What do Jazz critics do?

[alimcg]

timothystevens said:

Now it's on.

...and thanks to Betfair we can gamble on it. Who's in?

[gator]

Me - just.But not sure about guts - hes pretty out . -ip-u-la-tion-Man, -ip-u-la-tion-Man, -ip-u-la-tion-Man, -ip-u-la-tion.....etc

[freddy]

admin said:

freddy said:

Manipulation implies cynicism and/or exploitation. There's no way of getting around it. If you are "comfortable' with that so be it but all you've done in the above "reply" is exactly what you did before - propose a different meaning of a word and then proceed to use it as if we all agree. I for one don't agree. I doubt that any artist would agree to your view that they wish to manipulate you (whether you submit willingly to this or not). The advertising industry on the other hand does just this and is proud of it (in private, in public it says it is informing) and that is why the advertising appropriates art but does not create it.

Yesterday arv I went to the doctor and he manipulated my shoulder and that bloody sore muscle felt much better! Came home but - bugger me - still don't know how to set the VCR timer to tape the movie we wanted to see after the kids went to bed. Fortunately my wife came home and she was able to manipulate the remote control and all was well. Watched the movie with her after dinner and boy can that Swedish cinematographer manipulate a camera, such beautiful shots! I love a good thriller, and it was great the way the script deliberately manipulated us into believing that the farmer's wife had killed all the livestock: what a payoff in the denouement to find out that it was the nephew all along! This morning that grumpy old bugger freddy tried to manipulate me into accepting that each and every one of those things that happened to me yesterday involved "cynicism and/or exploitation". But I didn't mind that he did that. That's his way and I can cop it. She'll be right mate.

Now that you've rolled out all the different meanings of manipulation to show us you know them, what happens next? You certainly don't seem to know the difference between a routine, genre obedient, product of the culture industry that we all enjoy and a work of art. That's very post-modern of you. However, while you've made enough smoke to screen an entire battle fleet from attack you haven't made any progress on the primary issue and by using this tactic you've conceded that my original charge of "slippage" - proposing something and then assuming it to be true - in the way you construct your arguments, was correct. Thanks.

[isaacs]

freddy said:

Now that you've rolled out all the different meanings of manipulation to show us you know them, what happens next? You certainly don't seem to know the difference between a routine, genre obedient, product of the culture industry that we all enjoy and a work of art. That's very post-modern of you. However, while you've made enough smoke to screen an entire battle fleet from attack you haven't made any progress on the primary issue and by using this tactic you've conceded that my original charge of "slippage" - proposing something and then assuming it to be true - in the way you construct your arguments, was correct. Thanks.

Good-o then. Enjoy yourself. Anyway, what were we talking about...?

[vickibonet]

ironguts said:

Sentiment and romance then, when evident in music, may not be a problem. It comes to intent, extremely subjective, shit.
Sentimentalism and Romanticism then may be the over indulgence of these and may be seen to problem for some, me being one. I certainly wouldn't want art devoid of these, ie cold, I guess, but the level again,,,subjective.

Mark, good rave, reminds me of a song - Ego, is not a dirty word -

Guts you are really showing your age now. You sentimental old thing.

[vickibonet]

freddy said:

admin said:

I enjoyed reading your post. I won't go further down the semantical hair-splitting path. I found the Adams and Menotti references pertinent and do hope they did more than add confusion.

I remain comfortable with my use of "manipulation". The advertising industry on the other hand does just this and is proud of it (in private, in public it says it is informing) and that is why the advertising industry appropriates art but does not create it.

I disagree Freddy, there are great artists within the advertising industry. Advertising is a fascinating art form. Used for evil mostly, but very interesting.

Mark: it is good to have your brain back with us. This forum is a delightful place to escape to once again.

I saw Kenny G live once, by accident. He was touring on a bill with Stanley Clarke. He (Kenny) was even more yuk live, especially the bits where he spoke. Bleuch!

[freddy]

[/quote]

I disagree Freddy, there are great artists within the advertising industry. Advertising is a fascinating art form. Used for evil mostly, but very interesting. [/quote]

There may be great artists in the advertising industry (all those copy writers who are working on their novels and poems at home, all those directors working on their serious film projects . . .) but advertising is not an art form. It's an industry devoted to creating needs and changing perceptions in order to stimulate consumption (mostly) or get someone elected.

[vickibonet]

Freddy, we are going to have to disagree on this one.

