De gustibus non est disputandum In matters of taste, there can be no dispute Taste (sociology) "...an individual's personal and cultural patterns of choice and preference." Thus sayeth the Wiki on it. If the ideas of aesthetics and beauty are purely subjective, and one opinion is as good as another, is there a standard, or even method by which creative products can be assessed in terms of quality? When someone says, "This is a good book," basing this judgement solely on their personal reaction to having read it, does this make it a good book? If one book sells a million copies, but another sells only a dozen, does that sales superiority in and of itself make the million-selling book a better book than the only-a-dozen sales book? Furthermore, if there is no basis for such judgement, and there is no standard for quality, what is the point of an art, writing, dance or music education? Why bother if any expression anyone does with any art medium is defined as art, with no standard of whether it's good art, or poor art? This isn't to set-up a straw man argument here. This idea is honestly perplexing that there can be no quality of art, and just any expression will fit the definition of art. Most notably in the connection between Antonio Soliare and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart what was it about the work of one that rose so high above the work of the other? Why do the strains (as demonstrated so well in the cinema Amadeus) of Mozart's work leap to the mind in immediate recognition, while those of Salieri ring as anonymous and unfamiliar? Both men were quite successful. Professionally, Salieri was more successful than Mozart, even teaching Beethoven. Yet, Mozart's work has been so propagated people are familiar with its melodies without knowing they're listening to the fabled Amadeus. A similar phenomena surrounded the actress Clara Bow. She was famously called "The It Girl." Why? Because in describing her appeal on the screen a producer once said, "I don't know what it is, but she has it." What is "it" that she had? This alludes to what in the human psyche is an undeniable experience yet one which defies verbal description - words cannot say. Do the artists and their work whose reputations have lasted (some) for centuries have this "it" as well? Picasso once said of sculpture that the perfect sculpture, if you pour water onto it from the top, it will cascade down and cover every surface. In two-dimensional design instruction, required for any fine arts degree, it is said a good composition has an entry point for the eye, then the composition leads the eye to every part of the work in succession. However, in three-dimensional art (such as sculpture) and two-dimensional art (such as painting, print-making and the various drawing media) as well as in the literary arts, a concept of the "finished work" is stressed; the completed piece. Along with that is the concept of the "successful" piece. This isn't the standard, commercially-successful concept. This concept predates capitalism by many centuries. Does the work of art accomplish what the artist intended? If so, it is successful. This might be why at the very least an education in art history might be essential. Art, along with man, has developed over the thousands of years of its existence. Regardless of philosophical definitions and parameters, humans have demonstrated over their entire history a preference for art of quality. Humankind has elevated to heroic stature their most celebrated artists, a practice which continues in modern times. There must be a standard humankind has expected to be met, or why wouldn't every artist be so celebrated simply for the fact they were artists; or no artist? In discussing this issue, should artists recuse themselves for bias? Wouldn't it be self-defeating for an artist to declare certain qualities of art demonstrate poor craftsmanship should this artist himself or herself, employ these qualities? Or, perhaps the reverse, championing the same qualities for the mere fact they are the ones the same artists might employ? Should that be the case, is it possible for people outside the field to set themselves up as legitimate critics whose opinion on matters of art quality on the face of them should be taken as factual? A writer in the so-called "horror genre" known best for work in the late twentieth century which sold notably well and were as a matter of course turned into a string of movies with more or less monetary success as well actually said of his own work he thought it was of poor quality and didn't understand its commercial appeal. Yet, he made money doing it, and it had become his job so he continued to do it despite his opinion of his own "work." Was this false humility? Was this an attempt to drum up sympathy? He later recanted, leaving society with two views of his work - both his. Which is true? Or, is it again another reason why artists should recuse themselves in discussing art quality? Maybe at the least artists should differentiate between their personal tastes and knowing what good art is, as opposed to bad art. A Nashville guitar player was asked if he could read music. "Not enough to hurt my