New, "aware," art historians - rant

I'm sitting in the art gallery and being forced to listen to a bunch of very, very...erm, "smart" modern art students discuss jazz music and a film that deals with it. It's slightly infuriating the way they're dealing with Jazz, it's content, and their misconceptions of it's history and connotations.

First inaccuracy: I think it's fairly accepted that blues and jazz, although very close and they did borrow from one another, they did not emerge from one another. Essentially they were forming at the same time. It's pretty accurate to say that jazz evolved from ragtime in the 19th century, at the same time an early stage of blues was developing.

Second inaccuracy/slightly racially charged assertion: Apparently one song that arose in the film they viewed was, from what I gather, "Jelly Roll Blues." The only thing this wonderful group of scholars could gather was that the song had sexual connotations because of the name.. although evidently, unless it was provided by them, none of them were aware of the fact that the song was composed by one Jelly Roll Morton. The song is completely instrumental, so it's hard to understand how it became something similar to "Milkshake" by Kelis, that apparently "white people wouldn't have understood" as sexually charged. One person states that he learned in his jazz survey that "jelly roll" was a euphemism for the male genitalia, which it may well have been in some cases, but I can't see how one can make that distinction for three reasons: 1) the song was named after Morton, as many early blues and jazz songs were, ex. "Memphis Slim U.S.A" by Memphis Slim 2) The song is instrumental 3) I can't see why Morton would take on a name that essentially means, according to them, "Penis" Morton.

The way I've always understood the phrase "jelly roll" in blues and jazz is in reference to movement, a song that can make your "jelly roll" from dancing.

I think this kind of annoyed me mainly because it made a direct correlation to rap music and modern African American music that is usually sexually charged. Although they are subgenres of jazz and blues, it's important to make the distinction that they subject matter is not always connected. Moreover, there was a tone of devaluation in the way they spoke of the song and jazz in general, simply because of the content. The fact that "white people wouldn't understand" is saying quite a bit, as if to say if they had the music wouldn't at all be important.

This is the second thing today that's really made me wonder about people's analytical skills. The first had to do with a very long, drawn out and repetitive discussion about subjectivity and the art of Valie Export, particularly "Tap and Touch Cinema." Most people were saying that her piece objectifies her as a woman although objectification really does imply making someone or something into an object and lording over it. It's about ownership, when a woman is objectified it implies that she can be owned, used, and discarded. In no way does Valie Export's piece give anyone the power to objectify her. In my view, the piece actually forces the participants to face the reality of her existence, acknowledge her as an individual. The fact that her breasts are not visible but can be touched removes their importance from her identity: yes, she is a woman, yes she has breasts, do they define her beyond this physiological sense? No. I think that's the resounding message in the piece. Body parts are not the whole of a person. They are indeed just parts. Society puts too much emphasis on them and that is why the men who participated were "scarred," because they felt they were violating "her." What Valie Export is saying, however, is that you can't objectify an object. It's the reverse of artists only showing breasts, ass, or a vagina to represent women. "Tap and Touch Cinema" is saying "Go ahead, touch them. I don't care because I am an individual, those do not define although you've been programmed to think they do."

I think all of this is coming out of pure frustration with classes and the way people are approaching discussions about art and music. Basically I feel like I've spent 6 hours of listening to verbal diarrhea. Everyone is so obnoxious. Everyone is so pretentious. I don't understand how some of these self-proclaimed "feminists" are thinking critically about art and feminist art, while at the same time taking a very commercialized and mainstream view of what feminism is: "oh, she's allowing them to see/touch her so she's just perpetuating the stereotype." I thought the general basis of feminism was to reject gender roles put in place by men? Didn't men decide that women shouldn't expose themselves publicly, or that their "parts" were sacred? In other words,

Oh bah... I'm tired of thinking about this. It's likely my thoughts are jumbled anyway and none of this makes sense... but oh well.