All art is experimental
I realized, after rereading my post from last week, that I hate the word “experimental” as it applies to the arts. Done right, all art is experimental. I recognize the need for artists in every discipline to be able to stretch their legs — to try new things. But the thing is, I don’t see art without any boundaries as much of a help in the growth of human expression. An artist who creates only to be different; who creates only to “break the rules” might be making a statement, but I am not sure that statement is as much about art as it is about desperation.
Of course, the problem is that my opinion is my opinion when it comes to deciding when art leaves the realm of validity and crosses into the realm of novelty. There is no way for me to tell the world what it should think about art. That’s the beauty of art.
I wouldn’t deign to tell other creative types where they should draw their lines in terms of what is good or bad, no matter how clearly defined those lines are in my own head. I won’t evaluate particular artists, but I can propose a sort of artistic geography for everyone else to fill in as they wish.
Picture this: at the center of society, there is a place of understanding. In this place, just about everyone “gets” certain things about art. In terms of visual art, they understand that someone is a good painter if he can make a person look like a person. A songwriter is good at what she does if she can write a catchy chorus; a composer if he writes a piece with a good melody that you can whistle. A choreographer is understood by the masses to be good if his routine moves with the beat — kicks on “two” and “four.” In terms of writers, the audience wants a good plot — a page-turner.
Bear in mind, all of these things are good, from an artistic standpoint. But my astute and creative readers are saying, “That’s a simplistic view. Art needs to be more than that.” True enough.
So, now, the artists start to mess with things. Enter Picasso, who fragments his visions into geometrics and monotones. Enter Dylan who more or less chats over rhythmic chords and enter the French impressionists with harmonic movement instead of soaring Romantic themes. Choreographers begin to fiddle with expression over reactions to rhythm. Novelists write stories in which nothing much happens — at least, not on the surface.
(None of this is meant to show accurate historical progression — just different approaches by which the masses might be confused.)
People start to lose track. “Where is the realism in the face? — the “hook” of the song? What happened to good old Beethoven? Why do all of these characters just sit around and talk?”
We’ve now moved a bit away from the conventional, but we can still see an old dude playing the guitar, even if he is all angular; we can still hear guitars with a singer over them; we hear the same instruments and a guy is waving a baton at an orchestra; dancers are still doing cool leaps; characters still live recognizable lives. The masses have something to hang their hats on, but they are getting uncomfortable. (That can be good.)
Then, people come in and blast it all apart. Even the innovators of the past get labeled as corny. Shoenberg starts atonality so that structure is imperceptible to the musically uneducated; visual artists start peeing on newspapers and stapling them to mannequins; dancers begin to convulse on stages like fish, seeming to have no idea there is music playing behind them.
Is this bad? No. Not if you don’t think so. But the general public now has a problem.
The popular audience is now, if even remotely aware of this “experimentation,” completely in the dark. Nothing makes sense anymore. They have been left behind.
“Serious” artists feel an obligation to innovate, now — to toss aside conventions and common expectations. Now, the general artistic audience is left behind and no one but critics and artists knows what is going on. (And even then, many are intimidated in to pretending they “get it,” because they fear being labeled as unsophisticated.)
My question is this: What now? Many would argue that “experimental” art is necessary for the life or creativity. I agree. But I think experimentation can take on subtle as well as obvious forms. The subtle forms are more important to artistic development.
It’s terribly snooty to call only radical departures from the norm “experimentation.” My own father’s concept of big band arranging, for an easy example, has a character that no other arranger has ever captured. (Shameless promotion: check out his work for City Rhythm Orchestra.) But that doesn’t mean he made the trombonist fill his horn with spaghetti — it means he took the standard elements of music and subtly crafted them into his own voice by manipulating harmony and instrumental blends. That, to me, is experimentation in the most vibrant form: original but accessible.
Every painting; every song; every story; every piece of choreography is fair game for experimentation. But that doesn’t mean a complete abandonment of what is expected or of “rules”that are, in some cases, centuries old.
Maybe it takes more skill to innovate subtly. I think it does. It’s one thing to throw paint at a canvas and another to develop an ability to capture the human form in oils. But there are many points in between to hit, many of which are affecting and brilliant. It is up to each of us to decide when an artist has moved too far from convention.
But to echo my piece from last week, if you leave your audience behind, what do you have? I believe in art for people’s sake, not art for artists’ sake.
