If you love Sublime, Badfish, tribute bands or art in general, I highly recommend you read Josh Schlesinger’s article “Badfish: Appropriate Name,” which appears in this week’s A&E section. In this article, Josh makes a fascinating “if…then…” statement: “if music is synonymous with art and art is synonymous with originality then…” You can read the conclusion of the quote in his article. I, due to ignorance about the ethics of tribute bands, take no stance on his claim. But, this string of logic is a very powerful statement deserving further exploration.
What Josh has done, with or without the intention of doing so, is to answer the age old koan of “what is art?” Let’s riff on this answer for a little bit: if art is synonymous with originality are student pieces to be considered art? Often times when somebody is studying art, in any given medium, they will mimic the work done by an artist they consider to be a mentor to learn the technique that mentor pioneered. Does that cancel the originality? What if the person who views or listens to this study-piece has no point of reference for it, the viewer has never heard of the mentor or seen his/her work? Since the piece is original to the viewer but not the artist, does is count as being an original piece of art?
Granted, this letter from the editor is neither academic nor political. Call it lame if you’re so inclined, but I hope I can instigate an examination of the responsibility a society must have to its concept of art. I believe a society like ours, which has refined itself to the point of being able to need concept as luxurious as art, creates a situation where the members of that society are responsible for policing the boundaries of any dialogue surrounding it. We must decide what is acceptable in any industry which arises from that art. If you want, call me. I’d be glad to hear what you think over a cup of java.