Teaching Art: You're doing it wrong.

First off, let me give you the hardline according to The Kevin Trudo:

When music plays, it ok if it makes you dance. It should make you better, it should interest you and it should make you feel something. Art for the sake of art is boring and dying it's own slow death, thank god, really only propped up by a few sumbitches in sack cloth and ash.

No. I am not talking about classics. Well done music isn't cool and never will be, but will also never go out of style. It's called timeless for a reason. Bach is not in danger of collapsing under his own weight. there's pretty good legs on that fella.

I'm worried more about prolapse and the stinky anus of art music coming out of itself to reveal just how hollow that hole is (by definition).

There it is. Take it anyway you want. I have no issue with a healthy dose of music snobbery, I myself claim more than a little, however when you let it get in the way of taste, man, that's just new money. That's showing your ass.

This all descends from a "teacher" that Jen and I have shared who has a very particular definition of art. It doesn't coincide with ours (or, I wonder, anyone else I know who has not been lobotomized) and seems thinner than a book of poems.

I don't like to slam folks more than once a month or so, so I'm not naming names, but the idea of taking something that could have life and embalming it offends me. Art is a standard and a goal, not the clothes that comes in. You can ape a standard and often execution, but sincerity and vision are almost impossible to call in.

I will say it again: Excellence is always the brightest thing in the room. Pretension, well, some serious tarnish is inherent.

And this from a guy who calls himself "Pretentious, yet whimsical" on his business cards.

No comments: