RE: Jezebel Spirit -- Zeitgeist
It's interesting, I've come to the conclusion that there are musicians who are artists, and artists who happen to be musicians. People who even if they hadn't made music they would have made art of some kind.
I would put David Byrne in that group along with Frank Zappa, Joni Mitchell (artist anyway), Bowie to a certain extent, and there are certainly others. In any case, artists and musicians sometimes seem tap to into the same possibilities or the Zeitgeist, but each interprets that influence in a different way.
For example, I read that the Brazilians were listening to Miles Davis' cool jazz /Kind of Blue and their interpretations of that were fused with their own samba tradition -- the result was the fantastic Bosa Nova of the 60s and 70s.
As for writing criticism, I've been asks countless times to write album reviews, but except for one review (for the guy whose music I used on my audio interviews) I've always declined.
I want to be completely honest, but also positive, and enthusiastic -- so for that reason I always stuck with interviews, and only with people whose music moved for impressed me. Back in the 60s and 70s, Rolling Stone magazine could make or break rock musicians. They had some excellent writers, but several of them had egos that were metastasized ;-)
It's all so subjective, in reality the art is what it is. BTW, have you seen some of those pranks of art critics? They are simply hilarious!
I just a couple of days ago saw that Frank Zappa was involved with the avant garde movement. He was playing on bicycles, a project that closely resembled some of the happenings of the Fluxus movement. I am sure he was on the avant garde scene, and it makes perfect sense.
What makes an artist is interesting. The decision is so different from person to person. I have known many, many musicians and pictorial artists that simply was in the community and learned how to do the stuff. Some was attracted to it from very early on or had their talent recognised by their parents, and then started seeing themselves as important artists. Others like myself started in the actual art very early and it became an important part of life. There's also the incidental artist who likes the community and end up artist - often both extremely boring and successful art they make :)
I respect your decision. It keeps the world more open and art never really was about closing down and remembering to shut of the light, which is what most of the put-into-boxes work of art-criticism is about.
I have just purchased a strange album by Danish Black Metal queen Myrkur, and as it is a strange eclectic mix of genres it has made people furious because it isn't black metal in their definition. I never understood this need of categories. I will write a morgenseite about it.
I was going to include this clip as I started reading your answer, but then you mention it yourself ;-)
In some respects art is truly in the eye of the beholder. @kus-knee has they great contest about "Mundane Art" just looking around and finding things that are art, like stacked wood, manhole covers, etc.
As for genres, they are sometimes useful descriptions, but often inadequate, and I know lots of musicians who loathe labels.
The art of that time was based on zen-like fascinations, so it was also part fun part, part 120% seriousness. I know one of the artists that was in the Fluxus group and I think their greatest achievement was that they managed to incorporate contradictions. They helped out all day preparing Stockhausen's concert and took part in the demonstrations outside that another of their friends had organised saying that the avant garde only was for the upper class and that black funk and soul music was the true art.
I can easily see Zappa just taking the decision to switch on that axis.