question 43a

In many math problems, one's solution can be checked. It's something like cracking a safe. If the safe opens, you did it right.

When it comes to music, things are more complicated. Bad music is popular, and bad musicians are rich.

But so are good musicians.

Also painting. Is Jackson Pollock a fraud? Are monochromes a joke? I personally like monochromes more. But some like Pollock.

On the other hand, is accurate drawing valuable in this age of the camera?

What makes a musician, a painter, a novelist important?

Why should we care?

Of course we do care. As life is enriched by music, paintings, novels.

As soon as one decides to embrace the artistic role for one's self, such questions become more serious.

What does it take to be worth remembering? Or to be worth noticing while one is still alive?

Of course there is no simple answer. This is the realm of taste.

And yet certain names are famous, and others unknown. Certain paintings sell, are talked about. Certain bands draw millions as they tour the world. Certain albums are valuable technology for throwing the perfect party.



The shock-game is old now. It's over. It can only be pushed further in ways that are simply ugly. Or shall we pretend that crime scene pictures are great art? Shall we pretend that suicide is performance art?

Sure, suicide can be performance art, but is it GOOD art?

We do still want our "art" to be good.

Noise is beautiful. Some noise. So I'm not coming from Nashville, here. I'm looking at intention more than style.

Is pleasure the goal? Or are we talking about bluff, role-play?

Now bluff and role-play CAN and DO give pleasure. But I suspect it's only the silly little boys and girls that are dazzled by the merely shocking.

I've played that card. I'm almost ashamed to have bothered. But that's how we learn. And it was and is valuable to a certain stage of growth. We have to win our mental freedom. Perhaps getting naked in public is a way to do this.

But the question remains: what do we USE this "freedom" for? Now that we ARE free, what's the NEW goal?

If a "free" person makes art for other "free" persons, a focus on freedom does not seem necessary. It's as if stage one spiritual progress is a destructive phase that clears all the bullshit away. Shock-rock and Nietzsche, etc., is a bulldozer, a sacrifice.

When the ground is clear, one can BUILD. Philosophy may indeed begin with skepticism. But should it end with skepticism? Did we ask questions as a sort of show? Or did we really want answers?

I can't help but question those who make a God of the question mark.