I still don't get it

Miles Davis is considered one of the "kings" of self-indulgence in music, yet somehow it worked for his favor.

And despite of that, its still somehow a term to doom an artist's body of work as "non-relevant" or whatever

I mean, I thought pushing the standards is all about,,,,,presenting a different idea. Right?

What do you guys think?

Harlepolis said:

introspective art is a sign of self-indulgence, yes

cheers!
s=v=n s+v~n(sq2) 7.

I've always believed in the art of collective self~indulgence. Imagine if each of us were to spend the time to investigate and nourish the creativity within. I believe it takes discipline, courage, strength and belief in ourselves to create a work of art. I don't see it as a negative although many people do. Interesting question.

A lot of art is self-indulgent, but when it is identified as so... the problem is people are not relating to it which can be a negative experience.

Sometimes musical performances are purely technical which is of really no use if the listener doesn't understand the skill on display.

Sometimes a lyric is simply too personal or defined to a topic that has little relevance to the audience.

Very interesting question

When I hear the term "self-indulgence" and such, it's usually a red flag in my mind that the artist took time to reflect on the craft and their intent. Be it music, art, etc. They were actually thinking about what they wanted to put out there....as opposed to what others what to see or hear.

I can understand the negative side of it as well. If someone is too self-indulgent, then maybe they are completely alienating others. I think there needs to be a healthy medium.


Smooches;)

MsMisha319 said:

Thats the 1st thing that pops in my mind too.

But I think the ONLY people who always feel left out are the so-called "people's speakers aka critics".

I personally don't think that people are THAT one dimensional,,,,its just they get fed with the same junk over and over.

Harlepolis said:

Absolutely. Also, some are intimidated by "change". And by that I mean, not everyone is willing to accept something that sounds or looks different from what they're used to. It's easier to criticize than it is to be open and accepting of something new.

Smooches;)

I think that an artist who is self-indulgent in their work is not afraid of being meta-cognitive (thinking about how a person thinks) - it's actually a great compliment when an artist feels that comfortable with himself. Yes, it can go to extremes, and on the other end of that spectrum is those who have a hair-trigger about self-indulgent artists.

Simply put, if I want to write 10,000 pages in 5 years and maybe a few more after that, and I want people to read those 10,000+ pages, who is anyone to stop me or label me as such and such? If someone doesn't like that I do this, maybe they should just not bother to read that many pages?

So, when self-indulgent is the phrase that's used, that probably reflects more on the person using the label, rather than the person to which the label refers.