I visited the Gilbert and George exhibition on a date which right now I can't remember (It was April 28th). I have always liked their style of working, but as always, i find the couple far more interesting than i do the work, the contrast between the way they chose to be shown to the public in the different sinarios they find themselves in. It is not suprising to me why myself and my peers enjoy their work, however this does not appear to be the case for them. Quoting from the Metro newspaper, George comments;
'What's amazing is that our following is all young people, normally an artists emerges on to the art scene, gets a group of supporters who like that art, and they stay with you; but we keep getting young people responding to our work.'
What attracts the youth, in my mind, is the style, and the constant upgrading of media to create it. The exhibition displays their work through from their beginnings using pencil and paper, to the more familiar inkjet prints of the present day. This appreciation of changing technologies has ensure continuous new generations of interest.
Even though this is initially what attracts to the pair, as previously mentioned, it is their public conduct which I find the most intriguing. In their artistic appearance, they are confident, dramatic and eager to be seen; a stark contrast to their private lives which is to be keep just that - private. They seem to create a persona for themselves which is as much a part of the work as the visual prints. It seems they want to keep their artwork impersonal from their true selves, but yet it seems impossible in my opinion for an artist to ever disconnect themselves from their work to this degree, if even at all. An artist is always a part of their work, merely due to the fact that their ideas have been placed into it. However much they feel these are removed from the self, and the work is a seperate section of their life, the two must be connected as the life will always remain as a whole.
Imagine.........at a later date
On the evening of Tuesday 8th May, I caught the end of the BBC one programme Imagine, which was disscussing the Tate retrospective of the pair. In the section I saw, they where completing a virtual piece of work, which would be available to be downloaded from the BBC website for 48 hous. Even though I had not seen the programme in full or particularly knew the content of it, I still found myself downloading the piece straight away. As I have mentioned, I am not a huge fan of the work, so perhaps it was the lure of owning a limted piece of work that took my interest. I feel I would have probably acted in the same way with any artwork, reguardless of the artist, as I suppose owning something like this places me at a slightly higher status to those who don't.
It is now May the 14th, and I still have not printed out the work, or indeed have an inclination to. This leads me to believe that ownership in this case is far more important than the pleasure that the work would bring. All I care about is owning something connected with importance and fame that others do not. Yes, I admit it, I am that shallow.
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Monday, 23 April 2007
Art History disscusion, Friday 20th April
A comment was made during todays lecture which I felt could be related well to the themes I am currently looking at. The comment was;
Does an institution mark how well we have performed?
The thoughts I immediantly took from this where not really to do with what was being discussed at the time, but linked back to previous work I had been thinking about. But yet I suppose this is how we all view the events and subjects around us, we take the information they offer us and filter it to connect it to what we already know, or what we care about. But back to the point. I connected this comment to the previous observation made of The Beatles and their public, to arrive at the question;
What is an institution?
And thought about within these terms, the answers of
The Beatles?
The Public?
The Media?
quickly followed.
The definition of an institution, obtained from dictionary.com is as follows:
1. an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: This college is the best institution of its kind.
2. the building devoted to such work.
3. a public or private place for the care or confinement of inmates, esp. mental patients or other disabled or handicapped persons.
4. Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family.
5. any established law, custom, etc.
6. any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture.
7. the act of instituting or setting up; establishment: the institution of laws.
8. Ecclesiastical.
a. the origination of the Eucharist, and enactment of its observance, by Christ.
b. the investment of a member of the clergy with a spiritual charge.
In taking my three immediant answers, and referencing to these definitions, I can begin to establish an answer for the original question.
The idea of The Beatles being an institution would probably fit best with point 6. They can certainly be described as familiar, and in our time have been long-established. Thinking to the original question, if The Beatles are the institution, are they marking the performance of themselves, or do they get to judge the part that others play, the response they make to The Beatles as an institution. Lennon passed judgement in his quote regarding the situation, previously mentioned in blog titled 'Beatles for Sale'. As much as I love The Beatles, as artists I can't help feeling that they should not have the right to judge the performance, or the response of their public. Once they have deemed their work fit to be released, they should not question the reaction given to it. I don't feel that they nessercarily have done this, but the response of the audience with reguard to them as well as their music should accepted as something initially created by them.
The public seem to fit in to this question much better as an institution that marks the performance of The Beatles. It is public that keeps the band successful, and if they did not, the band would lose their status as an institution. The question remains however; are the public an institution themselves? Point 4 states an institution is a 'structured pattern of behaviour' which the public could be described as undergoing with reguard to The Beatles, the band perform, the people adore. Also, point 7 speaks of the 'act of instituting or setting up'; because of the way the public are towards The Beatles, they have become the institution we know and love, but in doing so, the public themselves are an institution.
