Newsmax columnist Alexandra York attempts to inflict classiness on her readership (at least when she’s not complaining about the uncouth rabble she is forced to associate with during her travels), pushing classical music and reprentational art on them. She further expressed her disdain for modern music in her Feb. 12 column:
In the peaceful post-World War II climate, physically embraced couples executed intricate-step dance movements and twirled gracefully to the smooth sounds of Big Band orchestras and romantically crooning singers.
In the 1960s anti-war, flower-child environment, loud hard-rock percussive sounds inspired jerky (and often sex-oriented) solo-within-a group movements that vented the frustrations of young people’s protest against the military confrontation at the same time providing an atmosphere of permission to “let loose” from the previous cultures’ moral and behavioral constraints.
The music we choose privately also reveals the emotional state desired. If someone wants to get gassed-up for a physical gym workout or let off kinetic steam by jumping around, screaming, and stomping, they listen to “rock.”
If another wants to calm down after a long, arduous day, they may choose a soothing pan flute serenade. At a formal dinner party with fine food and fancy dress, “rap” is hardly suitable but easy jazz or a chamber music ensemble might be just right.
She concluded with snooty disdain for the Super Bowl halftime show featuring Kendrick Lamar: “If one enjoyed the “music” during half-time at the recent Super Bowl game (as so many in live attendance seemed to do), then the reaction is worth reflecting on because that performance in particular will tell one a lot about personal taste and values held.”
York’s May 9 column rhapsodized about classic art forms while once again looking askance at abstraction or noise:
Michelangelo’s “David” invites us to experience the fragile moment between thought and action taking place in a righteous and brave youth as he is about to fight a strong and threatening giant, while Edward Munch’s “The Scream” asks us to share the pain and fruitlessness of the human state of existence.
Victor Hugo’s fictional heroes remind us of the humanistic values worth living for against James Joyce’s novels that showcase the stream-of-thought senselessness of life in general.
Mozart’s concertos express the fascinating intricacies and soaring splendors of emotionally moving melodic sounds whereas Schoenberg refutes melody and offers numbers instead.
All artists, then, depict their philosophical view of life via their art. If their fundamental view of life matches our own, we find joy, affirmation, and hope in their work. If their view is different from or antagonistic to ours, we pass it by or experience offense when presented with it.
If we are observant, we can learn a lot about an artist’s philosophy of life from their work, and if we are smart, we can learn a lot about our own by analyzing our personal reactions to their art.
But what about non-art presented as art? Ever since 1917 when Duchamp’s “Fountain” (a urinal) was submitted for a New York City art exhibit and caused such a ruckus, we have witnessed a growing plethora of objects — a real “found” object like the urinal or a cobbled together “whatever” — offered in art exhibits, galleries, and museums that even though faultily parading as art still express the philosophy of their creators.
A urinal in a bathroom is a place to urinate, or in slang terms a place to “p***.” So, if presented as art, which is an aesthetic physical depiction of a mental philosophy, that is a serious joke declaring that life itself is just one big “p*** pot.” Or, perhaps it means that art is to be p***ed on.
But any way one interprets it specifically, it certainly reveals a deeply negative philosophy of life held by Monsieur Duchamp.
York concluded by taking art way too seriously:
And if the so-called “art” flies in the face of intelligibility and we do try to make sense of it, then what does that tell us about ourselves and our own worldview, our own philosophical value system regarding life and living?
Art may be fun — a comic book is an art form — but it is never funny in philosophical terms. Philosophy is always serious in that it defines our values, our character, our choices, and our actions.
Thus, art in all its glory or grotesqueness is seriously philosophical … even when it isn’t art.
Needless to say, York thinks all art and music that conflicts with her particular pristine aesthetic is “grotesque.”