a whole other topic.
>
> The definition of freedom is really tricky. Even the people who write
> the dictionary definitions can't get it right. True freedom? Maybe
> it means being able to support yourself and create as you see fit,
> without feeling pressure or resentment from a societal norm. In other
> words, being yourself. Don't forget that most people can't be
> themselves without approval, thus completely defeating the purpose.
> Don't forget that people who can be themselves without societal
> approval are generally regarded as arrogant or crazy. These are
> catalysts for art becoming pop phenomenon. Any elaboration on this?
>
> Kevy.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kevy [mailto:kevykev@ixpres.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:06 AM
>> To: Gause, Brian
>> Subject: Re: [idm] Six of one! 1/2 dozen of the other!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gause, Brian" wrote:
>>
>> Greetings.
>>
>> I agree that one of the defining characteristics of Pop is the
>> intention of
>> the artist to appeal to "The Unwashed Masses", but to this I say
>> that the
>> activity on this list over the past year (as compared to, say, 5
>> years ago)
>> is good evidence that even this place has its "unwashed masses".
>>
>>
>> Agreed; on your opinion of the decline of relevant messages posted
>> to the
>> list.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not to say, however, that this is some sort of decline or
>> that we
>> should return to 'the good ol' days', but only that we should
>> recognize the
>> change for what it is. I like pop music and the expanding
>> recognition as the
>>
>> scene grows is good for the artists, but this is exactly how Pop
>> starts. The
>>
>> genre expands to capacity, then splinters...traditionally, it
>> becomes the
>> elite/old skool crowd and the newbies. Pop music is often the last
>> remnant
>> of a splintered scene and the beginning of real acceptance. If IDM
>> (or
>> whatever the hell we're calling this stuff these days) is ever going
>> to
>> cross into mainstream culture, it has to create a pop mentality.
>>
>> It has, right here on the idm list! NO lex is better! NO kit6-0Pole
>> is
>> better! NO NO NO!!!
>> I could hardly believe it the other night to read about who's going
>> to be
>> the "#1 idmus artist".
>>
>>
>>
>> Taking electronic music in the last decade as an example, look at
>> what the
>> Chemicals, the Orb, Prodigy, Moby, Orbital and fatboy slim have done
>> to move
>>
>> our little scene into the mainstream. Each of these bands had
>> moments of
>> experimentalism that drew us closer to the mainstream (and vice
>> versa), but
>> I wouldn't call any of them IDM (well, maybe orbital in the early
>> days...and
>>
>> the orb has huge crossover appeal). Now, look at the current
>> generation of
>> electronic musicians, crossing boundaries (playing with technology),
>> making
>> news(e.g. mp3.com), looking more and more like mainstream culture
>> everyday.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>>
>> I remember the cries years ago that this music was hard to find,
>> that no one
>>
>> knew anything about this stuff, that you had to get online to find
>> like-minded fans...but it's changing. It happened; electronic music
>> is
>> catching on. One of the inevitable results of this is that a Pop
>> mentality
>> has creeped into some of the music. As more people listen to and
>> create
>> electronic music, as it becomes harder to match creaters with
>> listeners, Pop
>>
>> will grow.
>>
>> Yep. You mean, idm will grow as a pop format?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you're still not buying it, consider rap, consider punk. It is
>> the fate
>> of rebellious, exploratory creativity to become popular...hence, art
>> becomes
>>
>> pop. Andy Warhol knew this years ago, but few knew what he was
>> saying and
>> the message was lost in a hairstyle.
>>
>> Well, maybe it was more like the drugs, or becoming miserably jaded,
>> which
>> is a plight of people on this list I think, but ANYWAY, we were kind
>> of
>> talking about this the other day, because my roommate's in a
>> hardcore band,
>> and his bandmates were trying to come up with names for themselves
>> like
>> "Fault Line" and "Riptide", and I was like, "what's wrong with those
>> people,
>> those don't sound punk at all, they're totally gay". This turned
>> into a
>> discussion about how today's hardcore isn't really punk at all,
>> ideologically, and that modern experimental electronic is much more
>> so by
>> definition of what a punk mentality is.
>>
>>
>>
>> This progression has interesting consequences for our cultural view
>> of art,
>> but that's another conversation.
>>
>> VERY interesting. For example, that technologically based art (i.e.
>> music,
>> sculpture, whatev) is becoming popular as a sign of the times. A
>> few years
>> ago I was talking with a major label biz guy, and he was telling me
>> how for
>> singles, a lot of the time they replaced the acoustic drum tracks
>> with
>> electronically derived ones because "Americans prefer the sound of a
>> drum
>> machine to real drums". I was played examples from Genesis. What
>> year
>> would you speculate this change became?
>>
>>
>> Kevy.
>