# Art is wrestling with the meaning of life!



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

No, not ArtMusic. This is from a quote by Jon Vickers, who left us a couple of days ago.

"Art is a wrestling with the meaning of life. Since society no longer resists 'the pull of success,' it can no longer define or draw a line between what's art and what's entertainment.''

Posted elsewhere, it has generated some interesting discussion. Was Vickers right in opposing "art" and "entertainment" this way? What do you think?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Beethoven is popular; popular music is entertainment; entertainment is not art; therefore Beethoven is not art.

I don't think Vickers' polarity works.


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

If art is not entertaining at some level, I'd say it fails.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Art is, yes. Whether all music is 'art' or mere 'entertainment' is another matter.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It sounds a bit grim, *wrestling* with the meaning of life. That would mean that certain categories were 'not art', or 'not usually art' - ballet music, comic operas, light celebratory pieces, and even sacred pieces that take God's existence and purpose for granted.

Most of my favourite composer's works, Jean-Baptiste Lully, would not be art on that definition. *('And we certainly can't have that!' - Madame la Marquise)*

Art *can *entertain; Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is an example from literature/drama; it certainly has a melancholy subtext with something to say about life - but it's subtle, not *wrestling*!

So, although I see why Vickers said it, I don't agree.
He gave us something to think about though - rest in peace. :angel:


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

The meaning of life is wrestling (verbally on the internet) with Art(Music).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Art may or may not be entertainment, it very often is. Sometimes it is didactic piece of work, sometimes political or at least as conceived by the artist (that's not to say a political work as intended could not be entertainment from the eyes/ears of the viewer/listener). 

I love these "what is art" threads.


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2015)

Jeebus I don't know anymore. I only just found out that apparently some music isn't even music if there's a person that doesn't like it.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

If you have talent, the names of things come to you. 

I guess if you don't have it you could say you have to wrestle your way through.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

First of all, there is no meaning of life.
Second, society has _never_ resisted "the pull of success", whatever the hell that is.
And third, it's never been possible to draw a line between art and entertainment.

[Drops mic on foot; stumbles off in agony]


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

What has 42 got to do with art?


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

I like to draw my own lines.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> First of all, there is no meaning of life.
> Second, society has _never_ resisted "the pull of success", whatever the hell that is.
> And third, it's never been possible to draw a line between art and entertainment.
> 
> [Drops mic on foot; stumbles off in agony]


Ah - so *your* 'meaning of life' is that there is 'no meaning'? Did you *wrestle* to get there?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't believe in goblins. So therefore, my goblin is that there is no goblins.


----------



## leroy (Nov 23, 2014)

Vickers isn't proposing an opposition between art and entertainment so much as he is trying to distinguish between the process and its outcome, in effect his assertion is that while he sings HE is wrestling with the meaning of life, but that whether or not this is popular or entertaining does not concern him.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Good art doesn't have to be entertaining to me. Good entertainment has to be art however.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

leroy said:


> Vickers isn't proposing an opposition between art and entertainment so much as he is trying to distinguish between the process and its outcome, in effect his assertion is that while he sings HE is wrestling with the meaning of life, but that whether or not this is popular or entertaining does not concern him.


Do you speak Canadian? Is that what it means in Canadian?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Beethoven wrestled with the meaning of life. Bach didn't really. The meaning of life was pretty clear to him. I don't agree that art needs to wrestle with the meaning of life.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Bach didn't really. The meaning of life was pretty clear to him.


No it wan't. Just read the marginalia in his Bible.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> No it wan't. Just read the marginalia in his Bible.


Interesting, I didn't know about this. Can you point me in the right direction to learn more? I've been meaning to read the Gardiner biography.

Whatever his private thoughts, I still don't hear any doubt coming through in his music....


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

When I was a teenager, I used to find "wrestling with the meaning of life" in the worn-out platitudes of certain rock songs, so I would say making such a distinction is not always possible. However, it well may be that the ability to make it comes with maturity.

But then, why does anybody have to _wrestle_ with the meaning of life? The meaning of your life is what you make it to be, nothing more, nothing less. It's not like it gets handed down from above for you to accept.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Interesting, I didn't know about this. Can you point me in the right direction to learn more? I've been meaning to read the Gardiner biography.
> 
> Whatever his private thoughts, I still don't hear any doubt coming through in his music....


You could get yourself a copy of the English translation of Bach's Calov bible by Howard Cox.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Vickers was a very serious man and artist. His operatic portrayals were deep and searching. he never settled for the easy or the superficial. If you know his work you'll understand his perspective. We can parse his words, but his example is compelling.

I refuse to quibble on this one.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> Bach didn't really. The meaning of life was pretty clear to him. I don't agree that art needs to wrestle with the meaning of life.


Doesn't it rather depend on what you take "wrestling with the meaning of life" to be? Let's not assume that it means, "Communicating through Art, the questioning (and answering) about the Big Questions (such as is there a god)".

It could simply refer to "communicating with others through the artist's chosen medium on the daily business of living life."


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Beethoven wrestled with the meaning of life. Bach didn't really. The meaning of life was pretty clear to him. I don't agree that art needs to wrestle with the meaning of life.


When I hear Bach, I hear music that wrestles with the meaning of life, although I know Bach didn't.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Xaltotun said:


> When I hear Bach, I hear music that wrestles with the meaning of life, although I know Bach didn't.


I hear music that is often anguished when it deals with human sin and suffering and everything else that goes along with the fallenness of creation, but that's part of a worldview that is totally free of doubt.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

For the record, I believe in the separation of art & entertainment (after years of studying aesthetics, too). Art does, or at least intends to do, a certain _thing_ that makes it different from other aspects of life. If someone wants to call that _thing_ "wrestling with the meaning of life", I'm not averse to that.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> I hear music that is often anguished when it deals with human sin and suffering and everything else that goes along with the fallenness of creation, but that's part of a worldview that is totally free of doubt.


Then it's about the word, "wrestling". To me, that "wrestling" can mean "a honest analysis, exposing all sides of a thing, even painful or doubtful, whether or not it all ends in a pre-determined outcome". I don't think Mr. Vickers meant that only people who sit philosophically "on the fence" can make great art.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Xaltotun said:


> For the record, I believe in the separation of art & entertainment (after years of studying aesthetics, too). Art does, or at least intends to do, a certain _thing_ that makes it different from other aspects of life. If someone wants to call that _thing_ "wrestling with the meaning of life", I'm not averse to that.


I agree. Art works toward the solution of the problem of existence and great works of art are an articulation of the true nature of life. Every genuine and successful work of art answers the question "what is life?" or "what is the meaning of life?" in its own way.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't think art 'wrestles' with the meaning of life - I think art could be considered, in some way, the meaning of life. Every life could be viewed as a separate, individual work of art, with its own structure and inner laws. The modern pull towards individualism or individual self-realization supports this, imo.


----------

