Art is not an art any more.
Guys, I’m sick of this. The world of art and artists has become so slovenly, amorphous and bloated that while the very tip of it has crawled and slimed its way up onto a pedestal, it’s left a wide trail of itself lying confused on the stairway, and most of it is immobile, upside-down, on the floor, gazing up at its front end way up high and not even recognising it as its own. I want to know at what point it plans on losing some of this excess weight.
There’s this terrifying perception that somehow in order to get onto this mile-high metaphorical pedestal, one has to contort oneself through a machine that exists in seventeen spatial dimensions. There is a physically human impossibility explained purely by the realm of theoretical science between most ordinary, struggling, desperate artists and the generally held consensus of ‘good art’. This is most prevalent in music (although every aspect of art is just as bloody reprehensible as the next) so forgive me if I seem a little unfairly audiocentric over the next few paragraphs. Here we go…
As a musician, I do a lot of things that a lot of very good musicians do. I listen to Neutral Milk Hotel and weep jealous tears. I read Pitchfork religiously, but at the same time hold a deep-set hatred for the subjectivity of the damn thing, not to mention a wracking fear that they’ll do to me what they did to Jet (namely link to a video of a chimp urinating into its own mouth in lieu of actually reviewing the album. Yeah.) I bash my fists in an impotent catharsis on my piano when I realise that none of the melodies I write are even remotely rememberable, and feel better afterwards. All this, not least Pitchfork’s utterly meaningless but almost obsessively geeky decimal ratings system, has led me to conclude that art is nothing more than a science.
Sure, it’s a lot more free than a lot of sciences out there, but there are artistic merits to mathematics, nobody doubts this. Why should there not be mathematical elements to art? In a way, sure, Xenakis could turn addled strings of numbers into sound, but in a much more mainstream everyman way, art is very scientific.
Way back when humans decided that just being alive and getting laid were tasks far too simple to justify existence, we started to question why we were alive. We soon began to consider the fact that perhaps we’d evolved into something that was beyond the constraints of what life intended and could provide, and so in order to further understand ourselves and create an exhaustive compendium of emotion and human transaction, we invented the most complex, distortive lens known to existence, and have fed ourselves through it ever since to produce paintings, records, books, drawings on walls, CDs, and data that will keep us alive well into the next millennium. Because of this long history and because of this ridiculous pedestal that is supported ever more by increasing numbers of people rushing to its base and lifting it above their heads in a massive pyramid of humanity, ever further towards the vanishing point in the sky, it’s very easy to believe that there’s a mystic, magical element to its creation that somehow is inaccessible to people. This is untrue. Every book ever written or translated into the english language is made of the same 26 letters. I know this is trite and oft-mentioned, but it’s worth considering again. Every popular song you have ever heard can be expressed as a wave. There is no song so magical and so astonishing that it does not conform to the physical motion of particles through air. Particles don’t care if Jeff Mangum has released a new compilation of early Synthetic Flying Machine demos. Particles will transfer those sounds to your ears just as they would a new collection of classical renderings of Andrew WK songs. We write this stuff, and the universe doesn’t give a single god-damn. We still have to conform to its regulations. We still have to do as it says.
We look upon the world that spawned us as sort of beneath us now, even though it’s, like, where we came from. We’re just a precocious kid disowning its parents, and the parents are just sitting back silently taking it because they love us. Look at a squirrel or a mushroom or an oak tree – they’re all perfectly in tune with themselves, to a level of harmony beyond what any human being could possibly achieve. We reject everything we know as inferior and yet here we are being unable to raise our children, being unable to even sustain our home, being unable to even finish our own god-damn lives to the extent where we will end it ourselves. We’ve managed to synthesise every other aspect of it apart from the animalistic part of our brain that controls crying and laughing and hitting our heads against walls while making weirdly quiet, deep little groaning noises. The intelligent part of our brains is there to try and make sense of – and create art out of – the impulses of that ancient slouching ape living inside our skulls. It’s an eternal struggle for mankind to be more than mankind can be, but the beauty of it lies in the fact that every single piece of it fails to do that, and simply becomes an expression of unique struggle instead. That horrible seventeen-dimensioned machine I mentioned earlier? That’s not what you need to go through to become an artist. It’s what art IS.
