Art Here and Now » Television

From 1987, Computers and the Arts

Trout Monfalco — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:09:34 +0000

The Computer Chronicles series ran for 20 years, covering the new and ever-changing world of computers for a broad audience.

In 1987, they presented a show titled Computers and the Arts.

United States Candidates – positions on The Arts

Animal vs. Buddy Rich

Trout Monfalco — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:49:21 +0000

On The Muppet Show, Animal battles Buddy Rich. Until I saw this clip, I didn’t know the musician who performed Animal’s drumming was Ronnie Verrell. This is some amazing drumming.

Get The Muppets.

No Art, Only Entertainment

Trout Monfalco — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:18:22 +0000

I’ve noticed for quite some time that most media web sites and newspapers do not have an Arts section. The closest you find is Entertainment. The meaning of these two is of course very different, not because art can’t be entertaining, it can be. But art often has more purpose to it than that. By sticking only to “Entertainment,” the media avoids discussion of any of the other reasons for art, or the cultural criticisms it might be presenting. It takes the easy route, sticking to celebrity gossip and celebrity fashion, and not a bigger cultural context, or inclusion of any artwork whose main purpose may be something other than Entertaining.

If your TV station or newspaper covers only Entertainment and not the Arts, write them and ask why, and ask them to change it (not just the name of the section, but what they cover.)

Some examples of “Entertainment” and no “Arts”:

Some great papers that still have an Arts section:

If You Get Points, Is It Art?

Trout Monfalco — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:32:33 +0000

I went to an afternoon of flat track roller derby, and even though it’s a sport, I could care less who won or lost. A lot of us were there to be entertained. Roller derby is dramatic and theatrical. Lots of players and whole teams have strong characters (whether real or mythical), and the opening and half time shows are fun and over the top. You could see a lot of artistic types in the audience who don’t go to many other games. There’s something creative and entertaining drawing them in.

But when the main purpose behind a performance is to get points and be the winner, is it art?

Figure skating, ballroom dancing and DanceSport, color guard and some forms of gymnastics are all artistic performances where the main goal is to get points and win. In most cases, performers are required to play certain types of music, wear certain clothes, and use certain prescribed moves.

Most of the performers are clearly exceptional athletes, are very dedicated, and have great artistic skill. But many people, especially the “real artists,” look down on all this. For me the problem has always been the limits put on the work — why would you limit yourself to only certain moves or, for instance, being required to twirl a fake wooden rifle?

A lot of people have trouble with the motivation. If you’re there to get points, based on how well you perform predefined and accepted moves, where is your artistic voice, your unique viewpoint of the world? Another motivation is money. Money motivation also brings the artistic merits of TV shows, films and albums into question, even beyond TV art sports like American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, and On the Lot. Artistic authenticity and innovation are often the measures of success for modern artwork. Motivations for money, points and winning are contrary to real art.

You might say authenticity and innovation are the point system for modern art. But who are the hidden judges? What are the secret rules?

When artists apply for grants, panelists often look for predefined forms that, to them, define great art. When ballet dancers come on stage, the audience looks for a limited set of predefined moves that add up to what they think of as ballet. When donors give money to a theatre or opera, they vote with dollars for work that most fits what they think art should be. Curators, promoters, producers, executives, politicians, grantors, donors, boards of directors, ticket buyers, book and music lovers and others are all doling out points. Many artists don’t like to admit we’re influenced by these points. We are trying to win money or notoriety.

The perfect modern artist is someone whose work pops out like flower buds, for no other reason and purpose than the artist wants it to. Money or status have no influence whatsoever. These are people like Henry Darger, who painted in secret his whole life. He was pure, untainted by desire for money or fame.

But if you are authentic, and you aren’t influenced by your audience or worldly temptations, how do you know your art is doing what you intended? Are puppies and shaving creme really disturbing and life changing, or only to you? Do dinosaurs make everyone think of birds, or just paleontologists? Maybe your art is just boring, confused and badly made. How will you know if you don’t listen? How will you make better work if you aren’t willing to change and learn?

