musician: "artist" or "performer"
jbird
there was an advertisement that said:
"Who is the sexiest female artist, Christina or Britney?"
To me, neither of these women are "artists" but are "performers".
Artists are people with creativity and these two (albeit accomplished
singers) are more associated with "packaged product" than "art". The
fact that these pop stars are given the title "artists" was a bit
insulting to me. Do you agree/disagree? What other muscicians would
you put into the "artist" or "performer" category?
Steven Sullivan
: I don't mean to start an impossible debate on somantics but on Yahoo
Well, they're 'artists' to the degree that they bring some interpretive
thought and craft to what they sing. Are opera singers merely
'performers' because they sing other people's stuff? All 'artists' are
performers the minute they show their work to others.
That said, I'd guess that so many of B & C's interpretive decisions are
actually made by others (e.g., producers) that they do amount to little
more than wind-up singing dolls. THere's always a chance though that one
they could get pwoerful enough to begin calling their own shots
(e.g. MAdonna).
--
-S.
"Screw Charity!" -- T. Herman Zweibel
InElegy
the class:
>I don't mean to start an impossible debate on somantics but on Yahoo
>there was an advertisement that said:
>
>"Who is the sexiest female artist, Christina or Britney?"
Britney would be fun for the short term. Christina would be better
for the long term . . . less quirks that would go from cute to
annoying.
>To me, neither of these women are "artists" but are "performers".
An accurate statement.
Artists create, performers do what they're directed to do.
>Artists are people with creativity and these two (albeit accomplished
>singers) are more associated with "packaged product" than "art". The
>fact that these pop stars are given the title "artists" was a bit
>insulting to me. Do you agree/disagree?
I can't say if it's insulting to you, but it certainly is an
inaccurate statement, possibly to the point of being annoying that
these two are dancing puppets who do very little to create their
respective myths, other than the obvious gifts of genetics and science
each possess.
> What other muscicians would
>you put into the "artist" or "performer" category?
Too big a list to deal with. I think most entertainers can easily be
catagorized as one or the other . . . this is fairly obvious, 'idnit?
-- InElegy, reminding you to never forget that Nic Caciappo is Rick Wakeman's friend.
"I could listen to you all day
what a laugh
cut me I bleed like you
ha ha"
-- Underworld, "Stagger"
jbird
>
> Well, they're 'artists' to the degree that they bring some interpretive
> thought and craft to what they sing. Are opera singers merely
> 'performers' because they sing other people's stuff? All 'artists' are
> performers the minute they show their work to others.
>
Interesting point. Sometimes "we" tend to put classical music in a
'higher'
category than popular music. That bias toward classical music is
probably undeserved (good music is high level no matter what the genre
IMHO).
Jazz is beginning to be placed in a "higher category" than rock or pop.
Using your example, the opera singer may be no more an artist than
aguliera or spears.
Steven Sullivan
: On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:42:46 -0400, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> shared with
: the class:
:>I don't mean to start an impossible debate on somantics but on Yahoo
:>there was an advertisement that said:
:>
:>"Who is the sexiest female artist, Christina or Britney?"
: Britney would be fun for the short term. Christina would be better
: for the long term . . . less quirks that would go from cute to
: annoying.
:>To me, neither of these women are "artists" but are "performers".
: An accurate statement.
: Artists create, performers do what they're directed to do.
Again,that seems to place a heck of a lot of musicians into the
'just performer' category -- people like Yo Yo Ma, for example.
Steven Sullivan
:>
:> Well, they're 'artists' to the degree that they bring some interpretive
Which would be a complete misreading of what I wrote, and exactly the
opposite of what I was saying: Spears and Aguilera, *on the face of it*
-- that is, simply in terms of the 'concept', a singer interpreting songs
-- are no *less* artists by definition than Bryn Terfel or Kiri Te Kanawa.
(and please note that writing 'no less' is not the same as writing 'no
lesser')
The singer/songwriter or composer/performer is a relatively recent popular
music phenomenon. I am loathe to denigrate the vast number of *artists*
who have interpreted others' compositions simply to find a way to indicate
how shite teen-pop is today.
InElegy
<sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
>InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:42:46 -0400, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> shared with
>: the class:
>
>: Artists create, performers do what they're directed to do.
>
>
>Again,that seems to place a heck of a lot of musicians into the
>'just performer' category -- people like Yo Yo Ma, for example.
How about Mr. Ma (Mr. Yo?) and those performers who do contribute on a
more substantial level be classified as artist/performers (as opposed
to performance-artists which, given my experience with the breed, is
an oxymoron)?
Now, if Yo Yo Ma had a great set of tits, I'd have to reevaluate . . .
Cherie
BINGO !!!
~Cherie
Steven Sullivan
: <<Artists create, performers do what they're directed to do. >>
: BINGO !!!
So, the only actors who are artists are ones who disregard what a director
or writer tells them to do?
The only orchestral players who are artists are the ones who deviate from
the score and ignore the conductor?
jbird
Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> Well, they're 'artists' to the degree that they bring some interpretive
> :> thought and craft to what they sing. Are opera singers merely
> :> 'performers' because they sing other people's stuff? All 'artists' are
> :> performers the minute they show their work to others.
> :>
>
> : Interesting point. Sometimes "we" tend to put classical music in a
> : 'higher'
> : category than popular music. That bias toward classical music is
> : probably undeserved (good music is high level no matter what the genre
> : IMHO).
> : Jazz is beginning to be placed in a "higher category" than rock or pop.
> : Using your example, the opera singer may be no more an artist than
> : aguliera or spears.
>
> Which would be a complete misreading of what I wrote, and exactly the
> opposite of what I was saying: Spears and Aguilera, *on the face of it*
> -- that is, simply in terms of the 'concept', a singer interpreting songs
> -- are no *less* artists by definition than Bryn Terfel or Kiri Te Kanawa.
>
Am I out of line for thinking the opera singers at a higher "artistic"
level than the pop singers? Reading your other posts in this thread, I
understand your concept that you don't have to write or create your own
music to be an "artist". I do think that Ma is an accomplished artist.
However, I don't have the same level of respect for aguliera and spears
and don't agree when I even see them refered to as "artists". The pop
singers can do amazing things with their voices! Is there a
difference?
> (and please note that writing 'no less' is not the same as writing 'no
> lesser')
>
> The singer/songwriter or composer/performer is a relatively recent popular
> music phenomenon. I am loathe to denigrate the vast number of *artists*
> who have interpreted others' compositions simply to find a way to indicate
> how shite teen-pop is today.
>
Understood. Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars
non-artists...or ARE they artists?
Cherie
artists? >>
IMO, unless a person actually writes/creates their own songs, then they are
merely just a performer singing someone elses creative work.
~Cherie
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan wrote:
:>
:> jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> Well, they're 'artists' to the degree that they bring some interpretive
:> :> thought and craft to what they sing. Are opera singers merely
:> :> 'performers' because they sing other people's stuff? All 'artists' are
:> :> performers the minute they show their work to others.
:> :>
:>
:> : Interesting point. Sometimes "we" tend to put classical music in a
:> : 'higher'
:> : category than popular music. That bias toward classical music is
:> : probably undeserved (good music is high level no matter what the genre
:> : IMHO).
:> : Jazz is beginning to be placed in a "higher category" than rock or pop.
:> : Using your example, the opera singer may be no more an artist than
:> : aguliera or spears.
:>
:> Which would be a complete misreading of what I wrote, and exactly the
:> opposite of what I was saying: Spears and Aguilera, *on the face of it*
:> -- that is, simply in terms of the 'concept', a singer interpreting songs
:> -- are no *less* artists by definition than Bryn Terfel or Kiri Te Kanawa.
:>
: Am I out of line for thinking the opera singers at a higher "artistic"
: level than the pop singers?
With no other qualifications, yes. IMO.
: Reading your other posts in this thread, I
: understand your concept that you don't have to write or create your own
: music to be an "artist". I do think that Ma is an accomplished artist.
: However, I don't have the same level of respect for aguliera and spears
: and don't agree when I even see them refered to as "artists".
: The pop
: singers can do amazing things with their voices! Is there a
: difference?
You tell me.
:> (and please note that writing 'no less' is not the same as writing 'no
:> lesser')
:>
:> The singer/songwriter or composer/performer is a relatively recent popular
:> music phenomenon. I am loathe to denigrate the vast number of *artists*
:> who have interpreted others' compositions simply to find a way to indicate
:> how shite teen-pop is today.
: Understood. Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars
: non-artists...or ARE they artists?
Why the dichotomy? Can't they just be 'lesser' artists?
jbird
> :> Which would be a complete misreading of what I wrote, and exactly the
> :> opposite of what I was saying: Spears and Aguilera, *on the face of it*
> :> -- that is, simply in terms of the 'concept', a singer interpreting songs
> :> -- are no *less* artists by definition than Bryn Terfel or Kiri Te Kanawa.
> :>
>
> : Am I out of line for thinking the opera singers at a higher "artistic"
> : level than the pop singers?
>
> With no other qualifications, yes. IMO.
Why? I'm interested in YOUR opinion.
