[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

completely OT yet so on-topic / art of noise



to offer a more OT twist i thought id ask marxists and the non-marxists and
those in-between where they see the role of the artist in all this.

how can music be used in support of the theory or ideology (be careful with
that word) which the artist may want to promote?

which for me leads to specifics about what i think:

how can music overcome the commodification through which we experience it in
late capitalism? the vast majority of people that experience music in our
so-called "free", "democratic" countries by a cd for however much (approx.
us$18 where i live), whereby the main characteristic of their relation to
that music is _owning_ it. not only that, their choice of listening material
is influenced (i would even go so far as to say dictated) by one of six
major multinational companies (see
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html if you dont know what i
mean). what does this have to do with free thought or free artistic
expression? very little. and what can the artist do about it? what do _you_
do?

something david wrote also brings up an interesting point:

>art is always a naive & idealistic thing, & its best ideas usually end up
subverted.

i think this is quite true. if we want our own examples we need look no
further than the mainstream's swallowing-up of all that once was considered
"progressive", at least by some: house went long ago, drum n bass
(previously jungle before marketers decided that was too dangerous a term)
has probably coughed up its last bloody breath (and perhaps this took place
a lot earlier in england, i dont know) and i even hear that oval provided
the sound-track to an ad. while we can nitpick and say "so-and-so has
sold-out and gone for the money" we need to realise that there's a bigger
system at work here, and one which is frighteningly powerful. how can we as
artists change it?

for myself i would have to say that the main answer lies not in the style of
music one creates, although that can play a part, but in the way in which it
is transmitted to the listener.  we can play the copyright game (and lose -
compare negativland's case to beck's), create indepentent labels and try and
outshout the big guys down at the marketplace (admirable, but not really
affecting any _systemic change_), or we can seek real alternatives in
mp3/cdr/tape/file/whatever sharing and trading, in getting in touch with
local and global artists trying to achieve similar ends, and in educating
people to think about things differently.

(nb. i've noticed a few people throwing the word "anarchy" around in this
discussion, and i think it has been misunderstood by some. "anarchy" (in a
political sense) does not equal "mayhem" or "chaos". its not about
regressing to a state of nature, but a philosopy (stemming from thinkers
like proudhon and stirner in the 19.C) that stresses an alternative to
hierachy-driven systems of organisation where the big boss tells everyone
what to do. the decentralised networks of organisation at recent anti-wto
demonstrations could be taken as one example of anarchy in practice.
certainly the anarchist anti-hierachy concept could be taken as a model for
the sort of activity i described in the previous paragraph.)

marc.