pickin'," was his reply. He would seem to say being formally educated in music would disqualify him from playing the sort of music he played, presumably country music or another form of folk music. However, in that response is another more hidden view, which is also in what the producer said about Ms. Bow. "I know it when I see it," or "I know it when I hear it." Strangely enough this is what the U.S. Supreme Court Justices said about pornography and what appeals to the "prurient interests", sending them into frequent private viewings of film accused of being pornography in attempts to see it so they'd know it, and could therefore render a legal judgement about its Constitutionality. Its Constitutionality of course determines if it enjoys the protection of free speech under the law. By its own existence the concept of "free speech under the law" declares that society has a right to make judgements about the nature and quality of items of expression. Not only has society granted itself the right to declare certain expressions illegal, and therefore not permissible, it also reserves the right to fine or imprison creators of some expressions. This certainly is evidence that humankind in the main doesn't accept all expression as art, regardless of the declared intent of the one expressing. However, does the commercial success of even items the Supreme Court would deny protection under the law circumvent that proscription, as it is evidence of a societal vote for acceptance? This then could be seen as the same as the author of a recent set of books dealing with a child's wizard's school realizing record monetary success, might use that success alone as justification for her entry into history as a "great author of literature." What can be said is, to put it lightly, a lot of time and effort has gone into creating culture of stature when comparing it to the culture of old. Artists and humankind itself has occupied themselves with assuring this cultural development is alive and continuing. There must be a goal in mind. There must be a way to tell if a culture's spinning its wheels, rolling backward, or moving on down the line. Right?
What is meant by experimental art? Is it the same as innovative, or unconventional, for instance? One feature it seems all three must share is having not been tried before, or at the least, having not been tried by so many that the attempt could be called “well known.” Something experimental, or innovative would be unconventional. Experimental art dallies with sensibility or conventional expectations. What these might be are things like sense of time, and space. Sense of order in terms of hierarchies such as importance, or significance. There may even be a range of social convention which can be challenged, such as a range of psychological proclivities, prevalence or lack of violence, gratuitous nature of violence, be it emotional, or physical in some way. (This might be testing the current audience's tolerances.) James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake famously begins with half a sentence, and ends with the first half of the starting sentence, ably demonstrating the repetitive cycle of the events in people's lives. However, there's nothing really challenging that tests any limits in the story itself, so this beginning/ending might be defined as innovative. He intentionally uses the language as spoken in his home in Ireland, where the story takes place, and in so doing uses a lot of Gaelic and dialectically-specific English which speakers of English often times find difficult to decipher, which could be termed unconventional. However unusual the book is, it doesn't meet what one might expect from experimental literature. Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, again James Joyce with Ulysses, and Virginia Woolf are said to be the modernist literary experimenters, however (and this may be 21st Century cultural bias) they seem to be experimenting more with what publishers might allow through the gate, than with the sensibilities of readers. Woolf, for instance, boldly altered the characterization of females as the stupid subservient. Whereas Pound's achievement was with poetry, something much easier to toy with than larger prosaic works. Pound's Canto was criticized as being incoherent, or unable to “cohere” as it is fragmented. Pound countered that life experience is fragmented and the work reflects the reality in that way. Joyce's Ulysses on the other hand (considered to be the most important modernist work) endeavored to depict the day of a person through that person's thoughts, rather than sequential telling of the day's events. This was truly experimental and indeed drew not only wide response, but a rather lively one. It can be safely said, Ulysses changed the concept of the novel itself. Joyce himself said of the work he “...put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant.” The Dadaist movement of the early 20th Century is most frequently hailed as the hallmark for experimental art. Marcel Duchamp, said to have introduced concepts which inspired Dada, created what he called anti-art. This would involve, for instance, painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa to challenge conventional concepts of art itself. However, cubism would be considered the pre-World War II root of the movement. Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso pursued cubism as a way to try to show motion, or advancing time, within two-dimensional visual art. Though short-lived as a painting method, cubism did affect how painters who followed viewed their craft in much the same way as Joyce caused novelists to rethink the conventions of their chosen medium. During the middle of the 20th Century, a time called “post-modernism” you had a continuation of this experimentation in literature, notably William S. Burrough's Naked Lunch. Law enforcement during the 1960s attempted to prosecute Burroughs for obscenity for this work, which brought about public interest in the concepts of freedom of the press and free speech. This initiated the cultural and moral revolution which would come in the late 60s (commonly called “The Sixties”.) Burroughs attempted to relate experiences with heroine addiction from the perspective of the addict in The Naked Lunch. This was done with descriptions of what could be later called psychedelia – psychedelic taken to mean “mind expanding.” He employed a technique used by Tristan Tzara, a Dadaist poet, called “cut up”, where lines were cut in strips from paper, then mixed and placed into a manuscript in what could be called a random order. Singer/songwriter David Bowie (working in the latter half of the 20th Century and early 21st) said he and fellow writer Brian Eno frequently employed this technique, as well. The interesting distinction in this is between the concepts of innovation and experimentation. Much of the work considered to be revolutionary was that because it defied standards the keepers of the gate to success held as the key. Experimental work would do the same, however, its intent had nothing to do with commercial success or appealing to a broad audience. Experimental work has more to do with the work itself, or the elements and tools used to create the final work. The features seem to be attempts to see just what will this medium do? We see what it has done, and done well, but is that all there is to this? Sometimes the attempts failed. The play Ubu Roi, by Alfred Jarry, opened and closed in one night – December 10, 1896. Yet, it has influenced how plays are written, cast, costumed and how sets are designed until this day. Maybe the answer lies in how we define success. We know how the box office defines it. We know how the record label defines it, and we know how the popular press defines it. How do we define it – as the artists; as the avant-garde?
"It's art, but it's not what we're buying." "This looks good to me, but do you have a degree? I may not know what I'm talking about." "Can you provide a back story for this, and maybe a love interest?" "No one wants an all oriental book. Put a white man in there somewhere." When the ones guarding the doors to financial success through art are inclined to come up with gems like these, what hope has anyone trying to break down the frontiers of creative expression? If everyone is busy producing what sells, how does an art form progress into the future? Wouldn't it pretty much stay the same decade after decade after decade? If the art doesn't progress, how can the culture? "Do what you can sell, then when you're established do your art." How can any work be called art when its inception and creation are driven by the profit motive? Has anyone asked themselves any of these questions - or anything similar? Welcome to the world of avant-garde. It's French for "advanced guard." It's the front line. If your work is radical, unorthodox, nontraditional, experimental or innovative you are on the front line. You are the avant-garde. So, why would being among those who are trying to increase our understanding of the nature of artistic expression, trying to move the frontiers outward as humanity moves forward in time, trying to enhance the available modes, media and method of creativity so culture is richer, and thereby shows the signs of sophistication and aesthetic intricacy commensurate with its age -rather than becoming stale and decrepit; why is this a bad thing? Unless the artist is independently wealthy, he or she requires backing of some sort, and this of course is financial backing. This is the world of capitalism as a religion, where art is seen as a marketable product, and no more. Sure, much lip service is paid to how important art is to our culture, ta da ta da, but when it comes right down to it, it's either a saleable product, or it is not. And, as we all know in the great cathedral of sales, people only back things that they know will sell. Without the genius and insight of particularly clever people, this then becomes what has sold before. Logic dictates. Not surprisingly, established society has come to label the avant-garde as anti-capitalism. This can't be entirely true, as most artists are eager to sell their work. They are just as eager to spend the money. Yet, this criticism seems to be a reaction to the threat of unknown change, as it is also recognized by established society