We are all wondering, after a sacred monster of classical music as violinist Uto Ughi called Maneskin "an insult to art and culture". Of course there were those who immediately sided with the Italian band which is having so much success in the last two years, branding the statement as snob and pretentious and stating that rock (if done well) is art.
But who decides if it’s done right or not?
Is it only the artistic level of the Maneskins that determines their success?
Or does it also depend on their way of presenting themselves as transgressive, provocative and unconventional? And if so, does this have anything to do with art?
Questions that I ask myself, as a music listener, and that I address to Mico Argirò, who instead of music really deals.
Let’s start from the question "Is it only the artistic level of Maneskin to determine their success?" for which I think the answer is absolutely no. I don’t think the Maneskins are particularly artistic or devoted to art, I think they are more a great marketing product and that, in this capitalist and extremely consumerist music world, they go very well like that. I believe the key to the success of Maneskin is to be found in the great aesthetic investment (image, sound, advertising, created opportunities, radio, television) and I consider the taste of the mainstream audience undefined and naive, easily manipulated, therefore sensitive to this investment. Art is something else and, at all levels in the Italian music scene, I think we have beautiful examples. Maneskin for me does not even fall into a top 10 artistic and I like them, but like them for what they are: a beautiful supermarket product, leader in sales, well-kept, but absolutely superficial. They are clearly the best supermarket product we have in Italian mainstream music. Art really is something else: blood, sleepless nights, feelings and emotions, depth of every single detail, meaning and signifier, form and content. And this stuff today does not sell, there is little to go around: it is destined for a niche (and maybe it has always been so). And this seems to be not only a bad thing. I would like this speech not to be taken as an old trombone of a Boomer, as it could be Uto Ughi (which actually has the authority to express any opinion on music, I do not think it should prove anything and we must accept and meditate on the words of one like him). I don’t believe that art suffers from antiquity or modernism, factions or anything. Art, if it is Art, cannot but be recognized as such; it can be misunderstood at the beginning, it does not happen, but then it is recognized. Like a light that cannot be confused with darkness.
Why does an artist need to focus on the look to increase his consent? Let us say that it is certainly simplistic and hasty to dismiss the issue as an attempt to shift attention from what could be a lack of artistic ability. In this regard I can think of an Elton John from his early career, eccentric, yes, but with artistic value in my opinion indisputable.
I was just talking about form and content. Aesthetics, even physical and image aesthetics, therefore not only the sound one, is not part of the meaning, it is itself meaning. The aesthetics of people like Bowie or Renato Zero, you mentioned Elton John, but I also think of people like De André or Dalla, is itself art and is part of the artistic message of these characters. What differentiates, in my opinion, these artists compared to people like Maneskin or Achille Lauro is precisely the artistic message, whereas in the latter if it is not really absent it is very weak and undefined, liquid, unaware. But, perhaps, the message is right here, mirror of the times, of the prevailing individualism, of the total absence of ideologies, religions or points of reference.
Are we a generation of beautiful, empty shells? Is the mass? Certainly the mass is, but I fear for individuals, increasingly abandoned to these artistic-cultural references. I think an excellent metaphor could be the case Fedez laughing on Orlandi, without going into specifics and quoting only veiled Pasolini: eat shit and, suddenly, you are surprised that it is shit? Well, the next day you have already forgotten everything and start eating again...
To conclude and return to the initial and main question "Is rock art?" I think we should not focus on style, whether it’s rock, rap or other, but on the complexity of the work: if it’s art you see, there is no doubt, but recognizing it is a personal, intimate fact.
On "recognize" we could talk for hours, however, a few nights ago Morgan treated just this topic... Recognize yourself in the work of art, recognize yourself as similar, be grateful to art. Let’s say that I fear for individuals, as I said before: distracted, lazy, superficial individuals, how will they recognize art? Will they not recognize, sooner or later, by art what is not, but is only similar to them?
I’ll have a gin and tonic, which is better.