(To Musicians) Come, come into this room, sit there and wait until he comes.
DANCING MASTER
(To dancers) And you too, on this side.
MUSIC MASTER
(To Pupil) Is it done?
PUPIL
Yes.
MUSIC MASTER
Let's see. . . This is good.
DANCING MASTER
Is it something new?
MUSIC MASTER
Yes, it's a melody for a serenade that I set him to composing here, while waiting for our man to awake.
DANCING MASTER
May I see it?
MUSIC MASTER
You'll hear it, with the dialogue, when he comes. He won't be long.
DANCING MASTER
Our work, yours and mine, is not trivial at present.
MUSIC MASTER
This is true. We've found here such a man as we both need. This is a nice source of income for us -- this Monsieur Jourdain, with the visions of nobility and gallantry that he has gotten into his head. You and I should hope that everyone resembled him.
DANCING MASTER
Not entirely; I could wish that he understood better the things that we give him.
MUSIC MASTER
It's true that he understands them poorly, but he pays well, and that's what our art needs now more than anything else.
DANCING MASTER
As for me, I admit, I feed a little on glory. Applause touches me; and I hold that, in all the fine arts, it is painful to produce for dolts, to endure the barbarous opinions of a fool about my choreography. It is a pleasure, don't tell me otherwise, to work for people who can appreciate the fine points of an art, who know how to give a sweet reception to the beauties of a work and, by pleasurable approbations, gratify us for our labor. Yes, the most agreeable recompense we can receive for the things we do is to see them recognized and flattered by an applause that honors us. There is nothing, in my opinion, that pays us better for all our fatigue; and it is an exquisite delight to receive the praises of the well-informed.
MUSIC MASTER
I agree, and I enjoy them as you do. There is surely nothing more agreeable than the applause you speak of; but that incense does not provide a living. Pure praises do not provide a comfortable existence; it is necessary to add something solid, and the best way to praise is to praise with cash-in-hand. He's a man, it's true, whose insight is very slight, who talks nonsense about everything and applauds only for the wrong reasons but his money makes up for his judgments. He has discernment in his purse. His praises are in cash, and this ignorant bourgeois is worth more to us, as you see, than the educated nobleman who introduced us here.
-In the end, the music is actually crap...and the ballet is set to match. So did these artist lower their standards to cater to the bourgeois and their lacking concept of art... OR did 'the Middle class gentleman' like the work because it was not beyond his realm of thinking in the first place, and he understands not what real art is. Was Moliere thinking of this standard as he wrote this play- knowing full well these plays pandered to the whim of the middle class, who could afford (in masses) to attend them. 'The Middle Class Gentleman' is painted as the idiot of the story.. but is he the real fool?
Anna,
ReplyDeleteThis is good, but again it's about a dated economy.
So who patrons artists today? Do we still work under patronage? Should we?
Research Thomas Kinkade. He's a contemporary artist who makes "art fair" style landscapes, sells them as a corporation, and supposedly 1 in 20 American homes own one of his pieces. It's unapologetic popular aesthetics. His work DOES what Komar and Melamid's theoretically explain.
Really examine what Kinkade is doing, and decide whether he is an artist or not. And after that tell me what how you'd like your work to respond to that.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteIm not sure you grasped the point of why I liked this and thought it was applicable. It is less about art patronage and more about the 'taming' (or dumbing down) of the arts to suit middle class taste. Yes, you can sell more art and make more money if the bourgeois decide your art is something they want to have, but at what cost? And, if an artist decides to cater directly to that taste-are they really an artist? At this point, I would have to say it would come down to their motivation for doing it- if it was purely for profit, then no, I do not believe they are much of an artist. Unless the profit was being made to talk about the art market and how the value of art is determined. Or if the the profit was being made in a purely ironic way in which the artist was choosing to work and it became something of a gambit- and the artist recognized it as such. Or, if they were doing it in order to start a conversation about this topic- and view their role as an artist in an ironic way of showcasing the system, then yes- there is a thoughtful critique behind that.
As disrespectful as it might seem to many people, I don't believe the majority of people understand art. I certainly don't believe the middle class (who is largely unconcerned, and uneducated when it comes to high art) has any idea what 'art is'. I think this is fair to say, and I say it unapologetically. No one would presume to think that I could walk into a hospital, without any education, knowledge, or practice towards being a doctor, and diagnose someone's disease. I would have no idea what I am looking at. So why is it widely believed that art is so different- that art is for everybody. I don't agree. I am making a distinction in taste based on an lack of ability to understand what constitutes good art. So if artists cater their art to middle class taste (like in Moliere's play), because the majority of people do not have the ability to distinguish what is good art, won't we automatically see a dumbing down of the arts...won't we end up with mountain landscapes and ocean sunsets over every couch in america? Art and decoration have no distinction at that point. And it is my presumption that many people who own these types of works have already failed to make that distinction. BUT can that aesthetic be used to re-draw a distinction? Is it worth doing so? Will it start a conversation about art and how its value is determined and why that judgement is not for anyone to make? That is the question I am asking in my project. Yes there are qualities about art that everyone can enjoy- and I find myself being seduced by these same qualities- but there is not the level of critique, and discernment in these qualities that I would hope art would have, ultimately. I find this project to be an attempt at emptying out those prior likings of art, an attempt rather, to acknowledge my seduction by these unintelligent facets of art, and a desire to push them into the realm of thoughtful critique.