>
> : Reading your other posts in this thread, I
> : understand your concept that you don't have to write or create your own
> : music to be an "artist". I do think that Ma is an accomplished artist.
> : However, I don't have the same level of respect for aguliera and spears
> : and don't agree when I even see them refered to as "artists".
> : The pop
> : singers can do amazing things with their voices! Is there a
> : difference?
>
> You tell me.
>
But I'm interested in YOUR opinion (as stated in the first post). Can
it be put into words? Can something that is considered silly and trite
today become "art" in 50 or 100 years? Why do Yes-fans typically see
their love of music as "higher" than teen pop?
> : Understood. Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars
> : non-artists...or ARE they artists?
>
> Why the dichotomy? Can't they just be 'lesser' artists?
>
True. Now somantics is starting to be a factor. What prompted my
thoughts on this were a couple of things:
1) A local interview when Aguliera had her first hit to top the
charts. I saw her on the news stating (word for word) "I can't believe
I'm the #1 artist in the country!". Her choice of the word bothered
me. I think she and I see differently on the term "artist".
2) A magazine article about Whitney Houston (sorry I can't site the pub)
where the writer talked about Houston as a "performer" but not an
"artist".
I'm looking for other's opinions. This is not troll bait.
jbird
Cherie wrote:
>
> << Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars non-artists...or ARE they
> artists? >>
>
> IMO, unless a person actually writes/creates their own songs, then they are
> merely just a performer singing someone elses creative work.
>
> ~Cherie
See other arguments (yo yo ma, etc). I respectfully disagree that this
is the only qualifier. I can be a creative interpreter of other's
work. An actor that doesn't write the play for example can be an
artist. A teen pop singer can have a great set of pipes and dance
around the stage but to me, is not an artist, but a performer.
Zemborato
"jbird" <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote in message news:39E4D1FF...@pitt.edu...
But "to you" doesn't redefine words for the rest of the world. Better to
assert that "performer" is more descriptive than "artist" in this context,
but a performer *is* an artist by definition.
Zem
jbird
> >
> > See other arguments (yo yo ma, etc). I respectfully disagree that this
> > is the only qualifier. I can be a creative interpreter of other's
> > work. An actor that doesn't write the play for example can be an
> > artist. A teen pop singer can have a great set of pipes and dance
> > around the stage but to me, is not an artist, but a performer.
>
> But "to you" doesn't redefine words for the rest of the world. Better to
> assert that "performer" is more descriptive than "artist" in this context,
> but a performer *is* an artist by definition.
>
I agree that I shouldn't be the controller of the world's opinions.
That's why I'm asking others' opinion, but if I disagree then I state
why.
If all performers are artists then we're reduced to somantics and the
discussion is over. Then there is no difference between what Yo yo ma
does and what John Holmes did. Yes?
> Zem
InElegy
breaking out . . .
Cherie
breaking out . . . >>
That's because people suck. :)
~Cherie
Tim Martin
InElegy wrote in message <4ub9us8k9hfr19ksl...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:56:06 GMT, Steven Sullivan
><sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
>
>
>
Now I know why you like Jeri Ryan so much. You're drawn to her... um... art.
(There is an episode where she sings, you know. She actually wasn't all that
bad.)
Tim Martin
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
>Cherie <summ...@aol.com> wrote:
>: <<Artists create, performers do what they're directed to do. >>
>
>: BINGO !!!
>
>So, the only actors who are artists are ones who disregard what a director
>or writer tells them to do?
>
>The only orchestral players who are artists are the ones who deviate from
>the score and ignore the conductor?
>
Interesting. I think that Cherie is an excellent *artist*... even though I
paid her to draw my dog and supplied her with several pictures. Although she
got clear direction and feedback from me, she added an intangible that was
wholly her own and came from her obviously large pool of artistic talent. So
I completely disagree with her on this, because to do otherwise would be to
brand her nothing more than a performer. Any person who walks into my living
room knows better than this about her.
jbird
>
> How about Mr. Ma (Mr. Yo?) and those performers who do contribute on a
> more substantial level be classified as artist/performers (as opposed
> to performance-artists which, given my experience with the breed, is
> an oxymoron)?
>
Your's is the most helpful post for me. The definition of "more
substantial level" is what I have trouble with. It's an intuitive
judgement and tough to put into words in an objective way. It may have
something to do with the artist's freedom to do what they want to do
instead of being "packaged" by a corporation. There has to be some
intuitive value though. Jerry Springer may have the freedom to do what
he wants on his show but that doesn't feel like "art" to me.
Why do I it up in the first place? "Art" and "artist" are important
words. When we claim to create "art" or to be an "artist" then there
has to be something substantial to back it up. It is difficult to
define "quality" (See this book
http://www.abacom.com/~topten/insp/reviews/zenmoto.shtml for a
discussion on "quality" in terms of writing)...
I must admit that I have anti-corporate bias in terms of music and
therefore my opinions on the ladies used as an example may be tainted.
> Now, if Yo Yo Ma had a great set of tits, I'd have to reevaluate . . .
>
This is why Vonnegut stayed away from graphic sex in his books, he felt
that when the libido takes over that it was impossible for people to
think on an intellectual level.
jbird
InElegy wrote:
>
> Seems like no one can say anything around here without a fight
> breaking out . . .
>
what fight? I'm enjoying reading y'all's opinions...even if I disagree.
Steven Sullivan
: << Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars non-artists...or ARE they
: artists? >>
: IMO, unless a person actually writes/creates their own songs, then they are
: merely just a performer singing someone elses creative work.
So much for Louis Armstrong.
Sheesh.
Steven Sullivan
:> :> Which would be a complete misreading of what I wrote, and exactly the
:> :> opposite of what I was saying: Spears and Aguilera, *on the face of it*
:> :> -- that is, simply in terms of the 'concept', a singer interpreting songs
:> :> -- are no *less* artists by definition than Bryn Terfel or Kiri Te Kanawa.
:> :>
:>
:> : Am I out of line for thinking the opera singers at a higher "artistic"
:> : level than the pop singers?
:>
:> With no other qualifications, yes. IMO.
: Why? I'm interested in YOUR opinion.
Because, at that simple, reductive level of analysis, there isn't a
significant difference between them.
:> : Reading your other posts in this thread, I
:> : understand your concept that you don't have to write or create your own
:> : music to be an "artist". I do think that Ma is an accomplished artist.
:> : However, I don't have the same level of respect for aguliera and spears
:> : and don't agree when I even see them refered to as "artists".
:> : The pop
:> : singers can do amazing things with their voices! Is there a
:> : difference?
:>
:> You tell me.
:>
: But I'm interested in YOUR opinion (as stated in the first post). Can
: it be put into words? Can something that is considered silly and trite
: today become "art" in 50 or 100 years?
It's been known to happen.
: Why do Yes-fans typically see
: their love of music as "higher" than teen pop?
I think they tend to see the *music*, not their love of it, as somehow
'higher' than teen pop.
I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack
perspective. I don't often see evidence among them of a broad or deep
acquaintance with lots of different musics, which might bolster their high
opinion of their own taste. One common , and ridiculous, statement that
one sees offered by them is 'even the worst Yes is better than 99% of
what's out there'. ANother is the claim that Yes music is highly complex,
wihtout any qualifiers as to what it's being compared to.
: 1) A local interview when Aguliera had her first hit to top the
: charts. I saw her on the news stating (word for word) "I can't believe
: I'm the #1 artist in the country!". Her choice of the word bothered
: me. I think she and I see differently on the term "artist".
So? She can be an artist AFAIC. Doesn't mean she has to be admired.
Steven Sullivan
: Cherie wrote:
:>
:> << Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars non-artists...or ARE they
:> artists? >>
:>
:> IMO, unless a person actually writes/creates their own songs, then they
are :> merely just a performer singing someone elses creative work.
:>
:> ~Cherie
: See other arguments (yo yo ma, etc). I respectfully disagree that this
: is the only qualifier. I can be a creative interpreter of other's
: work. An actor that doesn't write the play for example can be an
: artist. A teen pop singer can have a great set of pipes and dance
: around the stage but to me, is not an artist, but a performer.
Why? And why are the two terms mutually exclusive to you?
Karl Haberl
Here is how I think of it. For me, artists find ways to do original and
exciting things within constraints. Originality (i.e. "creativity") is
permitted to manifest itself to different degrees, depending on the
amount of freedom available to do so in a given context. The more
"artistic" actor/player aims to be an equal collaborator with the
director/conductor in the creative process of synthesizing a distinctive
performance in a given context. The less "artistic" performer is content
to take a backseat during the creative process, offers mechanical or
purely derivative interpretations, and/or requires more explicit
instructions on all facets of their performance.
Karl Haberl
kha...@bbn.com
Zemborato
"jbird" <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote in message news:39E4DFEE...@pitt.edu...
Yeah, a fight would be me saying, "Jbird, you're an idiot for disagreeing
with me! You're the wrongest person ever!"
A civil discussion does not a fight make.
Or then again it does, in the same way as singing does an artist make! ;-)
Zem
Zemborato
"jbird" <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote in message news:39E4D9C3...@pitt.edu...
