Csontos,
The question of art that offends is an interesting one to me. Whether they were throwing eggs at the debut of Rite of Spring because the music was strident or because the choreography was suggestive is irrelevant to me. Either way, it was great art that offended its contemporary audience. I think there's a lesson about tolerance in there, and tho I doubt much rap deserves to be the beneficiary of that lesson, I'm still disinclined to sweeping dismissal.
And, I actually disagree about the connection between rock n roll on the one hand and contemporary painters on the other - tho Basquiat, Haring, et al are probably purer examples than Warhol. (Ironically, their imagery owes a huge debt to - you guessed it - rap and hip hop culture.) I was married into the NYC art scene at that time and the connection between pop art and classical art was definitely prominent. Even the "classical" music of Steve Reich, LaMont Young, Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, et al bumped up against rock n roll.
The idea that simple, abstract images (or music) could be very powerful is a pretty recent idea in the West. Classical art that celebrates craft and beauty has its place in my life. So does contemporary art that eschews those notions.
As to evaluating Chuck Berry vs The Beatles, it's another question that poses a problem about which measuring stick should be used. If you want craft with your art - take The Beatles. If the point of the art is that craft only dilutes the impact - then take Chuck Berry. (Depending on the day of the week, I might go either way.)
Personally, I will still listen to Chuck Berry, but I'll never cue up a Beatles song. OTOH, The Beatles are probably the biggest influence on my own (amateur) songwriting. For me, there's two sides to this coin and I appreciate both sides - each in its own way.
Marty
The question of art that offends is an interesting one to me. Whether they were throwing eggs at the debut of Rite of Spring because the music was strident or because the choreography was suggestive is irrelevant to me. Either way, it was great art that offended its contemporary audience. I think there's a lesson about tolerance in there, and tho I doubt much rap deserves to be the beneficiary of that lesson, I'm still disinclined to sweeping dismissal.
And, I actually disagree about the connection between rock n roll on the one hand and contemporary painters on the other - tho Basquiat, Haring, et al are probably purer examples than Warhol. (Ironically, their imagery owes a huge debt to - you guessed it - rap and hip hop culture.) I was married into the NYC art scene at that time and the connection between pop art and classical art was definitely prominent. Even the "classical" music of Steve Reich, LaMont Young, Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, et al bumped up against rock n roll.
The idea that simple, abstract images (or music) could be very powerful is a pretty recent idea in the West. Classical art that celebrates craft and beauty has its place in my life. So does contemporary art that eschews those notions.
As to evaluating Chuck Berry vs The Beatles, it's another question that poses a problem about which measuring stick should be used. If you want craft with your art - take The Beatles. If the point of the art is that craft only dilutes the impact - then take Chuck Berry. (Depending on the day of the week, I might go either way.)
Personally, I will still listen to Chuck Berry, but I'll never cue up a Beatles song. OTOH, The Beatles are probably the biggest influence on my own (amateur) songwriting. For me, there's two sides to this coin and I appreciate both sides - each in its own way.
Marty