We consume art in many ways and it usually involves a financial transaction. Most artists are marketing people too. Advertising is an art form. Agree that many people working in advertising are creative in other areas too and would prefer to be doing that full time, but there is a lot of amazing art within advertising i.e. art direction, cinematography, humour, music, etc. but we need to challenge our perceptions in order to appreciate it.

[alimcg]

I think freddy, that there can be art in advertising. Sure, most of it is purely functional, but art and function can co-exist, and there are plenty of examples of the use of music in a very un-artistic way. Last night I went to see the movie "Zidane", and while I consider it to be art, many people would see it as a game of soccer, no more, no less.

[isaacs]

I have a given a lot of thought over the years to some issues surrounding what Vicki is talking about. It's not so much making a case for advertising as art - that would require specific examples - but more the principle that I see no reason why it cannot be.

We have bound the idea of art up into the idea of intention. Art is made by a person who sees themself as an artist, with no other agenda informing the process other than the making of art. This has become the prerequisite for the creation of art. It's a very new idea - about 200 years old, a time-span which is a pimple on the body of human civilisation.

When 19th-century anthropologists examined artifacts that showed rare beauty from older and/or non-Western civilisations they often saw these as objects of art. Often they later learned that they were functional objects, created by artisans to serve a particular need, process or institution within the culture. Did this then disqualify them as art objects? These cultures that lacked people who saw their function as solely the creation of art without intersection with any other functional purpose, did they then have no art?

freddy's argument about advertising is to my mind a moral one. On the one hand any fair reading would say that advertising can sometimes be benign - a simple entreaty to conduct an exchange, often for things most people would agree are valuable. (Coltrane's performances and recordings were - and are in the case of the recordings - advertised). On the other hand advertising can be sinister, pervasive and steeped in greed. Even if you argue that on balance advertising comes out as pernicious, does this then disqualify those that serve it as being artists? If we say it does, that leads into some problematic areas if we are prepared to be consistent.

Organised religion can sometimes be a benign force. But few would disagree that in the long historical view it has often - probably mostly - been the very opposite, and in a way that makes the institution of advertising look like a school picnic. I don't recall any powerful advertisers using torture and murder as a means of dealing with apostates and heretics who do not believe in their products! So on freddy's "moral" argument anything created in the service of organised religion cannot be art. There goes Bach and Messiaen for starters. Also the aristocrats of 18th century Europe were morally bankrupt by any reckoning. There goes Papa Haydn and Mozart.

One can imagine a story of extraterrestrials hundred of thousands of years in the future unearthing artifacts from a human civilisation long since extinct.

From his remote viewing platform, Grock delighted in the recently-discovered images of the human form presented before him. In the reverence for proportion and nuance, the play of light and shade, he saw the handiwork of inspired minds, as he did in listening to the rustling pitches that emerged from the sounds that accompanied it, creating a powerful synergy. He felt the creative power of the universal spirit blazing forth. As his rapture reached its apotheosis it was suddenly interrupted by the voice of his assistant. "They used it to sell soap" said Kandor. Grock made a note and returned to his reverie, which was not thereby diminished.

In the twentieth-century we questioned every assumption about art, except the holy grail of "intention". The point is not to make a case for advertising as the new location for art - not at all. But since advertising is the last place we would expect to find art according to our received 19th century wisdoms (advertising is about commerce, and twentieth century critical theory is steeped in Marxism) it is a useful way to underpin a polemic. If you wish to confront an orthodoxy (in this case forms of critical theory) with a heresy, sleep with the enemy!

One personal story to end. I once visited a gallery with my wife, a visual artist. I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to visual art, and was keen to be educated. The particular exhibition was typically radical in a way of a certain brand of contemporary fine art. The paintings were just simple designs. A red square inside a yellow square. A blank canvass with a few dots on it. I resisted the work. My wife urged me to suspend my ideas about what art should be be. To not dwell on the artist's skills, or lack thereof. To not be bound in expectations about what a gallery should contain. To simply allow my senses to be impinged upon by the interplay of colour and shape per se. So I forgot all my ideas about art and I had a deep aesthetic experience. However, I remained in that frame of mind when I left the gallery and the first thing I saw was a colour advertising poster. Maintaining my non-judgemental frame of reference I simply saw proportions and colours colliding. And my aesthetic experience continued.

Art spills over into and through life itself. There are no "restricted areas" where it cannot flow.

