I was at work tonight, thinking about art. Yes, I got all philosophical and stuff. What precipitated this reverie was my work assignment tonight. As part of my job, I regularly host performances at the new stage at our City Center Park. We have a summer concert series that stretches from the end of May almost to September. It's a great addition to our city, and I enjoy hosting these programs. Getting paid to enjoy music on beautiful summer evenings? Admittedly a sweet gig, even if I do have to fake being a sound operator from time to time.
Tonight, a new band was playing. This was their first gig outside of a house show they did recently. Originally, the young woman's other band, a wedding band that plays covers of Etta James, Elvis, Coldplay, etc., was scheduled to play. It was posted on the website, and several of the groups that came tonight were expecting to rock out to "Yellow" and "At Last." The keyboardist for the wedding band was unexpectedly out of the country, so the woman brought her other band instead. This was a trio that performed original songs, and had an indie folk/alt pop feel with an little electonica/classical thrown in to keep everyone on their toes.
Let me stop here and offer this admission--I understand that if you were expecting to come to a performance of oldies covers and you got the performance that the audience enjoyed tonight you might be disappointed. I'm not trying to pick on folks who felt betrayed by the apparent bait-and-switch. But it got me thinking about bigger issues in art--like what is the value of being entertained by art? How invested should an artist be in giving an audience what they want? If an artist is dedicated to self-expression rather than pleasing audiences, is that art valuable? And if it is valuable, how do we sustain it if people are unwilling to pay for it?
I think I likely enjoyed tonight's performance better than what was originally planned. I'm sure the wedding band is fine, but part of the purpose for this concert series is to nurture local artists, not just provide free summer entertainment. The set tonight was entirely original songs but one, a Sufjan Stevens cover. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but both singers had exceptional voices and were clearly accomplished musicians and writers, and their performance evoked that sense of self-expression that I think excludes most cover bands from a place at the "art" table.
Is that horribly elitist of me? It's not that I don't think a cover of a song be could be art. It's just that most aren't. I think it may be harder to take someone else's song and perform it in such a way that it becomes a work of art, self-expression and all, than it is just to write and perform your own songs. I guess I frequently see songwriters as true artists, and have greater respect for them in that role than I do performers who interpret other's works. Painters who copy the masters are not masters themselves.
And yet, I find that contradictory when it's extrapolated to other mediums. For example, I would consider a great actor an artist, although in most cases actors are speaking lines they did not write and following directions they did not give. I guess I see actors as collaborators in the creative process. They have the opportunity to create the physical presence of the character on stage or on film and can bring their own unique spirit to the role. Hamlet has been played thousands of times, and the best actors create a new version of him that illuminates some aspect of the themes of that play. Those actors are artists.
On the flip side of that coin, not every songwriter is an artist. Apologies to her fans, but I wouldn't classify Taylor Swift as an artist. This is where the lowest common denominator comes in. Swift's songwriting feels like a commercial venture more than an expression of her own philosophies, emotions and experiences. The songs seem carefully crafted to appeal to the widest possible audience. In trying to appeal to the emotions of every teenage girl, I feel like Swift expresses almost nothing of any individual girl, including herself, which is strange considering how personal and autobiographical most of her music is reported to be. These autobiographical songs feel impersonal to me, like it's Taylor Swift playing the part of what Taylor Swift, teenage romantic, should be. She feels as manicured and manipulated as any other pop star. And I can't help but wonder if this classification of art/not art is simply a matter of taste. To paraphrase the inimitable Oscar Wilde, art is what I like myself. What is not art is what entertains other people.
I guess my whole point here, if I have one, is that I find it disappointing that a significant portion of tonight's audience wouldn't have shown up if they had known they would be serenaded by real artists singing their own songs rather than the familiar, easily digested melodies of Elvis and Chris Martin. Art, on some level, should make us a little uncomfortable. Yes it can entertain us, but for it to really have an impact on the audience it ought to challenge them in some way. Perhaps my frustration is the feeling that support for art in our communities is waning. That not enough of us, including me sometimes, are willing to risk the challenge of art. Do we prefer American Idol to today's budding Bachs and Chopins and John Coltranes? And if we do, how do we continue to cultivate a sensitive appreciation of the experiences of others? At it's core, is art about empathy?
Dang. I need someone to talk to about all this. I know it's discussed in every entry level art program everywhere, but I like monumentally unanswerable questions. Shall we discuss it? Comments, please. What is the line for you between experiencing art and being entertained? And does the distinction matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment