Art and Music

As I sat listening to a concert at the Electronic Music Midwest festival this morning, I thought about the definitions of art and music I have worked so hard over the years to develop, which shape and guide my ability to be addressed by art and music. It occurred to me that there is a troubling disconnect between artistically trained people's thoughtful reflection on the meaning and value of art and music, and the most bourgeois understandings of what constitute them. My own definition of art: "Any object of cognitive or material composition, human action or linguistic metaphor that evokes human experience apart from verbal description." A conventional definition of art: "Any visual piece that represents a pleasing human visual perspective on the material world." My definition of music: "Sound organized on a perceived time continuum for appreciating the sound, the principles and techniques of its organization, and its effect on listeners." A traditional definition of music: "Pleasing sonic pieces that conform to broadly established conventions of tonal, rhythmic, and formal organization." These differences are at least partially attributable to the disconnect between art and music produced and marketed as consumable commodities, and art and music produced as human expression in the broadest sense. Outside higher education, to which most people have limited or no access, how do we teach children and young people to appreciate and be addressed by art and music (beyond being merely mass-produced vehicles of profit for the already super-wealthy), so that it fulfills its broad and important function of human expression, rather than being perceived as useless, pretentious, and self-referential to small groups of insiders at best, and a threat to the social order at worst? Hmm…