[isaacs]

I discussed with a colleague of mine the dialogue here about advertising and art (it's become a bit one-sided in the last few days. Where is everyone? Tim? The last time I looked y'all were talking about betting on the dialogue as if it were a fight, rather than participating in it!). Anyway, s/he allowed me to share the following comments here which I think are of interest:

Absolutely right to seize on what the literary theorists would call freddy's 'intentionalist fallacy'. It's amazing that people still seem to judge art by all that precedes it - the presumed 'intentions' of its creator, the context of its commission, and of course, the economic circumstances of its production. If great art can't be created in a commercial environment, then that means all of Shakespeare was rubbish, The Beatles trash, and the whole of Dickens just plain no good.

Personally I take the opposite view to freddy. I consider some of the greatest art today exists in commercials. And I actually see some of it as very important socially. The ones that are fascinating me at the moment are part of that Telstra Bigpond series that began with 'Great Wall of China/the reign Emperor Nasi Goreng' and have now gone on through 'I've been everywhere man' (in the kombi) and most recently 'My dad played for Collingwood'. What I love - and think is so important - about these ads is that their protagonist, the father, is a deeply troubled, flawed individual so clearly overwhelmed by modern existence that he has to manipulate the truth just to salvage personal dignity. It's such a contrast to the smug, self-assured protagonists in other ads - this guy clearly hasn't adapted to the times and you can tell that even though Bigpond Broadband can alleviate some of his problems, it's unlikely to draw a smile out of him. It's masterly advertising and - in just 30 seconds - a deeply 'human' portrait of a modern-day Everyman.

And what about those extraordinary Mac/PC ads, where anthropomorphised 'Mac' chats with 'PC' about the latter's many problems. It's a brilliant distillation of complex technical issues into one minimalist human situation. freddy would have a hard time convincing me that that's not art simply because it's targeted toward commercial ends.

Like you, it seems to me that what freddy's arguing is a separate point from that of artistic value per se - in short, he really seems to be arguing that the commercial context can pervert human morality and that much advertising fails to transcend the cynical financial opportunism of its origins. And in that I'm sure everyone agrees, but it doesn't mean that what we've always understood as artistic value can't be created through advertising. I wonder if he realises just how notoriously money-hungry and commercially-oriented Stravinsky, Salvador Dali and Picasso were. And frankly, I reckon one or two bits of their work isn't too shabby!

As for music in advertising, have you seen that amazing Sony Bravia ad with all the coloured balls rolling down the San Francisco street, with Jose Gonzalez's guitar soundtrack playing? The music itself is virtually incident-free when you try to stay awake listening to the CD version, but in the television context it's sublime - ennobling, hypnotic and just perfect. Apparently his music's undergone similar transformations on other TV soundtracks as well, including on The OC (haven't witnessed it myself). Of course there's a whole other argument about serious musicians who refuse to allow their music to be used in advertising - Tom Waits being the prime example. I wonder if they could be dubbed 'the friends of freddy'!

[Kenny]

KENNY'S ALL-TIME SENTIMENTAL FAVOURITES

10. Fats Domino - Blueberry Hill
9. Clarence Carter - Patches
8. Pops - What A Wonderful World
7. Nat Cole - Mona Lisa
6. John Stewart - Daydream Believer
5. Doris Day - Move Over Darling
4. Roger Miller - Little Green Apples
3. Petula Clark - Don't Sleep In The Subway
2. Johnny Rivers - Slow Dancing
1. Nancy Sinatra - Sugartown

[alimcg]

I agree with your friends comments on the Mac ads, but I'm not so sure about that take on the telstra ads. I think they might be looking a little too deeply at it. I don't have time to elaborate right now - maybe later. On this point quickly though, how do we fit humour and comedy into our ideas of art? How do we consider unintentional art?

[vickibonet]

freddy check this out:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG72PzKhrmA

the Citroen classic TVC

[freddy]

admin said:

I discussed with a colleague of mine the dialogue here about advertising and art (it's become a bit one-sided in the last few days. Where is everyone? Tim? The last time I looked y'all were talking about betting on the dialogue as if it were a fight, rather than participating in it!). Anyway, s/he allowed me to share the following comments here which I think are of interest:

Absolutely right to seize on what the literary theorists would call freddy's 'intentionalist fallacy'. It's amazing that people still seem to judge art by all that precedes it - the presumed 'intentions' of its creator, the context of its commission, and of course, the economic circumstances of its production. If great art can't be created in a commercial environment, then that means all of Shakespeare was rubbish, The Beatles trash, and the whole of Dickens just plain no good.