Art is occasionally, like Daniel Johnston’s recordings, or the work of Jean-Michel Basquiat, beautiful because of the way it’s been created, because of the back-story to it, because of its context. Art is occasionally, like The Flaming Lips’ more mainstream albums, or the writings of David Foster Wallace, beautiful because of the very pleasure immersing yourself in them brings. But art is always beautiful because it is unerringly, indelibly, human. And so are you.
References:
“Pitchfork’s utterly meaningless but almost obsessively geeky decimal ratings system” adapted from “its utterly unscientific but geekily precise 10-point album-rating scale” – http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/pitchfork.html
“Look at a squirrel or a mushroom or an oak tree – they’re all perfectly in tune with themselves” http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/5847-neutral-milk-hotel/
YouTube
DFTBA Records
Twitter
Reader Comments
Great post! I gave up on being an “artist” a long time ago and settled for “designer”
relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBVnMf2t7w
<3
This makes sense, and therefore I like it. But I don't think art needs to be analysed and made sense of, rather that it's there to be experienced- and in this day and age humanity are to vain to just experience, they have to relate art to themselves and dissect it to a disgrace.
Sometimes I wish I was a tree.
You're right – from your point of view art is there just to be soaked up – but from my point of view, ie. being the one who makes the damn stuff, a whole lot of thought and analysis has to go into it
And you do it well! XD
We humans are so very self righteous. In fact, I feel it's as if we are almost striving to recreate the effortless perfection of the universe and nature in our own art. So yes, maybe we think on a higher level than any other organism, but do we really use that to our advantage?
This blog is excellent because it is completely true. We spend way too much time analysing and breaking down everything we don't understand so that we do, and when we still don't, pretending. People liked Andy Warhol works in the end because they were created by him, not because of what they were (which of course was his whole point he was making about celebrities [who you are, not what you do]). We like to not stick out too much, so we hang in groups and follow the rest of the sheep.
Tom. This is brilliant. I miss you.
Thanks for that link. Been a while since I've seen that.
Biggest difference between an artist and a designer is that a designer has a specific problem and a set of constraints set for him or her by a client. Designers are problem-solvers. An artist is self-driven, self-motivated, needs to pick a direction, define a path, and then travel it. Artists are illuminators. Designers, if they're good at what they do, provide answers. Artists, if they're good at what they do, pose questions.
I am in awe of this.
Ah, our Tommy — you challenge and move and inspire and incite in all media, including this outstanding blog. Your mind and your passions are inseparable, and they never rest. You pay the price; we grow and have fuller lives as a result.
Maybe art is not an art anymore. But blogging is one again thanks to this and thanks to you. The creature and the pedestal is an image for the ages. Or at least my next three nightmares.
But wait, by the very Milsom Paradox so dazzlingly presented here, this blog entry is just another bit of science, an empty arrangement of the 26 letters, and when I read it aloud a pointless wave.
While you may dread that possibiity, you surely don't believe it. And were we to believe it, we might lose interest in the entire pedestal–including your as yet unranked position thereon.
Yes, our art—and our artists—conform to physical and biological laws. We're biological entities in a physical universe. But we don't record music for the benefit of the plastics and metals that hold and transmit the bits, nor for the air and ears that convey the waves.
What I love most about the journey of this essay is that having looked into the artless abyss, you manage in your artful way to land us back in a place where art, beauty, and humanity meld again. Yours is an art of terror and paradox, but one that celebrates at least the hope of joy, laughter, and love.
>As a musician, I do a lot of things that a lot of very good musicians do. I listen to Neutral Milk Hotel and weep jealous tears. I read Pitchfork religiously[...]
You best be trollan
But wouldn't you agree, Tom, that it is the creation of the art that is most enjoyable? It's not really there to be soaked up so much as it exists as a piece of the creator him/herself — an expression of a part of you. And whether or not anyone else ever saw or heard that art, it is fulfilling to the artist, and therefore “finished” if you will. If it does speak to others, that's a wonderful bonus, but not a requirement. I think I could not live if I couldn't also create. Or, at least, I wouldn't care to!
enjoyable 8.9!
the perfect harmony of squirrels and mushrooms is an anthropomorphic illusion.
Friends don't let friends read Pitchfork.
