Contemporary music

[Caius Marcius]

In <35217...@news.zeitung-online.net> "Andreas Heck"
<au...@classicpage.com> writes:

>- Modern artists are reacting on the world outside of them. They are
>reflecting, what happens "outside". That's very important for modern
>artists, because art has to be "real" and "true".

There is a very strong link between "art" and "artifice", between "art"
and "artificial". "Truth is ugly," wrote Nietzsche, "we have art lest
we *perish from the truth*" (his italics).

But when you look at a
>world with it's terrible wars, the modern factorys (Chaplins "Modern
Times")
>and so on, one has to compose a different music. Music now has not
longer to
>be beautiful - it can be ugly too, like the world often shows it's
ugly
>face.

And before the modern era, there was no ugliness and the world was
suffused with sweetness and light? I think not......

>One problem is that in our century art has become a ware. The God of
our
>time is the commerce. Only those pieces are published, which are
promising
>to be a bestseller.

Isn't this is tad exaggerated? Granted that there is an unholy nexus
betwixt art and commerce, but nevertheless, there are hundreds of
musical works published and recorded that have absolutely no chance of
becoming "bestsellers" or making anyone rich. There is a small
minority of us who cherish such music and perhaps enable some
performers and publishers to eke out some small profit from it....

Who is making the musical taste - the audience or the
>industry? A Picasso - although modern - is "good art" because they can
sell
>one of his pictures for Millions of Dollars. A composition by
Stockhausen is
>"worse art", because it can't be sold for Millions. Is that the truth
of our
>time?

Given the relentless Hype of our era, isn't it refreshing to be
devoted to something that takes place so "far from the madding crowd"?
Stockhausen will never appear on Oprah, Maxwell Davies will never seek
political office, tabloid gossip columnists will never report on the
doings of Part and Xenakis, Corigiliano will never appear on the cover
of People Magazine. Thank God!!

- CMC

[Andreas Heck]

There has been a discussion about contemporary music and I can't accept a
lot of things said there. Unfortunately my client lost the concerning news,
so I send a new one.

Always people are discussing about the reasons, why modern music isn't
accepted by the audience. I'll state my opinions and I'll try in English,
but it's very difficult for me to discuss difficult facts out of my mother
language.

The particularities of contemporary music are:
- It has no global style like romanticism or classic. One of the main
characteristics is a pluralism of style. So it's very difficult for the
listener to classify a piece. Also there are no more valid classifications
as humanism ore renaissance.

- Modern artists are reacting on the world outside of them. They are
reflecting, what happens "outside". That's very important for modern

artists, because art has to be "real" and "true". But when you look at a

world with it's terrible wars, the modern factorys (Chaplins "Modern Times")
and so on, one has to compose a different music. Music now has not longer to
be beautiful - it can be ugly too, like the world often shows it's ugly
face.

- Most composers searched for new musical systems, away from the tonal one.
The results are: 12-tone music, serial music, musique concrète, electronic
and electro-acustic music, aleatoric, minimal music, sound installations and
so on.
- Because of the possibility to get to know "other" music (like music from
Africa or Asia) musical sound has changed (e.g. Messiaen, Boulez).

Against that is the musical taste of the audiance. Most of them still want
to hear "beautiful" (they mean tonal and harmonic) music. And I don't think
that is because contemporary (I mean atonal) music can't be "beautiful" as
well. To recognize the "beauty" of modern music one has to get to know with
the statements, the composer wanted to make with his music.
It's perverse, because in former times most of the performed music has been
modern music. Since Mendelssohn's Bach-revival a change occured and today
only about 5 % of performed music is to be called modern. But how important
is to play the "old" pieces again and again, when we not get down to "our"
music?

One problem is that in our century art has become a ware. The God of our
time is the commerce. Only those pieces are published, which are promising

to be a bestseller. Who is making the musical taste - the audience or the

industry? A Picasso - although modern - is "good art" because they can sell
one of his pictures for Millions of Dollars. A composition by Stockhausen is
"worse art", because it can't be sold for Millions. Is that the truth of our
time?

And what about the education of our children? The teacher tells them about
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and so on and ends his musical lessons at Mahler. If
he is a committed teacher, he'll tell the open-minded kids that there has
been a bad guy in Vienna called Schönberg, who killed the beautiful music
with his motherfucking dodecaphonic composition method. And that's it!
Or perhaps modern music isn't very popular because it's only interesting for
people who like to think about problems? New music is not for entertainment.
Is there a place for music, that doesn't want to entertain? A scene from
state opera in Vienna: After a visit of a performance of Mozarts "Così fan
tutte" a man says to his wife: "They sang so beautiful today. A nice evening
and so relaxing." (the real joke of this state is only recognizable in
German language) But what will they say after a performance of Lachenmann's
"Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern" in Hamburg? "What a impudence! I have
enough trouble at work, so I don't wanna spend money to watch troubles after
closing time!"
But I'm hopeful. In 50 years there'll be so modern music, that music from
Schönberg or Webern will be as established as the symphonies of Mahler
today.

Open your mind and dare the adventure of modern music!

Greetings to all "classic" people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A ndreas'
C lassical Die Seite für Liebhaber der ernsten Musik.
P age
http://www.classicpage.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS HECK
Tobias-Maurer-Str. 17 - D-86154 Augsburg - Tel: 0049-821 / 416399
eMail ACP: webm...@classicpage.com
email Privat: a...@newsfactory.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"E come vivo? Vivo"
("La Bohème", Giacomo Puccini)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Brian Newhouse]

In article <6frts0$6...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) wrote:

[snip to save screen space]

"
"Given the relentless Hype of our era, isn't it refreshing to be
"devoted to something that takes place so "far from the madding crowd"?
"Stockhausen will never appear on Oprah, Maxwell Davies will never seek
"political office, tabloid gossip columnists will never report on the
"doings of Part and Xenakis, Corigiliano will never appear on the cover

"of People Magazine...