Personally I take the opposite view to freddy. I consider some of the greatest art today exists in commercials. And I actually see some of it as very important socially. The ones that are fascinating me at the moment are part of that Telstra Bigpond series that began with 'Great Wall of China/the reign Emperor Nasi Goreng' and have now gone on through 'I've been everywhere man' (in the kombi) and most recently 'My dad played for Collingwood'. What I love - and think is so important - about these ads is that their protagonist, the father, is a deeply troubled, flawed individual so clearly overwhelmed by modern existence that he has to manipulate the truth just to salvage personal dignity. It's such a contrast to the smug, self-assured protagonists in other ads - this guy clearly hasn't adapted to the times and you can tell that even though Bigpond Broadband can alleviate some of his problems, it's unlikely to draw a smile out of him. It's masterly advertising and - in just 30 seconds - a deeply 'human' portrait of a modern-day Everyman.

And what about those extraordinary Mac/PC ads, where anthropomorphised 'Mac' chats with 'PC' about the latter's many problems. It's a brilliant distillation of complex technical issues into one minimalist human situation. freddy would have a hard time convincing me that that's not art simply because it's targeted toward commercial ends.

Like you, it seems to me that what freddy's arguing is a separate point from that of artistic value per se - in short, he really seems to be arguing that the commercial context can pervert human morality and that much advertising fails to transcend the cynical financial opportunism of its origins. And in that I'm sure everyone agrees, but it doesn't mean that what we've always understood as artistic value can't be created through advertising. I wonder if he realises just how notoriously money-hungry and commercially-oriented Stravinsky, Salvador Dali and Picasso were. And frankly, I reckon one or two bits of their work isn't too shabby!

As for music in advertising, have you seen that amazing Sony Bravia ad with all the coloured balls rolling down the San Francisco street, with Jose Gonzalez's guitar soundtrack playing? The music itself is virtually incident-free when you try to stay awake listening to the CD version, but in the television context it's sublime - ennobling, hypnotic and just perfect. Apparently his music's undergone similar transformations on other TV soundtracks as well, including on The OC (haven't witnessed it myself). Of course there's a whole other argument about serious musicians who refuse to allow their music to be used in advertising - Tom Waits being the prime example. I wonder if they could be dubbed 'the friends of freddy'!

It's good to see post modernism raise its head via the dismissal of the so called 'intentianalist fallacy'. Given that I was educated during the ascendancy of post modernism within the academy I am often surprised that, Foucault apart, I quickly found it so repugnant and stupid.

I don't think there is a problem about art being created in a commercial environment. Even in a non-capitalist society the artist would have to make a living but I think there is a big problem about art being embedded in commerce. My personal view is that none of the examples referred to by "colleague of Mark" (CoM) with which I am familiar, are more than clever - brilliantly clever perhaps, and capable of being enjoyed and admired but just clever. This may be just a matter of taste and my taste could well be underdeveloped because I try to avoid watching ads but to me these multi-media collages don't have anything important to say of themselves. All of COM's examples are from popular culture, the cultural space/site where advertisinfg fits most comfortably.

Let's not leave advertising out on its own. Lets bring in its sister "discipline" - Public Relations, that employer of the spin doctor. PR has spent most of its history making the unpalatable, palatable and generally making the world safe for the rich and the powerful while trying to convince the rest of us (and succeeding with enough to make the difference) that it's all inevitable and only fools resist. This quiet triumph, CoM, which has completely tranformed the lives of ordinary people for the worse and which is responsible for the plunder of large parts of the world has been done by spin and advertising. They may have done it with panache, style and such cleverness, that would dazzle you for days CoM, but somehow I can't get too excited by the outcome.

There are, no doubt, very nice people working in the realm of advertising but so what, if all they do is help one group exploit another? In this sense i would rather throw my lot in with modernism and hold on to a different view of the role of the artist and what makes art.

But we stray a little. If intention, context, circumstances of production have no place in the discussion of an art work then where do we start? Well, we can start on the margins and look at the way the power structure is subverted by it or how it seeks to hide its support for colonialism or exclude women or gays or. . . .whatever. Whatever the 'radical' post modern
academy finds interesting at the time. This sort of thing has been going on for 25 years now and it has done nothing to subvert the power structure whatsoever. In fact, it's been its hand maiden because this sort of analysis paralyses action. And it has.

I am not a fan of Tom Waits but one ought to admire his stance. Isn't there something sick in very rich people like Bowie and the surviving Beatles (among many others), selling their songs so they can be used in ads which claim that buying a certain car can be revolutionary or using a computer programme makes you a hero etc. etc. ?

As a late modicication : what is your definition of art?