(thoughts + coherence = not happening : …so I'm adopting your -ding-)
right. so here goes what will inevitably be a fatalistic attempt at being stupid when it comes to intellect…and a mashed up interpretation of what you are saying about the music aspect and my own infantile lense of the image-based aspect (but o.m.f.g. the textures and images noise generates in my head are fascinating).
I'm frightfully new to this thing called making 'art', have never considered myself an artist, and so still in the stages of being wracked with ridiculous amounts of ideas that are most likely either plain dumb or purely cathartic, like forty-eight feet of screaming face*, and not for any conceptual meaning or purpose** …essentially, the thought of making a living out of the stuff is a figment of an imagination that just ain't mine –which makes most of this drivel irrelevant.
-ding-
is it the response of the viewer, the emotional response, to those infinitely repeated 26 letter and sound waves that makes certain works more prominent or more considered art? once produced, once the maker is through with the catharsis of the making, the thing itself can be judged and is set on levels of a pedestal…then is it all about the response to the thing that makes it art?
-ding-
beginning to sound like my pages of notes from class on semiotics… the thing itself has no meaning. it's the response it garners that gives the utterance (image, arabic, or intonation***) meaning. I feel like so much is created purely to incite a certain reaction, and so created with much …science. sometimes almost TOO thought out.
-ding-
is there a point where people just plain over-think it and spontaneity is lost? sometimes I feel that art that is art, is spontaneous art, and that's what makes it art. and that was blatantly an attempt to see how many times I could use the same word in a sentence. arf. …sure, the science and analysis as a work is being made can enhance it, but half the interest lies in spontaneous creation and allowing catharsis to envelope, and THEN looking back at the product and using as a tool to figure out where the hell that mind was going.
-ding-
when you don't consider yourself an artist anymore and purely do the things you do as a catharsis or simply because it's the only way of getting thoughts and ideas out of your head, an expression, does it then become an art? is art made by those who aren't artists? what IS art?
-ding-
WHYAREYOUSOGODDAMNARTICULATE
-ding-
don't let it become a science. at least, not a science of poopularity contests and infinite recognition. …don't go “baa-aahh-aah”
-ding-
tom milsom and the bob hope explosion killing ninety looked like so much fun and I hope someday I’ll get to actually hear you play live and/or get a chance to pick apart the working of your brain and this sentence does not run quite enough
-ding-
I miss your drawings. they were petty and fun and provided greatly stunned/jealous lulz at your ability to be both such a child and such a thinker. there's loads more drivel I wanted to add but as this is obscenely long and inconsequential already, I'll spare you.
however ignorant I may be, thank you for making me think.
with massive apologies,
iris
*name above links to said scream. if there were a definition of cathartic this would be it. I like the word 'cathartic' apparently
**although the bit from your podcast I wanted to use called 'amen, sister' is for a project that IS based on a concept… the 'minor question' I mentioned before (and brilliantly left out *facepalm*) was if I could use your song for this project. also wanted to ask if there was any intention behind the track… or just your thoughts on it.
***yEAH thesaurus!! woo! lulz.
…I guess this could have boiled down to …what IS(was) art?
That's true. And i am in amazement at your language.
You have a fantastic voice as a writer, it would be great if you tried writing a book. Take all of that creativity that you so lovingly use for your blogs, music and comics and create a novel. Everything I have read here flows so well. You will be great one day, just keep expanding and doing everything that you love!!
-Alexa (McPhace)
why do i feel inferior when i read this? i feel degraded. i don't know if that is what you meant to do, probably not because you seem like a good person. but i was kind of sad when i was finished reading it.
I found this article generally presumptuous and largely incoherent. I mean, I followed your excessive metaphors and flowery language for a while but after forcing myself through the babbly paragraphs, I was only left with the question: What, exactly, is your point?
I think the point is to say that art is only special to humans, and only ever will be. That we are the only creatures on this planet that can create it, and appreciate it, and all of us can, but there are people who think they can't, or that their art isn't special, or some think that theirs is better than others, and it's all just under the same banner-art. Sure, we may prefer the way certain sound waves sound inside our head once the sound travels to our ear, but it's all music, or noise, or whatever word you want to slap to it. So, it's all special, or none of it is special, depending on the way you look at it. But I guess even stating this doesn't really serve a purpose of any grandiose nature, but what blog does? They're blogs, not term papers for college, or the compiled studies of an eccentric genius.
