All art is unneccesary... to paraphrase Oscar Wilde. And when you think about it, you can't quite deny it, at least not completely. What is art? Well, depends on who you ask, the definitons vary practically from person to person and the debate rages even between the scholars.
As C.S. Lewis said: Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival. And even that can be debated...I personally know of friends, who study maths, physics and so on and have no interest in the world of art or any of its forms. They consider it redundant and bloated, directionless and meaningless. Of course, as someone who is extremly in love with the entirety of human culture, streaching from the arts, philosophy etc., I can hardly believe them and can't really comprehend them, but it is their vision of the world...from my point of view their vision is very empty, lacking something essential in our nature, but they may see my own perspective with the same attitude. Worlds of numbers and emotions can be vastly different.
So culture is relative. Something different to everyone. And recently I've had some very long talks with fellow musician friends of mine about the value of different kinds of musical genres. I can presume that this discussion could have been directed at the visual or performance arts, but we focused on the musical aspect of it. The statement was made, which is generally accepted in the Western world, that classical is the queen of the music. It's long lasting history, filled with unbelivable composers whom have enriched our world with breathtaking compositons, puts it at the reigns of this media and gives it utmost integrity. It was also stated that the fact classical music usually combines the worlds of emotions with the rational side of things (musical theory, the way it was arranged etc.), which gives it an aura of brilliance and can be compared to the greatest human discoveries/achievements of all time.
Here I counterpointed with an artist of our own time, Lewis Roberts aka Koreless, who said in one of his interviews that he approaches his writing in a very mathematical way, using mathematical rationality to compose his music. Also Steve Reich, the still living and amazing classical composer of our time, shows the same approach to writing, combination of the rational and emtoional. I wondered why can't Koreless and Mozart stand at the same position, what makes one of them better than the other?
Of course then you can say that Justin Bieber and Mozart are also in the same league, the difference between them is then minute. I have nothing against Justin Bieber, I can see the internet is vastly against him, but as far as I heard his music it does not have any meaning for me. But that is just it. It doesn't have meaning or significance for me. So who is the authority to pinpoint what in our culture is significant and what is meaningless?
We can start with the classicaly trained musicians who have studied music for their entire time, they know it inside out...but does that give them the precedence to say what is "good" and what "bad"? Not really, they have their own tastes and their own views to the matter, shaped by their own, personal characteristics which were influenced by a variety of components. Who then?
Maybe song-writers themselves. Does the complexity of their pieces have anything to do with its significance? Well, again the same as before...its up to the individual to decide and no one else. But does that mean that if a large group of people is enjoying a particular artist/s, it makes that artist significant? And vice versa, if an artist is unknown or not appreciated, does that mean he/she/they hold no real importance to our culture? No.
The answer to both is, in fact, no. Because you come back to the fact that it is up to you, if you are in the group which likes the particular artist, then that artist holds meaning for you and if you don't like (for example) Beethoven, then he has no importance in your life. Does that mean Beethoven is bad? No! it just means he has nothing of substance to offer to you, while on the other hand it might mean the world to someone else, it could mean the crowning achievement of human culture to that someone. But this thinking leads back to the notion that art is unneccesary. When it is so divided and complex, when there is no artist in the history of human kind who we all liked, then it means this field is not objective, and therefore incomprehensible to my math friend. It is souly based on subjective assessment.
So there is no superior format in art, there is no kings' seat for a particular genre in music, no throne for a style of visual arts, there is no meaning in awarding some artists and ignoring of others. My personal belief is that music awards, such as Grammys or MTV awards, or the awards for movies (Oscar etc.) are completely idiotic and pointless, quite frankly. I always saw a huge huge difference between competition and expression, I never saw a single thread which combined them. Personally, I love Radiohead and have a huge amount of respect and love for them, but I could not care less if they win awards or not, if their albums sell well or not. Of course I want them to do well and continue doing what they do, but should they stop right now if they never win another award again or sell less than 500,000 copies? Should they stop if they start losing audiences? I think not. There was always a notion in punk rock, that selling out meant signing with one of the record companies, the huge corporations which control the distribution, promotion and merchandising of the artist, but I see no real treason in that. What I particulary despise are the artist who change their style or even mold their style to "suit the listeners" or a very popular phrase "giving the people what they want." To me, that is selling out, that is selling your soul to the devil. I don't want to hear what you think I want to hear, I want to hear you! Your views, your emotions, you thinking and your essence.
The solution to the problem of who is better, Justin Bieber or Mozart, is not in the hands of the majority, it is not an utilitarian decision of who gets the more votes, but it is in the hands of every individual who loves and appreciates music (or any other art form). The same way that getting an award for you music does not mean your music is good, it means people are listening to you, if it's good or not is up to you personally. The solution is in preserving everything, preserving the old masters and keeping them in circulation and at the same time encouraging the new artist to write what they feel and think, not to write to satisfy the capitalist need for selling and earning.
I feel the world of culture is the only world where the Utopian ideas can be achieved, where all the positive ideas from the humanists to even the socialist ideas of complete equality can really live out. Because in these realms we are all the same and, at the same time, vastly different. We are completely equal in our tastes when it comes to art and we should be completely free to make our own judgements without cultural notions of what is "good" or "bad" art.
Although I could never shake the feeling that whichever genre of music (or paintings etc.) you like, can tell an awful lot about you. But that is a whole other matter. What I am trying to point out is that, there is no common consensus to what real art is or isn't and there should never be, it should be up to you and only you!
Comments