Tyler+H’s+OpEd+Article

Originally I felt compelled to discuss my position on a specific example of the following subject, but after a few mental tangents and brief recollections of my experience with the subject, I have decided that I will approach the justifying of my concerns through two different mediums.

The former is the one which I was originally intent on addressing, being something I have a bit more first-hand experience with, and being as well something that may be referenced and analyzed with common sense perhaps a bit more conveniently than the example which will follow: the contrast of Photography and Cinematography. Having been inspired by my AP Digital Art 2D class to submit some work to a program hosted by the LA Music Center, I observed two things that particularly irked me, and the first was the neglecting of film production as an art while supporting digital photography and design. Obviously the production of motion-pictures relies on photography to an extent (for pretty obvious reasons), but why should that render it an inferior medium of creation and demonstration in formal regards? Most would probably agree that the creation of films (not the American popularized “solely on the basis of profit” films, but films constructed with vision and actual purpose) entails a great deal of conceptual preplanning, freestyle and systematic development, molding, crafting, etc. Obviously these are included in the fundamental principles of photography as well, but why is it that the assemblage of photographs collectively (along with various other, additional productive aspects) is rendered by the art “professionals” (egotistic elitists) to be less worthy of attention than still photos? There are plenty of examples, especially in the dreaded American pop culture, which serve their argument efficiently in suggesting that films are not capable of portraying significant meaning, but there are far, far more which confirm the exact opposite. To deny this is to cling to an ideology that is narrow-minded and antiquated.

The other account, for its similarity, I will shorten my description of. While musical performances were supported by the hosted contest, entries were restricted strictly to “classical” and “jazz”. I have nothing against either of those two genres personally, and I understand that heavy metal (and maybe even rock) may not always reflect poetic significance or the same range of talent that the other two genres may tend to feature, but as an enthusiast of folk music and “Americana”, I can readily confirm that there are plenty of poetical compositions and performance styles that are worthy of far more than merely “consideration” as to their status as “artistic performances”. The conceited attitude upheld by some merely on the basis of instrumentation and stylistic approach makes almost no sense at all to me. What actually separates a violin from a fiddle? Mandolinist Chris Thile (literally regarded as a genius, and probably one of the top five players in recorded human history), as an advocate and player of wide ranging genres (folk, bluegrass, rock, classical, jazz, and at one point he made a Britney Spears song not only tolerable, but very much enjoyable ) has brushed upon this subject several times, proclaiming that he does not in the least bit understand the uptight, reserved “sit down, shut up, listen and have no physical reaction whatsoever” attitude displayed by the stereotypical advocates of classical music. It just seems rather restricted and closed-minded to regard only two genres, only two basic styles of performance, as worthy of formal recognition when countless others may be just as eloquent and just as inspired.

I didn’t want to broaden the focus of my address to art in general, but having worked to establish my position on the above topics, I cannot help but feel that neglecting the vast scope of art in general (engulfing all associated denotations and connotations) would be a little ignorant, a little selfish and a little…stupid. Though the following quotes and demonstrations of philosophy certainly do apply to the examples which I find personally significant, they may just as easily apply themselves to the passions and practices of anyone with a vision and a desire to devote their energies to its worldly manifestation.

“True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.”-Albert Einstein

“Art is the elimination of the unnecessary”-Pablo Picasso

“Art has the power to transform, to illuminate, to educate, inspire and motivate. ”- Harvey Fierstein

Having established a position on the individuality of art, I do feel obliged to explain the means by which I believe art may objectively be derived from one’s actions and environment, and one of my favorite quotes by Steve Martin (regarding entertainment in this particular case) does an excellent job of upholding this idea in perhaps more relatable terms.

“I believe entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot.”- Steve Martin

This may easily be modified to:

“I believe [insert enjoyed practice here] can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot.” – based on a quote by Steve Martin

The pursuit of truth and happiness entails both physical and philosophical contemplation, and even while relying in some respects upon the former, the latter especially tends to lead us through practices and explorations that are worth far more than the sum of their denotative parts. There’s a lot more to this stuff than playing classical music on a viola and capturing nature-stills.

media type="custom" key="25307496" align="center" "I do think it's important for people who profess to be really interested in music to expose themselves to the width and breadth of the great music available to them."