I was reading a great article about separating aesthetics from art analysis. If someone is teaching a class in comparative religion we don't expect him to be biased towards one of the religions or mythologies studied or to even be religious at all. We EXPECT him to take a more objective stance and this is one of the problems with evaluation of the arts and music since most of us are "one of the faithful" in regards to holding up art as being divinely inspired and not just merely a technology that humans have developed for enchanting the minds of the viewer or listener.

But this is precisely the stance you have to take, at least temporarily, if you want to be objective about evaluation of the field of the arts as a whole. I'm afraid of losing my work so I'll post this and continue in another message.

The Trobrianders of Indonsesia carve beautiful prows for the boats they use for trade to the neighboring islands. The author of the article said it achieves a mesmerizing effect the same way that butterflies do by extreme constrasts of color and design etc... But it's not just the hypnotic effect of the art which impresses the neighboring islanders to trade their best necklaces or whatever, it's the fact it seems as if the Trobrinders have some magic that allows them to create such an impressive display with such stone age tools. If the prows were made from plastic and were identical in every way visually, value would not be placed on such an easy to produce product.

If an art object is merely expensive, that isn't the only thing which impresses us. We may not even desire to purchase an art object but still be impressed by it.

We seem to value a radical transofrmation of materials that makes us say, "for the life of me I could never do that"; something that is either very complex, takes a long time, is extremely difficult, etc...

Picasso took a toy car and used it in a sculpture for a monkeys face. We say "I never would have thought of that" even though the execution of the sculpture wasn't difficult, complex or took a long time.

It's the radical transformation of materials which is important.

We're all familiar with paints and brushes but when you see a hyper real painting where the artist has captured beads of sweat and hair folicles along with the dust in the air, you know it took great skill to do that even if it's a painting of an ugly old man.

The gold standard for any technology is that the cost of resources and time to make it is no object. The best canoe the Trobrianders could make is a flying canoe which encounters none of the problems and dangers of navigation. MAGIC is the gold standard of any technology. If you can crank out hundreds of complex and aesthetically pleasing pieces of music by hand that would take other people days or weeks for each one, but you do it in only a few seconds, then people will point to you and say he's inspired by God.

If you can play the difficult music composed by Liszt but do it in a way that looks effortless, like you don't even have to think about what you're doing, you will have everyone's attention.

If you can take a bunch of junk and make great music, or if you can take something really difficult to play like a Shakuhchi flute and make it do whatever you want, then you're in business.

For the life of me, I'll never, ever be able to understand people who spend thousands on art pieces when they have to clue as to what they're looking at.
Interesting thread, Greg.

When someone is a good gardener we say he has a green thumb, a magical ability to transform an empty plot of earth into a lush, green Eden. And the reason we say that is, even if someone does everything exactly the right way, there's no guarantee the garden will turn out well. It's the uncertainty that makes us refer to the ability to make a good garden as magical. The person responsible must have help of the ancestors or the deity.

When we want to immortalize the previous university president, we don't take a photo and put it on the wall, we commission a painting or sculpture to place in a prominent location so that the "mana" emanating from his eyes will continue to bless the student body with his rare qualities because there's no magic in photography. Photographers are just button pushers.

The church commissioned beautiful stained glass and Frescoes and then tried to keep the artists separate from the work so that the enchantment of the art would rub off on the church and priests, and not where it really belongs, TO THE ARTISTS!!! The artists are the real priests.

When you put money in the collection plate at church, you're not doing that as an even exchange of value for the services of the priest. You're not thanking the priest by paying him. It's a "symbolic" token of thanks to the deity who the church, temple, or synagogue is devoted to.

The same thing happens to artists. Artists get paid the same way priests do. They aren't given a permanent position with a salary. Usually an organization will show the appreciation of the community by giving the BBC lifetime achievement award, or some foundation will provide money to promising artists so they can focus on their work. Or there might be a wealthy individual who shows thanks to the artist for the whole community. But mostly artists STARVE!!! if they're trying to live off of their work. Priests should be dedicated to poverty and celibacy right?

...

Thanks.

Also, the article said that artists have a kind of moral superiority to the general populace or the priestly class because they pour so much into perfecting their work.

I saw Yngwie Malmsteen play last weekend. Even though I don't really listen to his music one can't help but be impressed by his mastery of the guitar. On top of that he had no support act and played for hours most of the time at high speed. That guy isn't human. Each person in the crowd was in awe of his ability.

Tatsu I love your postings. Keep doing 'em!

I also loved reading Robert Fripp's postings in the late 90's and early 00's on disciplineglobalmobile. He's a real artist philosopher, and one of his postings made the distinction between the nobility of the person who voluntarily takes a vow of poverty, and the wretchedness of one who encounters it while trying to make a living as an artist. He should know right? He struggled for a long time, and made a go of it.

R