Art/Shit...?

[Món]

Journey's "job" as a corporate entity is to play the songs the fans WANT.

You should talk to Gene Simmons about this.

[Little Lenny]

.

As I said in my "redemption" thread:
Sorry, Jeremey (if indeed you're the next guy) - while it may make good $$$ for you and JOURNEY to continue the nostalgic tour to beat all nostalgic tours - it's artistically BANKRUPT and as an artist myself I can't stomach SHIT being shoveled for ART. As an actor I NEVER - and I mean NEVER FUCKING EVER shoveled SHIT. It is the creed of a thespian to "Act well your part - there all the honor lies." On the stage the script is a guide. You take what the playwright has sketched out and you create a character according to YOUR ORIGINALITY - your TALENT. It's your HONOR to bring something original - YOURSELF - to your character. You are to enliven your character and GIVE it to your audience. That's ACTING. Rock music is NOT acting. A rock band is NOT supposed to use their catalog like a script for a singer to create an impression of the original NOR to try and "sound like" the original. That is NOT art. It's SHIT.

It's a very definite and extreme way of expressing your view, but neverthless I think I understand what you mean. I paint landscapes and portraits, but i hate to see it when I see people in my hometown peddling art that is basically a sketch they did of a celeb who is flavour of the month, and it has been taken straight out of a magazine! And they sell them for an extortionate amount of £ ££'s...to me it's all about capturing the character and using my skill to interpret that on canvas, using my originality.
Basically you have used your Art , that is to say Acting as an analogy for how you feel about Journey using a singer who sounds like Like Steve Perry, rather than one who has some originality in his voice. I'E emulation rather than originality.
However,at the same time I suppose it's true to say art is in the eye of the beholder . Some people will find that acceptible, some will not.
At the end of the day, whilst I see the view from both sides I do not think there is a clear cut answer to this whole problem of perry soundalike, or a new voice. I have my personal choice. But that choice is for me, as yours is for you. As I said on another thread, it's all in the eye, or in this case EAR of the beholder. Art is a strange phenomenon it appears differently to each and everyone of us.

[StringsOfJoy]

I ain't no arteeste, but isn't the "art/shit" thing here a red herring?

This is really about originality/replication, suggesting that originality is to be exalted as "art" and replication is to be condemned as "shit." I'll take a pass on the ultimate question, but I agree with the central point, which seems to be that they're different. Consequently, passing the latter for the former does have the stink of fraud to it.

On the other hand, some people want replicas. After all, there's only one Mona Lisa. If I know I'm buying a replica of the Mona Lisa, and someone sells it to me as such, then I'm getting what I wanted and the seller had provided me something I value. The world is a happier place and everybody wins.

[Monker]

Well, I'll be honest with you. A long time ago, I used to work with somebody who liked to paint. He would bring in these painting magazines to work and browse thru them when things were slow. One night, I picked one up and looked at it. I gave a, "Phaw! Even *I* could do that!" He was into Van Gogh, that was the style he was trying to emulate...To me that meant a dot on blog could be a person. So, what's so hard about dot on a blob and green line for a tree? So, we had this conversation with me saying those things, and him saying "It's not as easy as you think...and I bet you can't do it."

So, me being me, I decided that I would learn how to paint a decent picture faster then Neal Schon can fire a lead singer. I bought some cheap acrylic paints and brushes, some canvas board, and I found a book about "How to paint with oil paint"...which was a bit dim since I bought acrylic. So, I did some landscapes, a seascape with a big wave, a tropical beach scene with a palm tree, a sorta forest scene with a waterfall (which I thought was great and gave it to my sister). And, I proved him wrong But, honestly, I think he just wanted to get me to pick up a brush and try it...reverse psychology thing.

In the process of doing this, I learned a few things. First of all, even if *I* do go and try to 'copy' what somebody else does, it's still going to have a lot of 'me' in it. People do not have the same abilities and I had to overcome MY limitations to achieve a simular result as the 'art' I was using as an example. I think that is a universal thing. Also, impressionism, or expressionism, or whatever, is really nothing more then taking an 'example' and doing it 'your way'. That is a very open-ended definition, but it is the conclusion I came to from experience.

I also wondered what makes somebody like Van Gogh such a genius but also somebody like DaVinci? They are totaly different styles...one basicaly using paint to create a photograph, and the other just going wild with imagination. So, how can they BOTH be viewed at the same high level?