that art can be a powerful engine for change, and when change is in the air, nobody's safe...or, so the rumor goes. The story goes that all innovations were eventually incorporated and became conventional culture adopted by established society. So, where's the problem? I'm not going to be the one to answer that. I'm instead going to see how brave, or indoctrinated others are in attempting to either justify or rationalize this situation. I will say this much. Did you know there was a time when the United States of America subsidized art? (I mention the U.S. as the bastion of the "free market" as the be all end all to humanity's living condition.) They actually paid artists a stipend to help them with living expenses so they could create. Imagine taking the cost of one aircraft carrier and instead spending it on your nation's artists. That would have to violate some supreme free market edict. We all know we're only supposed to subsidize arms manufacturers and spies! Come on now! Get real! The surviving while you try to succeed problem exists worldwide, I daresay. I heard an Australian comic urging his fellow citizens to get on the dole. And, I've heard there is this dole in England (or the UK?) It wouldn't be surprising if the backers of Brexit were also anti-dole. If there isn't such a term I just invented it! If you look at the ancient archeological digs which are so rich with bas reliefs, sculptures, mosaics, fountains and gardens, which we are so eager to haul off and show in our museums as examples of fine ancient arts, it's easy to see at one time the greatest civilizations not only subsidized art, they incorporated art into the very structure of their civilizations. The one didn't exist without the other. And, it's not surprising that as the origin of the concept of the avant-garde rose, along with it rose a counter-measure - fascism. Fascists placed controlling art, what it was, who owned it and its placement at the top of their to-do lists. They were quick to use visual art, architecture, and literature to cement their institutional authority and ensure their label was everywhere one looked so there was no doubt who was in charge - a form of territorial pissing. And, as I mentioned before, artists who did not toe the line were labeled decadent, and put out of business. If they complained too loudly, they were "dealt with." Why is it not surprising then to see crops of artists maturing whose whole focus on what they produce, what their art conveys - if it conveys anything but entertainment - is, "What will meet the approval of the people who control the money?" In music there's a distinction between artists and entertainers. In visual art there's a distinction between the artist and the decorator, (decoration being a craft, not an art.) In rationalizing this, or justifying it to others, oneself or ones peers, does one find oneself using logic and reason as an apologetic for ones position in the scheme of things? Or, is art really the lie which reveals the truth? Ubu Roi
adjective 1. relating to the philosophy of aesthetics; concerned with notions such as the beautiful and the ugly. 2. relating to the science of aesthetics; concerned with the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty. 3. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty. 4. relating to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. noun 5. the philosophical theory or set of principles governing the idea of beauty at a given time and place: the clean lines, bare surfaces, and sense of space that bespeak the machine-age aesthetic; the Cubist aesthetic. 6. Archaic. the study of the nature of sensation. Greek aisthētikós, equivalent to aisthēt(ḗs) Greek aisthētḗs one who perceives Okay. A definition, if not the definition. What I find interesting is the great weight is in adjective form; the word beauty (or beautiful) being prevalent. This is a modernization which has come to be since I was a kid. The definition more closely akin to what artists actually deal with (rather than art critics, or so-called art appreciators) is way at the bottom, naturally. Number 6., the archaic one - the study of the nature of sensation. Perhaps it's that line of other definitions which precede #6 nowadays that is the subject of this discussion. The definition of the term seems to have slid toward something more in the vernacular sense of the word, than how it was used in discussions by artists many decades ago. Perhaps seen as a word signifying the recognition of beauty, the word has come to be viewed as rather purposeless or, redundant. The concept of sensation, and the stimulation of sensation through art by the artist, be it poetry, dance, literature, architecture, or painting - the idea of the aggregate of the work of an era in all these areas contributing to the aesthetic of a culture would be the area of concern for this examination. (Authors contribute mightily to this aggregate, and often times in history the collective body of work is termed an era.) The aesthetic of an era would then be the total of all elements forming any stimulation of the five senses, in combination with all the other elements taken as a whole - the music, the