>
>
> I agree that I shouldn't be the controller of the world's opinions.
> That's why I'm asking others' opinion, but if I disagree then I state
> why.
>
> If all performers are artists then we're reduced to somantics
That's "semantics", BTW.
and the
> discussion is over. Then there is no difference between what Yo yo ma
> does and what John Holmes did. Yes?
Uh, that's a rather vulger example. I see no reason why using a single word
to describe their "talent" has to mean they actually did the same thing. We
can take context into consideration.
"Performance artist" and "creative artist" work for me, even if they are a
bit more cumbersome. For better or worse, words mean what common convention
says they mean. When you say you feel insulted by Christina and Britney
being called "artists" it seems that you are ignoring the context of the
word and choosing to take exception just for the sake of it. I would think
that had they been called "composers" or "songwriters" or something along
that line, then you might have more justification for getting bugged.
Singers have been called artists for far too long for it to bug me.
My point is that opinion isn't a factor in the meaning of words, even if we
have an opinion that the meaning isn't as efficient as it could be. When
you say a singer *is not* an artist, you are simply not correct according to
the dictionary. But if you say "artist" isn't the best description for a
singer, then you are correct, or at least I would agree.
I suppose that if "performer" was removed from the dictionary under the word
"artist" then we would be left with the more apt word "artiste". But then
we are further confused by the secondary meaning of that word.
BTW, One of my faves for two meanings for one word is "sanction".
Zem
J. Mcglinchey
> > Now, if Yo Yo Ma had a great set of tits, I'd have to reevaluate . . .
>
> This is why Vonnegut stayed away from graphic sex in his books, he felt
> that when the libido takes over that it was impossible for people to
> think on an intellectual level.
I wonder why he would think that. Just think of all the 'artistic
masterpieces' in the movies that feature highly graphic (violence, sex,
or both) content: "A Clockwork Orange," "The Wild Bunch", "Last Tango in
Paris", etc. Surely the "graphicness" of these movies doesn't prevent one
from appreciating their depth and intelligence. Even Hitchcock (a master
of suggestion and subtlety in the movies) said he had absolutely no
problem with putting nudity or swearing or graphic material in his movies
(e.g. Frenzy). The point is more on the context and the utility that they
serve, rather than their mere existence.
And why does Vonnegut feel that an 'intellectual' level is the only way to
connect to/appreciate an artistic statement? That's such a
unidimensional way of looking at things: for example, it misses the purely
visceral way people might react to a Metallica song (or punk or whatever),
or the basic visual beauty (with no other information needed) one might
experience in a Monet painting (or Rothko or Warhol or whatever)...
Joe M.
U of Washington
http://students.washington.edu/joemcg
J. Mcglinchey
> See other arguments (yo yo ma, etc). I respectfully disagree that this
> is the only qualifier. I can be a creative interpreter of other's
> work. An actor that doesn't write the play for example can be an
> artist. A teen pop singer can have a great set of pipes and dance
> around the stage but to me, is not an artist, but a performer.
Why not? They are using their great set of pipes and dancing ability
towards conveying an interpretation of others' (the writer of the song,
the choreographer) work, exactly like the actor acting another's
play. The only difference is that their art doesn't personally appeal
to you (and probably a slew of other people), whereas maybe the actor's
art might. Fair enough, then they are 'lesser artists' (to you and the
slew of others), not non-artists; considering they are doing more
or less exactly the same thing as the actor.
J. Mcglinchey
> it be put into words? Can something that is considered silly and trite
> today become "art" in 50 or 100 years?
Sure, and in probably even less time. See "prog rock" and "Yes" for
further information. ;)
tom_r...@my-deja.com
Tom
In article <39E4E6C4...@bbn.com>,The less "artistic" performer is
content
> to take a backseat during the creative process, offers mechanical or
> purely derivative interpretations, and/or requires more explicit
> instructions on all facets of their performance.
>
> Karl Haberl
> kha...@bbn.com
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Jemmett
"Karl Haberl" <kha...@bbn.com> wrote in message
news:39E4E6C4...@bbn.com...
>
> Here is how I think of it. For me, artists find ways to do original and
> exciting things within constraints. Originality (i.e. "creativity") is
> permitted to manifest itself to different degrees
Ah, finally, the magic word: degrees.
Actually Steven said this right off the bat when he said 'lesser'.
To what degree is Ms Spears an artist?
You will not be able to escape some element of semantics as you will have
to define some terms.
For instance, my defintion of artist does not include the word create and
yet all who aspire to something artistic create with their first move,
whether it begins with direction from another or comes from the artists
imagination.
Can we say that Gary Oldman is not an artist because he took direction and
read the script? An actor is an artist, even a bad actor. The bad actor is
simply an artist to a lesser degree.
Now, what criteria do you wish to use for this scale of degrees? Certainly
technical ability should be included, beyond that you are free to use your
own criteria. Obviously this gets very subjective.
The above is why, in answer to the original question, I say yes they are
artists and of course they are performers. I think they are both lesser
artists than say.... Celine Dion. Lesser _only_ because neither of them can
(as of yet) move me in the slightest with their voices. Dion can open the
pipes and get an emotional reaction from me mostly due to her technical
ability and the injection of emotion into what she is singing. Ok, so I
could have picked a better example. Certainly I could go on and name artists
who I consider more of an artist than Dion and so could we all.
I say we are all artists, to different degrees.
Chris
CountV/John T
the world to see, the following:
> "Art" and "artist" are important words.
Why are they more important than other words?
--
CountV/John T
"The only thing I can imagine an emphasis on emotional commitment
producing is a plethora of dreary confessional sub-Alanis balladeers or
sweaty-headband rock bands without any sense of style, playfulness or
irony." - Momus
Unreal Conspiracy - the Squire/Sherwood computer game link;
http://www.m-ideas.com/yes/consp.htm
InElegy
the class:
>> How about Mr. Ma (Mr. Yo?) and those performers who do contribute on a
>> more substantial level be classified as artist/performers (as opposed
>> to performance-artists which, given my experience with the breed, is
>> an oxymoron)?
>>
>
>Your's is the most helpful post for me. The definition of "more
>substantial level" is what I have trouble with. It's an intuitive
>judgement and tough to put into words in an objective way. It may have
>something to do with the artist's freedom to do what they want to do
>instead of being "packaged" by a corporation. There has to be some
>intuitive value though. Jerry Springer may have the freedom to do what
>he wants on his show but that doesn't feel like "art" to me.
Which, of course, brings us to what each of us, as the audience,
brings to the art. Each of us experiences it subjectively, bringing
our preconceived notions and biases which taint/enhance the art we
witness . . . but this is obvious, no?
Anyway, my intellectually low opinion of pop stars lowers my
estimation of their capabilities, and raises my appreciation of
classical or jazz artists. If I were 20 years younger I very well may
have a different experience entirely.
'Course, twenty rears ago, I was still a relative musical elitist (or
so i thought) listening to Buggles, OMD, Yes, and King Crimson when my
contemporaries listened to Journey, REO Speedwagon and Stynx . . . and
I thought their pop rock (or did they call it 'power pop?) was shite.
Turns out I was right . . .
InElegy
<tmarti...@elithic.com> shared with the class:
>
>InElegy wrote in message <4ub9us8k9hfr19ksl...@4ax.com>...
>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:56:06 GMT, Steven Sullivan
>><sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
>>
>>
>>Now, if Yo Yo Ma had a great set of tits, I'd have to reevaluate . . .
>>
>
>Now I know why you like Jeri Ryan so much. You're drawn to her... um... art.
>(There is an episode where she sings, you know. She actually wasn't all that
>bad.)
Actually, I'm really more of a Helena Bonham Carter man, when it gets
right down to it . . . not that, if given the unlikely opportunity, I
wouldn't cover Ms. Ryan in butter try to the get stink on my hang-low
InElegy
<sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
>I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack
>perspective.
Damn, Sullly . . . too bloody right!
This is going to be my new signature quote for a while, if you don't
mind?
CountV/John T
(I just found out that Eddie Fischer used to live in my new building)
InElegy
the class:
>So is Chris Squire an artist or a performer?
Depends on when. During the Rabin years, it's difficult to determine
how much input/influence he (or others) actually had. Other times,
its seems that he had a free reign to play what occurred to him.
jbird
jbird
newsgroup.
You are of superior intellect and use your brains in lieu of the basic
(boring) flame war.
nous...@my-deja.com
jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> writes:
> If all performers are artists then we're reduced to somantics and the
> discussion is over. Then there is no difference between what Yo yo ma
> does and what John Holmes did. Yes?
>
"Big Time!" - Dick Cheney
Todd M.
Steven Sullivan
: On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:50:14 GMT, Steven Sullivan
: <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
:>I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack
:>perspective.
: Damn, Sullly . . . too bloody right!
: This is going to be my new signature quote for a while, if you don't
: mind?
I don't.
jbird
"J. Mcglinchey" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, jbird wrote:
>
> > > Now, if Yo Yo Ma had a great set of tits, I'd have to reevaluate . . .
> >
> > This is why Vonnegut stayed away from graphic sex in his books, he felt
> > that when the libido takes over that it was impossible for people to
> > think on an intellectual level.
