
"Anything that brings to mind or heart an idea, emotion, or thought process worth considering" is something like an answer I gave someone who asked me what kind of music I enjoyed. For some reason I think this whole blogging thing might turn in to something I really don't want to continue for a long time, but it's nice to consider my life in a different light sometimes. Which is what intrigues me about good music. Good music to me is what I described at the beginning. In the art/music classes I've taken there inevitably is some discussion about what constitutes art. There's polarized opinions, as usual, about the issue and most of the times can be stereotypically labeled using political terminology like liberal and conservative. The "liberal" trend seems to be that anything an artist intends as art must be considered art. Contrasted of course to "conservative" thought where it seems some set of boundaries or guidelines determine the genuineness any piece of art.
In my usual way I take both to mind probably more than I should, or maybe not, to formulate my own opinion. In some sense if an artist intends to make a piece of art it is "art" but paying money for an avaunt guard work of music or painting which has no form or identifiable meaning is at least, not pleasing, and at most, missing the whole point. If I was to label myself I'd put myself in the conservative mix, but when placed in a group of self proclaimed art conservatives then I tend to fall in the more liberal bracket which is puzzling.
Of course I make sense to me, and everyone else is wrong. I like Wynton Marsalis' expression of jazz. I've read critics of his music say things like he's a closed minded purist who doesn't really know about the true freedom jazz offers. They say this in response to his claim that the true freedom in jazz is found in it's form and simplicity. I didn't even have to read any of his writings to know that's what he thought based solely on what his music sounds like. Being the uncontested foremost jazz musician of this day and age at least from a virtuosic standpoint, coupled with his ability to philosophize anyone out the door, makes it difficult to find a good argument against him. But, to be honest I don't really read that much of what he's written (basically none) or follow his critics. I like his music because it brings to mind or heart an idea, emotion, or thought process worth considering.
I applaud those musicians/artists that push the limit on form and meaning, at the very least for the sake of having an extreme and just for having the guts to go there. I've heard that argument made that if you can't find meaning/emotion is a piece of art it's not because there isn't any it's because you can't find it. In my little statement about the issue one could argue that what's worth considering is completely subjective and therefore literally everything must be considered art because everything brings to mind a thought process or emotion. This may be, but because this is a blog my opinion overrules everyone else's and I never said there weren't holes in the argument...or discussion.
I like my pithy answer, not just because I got sick of resonding "I like pretty much everything", but also because I actually came up with it on my own. What's frustrating is that I'm sure if I opened some aesthetics book on art that same formulation would already be there written some few hundred or so years ago, but I didn't. And like some famous person said "all the good ideas are already taken."
