Steve’s Stuff

I like music (and most art) from the 20th century from the modernist’s exploration of the ontological boundaries to the postmodernist’s reminder not to take ourselves too seriously. What’s not to like?

At the moment, I’m very interested in mass art and it’s connection to Plato’s fundamental distrust of art (more specifically, it’s proclivity to mimesis). Finally, we have a large body of work that both uses the tools of mass communication and can effectively reach a wide audience. Basically, it’s connecting with a lot of people through the means that they can understand - the possibility of subversion has never been greater. Was Plato correct in thinking that mimetic art would fool and corrupt society? Should it be banned from our “republic”?

Previously in history, fine art was really for the cultured, the learned, and the elite. Sure, the masses may have gone to a few operas, but did they have any real, deep understanding of what they were looking at? No way - it was a social event - they usually weren’t even paying attention to the stage. Thus, fine art never even had the chance to sway the “delicate” minds of society. The connoisseurs wouldn’t be influenced by subsersive content because if they were smart enough to grasp the concepts of art, they were smart enough to think critically, smart enough to avoid being duped by the clever artist with his nefarious plot to poison their minds.

That was then. “Now” is a different story. Mass art is made for a mass audience. It uses communication techniques that they easily understand (and enjoy), it uses mediums that they’re comfortable with (e.g. TV, movies, pop culture), and it’s readily available for a nominal cost (i.e. once you buy the TV, you can begin consuming mass art for free). The state of the world clearly shows that many individuals are still unable to think critically and therefore unable to filter out the “junk”. If their entertainment is subverted, they will be easily swayed from any of their beliefs. How many people thought the Da Vinci Code was real? If an artist (or, conversely, a Dan Brown) throws in a few little touches in the way of footnotes (and the like), the legitimacy appears to increase drastically. Many people will still believe *anything*.

So, the question stands: should we ban art because it would be good for society? My instinct as an artist is to say, “hahahaha - of course not! Lets get in there and mess with people’s heads!” You can’t ignore your artistic instinct, so lets have some fun.