I want to leave some legitimate commentary to this post, but I'm quite exhausted right now and am going to sleep.
Expect some interesting perspectives from me in the next 48 hours. Peace.
I am enjoying your blog more and more the more I read it.
Which seems obvious, but isn't actually true in most other cases.
Danyl Johnson's recordings? No wait, you're not talking about X-Factor are you … :-
Art is not the same thing from one person to the next regardless of the societal claims of unanimity of opinion that appear as a result of collectively absorbing reviews. For that reason, I love listening to things that I have not read a review of. Not necessarily obscure stuff but just something I've not already have my mind made up by through opinion or comment.
Case in point related to you, Alex Day's album had a delightful sonic wall that was far more richly textured than I had anticipated having only heard him strumming a guitar on the Tubes. As I had no prior expectance of such it stuck me quite cleanly and pleasantly, like an accurate participant in a pillow fight. Had I have read/heard/watched a review, that initial recognition would have been less special :- As I have not read of your album yet, I await the cd's swift delivery and will steer clear of opinion and such in the interim.
My meandered point is: The value of any artistic thing to the consumer is usually more to do with outside influences than it is to do with the art itself. Anything which can stand outside of that and still be meritorious is a triumph. Though anything which doesn't can still get some mileage with the right backing
interesting, thanks for that
You really are a fantastic writer.
Art is our attempt to share the inherently unshareable human experience; our gift/curse of consciousness, of emotion. We want so desperately to share, to quantify, to in some way translate these emotions outside our own mind. We crudely create “art” in words, sound, light, etc, and (when successful) this can resonate with others emotions and perhaps communicate some silhouette of our own mind. Through this phenomenon, little marks on a page or vibrations in the air (utterly insignificant to the rest of the world, as you say) can bring people to tears.
In my opinion, art should be measured based on this personal response or resonance. Popular art merely being that which makes a connection to more people, while the merit of the art itself is an entirely separate entity.
I usually don't stay attentive long enough to read something so long but this really is interesting.
But art's been pretty beat up for a while now. It's not as free. People either too much about quality or they look at what they learned in school to decide how they view it. For example, when a preschooler draws a couple of lines on a paper, it's just scribbles. When a snobbish artist who went to fifty different schools unveils the same thing at an auction, everybody says it's abstract art and it makes a lot of money (minimalism is the most obnoxious form of art, at least I think so). Digital art just makes me sad. It lacks humanity.
But what about the people who aren't as involved in art? There are people who go through their day without listening to music or scribbling on paper and they don't seem to fit into what you're saying at all. If searching for meaning through art and music is human, that what's up with these guys?
Economy is pretty rough on art too. The world doesn't eat or breathe art and it can't buy anything so it seems frivolous to a lot of people. This depresses me.
Also: You might not take advice from a random stranger and you might not even read this, but if you're having trouble coming up with music, you should definitely take a break. Forcing yourself to be creative won't accomplish anything. When I have artist's block I go for a walk. Try that. Or don't. Whatever you want.
Stick with that creativity. It's good to live the way you want.
absolutely!
Im starting a BA in Fine art in September, i also write poetry and am writing a book, and yes my brain has strained these same thoughts through hundreds of times like an obsessive compulsive baker.
I've taken to contenting myself with the thought that i'm not making or trying to make art. (The words 'Art' and 'Artist' imploded when you simply had to attach them to something to make it so, Art, as a thing is self appointing and so the word has no worth) I don't want to be an artist, i just want to be a maker of beautiful things, as i'm sure you just want to be a maker of beautiful music.
If you look at nasa's images of the cosmos, those explosions of dust and stars and the colour and the light, it could waste your muscles as you sigh 'well nothing humans could ever create will be this beautiful' the trick is not to think the next bit 'so what's the point?'
The thing that modern 'artists' need to realize is that the 'point' of it all is and only ever was to please themselves. The moment you work towards something, the moment you self analyze or compare, what you have made is dead.
When its not working for me, i open a window.
O_o …. Word.
No, seriously. Give me my brain back.
O_o …. Word.
No, seriously. Give me my brain back.