Which leads me to the idea of the media. The media may be seen as more of a go between the two institutions of The Beatles and the public, however this does not mean that the media itself is not an institution. The media acts as the public does in reference to point 7, but perhaps even more efficiently. The media have the manipulative control over the public to put the band in this position, but public still retain the mass power, the power, as The Beatles would say of Love Love Love. The media are rather responsible of how the band perform, it is their documentation that will filter to the public to decide if their attention is deserved. They may not have the power eof the judgement of the public, but certainly the means to manipulate it.
So this is the point where I am supposed to conclude. However I feel I will have to steal a section from the blog of RB Grange (i'm sure he won't mind), which in turn is stolen from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll:
The Alice makes a brilliant statement after she is asked "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". After the conversation going off at a tangent about watches, butter, meaning what you say and saying what you mean, Alice gives up on the riddle:
"No I give it up," Alice replied "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea." said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily, " I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers."
Perhaps the question has no answer, perhaps it has many, but that concludes my thoughts on the matter.
Does an institution mark how well we have performed?
The thoughts I immediantly took from this where not really to do with what was being discussed at the time, but linked back to previous work I had been thinking about. But yet I suppose this is how we all view the events and subjects around us, we take the information they offer us and filter it to connect it to what we already know, or what we care about. But back to the point. I connected this comment to the previous observation made of The Beatles and their public, to arrive at the question;
What is an institution?
And thought about within these terms, the answers of
The Beatles?
The Public?
The Media?
quickly followed.
The definition of an institution, obtained from dictionary.com is as follows:
1. an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: This college is the best institution of its kind.
2. the building devoted to such work.
3. a public or private place for the care or confinement of inmates, esp. mental patients or other disabled or handicapped persons.
4. Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family.
5. any established law, custom, etc.
6. any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture.
7. the act of instituting or setting up; establishment: the institution of laws.
8. Ecclesiastical.
a. the origination of the Eucharist, and enactment of its observance, by Christ.
b. the investment of a member of the clergy with a spiritual charge.
In taking my three immediant answers, and referencing to these definitions, I can begin to establish an answer for the original question.
The idea of The Beatles being an institution would probably fit best with point 6. They can certainly be described as familiar, and in our time have been long-established. Thinking to the original question, if The Beatles are the institution, are they marking the performance of themselves, or do they get to judge the part that others play, the response they make to The Beatles as an institution. Lennon passed judgement in his quote regarding the situation, previously mentioned in blog titled 'Beatles for Sale'. As much as I love The Beatles, as artists I can't help feeling that they should not have the right to judge the performance, or the response of their public. Once they have deemed their work fit to be released, they should not question the reaction given to it. I don't feel that they nessercarily have done this, but the response of the audience with reguard to them as well as their music should accepted as something initially created by them.
The public seem to fit in to this question much better as an institution that marks the performance of The Beatles. It is public that keeps the band successful, and if they did not, the band would lose their status as an institution. The question remains however; are the public an institution themselves? Point 4 states an institution is a 'structured pattern of behaviour' which the public could be described as undergoing with reguard to The Beatles, the band perform, the people adore. Also, point 7 speaks of the 'act of instituting or setting up'; because of the way the public are towards The Beatles, they have become the institution we know and love, but in doing so, the public themselves are an institution.
Which leads me to the idea of the media. The media may be seen as more of a go between the two institutions of The Beatles and the public, however this does not mean that the media itself is not an institution. The media acts as the public does in reference to point 7, but perhaps even more efficiently. The media have the manipulative control over the public to put the band in this position, but public still retain the mass power, the power, as The Beatles would say of Love Love Love. The media are rather responsible of how the band perform, it is their documentation that will filter to the public to decide if their attention is deserved. They may not have the power eof the judgement of the public, but certainly the means to manipulate it.
So this is the point where I am supposed to conclude. However I feel I will have to steal a section from the blog of RB Grange (i'm sure he won't mind), which in turn is stolen from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll:
The Alice makes a brilliant statement after she is asked "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". After the conversation going off at a tangent about watches, butter, meaning what you say and saying what you mean, Alice gives up on the riddle:
"No I give it up," Alice replied "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea." said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily, " I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers."
Perhaps the question has no answer, perhaps it has many, but that concludes my thoughts on the matter.
