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.