...though Corigliano did in fact appear on the cover of The Advocate
(these day pretty close to the gay equivalent, I regret to say) about the
time of the world premiere of *The ghosts of Versailles*; and he had, I
vaguely recall, a feature article complete with tasteful beefcake shots in
After Dark (!) those many many years back...but somehow I can't imagine
Lou Harrison or Peter Maxwell Davies doing _that_.

--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net

[XSqualeX]

Thank you for your statement I agree with you completly.
Contemporary music is important to any one who has been Enlightned by Music or
knows that beauty is not just music written in the standard tonal form.

Regards
Pasquale A. P.

[Andreas Heck]

Salve!

Caius Marcius wrote <6frts0$6...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...

[snip]

>And before the modern era, there was no ugliness and the world was
>suffused with sweetness and light? I think not......

Naturally there was ugliness. But in the music of former times the law of
aesthetics predominated. I ment that the composers at the beginning of our
century started to reflect the ugliness of the world in their music. Also
the subjects: where was the discussion about the cruelties of the French
Revolution in music? IMO ugliness in world has to find its equivalent in
musical tone.

>>One problem is that in our century art has become a ware. The God of
>our
>>time is the commerce. Only those pieces are published, which are
>promising
>>to be a bestseller.
>

>Isn't this is tad exaggerated? Granted that there is an unholy nexus
>betwixt art and commerce, but nevertheless, there are hundreds of
>musical works published and recorded that have absolutely no chance of
>becoming "bestsellers" or making anyone rich. There is a small
>minority of us who cherish such music and perhaps enable some
>performers and publishers to eke out some small profit from it....

Thank God for the hundreds of publishings - but I want thousands! Why is
there still an imbalance between former an contemporary music? It's not
because of the historical performance practise or for scientific discussion.
Isn't it because the audience wants to be entertained and industry gives
them, what they want? But art has IMO nothing to do with entertainment.
That's a job for Michael Jackson or Luciano Pavarotti. And we are still
discussing about art music? (I don't like the term "classic" for music after
the classical period from (roughly speaking) 1730-1820.) And artists must
search for new ways of working. I think that's a law of art itself. When you
look back in history: only works of those composers survived, which marked a
new way of aesthetics, "language", style and so on. Think about Salieri and
Mozart. Salieri, a very popular and perhaps the formerly most known composer
in Europe is today only worth for a short note in a musical dictionary. And
Mozart: in his last works he hasn't composed the music, the audience wanted
to listen to. So he had to die very poor and in our times he is our "musical
God".

>Given the relentless Hype of our era, isn't it refreshing to be
>devoted to something that takes place so "far from the madding crowd"?
>Stockhausen will never appear on Oprah, Maxwell Davies will never seek
>political office, tabloid gossip columnists will never report on the
>doings of Part and Xenakis, Corigiliano will never appear on the cover

>of People Magazine. Thank God!!

You're right. And it's not a problem to me, that Stockhausen isn't as
popular as Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler is. But I'm getting very
furious, when people talk about modern music as worse music, although they
have not the slightest notion of it. Stupid people are making me angry. But
Thank God, there are other ones in space!

Have a nice day!

[Iian Neill]

> There has been a discussion about contemporary music and I can't
> accept a
> lot of things said there. Unfortunately my client lost the concerning
> news,
> so I send a new one.

Although I disagree with many of your points in this post, I ought to
say first of all that I was impressed with the cogency of your argument,
and the eloquence of which it was phrased.

> The particularities of contemporary music are:
> - It has no global style like romanticism or classic. One of the main
> characteristics is a pluralism of style. So it's very difficult for
> the
> listener to classify a piece. Also there are no more valid
> classifications
> as humanism ore renaissance.

Yes, there has been a riot of styles since the early years of the 20th
century. This is the same in visual arts, as new -isms seem to spring
into existence out of nowhere, every year. Suddenly our world is not
only full of accomplished artists, it is positively thriving with
geniuses throbbing with the power of inspiration, but denied their fame
due to the cruel indifference of an ignorant public ... well, I don't
think so at all. There are reasons that the old forms are preferred by
the majority of people, and I hope to touch upon those a little bit in
this response.

> - Modern artists are reacting on the world outside of them.

Modern artists tend to react more to their cliquey art-world than to the
outside world, I am afraid. If you look at the diversity of modern
styles, you will see that many of them are merely reactions to previous
styles which were in some cases nearly identical but in points of dogma.
Modern artists like to pretend that they are socially concerned, that
they are representative of the 'zeitgeist', the spirit of the times,
that their style is inevitable. This is not so.

> They are reflecting, what happens "outside". That's very important for
> modern
> artists, because art has to be "real" and "true".

It is a shame that there is not more "realism" and art - for the lack of
"real" is precisely what has dethroned art from the high state it once
occupied.

> But when you look at a
> world with it's terrible wars, the modern factorys (Chaplins "Modern
> Times")
> and so on, one has to compose a different music.