>
> I wonder why he would think that. Just think of all the 'artistic
> masterpieces' in the movies that feature highly graphic (violence, sex,
> or both) content: "A Clockwork Orange," "The Wild Bunch", "Last Tango in
> Paris", etc. Surely the "graphicness" of these movies doesn't prevent one
> from appreciating their depth and intelligence. Even Hitchcock (a master
> of suggestion and subtlety in the movies) said he had absolutely no
> problem with putting nudity or swearing or graphic material in his movies
> (e.g. Frenzy). The point is more on the context and the utility that they
> serve, rather than their mere existence.
>
Your point is well taken. That is just Vonnegut's personal feeling on
his own writing. Maybe he was tired of other writers simply using sex
and libido stimulation to simply sell books. It happens.
> And why does Vonnegut feel that an 'intellectual' level is the only way to
> connect to/appreciate an artistic statement? That's such a
> unidimensional way of looking at things: for example, it misses the purely
> visceral way people might react to a Metallica song (or punk or whatever),
> or the basic visual beauty (with no other information needed) one might
> experience in a Monet painting (or Rothko or Warhol or whatever)...
>
see above.
> Joe M.
> U of Washington
jbird
CountV/John T wrote:
>
> On 00/10/11 17:43, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> uploaded to the Usenet, for all
> the world to see, the following:
>
> > "Art" and "artist" are important words.
>
> Why are they more important than other words?
>
The connotation of artist is important in that the meaning and title is
one of the most important things about being human. IMO. History shows
that art is extremely important to us and a measure of what makes us
human. Some say that art is a window to the soul. You may disagree but
I have known many that do not see art as important.
jbird
Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> wrote:
> : On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:50:14 GMT, Steven Sullivan
> : <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
>
> :>I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack
> :>perspective.
>
> : Damn, Sullly . . . too bloody right!
>
> : This is going to be my new signature quote for a while, if you don't
> : mind?
>
> I don't.
>
There is a newsgroup I've read that puts "royalties" on this type of
use. It's part of that newsgroup culture.
tom_r...@my-deja.com
Is Chris a performer or is he an artist?
In article <isebuscei67qjagba...@4ax.com>,
InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:19:08 GMT, tom_r...@my-deja.com shared with
> the class:
>
> >So is Chris Squire an artist or a performer?
>
> Depends on when. During the Rabin years, it's difficult to determine
> how much input/influence he (or others) actually had. Other times,
> its seems that he had a free reign to play what occurred to him.
>
> -- InElegy, reminding you to never forget that Nic Caciappo is Rick
Wakeman's friend.
>
> "I could listen to you all day
> what a laugh
> cut me I bleed like you
> ha ha"
> -- Underworld, "Stagger"
>
Steven Sullivan
Steven Sullivan
And you're *sure* that Britney doesn't consider her singing to be a window
on her soul exactly why?
InElegy
Are DJs artists or performers? IMO, a very good DJ is an artist.
"Good" is, of course, subjective, but . . . I think DJ Shadow or
(especially) DJ Spooky are good examples of the DJ art well
demonstrated. (Is anyone else here even aware of these people?)
Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
artists.
"I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack perspective."
-- Steven Sulivan on alt.music.yes, 10/11/2000
jbird
Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
> jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> : Steven Sullivan wrote:
> :>
> :> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> wrote:
> :> : On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:50:14 GMT, Steven Sullivan
> :> : <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> shared with the class:
> :>
> :> :>I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack
> :> :>perspective.
> :>
> :> : Damn, Sullly . . . too bloody right!
> :>
> :> : This is going to be my new signature quote for a while, if you don't
> :> : mind?
> :>
> :> I don't.
> :>
>
> : There is a newsgroup I've read that puts "royalties" on this type of
> : use. It's part of that newsgroup culture.
>
> Good idea. What is the compensation rate per use?
>
$1 per use. see FAQ for this NG here:
http://www.rsfckers.com/faq.htm#gags
see the subheading "Schticks"
jbird
> : The connotation of artist is important in that the meaning and title is
> : one of the most important things about being human. IMO. History shows
> : that art is extremely important to us and a measure of what makes us
> : human. Some say that art is a window to the soul. You may disagree but
> : I have known many that do not see art as important.
>
> And you're *sure* that Britney doesn't consider her singing to be a window
> on her soul exactly why?
>
But music snobs like me can't take it!!
Theus
"CountV/John T" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
news:B60ADA03.747E%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
> On 00/10/11 17:43, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> uploaded to the Usenet, for all
> the world to see, the following:
>
> > "Art" and "artist" are important words.
>
> Why are they more important than other words?
>
saying NO.
cob...@my-deja.com
jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> Understood. Then what is it that makes talented teen-pop stars
> non-artists...or ARE they artists?
Well, I would think the easiest (and most useful) definition
of "artist" is "someone who creates art." So, this redefines the
question into 'what is the art in a Christina/Britney song?' I think a
lot of people would agree that there is art in the composition,
performance and interpretation of a song--maybe even in the
production. AFAIK, Christina/Britney don't write or play instruments
on their albums. So their 'art' is the vocal performance and
interpretation decisions that they make. In part, this is because even
if directed by a producer to sing a certain way, a singer will
*inevitably* be making a lot of creative choices every time they sing a
song. The very act of making minute interpretation decisions adds a
layer of art to a musical performance. Thus, I think it's entirely
appropriate to label a Heifetz performance of the Brahms Violin
Concerto as an artistic act, even if Heifetz didn't compose a note of
it. The very way he played it involved thousands of interpretational
decisions based on Heifetz' musical personality and background--and
this would be true of anyone else performing the piece, as well. I
think the same process goes on when a 17 year-old girl sings a moronic
dance/pop tune, even if there is less refinement involved.
It might also be important to note that just because something can be
classified as "art" does not make it inherently good. I think many
people tend to use the term as a shorthand for their value judgement
and classify only things they like as "art" and those they don't like
as something less. Moreover, "art" does not have to be complex or
sophisticated to be defined as such. Even the crudest street graffiti
is "art," even if I think it BAD art.
"Art rock" is art and so is "commercial rock". The usage of the
modifier terms here refers to the reason why the piece was created and
the way it is used, rather than anything inherent in the nature of the
piece of art itself. Think about it this way: in a parallel universe
where commercial rock stations played nothing but huge selling Henry
Cow records nonstop, then Journey records might be seen as some kind
of "art rock" oddity!
--
Christopher Oberst
Take a listen to my music:
http://www.mp3.com/ChristophOberst
Steven Sullivan
: "CountV/John T" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
I doubt that. Most people learn that word as toddlers.
Karl Haberl
>
> "Karl Haberl" <kha...@bbn.com> wrote in message
> news:39E4E6C4...@bbn.com...
> >
> > Here is how I think of it. For me, artists find ways to do original and
> > exciting things within constraints. Originality (i.e. "creativity") is
> > permitted to manifest itself to different degrees
>
> Ah, finally, the magic word: degrees.
> Actually Steven said this right off the bat when he said 'lesser'.
>
> To what degree is Ms Spears an artist?
I hesitate to say because I am mostly unfamiliar with her "work." I
would speculate that the answer is: to a "lesser" degree, assuming that
at this point in her career both her recorded music as well as her live
performances are mostly written and produced by others with only minimal
creative involvement from her. If that assumption is wrong, my apologies
to Britney.
> For instance, my defintion of artist does not include the word create and
> yet all who aspire to something artistic create with their first move,
> whether it begins with direction from another or comes from the artists
> imagination.
I am curious: what is your definition of an artist?
> Can we say that Gary Oldman is not an artist because he took direction and
> read the script? An actor is an artist, even a bad actor. The bad actor is
> simply an artist to a lesser degree.
The actor works with the director in a collaborative fashion. The
director's instructions constrain the actor in order to integrate
his/her performance into a consistent whole. The actor who is artistic
to a greater degree hungrily seeks out every opportunity (however small
or subtle) to bring a distinctive personality to the given role,
consistent with the director's wishes. The minimally artistic actor
reads the words of the script and moves as the director tells them to
move, without attempting to achieve anything more than what is required
to fulfill the minimum obligations of the role.
> Now, what criteria do you wish to use for this scale of degrees? Certainly
> technical ability should be included, beyond that you are free to use your
> own criteria. Obviously this gets very subjective.
Technical ability is a key component of one's ability to be an effective
artist/performer, but I do not regard it as an absolute determinant of
artistic content. Technical ability, to use engineering terms, is
somewhat like the "origin" of the artist/performer's coordinate system.
Modulation of that reference point is a function of the individual's
creative ambition and imagination. Audience expectations condition their
appreciation and acceptance of a performance. Audience dissatisfaction
is high when the distance between the expected reference point and the
actual performance is large, in either direction. Audience reaction to
the premier performance of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" is an
example of high technical ability, high artistic content, and a severe
audience reference point mismatch leading to dissatisfaction.
I could give many examples, but this post is already too long.
> I say we are all artists, to different degrees.