Serpentine Private View
On a date which at the moment I cant remember a group of friends and I went to the opening of the latest show at the Serpentine gallery, which was not just a private veiw but a live performance. The show was named Clamor, a collaberation between the two artists Jennifer Allora & Guillero Calzadilla. The line from the Serpentine from the website which I then adopted to encourage people to come along was 'an exploration between sound, music and war'. The piece consisted of a large stone sculpture constructed in the central gallery space in the style of a bunker or cave. Within this structure were severel musicians, realised only by their sounds and the occasional view of a trombone slide peeking out of the structure from one of the gaps within the structure. The music being played from inside created a quite magnificent, grand effect, echoing the themes of war. The score was made up from a selection of music throughout the ages but all relating to this theme, which worked well, as it was so varied we were all able to recognise sections, though probably not realising their connection to war. As dealing with rather serious subject matter, it was unfortunate that it became quite commical due to the previously mentioned appearing instruments. It reminded me of the song 'All You Need Is Love' (yes I know is another reference) , with the different instruments popping up in the chorus after each time this line is sung. Though perhaps this idea may be quite apt when dealng with themes of war.
The most interesting part of the show however, was being sat on the grass outside the gallery after being in the show and seeing Brett Anderson of the britpop band Suede waltz by. I recognised his face immediantly, but it wasn't until my friend Richard pointed out who it was that I became just as exited as him. For a few moments we began to act as autograph hunting school children, using phrases such as, 'Is it really him?', and keeping looking over at him on the of chance that he might look up in our direction and catch our gaze.
At that point, the exhibition became unimportant, the most exiting part of the evening was seeing a celebrity from our musical past. We had completly neigated the so called 'high art' we had come to see in favour for the momentary exitment of seeing someone famous. Suede was not even a particular significant band to me at the time, I am quite ashamed to say I could probably not name five songs of theirs off the top of my head. However this man was a very succesful musician whose music I do know is very good, and so deserved my admiration.
This final section has been written at a later date. Whilst reading a section of the Clement Greenberg article 'Avant-Garde and Kitsch' to help a friend with her understanding of it, I was reminded of this piece I had previously written. I found the whole article very interesting but have chosen the following passage in reference to this entry:
'In the first place it is not a question of a choice between merely the old and merely the new, as London seems to think - but of a choice between the bad, up-to-date old and the genuinely new. The alternative to Picasso is not Michelangelo, but kitsch. In the second place, neither in backward Russia nor in the advanced West do the masses prefer kitsch simply because their governments condition them towards it. Where state educational systems take the trouble to mention art, we are told to respect the old masters, not kitsch; and yet we go and hang Maxfield Parrish or his equivalent on our walls, instead of Rembrant and Michelangelo. Moreover, as Macdonald himself points out, around 1925 when the Soviet regime was encouraging avant-garde cinema, the Rusian masses continued to prefer Hollywood movies. No, 'conditioning' does not explain the potency of kitsch.'
So at least I can't blame my education for my behaviour. I'm not sure what should be blamed, or indeed whether anything needs to be. I can only take solice that this is a problem for society, and it is not just me and my shallow, uncultured ways.
The most interesting part of the show however, was being sat on the grass outside the gallery after being in the show and seeing Brett Anderson of the britpop band Suede waltz by. I recognised his face immediantly, but it wasn't until my friend Richard pointed out who it was that I became just as exited as him. For a few moments we began to act as autograph hunting school children, using phrases such as, 'Is it really him?', and keeping looking over at him on the of chance that he might look up in our direction and catch our gaze.
At that point, the exhibition became unimportant, the most exiting part of the evening was seeing a celebrity from our musical past. We had completly neigated the so called 'high art' we had come to see in favour for the momentary exitment of seeing someone famous. Suede was not even a particular significant band to me at the time, I am quite ashamed to say I could probably not name five songs of theirs off the top of my head. However this man was a very succesful musician whose music I do know is very good, and so deserved my admiration.
This final section has been written at a later date. Whilst reading a section of the Clement Greenberg article 'Avant-Garde and Kitsch' to help a friend with her understanding of it, I was reminded of this piece I had previously written. I found the whole article very interesting but have chosen the following passage in reference to this entry:
'In the first place it is not a question of a choice between merely the old and merely the new, as London seems to think - but of a choice between the bad, up-to-date old and the genuinely new. The alternative to Picasso is not Michelangelo, but kitsch. In the second place, neither in backward Russia nor in the advanced West do the masses prefer kitsch simply because their governments condition them towards it. Where state educational systems take the trouble to mention art, we are told to respect the old masters, not kitsch; and yet we go and hang Maxfield Parrish or his equivalent on our walls, instead of Rembrant and Michelangelo. Moreover, as Macdonald himself points out, around 1925 when the Soviet regime was encouraging avant-garde cinema, the Rusian masses continued to prefer Hollywood movies. No, 'conditioning' does not explain the potency of kitsch.'