Not so - the 19th century wasn't exactly a Golden Age, either, even
compared to the savagery of our own era. Their was a time of wars,
intersperssed with periods of peace. They were no strangers to the
cannons going off in the battle of 1812 (sorry, pardon the pun).
What I mean to say here is that suffering and horror are not exclusive
to our century, and should not be used as an excuse for incompetent,
vicious, ugly, demeaning, and disturbing art-work.
Modern artists (and musicians) are in no way 'obliged' to compose
music that expresses the soul-crushing horrors of our sometimes
miserable existence. In the past, these horrors were recognised, but
artists sought to depict a better world, a world one might like to live
in - a universe of beauty, harmony and imagination. But, at the same
time, they did not crush those artists who depicted the grimmer sides of
life. Look at the Naturalist movement, and the Realists.
Just because we are surrounded by sadness does not mean that we are
automatically obliged to make everyone's life a misery through
depressing and nerve-shattering 'music'. (Perhaps 'sound experiments' is
a better term for some of the more extreme examples.)

> Music now has not longer to
> be beautiful - it can be ugly too, like the world often shows it's
> ugly
> face.

Artists in the past understood the value of ugliness in art - however,
most of them chose not to portray it. There is also a fine line between
artistic ugnlines and inartistic incompetence. If one stretches the
analogy, as people have done, then we might declare the 'works' of
Picasso, Matisse and so on to be just as valid as the paintings of
Delacroix or Courbet. No one is claiming that ugliness is not a part of
life, nor that it should be excluded from art entirely. Ugliness should
be a component of the work, if it is necessary, not the dominating
feature.

> - Most composers searched for new musical systems, away from the tonal
> one.

> The results are: 12-tone music, serial music, musique concrčte,

> electronic
> and electro-acustic music, aleatoric, minimal music, sound
> installations and
> so on.

This has also resulted in the novel and 'new' being praised in expense
of the good and the harmonious. An artist (or composer) in the century
need not necessarily be competent (or even a composer) - all s/he needs
to do is come up with some new slant on some outrageous idea, and then
he has to find a critic to back him up.

> - Because of the possibility to get to know "other" music (like music
> from
> Africa or Asia) musical sound has changed (e.g. Messiaen, Boulez).

These musical forms were also known to the 19th century. Look at Liszt's
discovery and revelling in the music of Hungary and the gypsies; observe
Chopin's transformation of Polish forms into High Art; on a slightly
lower scale, I would also direct you to look at the outstandingly
original, sensuous and melodic music of the American Gottschalk, who
took the melodies of the blacks and Latin America, and, like Chopin,
elevated them into great music. There are also other examples, such as
Tchaikovsky's obvious awareness of certain Eastern music, and also
Balakirev and Moussorgsky, etc.
In fact, our century should have been in the best possible position in
history. Unfortunately, the modernist-inspired movements have ruined our
chances of going down in history as a new renascence of musical form; we
had access to all this music from around the globe, and our composers
have instead set out to destroy art instead.

> Against that is the musical taste of the audiance. Most of them still
> want
> to hear "beautiful" (they mean tonal and harmonic) music. And I don't
> think
> that is because contemporary (I mean atonal) music can't be
> "beautiful" as
> well. To recognize the "beauty" of modern music one has to get to know
> with
> the statements, the composer wanted to make with his music.

Yes, unfortunately, one does seem to need to be a cryptographer to even
understand half of the modern 'art' being spewed forth like so much
vehement vitriol. The first aim of music and art should be to appeal
directly to the senses and perception; however, both forms in our time
have gone out of their way to alienate us from even that simple
pleasure. There are probably no more than five painters alive in our
time who could paint in the manner of Gerome, Ingres, Bouguereau,
Scheffer, Alma-Tadema, etc. And what is the situation in music? Equally
bad - yes, we still have the Giorgio Pacchionis of the world who
continue in the older forms, creating eternal music. But how well known
are they? No, instead we have to be content with hideous avant-garde
sound experiments, or with popular music; oh, for the day when "Figaro"
was being sung in the streets of Prague by the populace - now we'll hear
the public sing the strains of Madonna instead of Mozart.

> It's perverse, because in former times most of the performed music has
> been
> modern music.

No, there is a difference between 'modern' and 'contemporary', although
it is contextual one, I grant you. The contemporary music of
Mendelssohn's era was still music, it was related to a tradition. The
'music' of our era is justly reviled by the musical public as an
abomination.

> Since Mendelssohn's Bach-revival a change occured and today
> only about 5 % of performed music is to be called modern. But how
> important
> is to play the "old" pieces again and again, when we not get down to
> "our"
> music?

If "our" music were good (or indeed music at all) then I would share
your outrage.

> One problem is that in our century art has become a ware. The God of
> our
> time is the commerce. Only those pieces are published, which are
> promising
> to be a bestseller.

No, that isn't the problem - because classical music and art sold even
better in previous centuries than it does today. Artists like Bouguereau
made millions of dollars, while continuing the high standards of their
training. Gottschalk, it is true, pulled the old 'tear-jerker' here and
there, but it least it had a high quality of craftsmanship, even in the
more trivial works. Where is the craftsmanship today? Ah yes ... we
hear it is inhibiting to natural expression. Perhaps Vladimir Horowtiz,
then, spent too long practising and should have 'expressed' himself
without the inhibitions of training at all.

> Who is making the musical taste - the audience or the
> industry? A Picasso - although modern - is "good art" because they can
> sell
> one of his pictures for Millions of Dollars.

Picasso is not good art, and never will be. He is certainly fashionable,
but that is a different thing. He is fashionable, and he sells well
because of an artificially-inflated reputation. But one can't seriously
compare his scrawls to that of the real artists preceding him. Frantic,
incompetent haste should not be mistaken for genius.

> And what about the education of our children? The teacher tells them
> about
> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and so on and ends his musical lessons at
> Mahler. If
> he is a committed teacher, he'll tell the open-minded kids that there
> has
> been a bad guy in Vienna called Schönberg, who killed the beautiful
> music
> with his motherfucking dodecaphonic composition method. And that's it!