I agree, in the abstract. And the topic makes for interesting
discussion. I wonder, though, at what point does the notion of "artist"
under these terms cease to be meaningful? At what lesser "degree" does
the artistic content become so small that it falls below the threshold
of what could be reasonably considered "art"? As with many such
concepts, this threshold is subjective, and varies from individual to
individual.
When I apply my own personal artistic threshold to the packaged pop
singers of today, admittedly reflecting my own individual expectations
and bias, I sift many of them from the "artist" bin into the "performer
only" bin.
Karl Haberl
kha...@bbn.com
Cherie
create.
Originally an artist was someone who draws or paints .....now EVERYONE wants
to get in on the act.
Maybe everyone should keep their original titles ( ie: guitarist, songwriter,
singer, sculpter..etc.) then there won't be any misunderstanding as to who is
an "artist" and who isn't.
~Cherie
J. Mcglinchey
> Are DJs artists or performers? IMO, a very good DJ is an artist.
DJs are certainly artists. For example, these are quotes from Chuck D
[Public Enemy's lead singer]'s liner notes on Terminator X [Public Enemy's
DJ]'s first solo album:
"...I just kept running it, in quatrains. Terminator X found a part for
it, from a Chubb Rock record called 'Rock 'n' Roll Dude'. At first it
didn't sound right. Then we took the bass out of it and it sounded
perfect."
"Jazzy Jeff invented the Transformer scratch...but Terminator X has taken
it to another level within a song mode."
"...Doing 'Bring the Noise'. When everybody else left- we gave up on the
record- and he and I were left in the studio from 2:00 to 5:30 in the
morning, worried to find a scratch part that would fit in on the last
verse. And we found it. It's a backward scratch of a guitar..."
From these quotes, to me it is apparent that the DJs are artists:
'scratching' a record has its own technical lingo (and probably also
notions of virtuosity), one gets a similar sense of striving to experiment
and create something new (akin to Chris Squire staying in the studio to
the wee hours working on a bass riff).
> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
> artists.
Of course, and I don't think any of these rely solely on samples anyway
(certainly Portishead has some musicians with 'traditional' instruments
like guitar, electric piano...).
J. Mcglinchey
> >So is Chris Squire an artist or a performer?
>
> Depends on when. During the Rabin years, it's difficult to determine
> how much input/influence he (or others) actually had. Other times,
> its seems that he had a free reign to play what occurred to him.
You raise two other important confounds with establishing this
separation of 'artist' and 'performer'. One is the potentially
fluctuating nature of the dichotomy. In the sense that it's being used
here, The Monkees would thererfore be dismissed as mere 'performers' in
early 1966; but they were 'artists' by late 1967 (one could think
similarly of even The Beatles, who started out as a cover band). So why
couldn't one think similarly of Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera? The
dichotomy is of limited use if it is prone to change, and fairly quickly
at that.
The other is that it is hard for us to determine as outsiders just how
much influence a performer is exerting over their work at any given
point. Hypothetically, it is at least possible that Spears or The Spice
Girls or Ricky Martin exhibit much more control over what they produce
than they are given credit for...
CountV/John T
the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T wrote:
>>
>> On 00/10/11 17:43, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> uploaded to the Usenet, for all
>> the world to see, the following:
>>
>>> "Art" and "artist" are important words.
>>
>> Why are they more important than other words?
>
> The connotation of artist is important in that the meaning and title is
> one of the most important things about being human. IMO. History shows
> that art is extremely important to us and a measure of what makes us
> human. Some say that art is a window to the soul. You may disagree but
> I have known many that do not see art as important.
That doesn't explain why the *words* are more important than others. I think
language is highly important as a whole, and I might agree that the
interpretation and usage can and should be discussed, but I fail to see why
those two words should be more important than, say, "patrician" or
"shuttle".
--
CountV/John T
"The only thing I can imagine an emphasis on emotional commitment
producing is a plethora of dreary confessional sub-Alanis balladeers or
sweaty-headband rock bands without any sense of style, playfulness or
irony." - Momus
Unreal Conspiracy - the Squire/Sherwood computer game link;
http://www.m-ideas.com/yes/consp.htm
CountV/John T
<InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> A new permutation on this thread, to gauge Yesfans' take on things:
>
> Are DJs artists or performers?
Atists. Only the most biased person could see a performance by the Invisible
Scratch Picklz and not come away with that impression. And one of extreme
virtuosity, for that matter.
> IMO, a very good DJ is an artist. "Good" is, of course, subjective, but . . .
> I think DJ Shadow or (especially) DJ Spooky are good examples of the DJ art
> well demonstrated. (Is anyone else here even aware of these people?)
I was a DJ for many years, so *I* am. I find Spooky highly overrated.
>
> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
> artists.
None of those really lean too heavily on samples, excepting maybe Tricky and
latter-day Moby.
But yeah, even the ones I don't like of the above (like Moby, whose "Play" I
find to be uninspired) are definitely artists.
--
CountV/John
InElegy
<countRE...@m-ideas.com> shared with the class:
>On 00/10/12 15:39, InElegy
><InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
>Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
>> A new permutation on this thread, to gauge Yesfans' take on things:
>>
>> Are DJs artists or performers?
>
>Atists. Only the most biased person could see a performance by the Invisible
>Scratch Picklz and not come away with that impression. And one of extreme
>virtuosity, for that matter.
The Picklz are cool, but a little too 'goofy' at times for me . . .
this is probably expected given my taste for the sometimes
over-serious Spooky.
>
>> IMO, a very good DJ is an artist. "Good" is, of course, subjective, but . . .
>> I think DJ Shadow or (especially) DJ Spooky are good examples of the DJ art
>> well demonstrated. (Is anyone else here even aware of these people?)
>
>I was a DJ for many years, so *I* am. I find Spooky highly overrated.
I like Spooky alot. He takes me to different places, places I like.
"I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack perspective."
CountV/John T
<InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:45:33 -0400, CountV/John T
> <countRE...@m-ideas.com> shared with the class:
>> Atists. Only the most biased person could see a performance by the Invisible
>> Scratch Picklz and not come away with that impression. And one of extreme
>> virtuosity, for that matter.
>
> The Picklz are cool, but a little too 'goofy' at times for me . . .
> this is probably expected given my taste for the sometimes
> over-serious Spooky.
I think he's more serious than his output warrants. He reminds me of Terence
Trent "I'm a genius" D'arby in that respect - meaning that, yeah, he's
pretty good but not *nearly* as good as he himself seems to think.
>> I was a DJ for many years, so *I* am. I find Spooky highly overrated.
>
> I like Spooky alot. He takes me to different places, places I like.
Fair enough. I haven't heard *all* that much, so I'll take this as a cue to
check him out again.
Theus
"Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:vhqF5.6814$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
> Theus <mejs...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> : "CountV/John T" <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote in message
> : news:B60ADA03.747E%countRE...@m-ideas.com...
all
> :> the world to see, the following:
> :> > "Art" and "artist" are important words.
> :>
> :> Why are they more important than other words?
> : I would think they weren't. The most important word to learn in
life is
> : saying NO.
>
>
> I doubt that. Most people learn that word as toddlers.
>
InElegy
>In article <a74cus4mqrkajl790...@4ax.com>,
> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
>> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
>> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
>> artists.
>>
>
>Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
>It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
Now the toughie:
Was Warhol an "artist"?
>On a similar note, I'd like to see a discussion on Rap, and whether, say
>Eminem qualifies as an artist, performer, musician (pain in the arse), etc.
As far as Eminem goes it's all show. He's, IMO, largely a performer,
and as long as he does what Dre says it will stay good for him.
InElegy
>In article <a74cus4mqrkajl790...@4ax.com>,
> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
>
>> A new permutation on this thread, to gauge Yesfans' take on things:
>>
>> Are DJs artists or performers? IMO, a very good DJ is an artist.
>> "Good" is, of course, subjective, but . . . <snip>
>
>I think part of the problem is that the term *artist* has been watered down
>to mean just about anything these days. By some of the definitions I've read
>in this thread, we're ALL artists because we all sit here and create and
>perform and interpret and entertain one another on a ng. And if everyone's an
>artist, then no one is. Or as Noel Coward said, "Any man who calls himself an
>artist, isn't."
>
>Back to the question, IMO, a DJ is a DJ. You can be a *really good* DJ, but
>you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
>*create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
>about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day (from
>web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
Does a record producer create art? Seems to me, oftentimes (even with
our boys in Yes) a decent producer has saved or created careers with
some 'studio magic', the right ear. and some direction.
hep_...@my-deja.com
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> On 00/10/12 14:04, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all
> the world to see, the following:
>
> >>
> >> On 00/10/11 17:43, jbird <jb...@pitt.edu> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all
> >> the world to see, the following:
> >>
> >>> "Art" and "artist" are important words.
> >>
> >> Why are they more important than other words?
> >
title is
> > one of the most important things about being human. IMO.
History shows
> > that art is extremely important to us and a measure of what
makes us
> > human. Some say that art is a window to the soul. You may
disagree but
> > I have known many that do not see art as important.
>
> That doesn't explain why the *words* are more important than
others. I think
> language is highly important as a whole, and I might agree that
the
> interpretation and usage can and should be discussed, but I fail
to see why
> those two words should be more important than, say, "patrician"
or
> "shuttle".
