Vas ist? A Dissection of Modern Art

It seems that it’s an outstanding rule in American culture these days that if people can’t understand something, it must be good. I’m talking about all these impressionistic, free-form, avant-garde styles of art and music pervading the scene these days that everyone seems to be swooning over. Musically, I’m referring to groups like the Boredoms, or John Zorn’s various projects. I sure there are examples of what I’m talking about in the visual arts medium as well, but I can’t think of any cuz’ I’m not really up on that field. Museums cost so much these days and then you gotta deal with that snooty art crowd. It’s just not worth the hassle. I’m pretty sure the artists I’m thinking of have commie sounding names like Gandinsky or Gabonov. But the point is: these days, if you want to protect yourself from criticism all you gotta do is go into these way out forms of art.

Let me deal with the musical side of things first. Now don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot of this stuff I absolutely love. In fact, both the aforementioned Boredoms and John Zorn are okay in my book. And the late sixties Miles Davis stuff is great. No, you see, I don’t want to spend that much time arguing over the art itself, I’m more concerned with the audience’s general reaction to it.

Sometimes, I’ll go and see one of the various local bands that are going for this avant-garde type of thing, and a lot of the time, it just ain’t working for me. It sounds like mindless, directionless noise, and I’m thinking, "What’s the point here?" However, the band always have plenty of admirers saying things like, "Wow, I love the way you transcend genres and arrive at a headspace totally new to my psychic experience."

What amuses me is how much of this nonsense music is called "jazz." If Joe Citizen hears music that confuses him and makes him see bright colors, he assumes it’s "jazz." Sometimes I pee my pants with laughter reading an album jacket or group bio that talks about a band’s "jazz" influences (when it usually sounds like their main influence was a ten hour car accident.) Generally their idea of jazz is randomly hitting any note on the guitar and assuming that they’re the next Charlie Parker. Don’t get me wrong, I got nothing against a guy randomly hitting notes on a instrument, just don’t assume you’re playing jazz. These guys want the prestige of jazz without the discipline. (I sound like some of my favorite jazz snobs, right there.)

If I can go off on a tangent here, it’s worth noting, that in its inception, jazz itself was called mindless noise. The sounds from those crazy Negroes were so new that everyday joes couldn’t figure out what there were doing. So, they just assumed it was primal rantings from the forlorn Negro soul. Actually, jazz was and is very structured and intellectual, it just took whitey a while to figure that out. Music critic Leonard Feather has got a book that discusses all this but I can’t remember what it’s called so I guess that’s no help to you. I suppose you could read all his books and you might come across the one I’m thinking about. Actually, this whole paragraph has been pretty unimportant.

Well, let’s put music aside and move on to the visual arts. I’m sure you’ve seen this whole spectrum of art that looks like a cat threw up on a canvas. Or these paintings that are just a big green circle on a white background. How do you know if the stuff is good or not? Sometimes people will talk about a piece and say, "An extraordinary example of post-dadaesque refinement of image." Great, but does that make it any good? And why is it that the stuff sells for thousands of dollars? I tell you why. Because no one actually understands it so in order to not look like fools they pretend to like it. It’s "The Emperor’s New Clothes" all over again only we (The Public) are the Emperor and all this fruity art are the "New Clothes" and all these artists are the guys that ripped off the Emperor. What a brilliant analogy.

I don’t know, the whole thing can be pretty confusing, because there’s a lot of this noise music or vomit art I really do like. But I think a lot of people will hear these chaotic harmonies or see this strange art and feel nothing. And then they figure it’s their fault because they aren’t intelligent enough or insightful enough to understand it. So they go out and spend thousands of dollars to fill up their house with weird sculptures and invite avant-garde musicians and obscure poets (Boy, I haven’t even started on poetry) to their chic cocktail parties. Or at least the rich ones do. The rest of us rabidly spew out the latest arty mumbo-jumbo to prove our worth to guy were stuck sitting next to at the bus stop who has got a major in philosophy and a minor in atonal composition and is acting like he’s somehow morally superior even though he’s going to be working in a used bookstore for the rest of his life.

Anyway, it’s clear these artist types are pulling a scam. And maybe we deserve to be had.