It is good to see that children are being taught soem values, then.

> Or perhaps modern music isn't very popular because it's only
> interesting for
> people who like to think about problems? New music is not for
> entertainment.
> Is there a place for music, that doesn't want to entertain? A scene
> from

> state opera in Vienna: After a visit of a performance of Mozarts "Cosě

> fan
> tutte" a man says to his wife: "They sang so beautiful today. A nice
> evening
> and so relaxing." (the real joke of this state is only recognizable in
>
> German language) But what will they say after a performance of
> Lachenmann's
> "Das Mädchen mit den Schwefelhölzern" in Hamburg? "What a impudence! I
> have
> enough trouble at work, so I don't wanna spend money to watch troubles
> after
> closing time!"

Ah ... here we are. Music is only "good" when it presents an
intellectual challenge - like a rebus, or a crossword puzzle. One has to
'nut out' what the whole thing is about, which is why we need the
artist/composer's statement - otherwise it would all be pure guesswork
and unadulterated bullshit. Mozart is not less 'intellectual' than any
of our moderns - he is by far the superior artist. A piece of music is
not intellectual, or "good", because it is difficult to understand - or,
to be more accurate, difficult to like at all. That's the credo of
officialdom in our century - it's no good unless its shocking and ugly.
And the more shocking and ugly it is, the better it is.

> But I'm hopeful. In 50 years there'll be so modern music, that music
> from
> Schönberg or Webern will be as established as the symphonies of Mahler
>
> today.

I sincerely hope not. I hope that History accords them the place they
deserve - in the margins of obscure texts.There are burgeoning signs
that the true values behind art are again being appreciated - but it
will be many years before they will be re-established. For a start,
especially in the visual arts, most of the technical knowledge has been
lost. There are no Masters around today, probably not since Pietro
Annigoni died. It will take many years of hard work before serious
artists have undone the damage of Picasso, Matisse, Shoenberg, Hindemith
and the rest of these Anti-Artists. The problem lies not only in the
lack of knowledge still present, but in the harmful philopshical dogmas
that grip the academia. While money continues to be dumped into the
insane visual arts, and not redirected to fostering sanity and meaning
again in them, then we shall all be under the Post-Modernist hammer of
what is "good" and what is "bad".
At the end of the 19th century there was a survey in France as to who
artists, dealers and the public thought would be the three most
remembered painters in one hundred years time. The survey concluded that
Bouguereau, Gerome and Meissonier were those artists - it is now one
hundred years later, and instead of these Masters we have incompetents
like Picasso, arrogant madmen like Pollock and a proliferation of
increasingly vapid, pseudo-intellectual, hostile and pernicious art
forms.
Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when
historians can look back and laugh, and be glad that the madness has
passed like the bad dream it will be.

Sincerely,

Iian Neill.

[Kjetil Helstrup]

Iian Neill wrote:
>

>
> Picasso is not good art, and never will be.
>

Thanks for informing us!

Kjetil

[zanzibar]

> Sincerely,
>
> Iian Neill.

Wow... Up until then, I was laughing-- I thought it must have been an
April fool's joke. Thanks for straightening out all us ignoramuses who
thought that at least some of what we learned in school was true, and
who dared to develop our own opinions. What I'm going to do as soon as
I finish writing is burn all of my contemporary CD's (no one would buy
them from me, obviously), and my Pollock and Matisse books! (oh, by the
way, congradulations on your mastery of double-think!)

Sincerely,

LM
(sorry for the flame, I just had to get that off my chest)

[Iian Neill]

> >Iian Neill wrote:
> >>
> >> Picasso is not good art, and never will be.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for informing us!

My argument was concise due to interests of brevity. I understand that
my judgements on Picasso and Matisse (just two examples) may seem to
have come from nowhere, but I do have reasons for them.

If anybody wishes to debate the point, I am happy to give you those
reasons - but I did not feel that it was particularly appropriate to
clutter the letter with the inevitably long and detailed explanation.

Sincerely,

Iian Neill.

[Iian Neill]

zanzibar wrote:

> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Iian Neill.
> >
> >Wow... Up until then, I was laughing-- I thought it must have been an
>
> >April fool's joke. Thanks for straightening out all us ignoramuses
> who
> >thought that at least some of what we learned in school was true, and
>
> >who dared to develop our own opinions.

I learnt at the Visual Arts course at university that Picasso & Matisse
were the Fathers of Modern Art, and hence, great. I also learnt that the
public had to be taught how to like contemporary art, and it was for
their own good. I wasn't, unfortunately, taught about the Artistes
Pompiers, the Academic painters, and now was technique, skill, nor
competence ever mentioned particularly favourably. So, you might say
that I too have dared to go against the mainstream. But it is a pretty
sad state of affairs when the 'mainstream' is as it is at present.

> > What I'm going to do as soon as
> >I finish writing is burn all of my contemporary CD's (no one would
> buy
> >them from me, obviously), and my Pollock and Matisse books! (oh, by
> the
> >way, congradulations on your mastery of double-think!)

Thank you for the dubious 'compliment', and yes, certainly feel free to
burn your books on Picasso if you wish. I wouldn't, though - it will be
useful to keep them in future years to see just how seriously an entire
century of academics regarded incompetence as High Art.
I have no problem with people liking these artists, nor that music -
after all it, *is* a free world - what I do have an objection to is the
official enshrinement of these 'artists' as great masters, and the
subsequent persecution of those artists/composers who dare to pursue the
older styles.
Regarding 'double-think' - I've heard of 'double-talk' - are they one
and the same thing?