>
> --
than another. They become a collection of phonemes. In use,
though, words are seldom divorced from meaning and the
concepts they describe will necessarily have varying levels of
import.
nous...@my-deja.com
InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
> A new permutation on this thread, to gauge Yesfans' take on things:
>
> Are DJs artists or performers? IMO, a very good DJ is an artist.
> "Good" is, of course, subjective, but . . . <snip>
I think part of the problem is that the term *artist* has been watered down
to mean just about anything these days. By some of the definitions I've read
in this thread, we're ALL artists because we all sit here and create and
perform and interpret and entertain one another on a ng. And if everyone's an
artist, then no one is. Or as Noel Coward said, "Any man who calls himself an
artist, isn't."
Back to the question, IMO, a DJ is a DJ. You can be a *really good* DJ, but
you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
*create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day (from
web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
>
> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
> artists.
>
Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
On a similar note, I'd like to see a discussion on Rap, and whether, say
Eminem qualifies as an artist, performer, musician (pain in the arse), etc.
Todd M.
Steven Sullivan
: On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:20:02 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>In article <a74cus4mqrkajl790...@4ax.com>,
:> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
:>> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
:>> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
:>> artists.
:>>
:>
:>Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
:>It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
: Now the toughie:
: Was Warhol an "artist"?
Or broader still: is collage an art?
(of course it is)
CountV/John T
<InElegy@no_goddamned_spam_you_dumb_monkeys_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:20:02 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <a74cus4mqrkajl790...@4ax.com>,
>> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
>
>>> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
>>> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
>>> artists.
>>
>> Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
>> It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
It's about a hundred times more art than playing another fucking twelve-bar
blues.
>
> Now the toughie:
>
> Was Warhol an "artist"?
Undoubtedly. Not a toughie at all, whether you consider him great, middling
or awful.
The question to pose to people like Nousoleil is; were Duchamp's ready-mades
actual art? Ditto the work of artists who use collage as their primary form
of expression?
I doubt you could find a single art historian who would answer that with a
'no', whatever they may think of the actual merits of the art itself.
>
>> On a similar note, I'd like to see a discussion on Rap, and whether, say
>> Eminem qualifies as an artist, performer, musician (pain in the arse), etc.
>
> As far as Eminem goes it's all show. He's, IMO, largely a performer,
> and as long as he does what Dre says it will stay good for him.
So you're saying that Dre writes his raps for him? Huh?
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Eminem's subject matter or presentation, but
you've got to give him credit for a rhythmic sophistication that very, very
few people have (not all that obvious on that latest single, the one with
"I'm so sick and tired/of being admired/and sometimes I wish I'd just die or
get fired", whatever it's called).
--
CountV/John T
"The only thing I can imagine an emphasis on emotional commitment
producing is a plethora of dreary confessional sub-Alanis balladeers or
sweaty-headband rock bands without any sense of style, playfulness or
irony." - Momus
CountV/John T
the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
> *create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
> about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day (from
> web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
Then what *is* your criterion? If you're going to tear down one definition,
you're going to have to come up with another one to substitute it with, you
know.
InElegy
<countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
>On 00/10/13 13:48, InElegy
><InElegy@no_goddamned_spam_you_dumb_monkeys_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
>Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:20:02 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> In article <a74cus4mqrkajl790...@4ax.com>,
>>> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Are sample-based musicians artists? Goldie, Roni Size, Tricky,
>>>> Portishead, Moby, the Orb, FSOL, etc. are examples of some I'd rate as
>>>> artists.
>>>
>>> Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
>>> It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
>
>It's about a hundred times more art than playing another fucking twelve-bar
>blues.
Hallelujah, my brother!
On related side note, I recntly made the mistake of watching The List
Channel . . . errr . . . I mean VH1 . . . and caught their "Twenty
Greatest Rock Guitarists" or what ever it was called. Randy Rhoades
(sp?) but no Howe?
Wassupwithat?
It was heavily weighted to blue and blue-based guitarists. What a
farce!
>>
>> Now the toughie:
>>
>> Was Warhol an "artist"?
>
>Undoubtedly. Not a toughie at all, whether you consider him great, middling
>or awful.
>
>The question to pose to people like Nousoleil is; were Duchamp's ready-mades
>actual art? Ditto the work of artists who use collage as their primary form
>of expression?
Personally, I have never had a problem with any artist (visual,
musical, or otherwise) borrowing from another source. As far as
Duchamp, although I'm only a marginal fan (more of a Dali man,
actually), I am able to recognize art as arrangements of the
'artifacts' into juxtapositions that are new or unthought of by me.
The contrasts are the art, maybe?
>>> On a similar note, I'd like to see a discussion on Rap, and whether, say
>>> Eminem qualifies as an artist, performer, musician (pain in the arse), etc.
>>
>> As far as Eminem goes it's all show. He's, IMO, largely a performer,
>> and as long as he does what Dre says it will stay good for him.
>
>So you're saying that Dre writes his raps for him? Huh?
>
I think he's got a good puppeteer. I don't see this as a bad thing,
though.
>Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Eminem's subject matter or presentation, but
>you've got to give him credit for a rhythmic sophistication that very, very
>few people have (not all that obvious on that latest single, the one with
>"I'm so sick and tired/of being admired/and sometimes I wish I'd just die or
>get fired", whatever it's called).
'The Way I Am'. The one with the tubular bells. Yeah, it does suffer
from a case of "the poor ol' me's", but so does PF's 'The Wall' . . .
it's a common theme.
Eminem gets a certain amount of respect from me, although I'm not a
big fan of his fans, at least around my neck of the woods. They tend
to be skinny rednecks, with expensive pick-up trucks, bad skin, and
(embellishments coming) no doubt a bad crystal meth habit, and a
beat-up looking girlfriend/wife/sister.
nous...@my-deja.com
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> On 00/10/14 13:20, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
> the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
> > you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
> > *create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
> > about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day (from
> > web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
>
> Then what *is* your criterion? If you're going to tear down one definition,
> you're going to have to come up with another one to substitute it with, you
> know.
>
Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
nous...@my-deja.com
> Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
> >> It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
>
> It's about a hundred times more art than playing another fucking twelve-bar
> blues.
How about you define *your* art criterion for me. I'd love to see how
sampling is a *hundred times more art* than a door hinge, let alone another
twelve bar blues.
> > Now the toughie:
> >
> > Was Warhol an "artist"?
>
> Undoubtedly. Not a toughie at all, whether you consider him great, middling
> or awful.
>
> The question to pose to people like Nousoleil is; were Duchamp's ready-mades
> actual art? Ditto the work of artists who use collage as their primary form
> of expression?
>
> I doubt you could find a single art historian who would answer that with a
> 'no', whatever they may think of the actual merits of the art itself.
> >
See my other post regarding *people like me* and our criterion for art.
InElegy
the class:
>In article <B60F302A.804C%countRE...@m-ideas.com>,
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
>> On 00/10/14 13:20, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
>> the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>>
>> > Back to the question, IMO, a DJ is a DJ. You can be a *really good* DJ, but
>> > you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
>> > *create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
>> > about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day (from
>> > web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
>>
>> Then what *is* your criterion? If you're going to tear down one definition,
>> you're going to have to come up with another one to substitute it with, you
>> know.
>>
>
>Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
>example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
>Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
>crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
what you'd define as 'true' art? It's growth as an art form (which I
feel it is) was the fact that you'd go to a show and say, "Fuck, I
could do that!" and the next week you'd form your own band, rehearse
twice and start lining up gigs.
"I think Yes-fans are often deluded too, or at the very least lack perspective."
-- Steven Sullivan in alt.music.yes, 10/11/2000
nous...@my-deja.com
InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:15:20 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com shared with
> the class:
>
> >example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> >Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
> >crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
>
> In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
> what you'd define as 'true' art?
*Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
one guy. I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
> It's growth as an art form (which I
> feel it is) was the fact that you'd go to a show and say, "Fuck, I
> could do that!" and the next week you'd form your own band, rehearse
> twice and start lining up gigs.
>
I agree in that part of the point of anything artistic is to inspire one to
want to be able to do the same (or certainly making you feel as if you
*could*). But it's whether you can or not where I draw that fuzzy line
between art or *other*.
InElegy
the class:
>In article <1m6mus4t8nhftqa6b...@4ax.com>,
> InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:15:20 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com shared with
>> the class:
>>
>> >Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
>> >example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
>> >Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
>> >crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
>>
>> In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
>> what you'd define as 'true' art?
>
>*Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
>one guy. I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
>never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
>The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
>
>> It's growth as an art form (which I
>> feel it is) was the fact that you'd go to a show and say, "Fuck, I
>> could do that!" and the next week you'd form your own band, rehearse
>> twice and start lining up gigs.
>>
>
>I agree in that part of the point of anything artistic is to inspire one to
>want to be able to do the same (or certainly making you feel as if you
>*could*). But it's whether you can or not where I draw that fuzzy line
>between art or *other*.
I get your point . . . now, is a fuzzy line "art"? :=) (I detest
Monet, so I'd just thought I'd throw that out there.)
