Thread is now about Holist.

[Ben Shapiro]

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

So the unit of measurement is you make one "hit" you're not making really real music?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

Then I'd say that authenticity is worthless, if that's the standard.  I've known many bands that do it strictly for the love of it, because they can't find anyone to pay for their crap.

And the cheese thing?     Kraft singles have their place, unless you want "artisan cheese" on your grilled cheese sandwich.

Artisan cheese.  Is there really even such a thing? 

You're such an elitist.  Cracks my shit up.

Hush Roger he can identify over 27 different kinds of cheese.

You know, I can believe that.

Dour,
Just EATS the shit.  FFS.

[Ben Shapiro]

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

She's a woman Roger she doesn't count.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

She's a woman Roger she doesn't count.

I think it would be TOTALLY AWESOME to take the title of what was arguably the best American work of the middle 19th century and turn it into some hillbilly-ass murder story on an album.



I can imagine the blowback as I sit here.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

TEN NEW REPLIES, POSTING ANYWAY, NOT EVEN GONNA READ FIRST.


holist, I think you're arguing a point that is indefensible. Your premise is that some art is Really Real^TM and other art is FAKE AND BULLSHIT. You then try to assert yourself as an authority that can differentiate between Really Real and FAKE BULLSHIT art. No one is arguing that some stuff generally sounds/looks/feels better than other stuff. No one is arguing that the world would be a better place with less variety and more massaging the rough edges off everything. The argument is that saying "this art is REAL" is meaningless.

If you'll bear with me as I relate this back to an old book written by stoners with too much time and mimeograph access, you're choosing to look at a chaotic system (ART) through a certain grid (Holist's Really Real Art Appreciation Grid). I look at art through my own grid (Q G's Official Fuck You I Like What I Like grid). While we can compare our grids and maybe come up with one that we can both agree on, that wouldn't be any more real or accurate than the grids we started out with. I won't give you any shit for liking what you like, no matter what the reason is you like it. If you really like things only based on your perception of the artists' motivations, that's no skin off my nose. If you go around saying other things aren't art because they don't fit in your grid, then there will be cries of bullshit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

TEN NEW REPLIES, POSTING ANYWAY, NOT EVEN GONNA READ FIRST.


holist, I think you're arguing a point that is indefensible. Your premise is that some art is Really Real^TM and other art is FAKE AND BULLSHIT. You then try to assert yourself as an authority that can differentiate between Really Real and FAKE BULLSHIT art. No one is arguing that some stuff generally sounds/looks/feels better than other stuff. No one is arguing that the world would be a better place with less variety and more massaging the rough edges off everything. The argument is that saying "this art is REAL" is meaningless.

If you'll bear with me as I relate this back to an old book written by stoners with too much time and mimeograph access, you're choosing to look at a chaotic system (ART) through a certain grid (Holist's Really Real Art Appreciation Grid). I look at art through my own grid (Q G's Official Fuck You I Like What I Like grid). While we can compare our grids and maybe come up with one that we can both agree on, that wouldn't be any more real or accurate than the grids we started out with. I won't give you any shit for liking what you like, no matter what the reason is you like it. If you really like things only based on your perception of the artists' motivations, that's no skin off my nose. If you go around saying other things aren't art because they don't fit in your grid, then there will be cries of bullshit.

Well, could be worse.  He was saying certain music was inauthentic.

RWHN flat out said that artists only have value if they're starving to death for his enjoyment.  Because he can't enjoy it if they get paid.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was the author, Harriet Tubman was the one that got shit done on the Underground Railroad.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not exactly a Warrant fan, but when they did their "Cherry Pie" album, it was actually supposed to be called "Uncle Tom's Cabin" after the song of the same name.  The song "Cherry Pie" didn't exist.  The record company sent him home to write a radio-friendly unit-shifter.  What (for a hair metal band) was an artistic expression of their vision became complete corporate schlock.  It was completely manufactured, not to express anything, but to titillate to get eyeballs, and move units. 

Sounds familiar...

Well, sure.  Because ripping off Harriet Tubman's title would have been fucking BRILLIANT.

Whomever the suit was that made that call was the best friend Warrant ever had.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was the author, Harriet Tubman was the one that got shit done on the Underground Railroad.

I stand corrected.  My point, however, remains the same.

(I always get those two mixed up.)

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

Not only N'Sync, but the people who get rejected on the season opener of American Idol. 

[Ben Shapiro]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

Not only N'Sync, but the people who get rejected on the season opener of American Idol. 

They're not starving.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

I've known a lot of good musicians and a lot of good artists, and there are a couple of realities to consider, here.

One is that musicians are complex people who very often love performing for the feeling of being on the stage and adored. That takes a certain type of personality. Artists love being loved, even when they do their work for the art itself.

The other is that people who are in it for the money don't go into music, or art. There become stock traders, or some other such career where they are actually likely to make a lot of money.

Now, another consideration is the level of skill it takes to be even just a decent artist. No matter how produced you are, unless you're Milli Vanilli, it takes hundreds or thousands of hours of practice just to get past mediocre. People can put that amount of work in and never get past mediocre, too.

No matter how produced someone is, those factors still remain. They are still complex, whole people, they still put a lot of work into making music or art or what have you. So, what gives you the right to declare anyone's level of "authenticity"?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

Well, I would agree with you here, but two experts on this very board have postulated that it's not really "art" since you have in fact managed to make it commercial to some degree.

See, I dick around with writing.  I don't get paid for it, and I do it whenever the mood takes me.  This qualifies me as an artist.  You do it on a schedule, to meet deadlines, and to make money on it.  You may still be an artist, but you're not as authentic as I am, because, well, YOU PUT TOO MUCH WORK INTO IT. 

Whereas I, with my dabbling and my dilletante behavior, am an ARTISTE, and I got authenticity dropping out of EVERY ORIFICE.

You know, it made me feel icky writing the above, even as a satire.  And it occurs to me that the sort of person who would say such a thing SERIOUSLY are the sort of people who sneer at successful artists because THEY CAN'T DO ART, and it bothers them that other people CAN, and to make it WORSE, some people actually make MONEY at it, which implies they're REALLY GOOD AT IT, which makes them feel even WORSE about the whole thing.