> >LM
> >(sorry for the flame, I just had to get that off my chest)

Let's not end in a flame, though - I am interested to hear your point of
view. It is easier to flame than it is to present an argument. I want to
hear your side of the story. What makes Picasso & Matisse great, what
redeems the sound experiments of John Cage ... this is a forum for
music/art, so we might as well discuss it.

Sincerely,

Iian Neill.

[Andreas Heck]

Hi Iian!

First of all it was very hard for me to read and above all to translate all
your statements.
And what you're saying concerning contemporary music is not only wrong, it's
dangerous, because of the intolerance. Some composers had to die for their
music, because the fucking Nazis said, that the music they had composed was
degenerated art ("entartete Kunst").

So one after another:

>Modern artists like to pretend that they are socially concerned, that
>they are representative of the 'zeitgeist', the spirit of the times,
>that their style is inevitable. This is not so.

Why do ya know this. Does any artist said it like that to you. Perhaps while
drinking coffee?

>It is a shame that there is not more "realism" and art - for the lack of
>"real" is precisely what has dethroned art from the high state it once
>occupied.

Thank God realism has gone out of art. No more socialist realism like
pictures of Stalin or Lenin and no more photo realistic ones as boring as a
picture of my grandma. I'd rather go outside and look at the world with my
own eyes or just watch a photographie. And the reason, why art has been
dethroned, is not that lack of realism. It's the question "how much bucks
can I make with art" and "how many people want to see the art". But don't
forget, a artist, whether you like his art or not, has to do his work and
has not to do things, a majority demands.

> What I mean to say here is that suffering and horror are not exclusive
>to our century, and should not be used as an excuse for incompetent,
>vicious, ugly, demeaning, and disturbing art-work.

You're right: suffering and horror are not exclusive for us. But the artists
of our world don't take their eyes off the problems. They are reflecting
what happens around them.
Tough words. But who is concerned? I don't know any incompetent composer
apart from me perhaps, because I'm learning composing by myself. Ok, I know
a lot of unimportant composers. But they have lived in all centuries. When I
read your further statements I think you mean every non-realistic composing
or painting artist, who worked in 20th century. What a pity!

> Modern artists (and musicians) are in no way 'obliged' to compose
>music that expresses the soul-crushing horrors of our sometimes
>miserable existence. In the past, these horrors were recognised, but
>artists sought to depict a better world, a world one might like to live
>in - a universe of beauty, harmony and imagination. But, at the same
>time, they did not crush those artists who depicted the grimmer sides of
>life. Look at the Naturalist movement, and the Realists.

Wake up now. Siegmund Freud has already discovered the human psyche. If you
want to hear naturalistic or realistic music with beauty and harmony please
try German national folk music like the "Wildegger Herzbuben" (in English
nearly "The Wildegger (a small town in the Alpes) Heart boys). Or stay with
the wonderful music of former times. But you will not find that in modern
art.

> Just because we are surrounded by sadness does not mean that we are
>automatically obliged to make everyone's life a misery through
>depressing and nerve-shattering 'music'. (Perhaps 'sound experiments' is
>a better term for some of the more extreme examples.)

Now I know the problem! You want to be entertained. Same solution with the
"Wildegger Herzbuben" oder perhaps Jonny Cash.

>Artists in the past understood the value of ugliness in art - however,
>most of them chose not to portray it. There is also a fine line between
>artistic ugnlines and inartistic incompetence. If one stretches the
>analogy, as people have done, then we might declare the 'works' of
>Picasso, Matisse and so on to be just as valid as the paintings of
>Delacroix or Courbet. No one is claiming that ugliness is not a part of
>life, nor that it should be excluded from art entirely. Ugliness should
>be a component of the work, if it is necessary, not the dominating
>feature.

I know a lot of works, in which ugliness isn't the dominating feature. Try
some Britten, Henze or Reich (a very realistic composer - what is more
realistic: a fugue by Bach or a siren in the opera of Ligeti?).

>This has also resulted in the novel and 'new' being praised in expense
>of the good and the harmonious. An artist (or composer) in the century
>need not necessarily be competent (or even a composer) - all s/he needs
>to do is come up with some new slant on some outrageous idea, and then
>he has to find a critic to back him up.

That's art. When a development in art no longer takes place, it won't be art
any more. And you'll have to agree, when you look back til the classical
antiquity. Mozart has gone further like Haydn, Beethoven like Mozart,
Schubert like Beethoven and so on.

>These musical forms were also known to the 19th century. Look at Liszt's
>discovery and revelling in the music of Hungary and the gypsies; observe
>Chopin's transformation of Polish forms into High Art; on a slightly
>lower scale, I would also direct you to look at the outstandingly
>original, sensuous and melodic music of the American Gottschalk, who
>took the melodies of the blacks and Latin America, and, like Chopin,
>elevated them into great music. There are also other examples, such as
>Tchaikovsky's obvious awareness of certain Eastern music, and also
>Balakirev and Moussorgsky, etc.

I don't meant that. Because hungarian music has not been that far away for a
french/polish composer like chopin as for ex. Gamelan music from Asia was
for the french composer Debussy. Also take a look at the extreme rhythmics
in Ligeti's piano concerto, where he's overlaying an european with an asian
rhythem. What arises is a complete new rhythem.

> In fact, our century should have been in the best possible position in
>history. Unfortunately, the modernist-inspired movements have ruined our
>chances of going down in history as a new renascence of musical form; we
>had access to all this music from around the globe, and our composers
>have instead set out to destroy art instead.

1) That modernist movements have ruined our chances for historical work is
incorrect. There has been no century before, where so many old music was
resuscitated. And please take a look at selling catalogues for recordings.
How much recordings of works by Mozart or Beethoven can you find? And how
much by Schoenberg? 2) Aren't we accessing to all music from around the
globe? Please contact some music scientists. 3) Our composers have destroyed
art? That's not only wrong, but rediculous! Art cannot be destroyed. That's
like trying to destroy human thinking. And modern artists only have
established new ways of making art. But the older ones like baroque or
classic are still present. And they are not only present, they have
numerical superiority (above all in music).

>Yes, unfortunately, one does seem to need to be a cryptographer to even
>understand half of the modern 'art' being spewed forth like so much
>vehement vitriol.

One and a half year ago I've found, that modern music is just noise and
stupid. Then I'll began to open my mind and I've tried to be tolerant. And
although I'm everything but a cryptographer I've learned something about the
special "language" of modern music. I won't say that I understand every work
e.g. like the recent sound installations performed in Donaueschingen (one of
the most important festival for new music in Europe), but I'll get touched
by most of modern music I listened to the last 18 month. And the result is,
that I prefer to listen to Boulez or Henze (because it's so exciting) and
listen to my beloved Beethoven, when I want to have pleasure.

>The first aim of music and art should be to appeal
>directly to the senses and perception; however, both forms in our time
>have gone out of their way to alienate us from even that simple
>pleasure.

Sounds also wrong to me. What do you mean with "pleasure". To be well
entertained like the man after a performance at the state opera of Vienna or
a 14 year old girl after a concert of the Back Street Boys? Or do you like
music just to relax? Or do you mean the stimulating and exciting moments in
modern music?

>There are probably no more than five painters alive in our
>time who could paint in the manner of Gerome, Ingres, Bouguereau,
>Scheffer, Alma-Tadema, etc. And what is the situation in music? Equally
>bad - yes, we still have the Giorgio Pacchionis of the world who
>continue in the older forms, creating eternal music. But how well known
>are they? No, instead we have to be content with hideous avant-garde
>sound experiments, or with popular music; oh, for the day when "Figaro"
>was being sung in the streets of Prague by the populace - now we'll hear
>the public sing the strains of Madonna instead of Mozart.

Please, say "Goodbye" to the good old ones, they've just passed by. Modern
music might be bad for you, but I'm sure you won't state, that it is in
general. Not only because art never can be good or bad. I've stated that
before. It can be important or not (has to do with development). Best
example for me is Salieri vs. Mozart.
And how lucky we are, that composers, continuing in the old forms, are not
well known. Because that has nothing to do with art, that's at most
reactionary and boring.
The people of Prague maybe have sung "Figaro", but they also have sung
popular music of their time like we do today. That has also nothing to do
with modern art. By the way, when I go shopping with my little son, I prefer
to sing "The Magic Flute".

>No, there is a difference between 'modern' and 'contemporary', although
>it is contextual one, I grant you. The contemporary music of
>Mendelssohn's era was still music, it was related to a tradition. The
>'music' of our era is justly reviled by the musical public as an
>abomination.

Wow, now it's getting quite low. 1) Contemporary music of our time is also
still music, although forms have changed and some new forms like sound
events have established. Or what do think, Mozart would have said about
"Tristan and Isolde"? 2) Contemporary music has also its tradition. No
composer is able to compose without his roots. Not only that they first of
all learn the traditional way of composing, they even won't be able to find
new ways of expressing themselve without knowing their predecessors. 3) When
you talk about the "musical public" than please do not confound with your
musical taste. And I hope, that modern artists don't make their work for
"public". Madonna is making a quiet better job for that. And look back to
your sweet history and compare the works for ex. by Beethoven he composed
for the musical public and what he composed without looking after the
musical taste of the majority. Still don't forget the example Antonio
Salieri. He composed for the "musical public". Mozart nearly always not.

>If "our" music were good (or indeed music at all) then I would share
>your outrage.

Next mistake. "Good" is just an expression for taste. But not to say
something about a musical piece. You don't like modern music. I can accept
that. But please accept, that there are many others with another taste.

>No, that isn't the problem - because classical music and art sold even
>better in previous centuries than it does today.

Oops? Please compare Mozart and Andrew Lloyd Webber. Who has earned more
money and who composed for the taste of the majority? Don't ignore the
mechanism of the musical market. Or why is Pavarotti earning Millions for
only one concert. Because he's good? Or is it because he sings "O sole mio"?
Or just because he is giving the audience their dreams and "good emotions"?

>Picasso is not good art, and never will be. He is certainly fashionable,
>but that is a different thing. He is fashionable, and he sells well
>because of an artificially-inflated reputation. But one can't seriously
>compare his scrawls to that of the real artists preceding him. Frantic,
>incompetent haste should not be mistaken for genius.

Sorry, but that's too much for me. I don't know how much others like you
will make the statement, that Picasso is not good art. I think, that most
people will say, that he has been one of the greatest and most important
artists in this century and of all time. And that has nothing to do, whether
you like his paintings or not. There's a quality above the taste of the
masses.

>It is good to see that children are being taught soem values, then.

Now I know! You're even a reactionary one. Or just conservative? History
ends not at the year 1899. When you wait a second you have history again and
again. Do you demand censorship? Very dangerous, above all in the education
of our children. I know that from Germany. The education in the third Reich
and in the former Demokratic Republic of Germany. People should never
forget, what censorship does to a nation.

