IDM Mailing Archive

-----Original Message----- From: tigi [mailto:tigofthedump@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:40 PM To: Gause, Brian; idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [idm] Six of one! 1/2 dozen of the other!!! "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.

quoted 1 line

>>>>>>>

Actually, I'm considering a book on this. I'd like to find the crosshairs where pop meets art meets privacy...but it's difficult starting. 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.

quoted 1 line

>>>>>>>

This is true. I tend to think of change more in terms of steps, but you're right...it's much more fluid than that. I think, though, that technology has increased the accepted rate of change to such a degree that it seems less fluid than before. 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?

quoted 1 line

>>>>>>>

This may be my own bias. I live in San Francisco and though there is plenty of resentment (especially for conservative, systemic types who like rules), there is also quite a bit of freedom to be yourself. Perhaps I see this more here and extrapolate from different data. Regardless, though, I think the technological revolution of the past 25 years (and the internet revolution, in particular) has begun to offer people a more encompassing view of the world. No longer is mainstream america about cheerleaders and quarterbacks. It's cool to like comic books or sci-fi movies. It's okay to be a nerd. a punk. a dreamer. And sure, I don't mean 'completely acceptable', but rather, more acceptable. Especially living in SF, I can see the weight of conservatism around us and the measure of influence it has on everyone. But clinton's office escapades have been an eye-opener to a lot of people. Maybe this has happened to other presidents, maybe it's old hat...but it was never like this. Peter Jennings was talking about blowjobs on network news. That's just stunning. I think the technological revolution has given us a different view of information...whether it's ones and zeros or definitions (of "alone" or "is", for example) or ideas of propriety. This would seem to be a natural phenomenon in any time, any culture...but I think the new speed of life has given us rapid social change in ways we didn't anticipate. 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".

quoted 1 line

>>>>>>>>

See, I still don't get this. Autechre makes great music. That doesn't inspire anything but appreciation and pleasure in me. I can understand not liking the music (everyone has different taste), and I can understand not liking all the focus on them...and, honestly, I can see a resentment from this (to some extent)...but really, if you don't like autechre, you don't like them. Big deal. Lots of people do and they like talking about them. So what? If you talk about what you want to talk about, then what's the problem? Focus on yourself and such resentments disappear pretty quickly. So I suppose I do understand it, but geez...I can't say I have much patient for that sort of attitude. (and yes, I am posting this to the list because I think it's interesting and a far cry from bitching about content or top ten lists) Also a good point about finding a place to be yourself. But, as an interesting rebuttal, I DO sing. I've recently learned to sing on key about 1/2 the time and though I can hear my voice and I KNOW it's not going to get me a recording contract...I like singing. Friends laugh and strangers stare, but who cares? I like singing. If no one else does, that's just the way it goes. Your point is still valid, though...most people have been trained by mass media to be hypercritical of this. 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.

quoted 1 line

>>>>>>>>

This is true and I'm curious to watch the change in the record industry in the next 15 years. Technology is forcing change...mp3s, CDRs, photocopiers, scanners, sound cards. We're moving quickly into a place where it could be really simple to forget the creator for the creation. Even now, select pieces of society already worship information...what happens when this sort of attitude spreads? We become concerned first about the creation (the THING itself, the song, the painting, the whatever-it-is), THEN about the creator. And perhaps this is a good thing...art, after all, is about perceptions and sensations (forgetting the artist and his creative urge, for a minute). The consumption of art is about that link between creation and perceiver. It's easy to see how technology allows this to happen more easily. You, as a perceiver, don't have the same startup costs for getting your eyes, ears and hands on that creation. Of course, there's the question of the artist and where he stands in this dilemma, as well. I can see a world where artists deal directly with their fans (perceivers, followers, worshippers...oh, it could get ugly, too) and cut out the middleman (i.e. record companies, art galleries, etc.) This said, I'm not sure the record industry can stop what is happening with technology today. Their focus, if they want to survive, is to harness this new world, not resist it. If Columbia (choose your own label) was smart, they'd create their own version of napster. Put some banner ads on there, then give the product away. Post all the music they've released, then let people at it. Okay, so sales would drop, but let's face it...people ARE getting music for free. And as long as they can continue to do this, they will. I don't see a viable way to make this stop, either. Hacker culture has taken over technology and let's be honest about this...the people behind the technology know a lot more about the technology than record company execs or their lawyers. So make a law...is that going to stop everyone? Perhaps it's a silly suggestion, but the point stands...you're not going to beat technology at its own game. 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 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. >>>>>>>> This isn't as ridiculous to me as you may think. What is privacy, anyway? Why do people value privacy? This is just a preliminary thought, but perhaps privacy is a response to fear of judgment...solitude is something else, but if you consider privacy, it's all about keeping information to yourself (e.g. not telling the neighbors you wear a woman's g-string to work). Not divulging, not sharing, not giving away. Restriction. Holding down the fort. Fighting for hidden treasures. I think if you can separate privacy from solitude (which seems valid), you get a conception of privacy as an activity about safety and survival. You are private because you don't want to be judged and ridiculed. You don't want to share because someone will use information against you or cheat you of what you're due. You protect yourself because the world is ugly, brutish and short. Perhaps. I'm open to argument, though. Clinton is a perfect example of the changing state of privacy, I think. In the beginning, he was very defensive about allegations (i.e. jennifer flowers). Now he's passing out white house documents left and right. He's not as concerned about his privacy (he IS concerned about it, but simply not AS CONCERNED as before) because he knows he can beat the allegations. This is only a few steps removed from a world where people don't care AT ALL about judgment because they can either a) beat the allegations or b) live the way they want regardless of such allegations. Now, how this relates to our definition of true freedom is another matter. As for your final thoughts, I've been accused of both arrogance and insanity...and I'm not so sure either is wrong. Hope this elaboration works for you. ---brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org