The answer is, IMO, they appeal to different people. DaVinci appeals to people who look at his paintings and are in awe of how detailed and sophisticated, and realistic they are. Van Gogh may be concidered more 'artsy' cuz he broke the mold and did whatever he imagined...and he appeals to those people.

That's how I see things...and it is really no different with music. They are both 'art'.

The question of Journey hiring a tribute singer is a bit different. It's like commissioning an artist to do a painting because he paints exactly like Van Gogh, even has a missing ear...so anybody who sees this bit of art is going to think, "Wow, this is almost, but not quite, completely like a Van Gogh!" At the same time Van Gogh was fired a few years earlier because he had gone a bit loopy.

It's a comical situation...and that is how I view Journey (or any other 'classic' rock band) hiring a tribute singer.

So, that is the whole of my experience on the art thing. I do not claim to know everything. But, I know, and experienced, enough to have an opinion.

Yes you have a point, even if you must take it to extremes. What do we have but our own vision of what we see surrounding us and in our minds in memory. Yes, I duplicate "God's" work of nature, BUT, I can also "interpret" it into my own vision.

Wow. Nicely said.

Sure, and that is called an impressionist. There is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that there are other artistic techniques, including my statement of 'holding a mirror up to nature'...which was the common painting style before impressionists came about.

It's ALL art, and one is not more 'art' than another.

The truth is that art is whatever a person considers art. Somebody else may not agree that it is, but if it is 'art' to you, then it is.

Well, OK, maybe if some guy named Art created some art then Art's art would be more 'art' then a non-Art guys art. But, that's a bit nit-picky to me.

Da gone, Monker, I had to answer a call and here you are right back at it! ...ok...yes, of course, what one considers art may not be to another. I understand that you are a seeker of wisdom, experienced and know all things. Now you wish to discuss the many aspects of varying artistic techniques? Cool! What about surrealism or would you rather stick with realists as it is more supportive of your initial theory? What are the pro's and con's of modernistic techniques, in your opinion? How about discussing the Baroque period? What are your thoughts on the "black paintings" of Goya? If you dont have an opinion go ahead and BS your way thru. In that area is where your expertise really shines . Oh Monker, we could go on all night, you and I!

[Little Lenny]

I ain't no arteeste, but isn't the "art/shit" thing here a red herring?

This is really about originality/replication, suggesting that originality is to be exalted as "art" and replication is to be condemned as "shit." I'll take a pass on the ultimate question, but I agree with the central point, which seems to be that they're different. Consequently, passing the latter for the former does have the stink of fraud to it.

On the other hand, some people want replicas. After all, there's only one Mona Lisa. If I know I'm buying a replica of the Mona Lisa, and someone sells it to me as such, then I'm getting what I wanted and the seller had provided me something I value. The world is a happier place and everybody wins.

I think Wheels of Fire was talking more on the interpretation side. Yes we all know when are buying a replica piece of Art, such as the Mona Lisa, You'd have to be daft in the head not to realise that. But at the end of the day some people will settle for a replica/ emulation/Soundalike/lookalike/Copy whatever you care to call it; and some people can only be happy with an Original.
It's all a matter of choice, some people are happy as you say and comfortable in the one they make for a replica.
To address the point of art, there is one question that has no one answer,and in a way Strings of JOY you have answered it yourself, WHAT IS ART? ......
Wheels of Fire Posted a personal view of what Art is and what Art is not, although for me I would not say anything I did not regard as art was nothing more than SHIT(for want of a better Saxon word!) For me I would probably say that I did not see that as being in the same bracket, if indeed that was my opinion

As I said there is no one view of Art, it is mulitfaceted and each person see's a different thing when they look at it and that is also why I think Wheels of Fyre made an interesting analogy by using Art, because this seems to be the case regarding singers in Journey, there is no one defining view, some like Steve P, Some like Steve A, some like Robert Fleischmann, some will like Jef Scott Soto..it's all a matter of personal taste. IMO

[The_Noble_Cause]

However, you being wrong about every single prediction you made regarding the future of Journey, and me being right, was probably the best gift I could have received...

YOU prophesized that touring profits would take a nose-dive after Jeff came aboard.
THAT has never been proven, and aside from it, I can’t recall another single matter o’ fact prediction you made.
Every prediction made about Soto-era Journey, (both good and bad), from the fans is now null and void.
The era was aborted mid-gestation.
And if Jeff Scott Soto couldn’t see that coming, I certainly doubt a holier-than-thee poindexter dickqueef like you could, either.