>Ah ... here we are. Music is only "good" when it presents an
>intellectual challenge - like a rebus, or a crossword puzzle. One has to
>'nut out' what the whole thing is about, which is why we need the
>artist/composer's statement - otherwise it would all be pure guesswork
>and unadulterated bullshit. Mozart is not less 'intellectual' than any
>of our moderns - he is by far the superior artist. A piece of music is
>not intellectual, or "good", because it is difficult to understand - or,
>to be more accurate, difficult to like at all. That's the credo of
>officialdom in our century - it's no good unless its shocking and ugly.
>And the more shocking and ugly it is, the better it is.

I don't have said that. But don't you think that most people do not want to
go down to the e.g. mysticism of Mozarts "Magic Flute" but to enjoy the
wonderful music. That doesn't mean that I criticize those ones. They have to
listen to the music like they want to. But they must not lament, when they
can't enjoy Boulez' "Notations" at a concert, because they've never read
anything about him and his way of composing. And because of some reasons I
stated in the former mail, new music often is more complecated to catch. But
we are used to listen to music like Mozart's. To enjoy modern music first of
all you have to "educate your ear". Often is has nothing to do with
"intellectual".

>
>> But I'm hopeful. In 50 years there'll be so modern music, that music
>> from
>> Schönberg or Webern will be as established as the symphonies of Mahler
>>
>> today.
>
>I sincerely hope not. I hope that History accords them the place they
>deserve - in the margins of obscure texts.There are burgeoning signs
>that the true values behind art are again being appreciated - but it
>will be many years before they will be re-established.

Sorry, but that is bullshit! Tank God that it is only one opinion among
millions. And please forgive my bad tone, but such mental outpour makes me
sick. I hope one day you'll recognize that art is nothing but a way of
expressing the emotions, feelings and reactions on the enviroment of men. By
the way: did you know that the first paintings of the Stone Age were painted
in an abstract and not a realistic way?

>It will take many years of hard work before serious
>artists have undone the damage of Picasso, Matisse, Shoenberg, Hindemith
>and the rest of these Anti-Artists. The problem lies not only in the
>lack of knowledge still present, but in the harmful philopshical dogmas
>that grip the academia. While money continues to be dumped into the
>insane visual arts, and not redirected to fostering sanity and meaning
>again in them, then we shall all be under the Post-Modernist hammer of
>what is "good" and what is "bad".

Ah, now I understand. That's a satire! You want to test me. I got it. Here's
my answer: For understanding "good" and "bad" please read the Bible,
Genesis, I.3!

> At the end of the 19th century there was a survey in France as to who
>artists, dealers and the public thought would be the three most
>remembered painters in one hundred years time. The survey concluded that
>Bouguereau, Gerome and Meissonier were those artists - it is now one
>hundred years later, and instead of these Masters we have incompetents
>like Picasso, arrogant madmen like Pollock and a proliferation of
>increasingly vapid, pseudo-intellectual, hostile and pernicious art
>forms.

The only pseudo-intelectual and hostile things are your statements about
art.

> Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when
>historians can look back and laugh, and be glad that the madness has
>passed like the bad dream it will be.

Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when people
can look back and laugh about your statements, and be glad that the madness
has passed like the bad dream it still is.

Sincerely, Andreas Heck.

[Iian Neill]

Dear Andreas,

> First of all it was very hard for me to read and above all to
> translate all
> your statements.

Again, as in my previous letter, I salute your eloquence - you bring up
some strong points which I would like to address in this letter. You
must understand that I disagree with most of your points, but that
doesn't stop me appreciating the fact that you chose to respond with
logical argument, rather than flaming.

> And what you're saying concerning contemporary music is not only
> wrong, it's
> dangerous, because of the intolerance. Some composers had to die for
> their
> music, because the fucking Nazis said, that the music they had
> composed was
> degenerated art ("entartete Kunst").

Firstly, the Nazis and Hitler were monsters - I won't disagree with you
on that point. I've heard that Hitler condemned the art of his time as
degenerate, and had planned to take revolting and inhuman steps to
'rectify' that matter. But Hitler was a butcher, and just because he
liked Wagner and the German classical music tradition does not mean that
those things share in his evil. Likewise, just because he despised
Modern Art and music does not mean that it too is bad - one has to judge
on criteria other than Hitler's personal aesthetic tastes. I hope you'll
agree with that much.

> >Modern artists like to pretend that they are socially concerned, that
>
> >they are representative of the 'zeitgeist', the spirit of the times,
> >that their style is inevitable. This is not so.
>
> Why do ya know this. Does any artist said it like that to you. Perhaps
> while
> drinking coffee?

I've had 'coffee', so to speak with Modern Artists before. I studied
Visual Arts at the University of Tasmania for a year, and I made friends
there. These friends chose to pursue the modern styles in their works,
and that was fair enough - my quarrel was not with them, but with the
teachers who were denying all of us an education in the principles
behind art - that of draftsmanship, perspective, et cetera. These
teachers did not 'teach', you might say - even the Moderns there were
fed up. I don't wish to sound like that I condemn Modern Artists
personally - because I do not. My Modern friends were kind people, and
very intelligent - what I disagreed with them about was the definition
of 'art', and we were happy to 'agree to disagree'. There were cheerful
arguments now and then, but no real hostility. We allowed each other to
get on with our work.
Now, when I said that 'modern artists like to see their art as the
zeitgeist', I meant that the officialdom of Modern Art does indeed like
to put forth the propoganda that contemporary art is 'modern',
up-to-date - in other words, 'progressive'. ('Progressive' as opposed to
'retrogressive' or 'reactionary', which is what you called me later on.)

> >It is a shame that there is not more "realism" and art - for the lack
> of
> >"real" is precisely what has dethroned art from the high state it
> once
> >occupied.
>
> Thank God realism has gone out of art. No more socialist realism like
> pictures of Stalin or Lenin and no more photo realistic ones as boring
> as a
> picture of my grandma.

