|
Helen Frankenthaler |
Talking about abstract painting, and attitudes towards it in general, countering some things I've heard said many times over the years, sometimes about my own work. Modern painting is easy to relate to what we do as drummers— in both disciplines we deal in simple forms, and the craft of it is not always obvious. People who don't know anything enjoy not respecting either of them.
Some drummers are happy to be— no disrespect— pure knuckleheads and live their lives strictly in paradiddles and flam taps; I like people who have interest in art beyond that. Therefore, some things to think about approaching this other art form:
What's similar, and different
It's easy to see an improvisational element in music and in that kind of art. They seem to be analogous to each other, both coming from a similar cultural place and time, with a similar hip modernity. For a long time, though, I could only see how they were different. For example:
Painting is production craft, music is performance craft. Art happens in a work shop, like any other artisanal endeavor— woodworking, pottery, wine making, jewelry— producing objects to sell. Unlike those applied arts, art-art is made to be somehow enriching for being what it is, as a kind of visual literature or music, inspiring some kind of feeling of emotion or creativity in people. Or whatever someone is looking to inspire.
If paintings have an applied purpose, it's to decorate a wall in a home or business, and some of it is strictly that— commercial decoration. The difference between the two is like a quasi-poetic greeting card vs. legit poetry. The difference may be real obvious, or not. Some artists have gotten very skilled doing abstract art that looks great and is visually impactful, but doesn't say a lot.
Of course painting is visual and static, and music is aural and changing. Either way we want sustained interest— for people to look at the picture longer, or to listen to the recording again.
|
Ellsworth Kelly |
Which is where some artists lose me— not enough reasons to look longer. They'll function as an attrative design element as part of a larger space, but there's not a lot to look at in the piece itself. You see Ellsworth Kelly's work in the picture here— he was a great, appealing, creative artist, his work in total is a master class on design possibilities, but there's not a lot to look at in individual works, once you get the initial design idea.
Some have tried to make painting a performance art, but if the main thing is not the end product, then you're really just doing avant garde theater. As long as the end product is the point, it is a production, work shop craft, no matter how you stage its creation.
Likewise, with music, whatever you do with the performance aspect of it, the thing you listen to is the sound. Take that away, you're more doing performance art, or a theatrical spectacle, with incidental music. I don't know if anyone ever bought and listened to a Gwar record, for example.
There is a “performance” aspect in painting, in the sense of real time application of skill, with some or all of a painting are done “live”, in one sitting— alla prima, it's called. Or freehand drawing. Which is usually what we do in music, playing complete performances at once. Commercial music and art, in the interest of production, use a whole range of technical tools and techniques to minimize the need for that real time pure skill performance. More so in commercial art.
“I could do that.”
In fact, yes, you could. If you chose to. In art or music. Many or most of my drum students can deliver credible performances in some type of music, without being full time players. Anyone can do it, and should. It doesn't make it less good, or worth less. But you have to do it.
Getting that easy money faking a career as an artist would require renting studio space, outfitting it, stocking it with materials, and then confronting the problem of trying to make something other people want to look at, that people who look at art all the time would approve to show in their gallery, and that someone might want to spend money on to own it. You would find that it takes many hours of your time, and considerable dedication, not to mention financial investment. You would also have to be able to convey belief in your own work, which you can't do cynically— hard to get away with it, and sustain it. After you do all that, you really are just an artist.
Art likers will counter this with, no, it really is amazing, it is really hard, and piling on the superlatives, which is really not the point. Something does not have to be hard to do— or time consuming for the artist— to be worth looking at. Elvin Jones played Up 'Gainst The Wall in three minutes and thirteen seconds. I'm sure this very large Jackson Pollock painting below was done in an afternoon. What's the difference?
|
Jackson Pollock |
As a technical matter, anyone could have composed John Cage's 4'33". They would have to think of it, and then present it, put it into a performance. Then the real trick is getting it published, and publicized, and getting others to perform it, and listen to it, and have it be persistent in the culture as a work of art. Even if you're convinced that the work is a pure fraud (you'd be wrong), John Cage had to organize his entire life around perpetrating it, he could only do it if he had built up some credibility as an artist. You couldn't say he wasn't committed.
There's more below the fold....