"Unfiltered" art.

[the captain]

There is some talk on the Smiley Smile review thread about which albums are Brian at his most "unfiltered," and what that might mean. Albums being mentioned are PS, Smile, Smiley Smile and Love You (that I saw, anyway...I admit to not reading it all).

What do you think making music or art in an unfiltered state really means? Is it even possible? I'd say probably not--everyone has some context s/he's coming from and fitting things into. If it meant making music (in this case) purely for oneself, then none of us would've heard it--it'd remain unreleased, because the artist would have never shown it to anyone. The act of sharing art means it is intended for someone else at least in part, and thus filtered. Right?

So the only unfiltered art we could be exposed to would be art created for oneself and stolen?

I just think it is interesting because people often talk about "pure" Brian, but I don't think there is such a thing. He was and is a craftsman as much as (or more than) a genius. That wasn't just pure, internal art flowing out unfettered. It was crafted to certain conventions and standards, or, when not, intentionally not.

Thoughts?

[jazzfascist]

There is some talk on the Smiley Smile review thread about which albums are Brian at his most "unfiltered," and what that might mean. Albums being mentioned are PS, Smile, Smiley Smile and Love You (that I saw, anyway...I admit to not reading it all).

What do you think making music or art in an unfiltered state really means? Is it even possible? I'd say probably not--everyone has some context s/he's coming from and fitting things into. If it meant making music (in this case) purely for oneself, then none of us would've heard it--it'd remain unreleased, because the artist would have never shown it to anyone. The act of sharing art means it is intended for someone else at least in part, and thus filtered. Right?

So the only unfiltered art we could be exposed to would be art created for oneself and stolen?

I just think it is interesting because people often talk about "pure" Brian, but I don't think there is such a thing. He was and is a craftsman as much as (or more than) a genius. That wasn't just pure, internal art flowing out unfettered. It was crafted to certain conventions and standards, or, when not, intentionally not.

Thoughts?

I agree with you, I don't think you can express yourself totally unfiltered.  You are limited by the words at your disposal and the musical forms you have learned and work within, of course you can bend the rules and develop from there, but you are still caught up in or reacting with those limitations. I think when you say that an artist expresses him or herself unfiltered, it must mean that they very strictly follow their "own musical vision", meaning playing the music closest to their heart, maybe contradictory to commercial trends.

Søren

[Jeff Mason]

That's the gist of what I meant I think.  People hold up the astonishing quality of Brian's early hits, and they were great, but they weren't what I would call a pure artistic endeavour.  Brian has been very frank of his desire to make a hit, and so he worked with lyricists who could craft those desired hits.  He also thought in a very commercial manner to make those hits.  In that sense, he compromised his own unique vision in order to make hits.  He also connected on a visceral level with millions of people and made a tremendous impact.  So obviously this is not a bad thing.

But what would Brian write about if he weren't trying to make a hit?  What does Brian think about on his own?  We joke about birthday cake and steak, but there is truth there.  "Busy Doin' Nothin'" -- that sums it up.  Unfiltered Brian means that he writes for himself from his own world view, no reference to making hits or worrying about commercial qualities.  He was like this on Smiley, he did songs like this in 1968-73, and Love You and Adult Child is the most pure expression of this type.

Outside of Brian it is less obvious how this works.  I guess I think of Paul McCartney, who always had a layer between his own artistic vision and the music he made.  He could churn out amazing ditties with no effort, but it was ear candy.  It is fun to listen to but often had no depth.  Again, not a bad thing, but not his best.  When Macca WAS at his best was those times when he was a bit vulnerable.  Hey Jude wasn't a hit for nothing.

[the captain]

It seems to me that a "filter" is probably often useful in creating art. Without it, self-indulgence is the result (by definition), and more often than not, I'd say such work is less satisfactory than someone's expression within an established form. There is something very powerful about someone pushing boundaries, but something annoying about someone ignoring them altogether. The stress and strain of being semi-constrained by outside pressures or forms is very interesting. Unfiltered isn't best.

[Jeff Mason]

It seems to me that a "filter" is probably often useful in creating art. Without it, self-indulgence is the result (by definition), and more often than not, I'd say such work is less satisfactory than someone's expression within an established form. There is something very powerful about someone pushing boundaries, but something annoying about someone ignoring them altogether. The stress and strain of being semi-constrained by outside pressures or forms is very interesting. Unfiltered isn't best.

Neither is best.  I enjoy both.  But it is valuable to recognize the difference between Brian's commercial work and his work to please himself.  Love You makes no sense otherwise.