Steven Sullivan
: In article <1m6mus4t8nhftqa6b...@4ax.com>,
: InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
:> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:15:20 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com shared with
:> the class:
:>
:> >Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
:> >example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
:> >Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
:> >crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
:>
:> In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
:> what you'd define as 'true' art?
: *Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
: one guy.
'punk art'.
: I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
: never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
: The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
So? What if you *could* replciate it? It automatically becomes 'not
art'? That's absurd.
I ask again: is collage not an art form in your opinion? Were Picasso
and Max Ernst not artists when they worked in that form?
CountV/John T
the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> In article <B60F302A.804C%countRE...@m-ideas.com>,
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
>> On 00/10/14 13:20, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
>> the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>>
>>> Back to the question, IMO, a DJ is a DJ. You can be a *really good* DJ, but
>>> you're still a DJ. It's completely subjective, but just because someone can
>>> *create* something and then *perform* it, doesn't make one an *artist*. Just
>>> about all occupations involve some creativity and performance every day
>>> (from
>>> web designers to ditch diggers), but I wouldn't call it *art*.
>>
>> Then what *is* your criterion? If you're going to tear down one definition,
>> you're going to have to come up with another one to substitute it with, you
>> know.
>
> Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate.
So, if I can play Howe's Clap, it's not art?
Try again, please.
> For example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> Manet, but be unsuccessful.
You'd be surprised how much easier it would be for most moderately skilled
visual artists to imitate Manet than to do a passable Pollock or Mondrian.
> I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a crucifix in it at a moment's
> notice.
Could you have come up with the idea for it, though?
>
> I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
> describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
CountV/John T
the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
>> On 00/10/13 13:48, InElegy
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:20:02 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again same thing. Sampling is right up there with mixing, scratching, etc.
>>>> It's interesting and often entertaining, but it ain't art, IMO.
>>
>> It's about a hundred times more art than playing another fucking twelve-bar
>> blues.
>
> How about you define *your* art criterion for me. I'd love to see how
> sampling is a *hundred times more art* than a door hinge, let alone another
> twelve bar blues.
Because it's creating something *new*, juxtaposing elements that haven't
been combined before. Playing the Blues yet *again* is not only extremely
simple (and if your previous comment of "artistic process that I am unable
to replicate" is to be followed about as far from art as you can get), but
nothing new or groundbreaking in any way. Not that all sampling is - like
with everything, the majority of its uses will be crap.
>> I doubt you could find a single art historian who would answer that with a
>> 'no', whatever they may think of the actual merits of the art itself.
>
> See my other post regarding *people like me* and our criterion for art.
Not to be rude, but the word I've been avoiding typing here and in my reply
to the previous post is 'philistine'.
CountV/John T
<InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> uploaded to the
Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> I detest Monet
I'm liking you more and more every day.
Steven Sullivan
: On 00/10/16 10:15, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
:>
:> I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
:> describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
: At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
nousoleil's view appears to boil down to, 'if I don't like it, it's not
art'.
J. Mcglinchey
> Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
> example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
> crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
If you can replicate it, it's not art? That's silly. What are symphonies
doing when they play Beethoven's 9th? Making it up as they go along? Is
"Siberian Khatru" no longer art because Stanley Snail did a pretty damn
accurate version of it?
> I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
> describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
I hope Mr. Stewart is never asked to be on a jury... :)
J. Mcglinchey
> I agree in that part of the point of anything artistic is to inspire one to
> want to be able to do the same (or certainly making you feel as if you
> *could*). But it's whether you can or not where I draw that fuzzy line
I have absolutely zero desire to be able to draw like Jackson Pollock. I
also know that there's no way I could, even if I did want to. Is his work
therefore not art?
nous...@my-deja.com
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
> nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : In article <1m6mus4t8nhftqa6b...@4ax.com>,
> : InElegy <InElegy@_no_god-damn_spam_you_dumb_monkey_bigfoot.com> writes:
> :> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:15:20 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com shared with
> :> the class:
> :>
> :> >example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> :> >Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
> :> >crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
> :> In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
> :> what you'd define as 'true' art?
>
> : *Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
> : one guy.
>
> 'punk art'.
*punk* perhaps, but not art.
>
> : I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
> : never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
> : The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
>
> So? What if you *could* replciate it? It automatically becomes 'not
> art'? That's absurd.
It becomes a variety of things, none of which include the term *art*. It
doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with it, it just means it's not art. Is
all Yes music art, in your opinion? Because in mine some qualifies (Gates)
and some doesn't (Man in the Moon).
> I ask again: is collage not an art form in your opinion? Were Picasso
> and Max Ernst not artists when they worked in that form?
>
Sure it is and yes they were. Where in *my* criterion would their work not
fit the definition of art? I certainly could never duplicate or recreate
their work.
Theus
>
> At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
>
is art. The real question is whether it is any good or not.
nous...@my-deja.com
<Pine.A41.4.21.001016...@dante05.u.washington.edu>, "J.
Mcglinchey" <joe...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
> > example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> > Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
> > crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
>
> If you can replicate it, it's not art? That's silly. What are symphonies
> doing when they play Beethoven's 9th? Making it up as they go along? Is
> "Siberian Khatru" no longer art because Stanley Snail did a pretty damn
> accurate version of it?
Since *I* could never learn every instrument in a symphony and then duplicate
something like Beehtoven anyway, the answer is Beethoven's work stands as
art. Besides, symphonic music is desgined to be played by an ensemble (the
symphony itself is not an art object, but the music certainly is). Ask
Stanley Snail if he considers Khatru to be art, since he can replicate it. I
certainly can't, so my definition still makes sense (apparently, only to me
;-)
As to the Jackson Pollack question in the other post, yes, I consider his
work to be art as well. I don't think the *desire* to duplicate it has to be
there for it to fit into my criterion. I have no desire to paint or draw at
all, but I still consider a lot of it art.
Steven Sullivan
: In article <LSFG5.6965$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
:> nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> : In article <1m6mus4t8nhftqa6b...@4ax.com>,
:> :> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:15:20 GMT, nous...@my-deja.com shared with
:> :> the class:
:> :>
:> :> >Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
:> :> >example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
:> :> >Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
:> :> >crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
:> :> In your mind, is punk rock the equivalant of the Piss Christ, or is it
:> :> what you'd define as 'true' art?
:>
:> : *Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
:> : one guy.
:>
:> 'punk art'.
: *punk* perhaps, but not art.
because....?
Why not 'art, but not art I admire'?
:> : I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
:> : never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
:> : The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
:>
:> So? What if you *could* replciate it? It automatically becomes 'not
:> art'? That's absurd.
: It becomes a variety of things, none of which include the term *art*.
Rubbish. Basically you're saying Marcel Duchamp wasn't an artist, which
opinion would rightly get you laughed out of any informed discussion of
art.
: I
: doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with it, it just means it's not art. Is
: all Yes music art, in your opinion? Because in mine some qualifies (Gates)
: and some doesn't (Man in the Moon).
Again, rubbish. You seem to believe that only things you think are 'good'
can be 'art'. Man in the Moon is art. So is Gates of Delerium.
:> I ask again: is collage not an art form in your opinion? Were Picasso
:> and Max Ernst not artists when they worked in that form?
:>
: Sure it is and yes they were. Where in *my* criterion would their work not
: fit the definition of art? I certainly could never duplicate or recreate
: their work.
You most certainly could replicate at least some of it . What you perhaps
couldn't do is come up with the *idea*. Ernst's surrealist collages
weren't always technically difficult to make: the talent lay in choosing
the images to combine (the images which, btw, were drawn by *someone
else*).
By the reverse token, there is *certainly* rap music *you* couldn't
replicate. That must be art, by your absurd definition.
nous...@my-deja.com
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> writes:
> On 00/10/16 10:15, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
>
> > CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Then what *is* your criterion? If you're going to tear down one definition,
> >> you're going to have to come up with another one to substitute it with, you
> >> know.
> >
>
>
> Try again, please.
Try what? Whether *you* can play it is irrelevant. The question is whether
*I* can. And I can't, so yes Clap is art.
>
> > For example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
> > Manet, but be unsuccessful.
>
> You'd be surprised how much easier it would be for most moderately skilled
> visual artists to imitate Manet than to do a passable Pollock or Mondrian.
So? That's them. I certainly couldn't.
>
> > I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a crucifix in it at a moment's
> > notice.
>
> Could you have come up with the idea for it, though?
If I wanted to *shock* people with some kind of gesture or statement,
probably. Desecrating religious symbols for shock value is hardly original.
> >
> > I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
> > describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
>
> At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
>
How's being asked *my* criterion for art and then presenting it *dishonest*?
It's what works for me. What works for you is yr. business.
nous...@my-deja.com
Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
> : On 00/10/16 10:15, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
> :>
> :> I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
> :> describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
>
> : At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
>
> art'.
Nonsense. Whether I like it or not is not a factor. I don't care a wit for
Impressionism, but I still think it's art, as it's beyond my capability to
duplicate as such.
Steven Sullivan
: In article
: <Pine.A41.4.21.001016...@dante05.u.washington.edu>, "J.