So at least I can't blame my education for my behaviour. I'm not sure what should be blamed, or indeed whether anything needs to be. I can only take solice that this is a problem for society, and it is not just me and my shallow, uncultured ways.
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
Beatles for Sale
Over the easter break, from a market stall in Masham, a purchased the album 'Beatles for Sale'. I have always been a fan of the Beatles, and have been thinking for a while that I really should own my own copies of their albums rather than listening to my father's vinyls or copying them onto my laptops from the collections of others. 'Beatles for Sale' was not my first choice for my first Beatles album to own, but it was the only one the stall had, and was only £7. At the time of purchase, I was merely pleased to own this album, not really questioning its significance in the slightest. It was only when I opened the occopanying booklet and read the words,
'The young men themselves aren't for sale. Money, noisy though it is doesn't talk that loud.'
In contrast to the title the writer, Derek Taylor, explains that it is only the music that is for sale. At this time in the Beatles history this is probably true, it is only their third album and it is because of their music that they have made a name for themselves. However, being in the position of knowing what is to come next, the fame The Beatles will acheive, the concept of 'Beatles for Sale' becomes more poyniant. The Beatles were worshiped everywhere they went, which became less about the music and more about their status of fane. John Lennon commented:
The music wasn't been heard. It was just a sort of freak show. The Beatles were the show and the music had nothing to do with it.'
So this then begs the question, when purchasing a Beatles album, are you buying it because you want to listen to the music on it, because you like their work and want to hear more of it, or are you buying it because you know they are a very famous and successful band, and feel you should own a piece of this.
'The young men themselves aren't for sale. Money, noisy though it is doesn't talk that loud.'
In contrast to the title the writer, Derek Taylor, explains that it is only the music that is for sale. At this time in the Beatles history this is probably true, it is only their third album and it is because of their music that they have made a name for themselves. However, being in the position of knowing what is to come next, the fame The Beatles will acheive, the concept of 'Beatles for Sale' becomes more poyniant. The Beatles were worshiped everywhere they went, which became less about the music and more about their status of fane. John Lennon commented:
The music wasn't been heard. It was just a sort of freak show. The Beatles were the show and the music had nothing to do with it.'
So this then begs the question, when purchasing a Beatles album, are you buying it because you want to listen to the music on it, because you like their work and want to hear more of it, or are you buying it because you know they are a very famous and successful band, and feel you should own a piece of this.
Something
Something appeared on the Abbey Road Album, released 26th September 1969, and was one of three tracks on the album written by Harrison. This has always been one of my favourite Beatles records, but the praise of it from John Lennon is far more significant. After all of the derogatory remarks about George's work, Lennon declared this to be the best song on Abbey Road.
I really want to write more about this song, but it is quite dfficult. The only thing I can really say is find it and listen to it yourself, close your eyes and allow yourself to absorb it, do whatever it makes you do. It is only in this state I can really discribe the power it has, it needs experiencing to understand it.
I really want to write more about this song, but it is quite dfficult. The only thing I can really say is find it and listen to it yourself, close your eyes and allow yourself to absorb it, do whatever it makes you do. It is only in this state I can really discribe the power it has, it needs experiencing to understand it.
Songs published under Harrisongs
The later Beatles compositions of George Harrison, including arguably his best songs, 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'Something' and 'Here Comes The Sun' where published under Harrisongs. The fact that Harrison was able to do his best work when given the freedom of his band members certainly shows the pressure and frustration he felt as a insignificant writer under his peers.
The early solo work of Harrison also was put through Harrisongs. These albums were:
Electronic Sound
Wonderwall Music
All Things Must Pass
Concert For Bangladesh
Harrison's gave the publishing rights to his next album, 'Living In The Material World' to the Material World Charitable Foundation. All albums following this were published through Ganga Publishing, B.V. in the United States, and Oops Publising in Britain and the rest of the world. Music is now published through Umlaut Corporation, controlled by Olivia Harrison.
George Harrison's solo Discography can be found at www.georgeharrison.com
Harrisongs Limited is now used by George's son, Dhani Harrison for use with his band, thenewno2. Information about this band can be found at:
www.thenewno2.com
www.myspace.com/thenewno2
The use of Harrisongs for George Harrison allowed him to have creative freedom, it was much more that just a business venture, it was a sign that he new his work was just as worthy as that of Lennon and McCartney, and wanted to prove this to his doubters. This breakaway could be seen as the beginnings of the end, in the respect that music could be made independently of one another, however, I feel this strengthened the band, for a time at least, as Harrison and Starr were no longer restricted by the more succesful pair, but still respected in their work, and so the band had new influences to feed from, and made some of their greatest music.