Latest posts by Chris Matarazzo (Posts)
- Book Review: An Encyclopedia of Tolkien - October 14, 2019
- The Emperor decrees an end to positive comments about “selfies” - June 16, 2015
- The Emperor decrees that graduation clichés will cease - June 9, 2015
- The Emperor decrees that all official documents will be printed in Comic Sans - March 24, 2015
- The Emperor decrees that the letter “E” shall no longer be spoken as an “A” - February 10, 2015
Print This Post
I would have enjoyed seeing a trombone full of spaghetti.
Who wouldn’t?
I believe in art for artists’ sake as well as art for the people. Art for artists’ sake can be very worthwhile even if it doesn’t reach the “people.” The problem is, you can’t ever include the whole audience, much in the same way that not everyone “gets” the same jokes in movies. I realize you are talking more about purposely excluding the audience entirely, though.
No — you’ll never reach everyone. You hit is on the head: what I am against is completely disregarding the general audience, but not againt following your artistic instinct into something more complex than the average audience can handle.
Dear Mr. Matarrazo,
With all due respect I have to say that I have been growing increasingly weary reading your columns, and more specifically your sweeping “pronouncements”, may I call them, therein on what you think art should or shouldn’t be.
I say “ with all due respect” because I think that the notions you bring up are certainly worth contemplating and you clearly present your opinion on the topics in an interesting manner; food for thought for sure. I too enjoy thinking about the place and the role of art in the world. I think it is an important topic. But if I may be so bold as to attempt a general reducing of the basic theme of much of your writings here, it would be that you seem to be saying that you think there is a certain thing you think art should be. So where we, you and I, diverge is that I don’t see why art should or shouldn’t be anything at all. Who is to say after all? And why should the artist be responsible or answerable to anyone? Not to mention how in this day and age the line between art and entertainment is so fabulously blurred. All is opinion. Is what Beethoven or Motorhead or Eminem or Picasso or Robert Mapplethorpe or Jonathan Franzen or Stieg Larson say any more or less relevant or legitimate than the other? I don’t know. They appeal to different people at different times for different reasons. Does the fact that fact that you came out of Inception without a warm fuzzy feeling make it a lesser film or leave people behind? I don’t think so. ( Incidentally, a curious thing about that movie: as much as I found it a thoroughly entertaining romp, upon renting it and trying to watch it again I just couldn’t- maybe a case of finding out what happens being more important or resonating than what it might have been trying to say, whatever that was. I normally love watching movies more than once.)
Are any of the above mentioned artists any more or less “ serious” or worthy than the other? I think you’d be hard pressed to argue the contrary.
Is Sting saying or doing something better or more important than the dishevelled hobo singing heart- felt blues outside your local liquor store?
Gracchus — oddly, I think you and I are in agreement about a lot, but either you have missed my points or I didn’t communicate them effectively
“So where we, you and I, diverge is that I don’t see why art should or shouldn’t be anything at all. Who is to say after all?”
We are ALL to say. I agree. I have as much a right as anyone else, I should think. I have my opinions (and, a column) so I express them, but I have taken pains to say, on numerous occasions, that I am not the definitive word. It would be silly for me to think so. We all have a right to like what we like and we all have a right to discuss our differences as you and I are doing here. (See my piece “In defense of guilty pleasures.”)
“Does the fact that fact that you came out of Inception without a warm fuzzy feeling make it a lesser film or leave people behind?”
No. That’s why I carefully explained that I thought it was a good film. I wasn’t cutting down the film — I was exploring a possible reason for avoidance of the “warm and fuzzy” ending: irrational fear of sentimentality, which was the theme of my piece. It left me behind, but I didn’t speak for anyone else.
“Are any of the above mentioned artists any more or less “ serious” or worthy than the other? I think you’d be hard pressed to argue the contrary.
Is Sting saying or doing something better or more important than the dishevelled hobo singing heart- felt blues outside your local liquor store?”
I feel like you’ve missed an essential part of what I’m up to here, on this one. See my piece in defense of pop music. It’s hardly elitist. Or my one on being grateful for not having artistic success. Or, my numerous praises, across the column, of the artist who works (like I do) in obscurity, simply out of love for the art. I have never taken an elitist positon on artists based their resumes. (See the column description.)
I agree that everyone has a right to express his opinions on art, even an obscure, constantly-creating musician/blog writer from New Jersey named Chris Matarazzo. I welcome your comments and differences to my opinion. That’s what this is all about. In the end, I agree with everything you said, except the part where you say my columns says the opposite.
Gracchus — From this column, in particular, you might want to revisit he place where I said:
“Of course, the problem is that my opinion is my opinion when it comes to deciding when art leaves the realm of validity and crosses into the realm of novelty. There is no way for me to tell the world what it should think about art. That’s the beauty of art.”
I’m not really sure how much clearer I can be than that.