In modern art, forming a fake rock band or standing on a street corner and shouting curse words at drivers can both be art. Dressing like your grandmother while impersonating Nixon might be your authentic voice. Maybe in this confusing open ended anything-goes arena, the points we get are the only barometer we have for whether our work is to other people what it is to us. Once we get those points, we can decide to change, to work for more points at the possible smogging of our clear intents. Or we can decide to remain steadfast, and risk pulling a Van Gogh – dying penniless with no recognition. It seems Van Gogh was right. I think the key is that, after collecting the points, Success or Winning is just ultimately affecting the world as you wanted to, regardless of what other rewards that might come your way.

Maybe the art athletes have it all figured out. Get the rules in writing. By the end of the night, be called the winner in front of a cheering crowd, and get paid decently for all your skill and effort.

Get In the Realms of the Unreal, the fascinating documentary about Henry Darger; or From Ballroom To Dancesport: Aesthetics, Athletics, And Body Culture

I Want to be Richard Dedomenici

Trout Monfalco — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:55:23 +0000

Richard DeDomenici is an artist, seems to have a lot of fun traveling and making shows for BBC. I’m jealous!

Richard DeMomenici’s Power of Art (a BBC promotion supporting Simon Schama’s show).

Visit his sites:
Richard DeDomenici’s Art site and
Non-art site

Simon Schama’s Power of Art

Trout Monfalco — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:27:21 +0000

This is an excellent show, with beautiful cinematography and a very smart, passionate look at the people behind some of the greatest art in history. Episodes look at the lives of Van Gogh, Picasso, Caravaggio, Bernini, Rembrandt, Turner and Rothko.

David Lynch and the Big, White, Rubber Clown Suit

Trout Monfalco — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:37:12 +0000

A common view of people involved in meditation of any kind is that they’re wimpy. They live in the clouds and forests among birds and silence, stay in big quiet stone buildings and don’t do much that actually affects the world. They’re just not realistic. “That’s nice and everything, you’re not hurting anyone, but get back to me when you have something I can use in the real world.”

The work of David Lynch is not tranquil, peaceful, naive, calming or any of those things you associate with meditation. It is often disturbing, blurring the lines between dream and reality, creepy and tense. So a few years ago when I saw him speak, after he surprisingly started a non-profit foundation dedicated to teaching meditation to the world’s children, I was perplexed. His appearance was open ended. He would answer any question people posed, about his work, the film industry, or anything else. But just by calling the event “David Lynch Speaks about Transcendental Meditation,” the questions organically centered around the topic.

The man is strange, but wholly captivating. It’s not a put-on strangeness. As he spoke, I theorized that his art and life were so strange because his entire inate metaphor system didn’t match anyone else in the room.

While answering a question about the stresses of shooting film, he said something like, “The stresses of the day, all of this anxiety you put on, it wears you down, stress, what I say is stress is like going through the whole day, wearing a big… white… rubber… clown suit.”
It was such a strange thing to say. And thank god I wasn’t in line of site, and I was far enough away he couldn’t hear me or the people around me. I held it in and buckled over with silent laughter, squinting my eyes and crying it was so funny. People around me were struggling hard to hold it in too.

I had never heard anyone describe anything as a rubber clown suit. The metaphor was completely outside the way I think (and all the people around me). I believe this is the secret element in all his work, and what makes it so unique and riveting.

Late last year, David Lynch released the book Catching the Big Fish, a book offering what he’s learned about art and meditation in his life. It’s kind of like an Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten for freaky artists. Some of it’s schmaltzy, but much of it offers great insight into David Lynch’s creative process, how he comes up with ideas and puts them on film, and on several occassions offers great insight directly for people who want to live their lives as artists. It’s in big print with lots of blank facing pages, so it’s a quick read whatever you think of it.

The span of the book is in these two quotes.
“I don’t necessarily love rotting bodies, but there’s a texture to a rotting body that is unbelievable.”
and
“Softer than a flower where kindness is concerned, Stronger than the thunder where principles are at stake. – Vedic definition of the enlightened”

Get Catching the Big Fish by David Lynch, or the work of David Lynch.

Stewie is Taunting You

Trout Monfalco — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 23:13:21 +0000

“How you uh, how you comin’ on that novel you’re working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you’re working on there? Your big novel you’ve been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah? No, no, you deserve some time off.”
- Stewie (Family Guy)