The idea that art is EITHER entertainment OR ELSE intellectual is a
dangerous idea, closely related to Western culture's insidious habit of
seperating the mind and the body rather than integrating them.
"Entertainment" itself is a concept that is based on the division of time
under capitalism, into Work-time and Leisure-time: "Who wants to have to
work intellectually during their leisure time, which is supposed to be a
break from work?"
In a tribal culture, on the other hand, art is integrated into everyday
life, and the mind and body are not seperated. An action or object can be
functional, entertaining, intellectual, and spiritual all at the same time.
To approach art from this viewpoint means that art can be spiritual,
physical, and intellectual at the same time. You can JACK YOUR BODY and
ELEVATE YOUR MIND at the same time. One should also recognize the need for
music to perform different functions: at a party, you want people to get
their groove on, but in other situations it may be useful to have music that
is calming to the body. All such music can carry an intellectual element,
and yet still be pleasurable and enjoyable. (Of course, some people drink
Miller Lite and others drink fine ales brewed in Belgium by monks--not
everyone can enjoy and find pleasure in the subtleties if it goes against
their ingrained way of thinking and experiencing.) The bottom line, to me,
is that techno has always been about both the body and the mind--it can be
sexy, spiritual, deep, bangin', fun, intellectual, etc., but it doesn't have
to limit itself, it can be any and all of these at once. Peace, Dave aka
Cyborg K
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Live PA mixes available at:
http://www.mmmsound.com/CyborgK
http://www.mp3.com/CyborgK
----Original Message Follows----
From: Nick Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: (313) You call this art?!?!
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Definitely, it SHOULD be about art. I respect Jeff
Mills' ideas and his tunes, yeah, part of his vision.
Possibly not part of mine, I buy all off his stuff but
I never put it in the mix (maybe I'm just stupid:).
He's always been a bit of a maverick though. Ever
since he was with UR. Personally, I dont feel the same
way about your definition of art. I think art, in
essence, is about the enjotment value. People go to
art galleries to enjoy themselves and people buy CD's
for the enjoyment value. People don't buy art for
art's sake. It's like minimal art, some ppl appreciate
a blank white wall as artistic and clever. Give me De
Vinci any day...
Dj Pacific:)
--- Joseph Ross Lynn IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> This is about art. Not stardom.
> Jeff Mills is an artist.
> his vision is his vision, and the reason he is so
> well known and respected is
> because his vision resonates so strongly with so
> many of us. I think he is
> trying to be true to himself, not get his face on
> MTV.
> Art is about a new perspective. Art that serves its
> function shows us a way of
> looking at things that we hadn't known before, or
> sometimes it defines what
> could previously only be hinted at.
> It is still his vision, but maybe it jusn't mesh as
> well with yours. Or maybe
> (gasp!) you might have to put a little effort and
> attention into his art in
> order to try to understand.
>
> J.
>
>
>
> >
> > I wasn't having a go at Mills. His skill and
> ingenuity
> > has had a huge influence on techno and dance music
> as
> > a whole. What I'm saying is, plenty of ppl have
> access
> > to production equipment these days and the
> dj/producer
> > is becoming more and more common. Anyone, can be
> > innovative, but the truely innovative producers
> today
> > aren't the ppl that are getting the respect. Mills
> has
> > been a lot better in the past.
> >
> > Concerning pushing the boundaries forward, I
> s'pose
> > music is about the feel, not necessarily technical
> > skill. It's more about the ingenuity of it's
> creator.
> > A lot of reviewers give tunes respect e.g. because
> > they've used a full orchestra instead of sampled
> > strings and stuff... which is good, but it doesn't
> > always work. I think a lot of this experimental
> stuff
> > is a load of parp. Few 'experimental' tunes
> actually
> > push the boundaries forward. However, a lot of big
> > names are getting respect for stuff that I could
> throw
> > together... (I'm not so good by the way...:). How
> do
> > they get away with that? Does that mean that once
> > you're famous you don't have to try anymore?
> >
> > Dj Pacific:)
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > http://im.yahoo.com
> >
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