clothes, (today) automobile styles, popular colors to paint rooms (even) would all combine to create the aesthetic within which the people of that time lived. It would also include unsightly power poles and the array of wires strung pole to pole; billboards lining thoroughfares, industrial smokestacks and their accompanying odors, traffic noise - all these combine to form the aesthetic. What is more, all of these are under the control of humanity as to their presence within their environs, and the nature and quality of their presence. So, it would seem, this aesthetic is created by the activity of human intelligence whether directed, or not, and whatever combination of sensations on the five senses result is the aesthetic regardless of any concept of beauty, truth, ugliness, what have you. This aggregate of influences upon the overall frame of mind of people within a society was recognized by artists, though slowly at first, at the turn of the 20th Century as the deleterious effects of industrialization began to show themselves as fixed in the landscape. The idea that people were of more positive disposition walking through a meadow of spring flowers than they were standing on the floor of a huge factory, and that difference showing itself in the psychological characteristics prevalent in a society began to be apparent. The very idea of dystopia, which Orwell enshrined, had until then not existed. It wasn't until the prevailing aesthetic created the deleterious effect that artists especially began to try to draw people's attention to it. "Hey. Do we really want to go this way?" During this time, which is why I call into question those definitions of the word, beauty as a quality in art went to the wayside. Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle when George Orwell was three years old. As with 1984, there is nothing beautiful in The Jungle. What bothered people about that book was precisely the aesthetic involved. "Who would want to live this way?" The connection between the psychological well-being and environment as the main thrust of artistic communication was reaching a zenith in the late twenties, early thirties about the time something else happened - the rise of fascism. Very little of the work from that era remains, especially from places such as Spain, and Germany. Berlin had quite innovative live theater productions being performed in bistros, or cabarets, which were forcefully shut down, their creators were either imprisoned, or fled. Not only did the fascists burn books, they also burned films, photography, and paintings. The war which ensued took on a life of its own, and by the end the Cold War and all it encompassed this attempt to call people's attention to the principals and concepts of the aesthetic was but a faint whisper. "Art is the lie that reveals the truth." -Pablo Ruiz Picasso- Look at the world you're in. What is its aesthetic? Does being in it put you in what you'd call a good frame of mind? Or, do you find yourself trying to filter it out just to hang onto a positive outlook? Look at the aesthetic of the abject poverty in which the majority of the world's population finds itself. What psychological reaction would a rational thinker expect there? As writers whatever we do contributes and creates a part of this aesthetic. Interesting, no?
My foray into art began in visual arts at an early age. Picasso and Matisse, my two heroes, were still alive. I lived in Alabama; quite remote from significant art. The art of Europe seemed further away from Alabama than the continent itself. Yet, thanks to Life and Look magazines I became aware of these two, the greatest of painters, through articles and black and white photos. These articles then contained clues which I could use to uncover the whereabouts of these two in the library, and as I did just that I kept coming across these two words which I'd never seen before; aesthetics and avant-garde. There certainly was no one that I knew of whom I could ask about these. Those who weren't pure technocrats involved in the almighty space race were locals who thought any place beyond Madison County had to be demon possessed. Just mention Picasso and people looked at you like you needed psychiatric help, and of course no one I knew even heard of Henri Matisse. This was all well and good as I've always had an intuition that knowledge comes to those who persist and insist. Not a retiring lily myself, I've employed these two traits judiciously to overcome the backwoods environs of my early days. Though, it took not very long at all to learn to what "avant-garde" referred, "aesthetic" seemed quite elusive. Even today I find this word not used much at all in the United States. Not surprisingly, the majority of the references I found using it were from Europe - France mainly, Paris specifically. In this blog I intend to pursue the concepts contained in these two terms; aesthetics and the avant-garde. It is my hope younger folks than I might come across ideas they've not before considered. It is my further hope that in so doing, consideration of these concepts might positively inform upon how they as fellow artists contemplate and conceptualize their work.