: Mcglinchey" <joe...@u.washington.edu> writes:
:> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>
:> > Any end product of the artistic process that I am unable to replicate. For
:> > example, I could spend the rest of my life trying to paint like Monet or
:> > Manet, but be unsuccessful. I could, however, piss in jar and submerge a
:> > crucifix in it at a moment's notice.
:>
:> If you can replicate it, it's not art? That's silly. What are symphonies
:> doing when they play Beethoven's 9th? Making it up as they go along? Is
:> "Siberian Khatru" no longer art because Stanley Snail did a pretty damn
:> accurate version of it?
: Since *I* could never learn every instrument in a symphony and then duplicate
: something like Beehtoven anyway, the answer is Beethoven's work stands as
: art.
So, *your* abilities (or lack of same) are the standard by which art is
validated? Yikes.
--
nous...@my-deja.com
CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> writes:
> On 00/10/16 10:30, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
> the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
> > See my other post regarding *people like me* and our criterion for art.
>
> Not to be rude, but the word I've been avoiding typing here and in my reply
> to the previous post is 'philistine'.
LOL. Not to be rude either, but being called "philistine" by you is hardly
unexpected.
nous...@my-deja.com
> : Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
> :> nous...@my-deja.com wrote:
> :> : *Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
> :> : one guy.
> :>
> :> 'punk art'.
>
> : *punk* perhaps, but not art.
>
> because....?
>
> Why not 'art, but not art I admire'?
I think I posted this elsewhere, but whether I admire it or not isn't in my
defintion. It's in yours, apparently.
>
> :> : I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
> :> : never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
> :> : The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
> :>
> :> So? What if you *could* replciate it? It automatically becomes 'not
> :> art'? That's absurd.
>
> : It becomes a variety of things, none of which include the term *art*.
>
> Rubbish. Basically you're saying Marcel Duchamp wasn't an artist, which
> opinion would rightly get you laughed out of any informed discussion of
> art.
So you're saying Duchamps work is something I could duplicate? Perhaps you
give me more credit than I deserve.
> : It
> : doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with it, it just means it's not art. Is
> : all Yes music art, in your opinion? Because in mine some qualifies (Gates)
> : and some doesn't (Man in the Moon).
>
> Again, rubbish. You seem to believe that only things you think are 'good'
> can be 'art'. Man in the Moon is art. So is Gates of Delerium.
Where are you reading all this *good v bad* nonsense into the equation? I've
never said one way or the other if either is good or bad. Those are your
terms. And why do you feel as though to be *art* it has to be *good* or
liked?
> :> I ask again: is collage not an art form in your opinion? Were Picasso
> :> and Max Ernst not artists when they worked in that form?
> :>
>
> : Sure it is and yes they were. Where in *my* criterion would their work not
> : fit the definition of art? I certainly could never duplicate or recreate
> : their work.
>
> You most certainly could replicate at least some of it . What you perhaps
> couldn't do is come up with the *idea*. Ernst's surrealist collages
> weren't always technically difficult to make: the talent lay in choosing
> the images to combine (the images which, btw, were drawn by *someone
> else*).
>
> By the reverse token, there is *certainly* rap music *you* couldn't
> replicate. That must be art, by your absurd definition.
>
That's exactly right. Most of it's crap, but some of it's definitely art.
Steven Sullivan
: In article <JEHG5.6971$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> writes:
:> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> wrote:
:> : On 00/10/16 10:15, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
:> :>
:> :> I also like Potter Stewart's comment regarding pornography when trying to
:> :> describe what art is: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
:>
:> : At least "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is more honest.
:>
:> nousoleil's view appears to boil down to, 'if I don't like it, it's not
:> art'.
: Nonsense. Whether I like it or not is not a factor. I don't care a wit for
: Impressionism, but I still think it's art, as it's beyond my capability to
: duplicate as such.
My apologies. Let me amend that to, 'if I can do it, it's not art'.
Which is even *more* ridiculous.
nous...@my-deja.com
Yes, for the entire free world. (snicker) For the last time, it's *my*
standard, however *philistine* it may be.
So why not fall into the trap yourself and give me *your* standards and
criterion for art.
Steven Sullivan
: In article <B610B7C6.82F7%countRE...@m-ideas.com>,
: CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> writes:
:> On 00/10/16 10:30, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com> uploaded to
:> the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
:> > See my other post regarding *people like me* and our criterion for art.
:>
:> Not to be rude, but the word I've been avoiding typing here and in my reply
:> to the previous post is 'philistine'.
: LOL. Not to be rude either, but being called "philistine" by you is hardly
: unexpected.
Possibly John is being premature. After all, you haven't hauled out the
'my KID could do that!' argument.
Yet.
Theus
<nous...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8sful5$8d8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <B610B7C6.82F7%countRE...@m-ideas.com>,
> CountV/John T <countRE...@m-ideas.com> writes:
> > On 00/10/16 10:30, nous...@my-deja.com <nous...@my-deja.com>
uploaded to
> > the Usenet, for all the world to see, the following:
>
> > > See my other post regarding *people like me* and our criterion for
art.
> >
> > Not to be rude, but the word I've been avoiding typing here and in my
reply
> > to the previous post is 'philistine'.
>
> LOL. Not to be rude either, but being called "philistine" by you is hardly
> unexpected.
>
I'd have to say that it is most definitely a creative exercise. Some of it
is actually very progressive and experimental and, of course, some is utter
crap. Just because you are unable to appreciate it does not mean it is not
art. I can't stand opera singing, but the music is obviously art.
Theus
<nous...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8sfvnb$9di$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <FSJG5.6996$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
(snipped)
I'm just curious, do you think Folk music is art? It is pretty easy to
play. How about poetry? I can certainly write lots of that so it must not
be art.
nous...@my-deja.com
I don't know. I'd have to hear or read specifically something in question.
I'd rather know if *you* consider your poetry art, and why or why not?
Steven Sullivan
: In article <FSJG5.6996$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,:> : In article <LSFG5.6965$J7.9...@grover.nit.gwu.edu>,
:> :> : *Punk Rock* can be a number of things, where the Piss Christ is one thing by
:> :> : one guy.
:> :>
:> :> 'punk art'.
:>
:> : *punk* perhaps, but not art.
:>
:> because....?
:>
:> Why not 'art, but not art I admire'?
: I think I posted this elsewhere, but whether I admire it or not isn't in my
: defintion. It's in yours, apparently.
Except it's obviously *not* in my definition of art. That's my whole
point. I can accept that something is art regardless of whether I think
it's good or not.
:> :> : I think some punk was definitely *art* in the sense that *I* could
:> :> : never replicate it (I could play the notes, but not with the intensity of say
:> :> : The Dicks or U.K. Subs), but certainly not all punk was art.
:> :>
:> :> So? What if you *could* replciate it? It automatically becomes 'not
:> :> art'? That's absurd.
:>
:> : It becomes a variety of things, none of which include the term *art*.
:>
:> Rubbish. Basically you're saying Marcel Duchamp wasn't an artist, which
:> opinion would rightly get you laughed out of any informed discussion of
:> art.
: So you're saying Duchamps work is something I could duplicate?
Some of it, certainly. Ever hear of his 'ready-mades'?
: Perhaps you
: give me more credit than I deserve.
It's likely you could find a toilet bowl and set it up on a pedestal.
You could probably draw a pipe and write 'ceci n'est pas une pipe' under
it too.
I'm certain you could draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
Whether it would *occur* to you to do such things, is another story. In
such cases the context in which the object was created is as important to
its being 'art' as the thing itself.
Btw, do you actually *know* anything about art history?
:> : It
:> : doesn't mean there's anything *wrong* with it, it just means it's not art. Is
:> : all Yes music art, in your opinion? Because in mine some qualifies (Gates)
:> : and some doesn't (Man in the Moon).
:>
:> Again, rubbish. You seem to believe that only things you think are 'good'
:> can be 'art'. Man in the Moon is art. So is Gates of Delerium.
: Where are you reading all this *good v bad* nonsense into the equation? I've
: never said one way or the other if either is good or bad. Those are your
: terms. And why do you feel as though to be *art* it has to be *good* or
: liked?
? I don't. Obviously, or so I thought. (Is anyone else having as much
trouble followign me as Todd here?)
:> :> I ask again: is collage not an art form in your opinion? Were Picasso
:> :> and Max Ernst not artists when they worked in that form?
:> :>
:>
:> : Sure it is and yes they were. Where in *my* criterion would their work not
:> : fit the definition of art? I certainly could never duplicate or recreate
:> : their work.
:>
:> You most certainly could replicate at least some of it . What you perhaps
:> couldn't do is come up with the *idea*. Ernst's surrealist collages
:> weren't always technically difficult to make: the talent lay in choosing
:> the images to combine (the images which, btw, were drawn by *someone
:> else*).
:>
:> By the reverse token, there is *certainly* rap music *you* couldn't
:> replicate. That must be art, by your absurd definition.
:>
: That's exactly right. Most of it's crap, but some of it's definitely art.
I suppose having laboriously extracted even this one nugget of
reasonableness from you, I should now retire.