[LAU] Art's suitability for anything

Ralf wrote: excepted of the crap on the radio, should not suit to anything. Interesting comment, off topic from the original thread so I'll spawn a new one. I don't entirely agree that art should not suit to anything. I come to feel more and more that art doesn't exist without a subculture, and people make art/music/fashion etc to appeal to one or more subcultures. There are possible exceptions (Harry Partsch, perhaps) but I'd argue those are extremely rare. Many western classical composers in the early twentieth century argued for "music for its own sake" -- music that captures a glimpse of the Eternal and thus whose artistic merit transcends human relationships. But of course, it's all tap-room banter without a community of musicians and listeners who agree with that idea! So this was just another musical culture (which sought to pretend that it was beyond culture). This is, of course, not to say that artists must obey subcultural expectations and have no autonomy. Most (western) musical subcultures value surprise (except the aforementioned generic radio pop). I think artistic autonomy is always in a balance, or tension, with the artist's chosen scene. One of the decisions an artist has to make is where to position herself on the continuum between participating in a musical community (adhering to its standards) and critiquing its norms or expanding the subculture's boundaries. Many are not aware that this is a choice -- hence the bands or singers who sound just like everybody else in the genre. But part of my point is that participating in a musical culture is not "less than" breaking molds. All this is from a western perspective, of course. Some non-European musical cultures (I'm thinking of the amazing music of the Aka pygmies) seem to place no value at all on individual autonomy in music... that is, autonomy is not a universal value. hjh