[NewMusic] no one cares

[Sarah - 21 Grand]

Matt Goodheart wrote:
Of course, Andrew says "Fuck the marketplace," but then perhaps this
becomes a semantic issue? When are we discussing subculture and when
are we discussing "marketplace"?

- - -  First off, George Cremaschi said a lot of what I felt like saying in
response in to your post.  But I don't see "marketplace" and "subculture" as
being in opposition to one another at this point in history. They definitely
intersect, and didn't we (culturally) spend the 70s up through the mid-90s
discussing "co-opting"?  (Okay, I know I did. Co-opting went hand in hand
with another vintage 80s term "poseur" ... Or to spell it in middle-American
high school vernacular - poser.)  Anyone who wants to contest the idea of
subculture marketplace can pick up a copy of Arthur Magazine at 21 Grand or
various other subcultural outlets.

 But the thread through all of this,
from Gehry to Conyers to Wilshusen, is the focus on the "self" of the
artist: as Andrew says;

> you want to sound like "yourself"


I've been wondering (again) about this, as it seems the mantra for not
only our scene, but in a larger sense, the for "marketplace/culture"
of our times - what political candidate has not said, for that matter,
that they were "maverick" and "outsider?"

-- One of the founders/editors of the Baffler, that George mentioned, Tom
Frank wrote a book about this in the 90s ... I think it's called "The
Conquest of Cool" ... It's quite good.

Therefore, isn't it
possible the notion of artistic individualism is an outgrowth of an
internalized concept of "marketplace?"  How, then, does this focus on
individualism shape the aesthetic possibilities?

- - Well, why are so many people invested in having an identity as artists?
Why are there so many social programs that, for lack of a better word,
attempt to rehabilitate or improve, the "have-nots" through creative
activities: the mentally disabled, prisoners, and everyone's favorite,
underprivileged children from historically oppressed ethnic minority
backgrounds?   Maybe the first and second questions are unrelated. I'd argue
that "art," with sports being the only other category I can think of that is
similar, offers the highest degree of public recognition, that is, fame, for
individual prowess that does not require academic credentials or a direct
relationship to making money (e.g. Business people).

- - Perhaps this belief in individual artistic success and
"self-actualization" is the new "religion" ... It certainly is an act of
faith, and goes against a realistic assessment of the way things are, for
someone to think that maybe, they will become a "star."

sl