The early solo work of Harrison also was put through Harrisongs. These albums were:
Electronic Sound
Wonderwall Music
All Things Must Pass
Concert For Bangladesh
Harrison's gave the publishing rights to his next album, 'Living In The Material World' to the Material World Charitable Foundation. All albums following this were published through Ganga Publishing, B.V. in the United States, and Oops Publising in Britain and the rest of the world. Music is now published through Umlaut Corporation, controlled by Olivia Harrison.
George Harrison's solo Discography can be found at www.georgeharrison.com
Harrisongs Limited is now used by George's son, Dhani Harrison for use with his band, thenewno2. Information about this band can be found at:
www.thenewno2.com
www.myspace.com/thenewno2
The use of Harrisongs for George Harrison allowed him to have creative freedom, it was much more that just a business venture, it was a sign that he new his work was just as worthy as that of Lennon and McCartney, and wanted to prove this to his doubters. This breakaway could be seen as the beginnings of the end, in the respect that music could be made independently of one another, however, I feel this strengthened the band, for a time at least, as Harrison and Starr were no longer restricted by the more succesful pair, but still respected in their work, and so the band had new influences to feed from, and made some of their greatest music.
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Songwriting
"There was an embarrasing period where his songs weren't that good and nobody wanted to say anything, he just wasn't in the same league for a long time - that's not putting him down, he just hadn't had the practice as a writer that we'd had.'
John Lennon speaking in 1974 about the songwriting abilities of George Harrison in comparison to himself and Paul McCartney.
Seems rather harsh to me, but as a George Harrison fan, of course I am going to say that.
John Lennon speaking in 1974 about the songwriting abilities of George Harrison in comparison to himself and Paul McCartney.
Seems rather harsh to me, but as a George Harrison fan, of course I am going to say that.
Only A Northern Song
George Harrison's 'Only A Northern Song' appeared on the album 'Yellow Submarine', after it was felt not to fit in with the other songs on the 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' album. It is thought that it is a response to Harrison's often disrespected hometown of Liverpool, but more significantly, a take on Northern Songs, and his feelings about them due to the treatment he received from them.
Lyrics to 'Only A Northern Song'
If you're listening to this song
You may think the chords are wrong
But they're not;
He just wrote it like that.
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
As it's only a Northern song
It doesn't really matter what clothes I wear
Or how I fare or if my hair is brown
When it's only a Northern song.
When you're listening late at night
You may think the band are not quite right
But they are, they just play it like that
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
As it's only a Northern song.
It doesn't really matter what clothes I wear
Or how I fare or if my hair is brown
When it's only a Northern song.
If you think the harmony
Is a little dark and out of key
You're correct, there's nobody there.
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
And I told you there's no one there.
The words are fairly self explanatory about how Harrison was feeling at the time, and the fact it was deemed not good enough to go on Sgt Pepper futher comfirms his standing within the band by the record company.
Lyrics to 'Only A Northern Song'
If you're listening to this song
You may think the chords are wrong
But they're not;
He just wrote it like that.
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
As it's only a Northern song
It doesn't really matter what clothes I wear
Or how I fare or if my hair is brown
When it's only a Northern song.
When you're listening late at night
You may think the band are not quite right
But they are, they just play it like that
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
As it's only a Northern song.
It doesn't really matter what clothes I wear
Or how I fare or if my hair is brown
When it's only a Northern song.
If you think the harmony
Is a little dark and out of key
You're correct, there's nobody there.
It doesn't really matter what chords I play
What words I say or time of day it is
And I told you there's no one there.
The words are fairly self explanatory about how Harrison was feeling at the time, and the fact it was deemed not good enough to go on Sgt Pepper futher comfirms his standing within the band by the record company.
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Departure to Harrisongs
Although Harrisongs was formed in 1965, George Harrison did not publish his music under his new company until 1968. This was due to his renewal of his contract with Northern Songs. He was convinced to resign with them in 1965. At this time he owned 0.8% of its shares. Ringo Starr owned the same amount. In stark contrast however, Lennon and McCartney each held 15%. To transfer these figures into opinion, Northern Songs regarded Lennon and McCartney with more favour than either Harrison or Starr. It was this ill feeling that prompted Harrison to break away and be able to release his music without negociation to the other members. Harrison was not appreciated by the company; due to the success of Lennon and McCartney in the public's opinion he was not needed as such, Northern Songs had their money makers and so were not interested in putting effort into another. The idea of a hierarchy within the band, and the fame surrounding them which solidified that is something I would like to look more into.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)