I know this is a music blog and all, but music is an art form and the following discussion was sparked by a radio show, which is sound, and music is sound, so there.

Last week I was sitting at O'Hare (actually lying on my suitcase) waiting for Beki's plane, listening to an episode of Studio 360. The show, hosted by novelist Kurt Anderson, says that it is about "pop culture and the arts." And that's pretty much true. It's a good show that occasionally is a bit too latte liberal. But Anderson has good taste in many things and often gets a good interview.

On the June 13th episode they did a story about Fritz Haeg. Haeg has taken to installing fruit and vegetable gardens in folks' front yards. He rips up the grass and pulls out the hedges and helps folks turn their front yards in mini-Edens. It' a nice idea; I'm all about fruits and vegetables. But Haeg doesn't describe himself as a gardener or a landscaper. Instead, Haeg is an artist. I'm not going to dispute whether or not he's an artist; he probably is. But at the end of the piece the reporter asked why the what Haeg is doing is art? The answer wasn't very convincing and my hunch is that it isn't art, it's gardening and landscaping. But we can argue 'till we're blue in the face about whether or not Haeg's project is art; that's not the discussion I want to have. My frustration is with the question itself. Now, Haeg describes what he does as art, so I'm not upset with the reporter for asking the question, but what confuses me and (perhaps unreasonably) makes me upset is the feeling that it's not good enough for the project to be anything other than art. The project isn't described as art, it's justified as art. But why can't it be landscaping? Why is the project more important as art than as landscaping? Why, for the demographic that listens to Studio 360 and its ilk, is craft not enough? It feels as dishonest and ridiculous as the anti-art, anti-education sentiments you find in other cultures in our country.

I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my art theory. I listen to the most avant-garde of the avant-garde, but my feelings about what counts as art, or as good art, strongly favor the experiential to the to the conceptual (I'm sure to the frustration of my conceptual artists friends). But putting that aside, I'm uncomfortable with placing such a premium on "art" that everything is justified to fit that label. At some point (perhaps a point we've already passed) the word becomes meaningless. Lots of people are craftsmen and professionals rather than artists, and their work is incredibly valuable; more valuable then much of what I would classify as art. So my request is that we stop making everyone artists and let people just make what they make. Long live the professional.

PS In that same episode of Studio 360 there's a discussion with Diane Keaton (*swoon*) and Marvin Heiferman about a book on the photography of Bill Wood. He was a professional photographer and by all accounts never considered himself an artist. It's a great contrast to the story discussed above.

And here's some music: