I was talking with Mom tonight, and we were discussing the emptiness of "easy" art. And that it can be beautiful and nice, and have traits that are aesthetically pleasing, but it is incapable of moving us. There's nothing that offends, or provokes question. And that's why people like it. Because they can have something nice on their wall that looks good, without having to feel strongly about it. Because it takes effort to feel and understand. At least it takes something out from us. To feel anything hurts. And knowing one extreme implies knowing the other.
And that kind of art ("easy"), to me, anyway, is static. It's annoying noise; more nuisance than anything else. And when I play an improv that sounds sort of nice, but has no conflict, it really irks me. I'd so much rather make something ugly than something flat. And when I avoid risk, it's so much harder to create conflict, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, take from this what you will. It's all pretty cliche stuff, but worth the reminder. What is it that we hope to accomplish with our art? Is it purely self-expression? Are we trying to make a buck? Are we seeking to influence? Playing out a concept? Pandering to the masses?
Here we go, Day 271: https://ia800307.us.archive.org/19/items/Improv51112/20120511210956.mp3