Realism is not to be associated with any particular group - that is as
logical as claiming that fugues are Communist because a Soviet composer
might have used them a lot in his work. That is nonsense. The fact that
Stalin and Lenin used social realism for their propoganda merely shows
that they wanted to promulgate their own ideas as far and wide, and as
clearly, as possible. It would be just as silly to condemn advertisments
today as being 'evil' because they use realistic symbols & figures.

> I'd rather go outside and look at the world with my
> own eyes or just watch a photographie.

Now, this is a much stronger point, and I'd like to address it.
You are equating realism here with photography, and seem to be
claiming that it is 'boring' because it merely presents a view of the
outside world. Have you looked at the paintings of Rubens, Michelangelo,
Velasquez, Goya, etc.? The reason these artists (and many, many more)
depicted the outside world (representationalism) was because they
understood that to convey emotions and ideas to other people, they need
to use a 'language' which transcended the parochial boundaries of
culture and language itself. I do not need to speak Italian to perceive
the grandeur and nobility of the Sistine Chapel ceiling - I do not need
to know French to appreciate the rich chromaticism of Jean-Leon Gerome's
Orientalist paintings.
A realistic technique that rivals photography is the most supremely
difficult hurdle for an artist to master. We are all born incompetent,
and it is only with years of hard work and training that we 'free'
ourselves to express our ideas.
Painters such as Munch may have conveyed certain aesthetic sensations
through his garish use of colour, but he conveys little more than this
because his technical equipment is very poor. Picasso's equipment was
stronger, I agree, but he too has sever faults in his technique.
Would you go up to Vladimir Horowitz and say to him: "Look, sir, all
those years of training only served to hinder your self-expression. You
should let go! - forget how to play scales, arpeggios, etc., and just
play whatever you *feel* at the keyboard!"
We all know that such pianists as Horowitz could never express music
so powerfully did he not too have a powerful technique. Certainly,
technique is not the be all and end all - there also needs to be talent
and inspiration. But these two faculties are not served well when the
technique is faulty. And this technique can either be through
draftsmanship, musical performance, acting, or whatever.

> And the reason, why art has been
> dethroned, is not that lack of realism. It's the question "how much
> bucks
> can I make with art" and "how many people want to see the art". But
> don't
> forget, a artist, whether you like his art or not, has to do his work
> and
> has not to do things, a majority demands.

Absolutely, there has always been the perennial problem of where the
line ends between great art and fashionable art. How much did Beethoven
write for his public, and how much for 'himself'? That is always a point
of contention. But that isn't what has brought Modern Art down to its
lowly state, not that entirely. Yes, certainly, there are plenty of
artists around (note: in ALL periods), not just now) who prostituted
their skills to make big bucks. (L.M. Gottschalk cheerfully admitted
this regarding certain of his more sentimental pieces - but this doesn't
automatically follow that the rest of his ouevre was 'bad'.)
So, I will agree that it is a problem - but it is not THE problem.

> > What I mean to say here is that suffering and horror are not
> exclusive
> >to our century, and should not be used as an excuse for incompetent,
> >vicious, ugly, demeaning, and disturbing art-work.
>
> You're right: suffering and horror are not exclusive for us. But the
> artists
> of our world don't take their eyes off the problems. They are
> reflecting
> what happens around them.

And no one denies that artists should reflect and contemplate the social
realities - but should that element be so dominant that most other forms
of artistic expression are ridiculed and excluded from Academia?

> Tough words. But who is concerned? I don't know any incompetent
> composer
> apart from me perhaps, because I'm learning composing by myself. Ok, I
> know
> a lot of unimportant composers. But they have lived in all centuries.

I agree - incompetence is not limited to our times.

> When I
> read your further statements I think you mean every non-realistic
> composing
> or painting artist, who worked in 20th century. What a pity!

Ah, but there *are* good artists and composers in this century. Look at
the 'Concierto de Aranjeuz', or some of Villa-Lobos' work. And I also
happen to like the folk music of Hungary and South America, but that's
another story ...

> > Modern artists (and musicians) are in no way 'obliged' to compose
> >music that expresses the soul-crushing horrors of our sometimes
> >miserable existence. In the past, these horrors were recognised, but
> >artists sought to depict a better world, a world one might like to
> live
> >in - a universe of beauty, harmony and imagination. But, at the same
> >time, they did not crush those artists who depicted the grimmer sides
> of
> >life. Look at the Naturalist movement, and the Realists.
>
> Wake up now. Siegmund Freud has already discovered the human psyche.
> If you
> want to hear naturalistic or realistic music with beauty and harmony
> please
> try German national folk music like the "Wildegger Herzbuben" (in
> English
> nearly "The Wildegger (a small town in the Alpes) Heart boys). Or stay
> with
> the wonderful music of former times. But you will not find that in
> modern
> art.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that harmonious
and beautiful music is superficial, or not as important as music which
is very unpleasant? Please clarify your point.

> > Just because we are surrounded by sadness does not mean that we are
>
> >automatically obliged to make everyone's life a misery through
> >depressing and nerve-shattering 'music'. (Perhaps 'sound experiments'
> is
> >a better term for some of the more extreme examples.)
>
> Now I know the problem! You want to be entertained. Same solution with
> the
> "Wildegger Herzbuben" oder perhaps Jonny Cash.

Entertainment is only a small part of it - if I want entertainment, I
listen to "Variations on the Brazilian National Hymn" by Gottschalk. But
if I want serious, intense music, I instead turn to Chopin, Beethoven,
Liszt and so forth. I would hardly describe Chopin's "Funeral Sonata" as
'pleasant', but it is a tremendously great piece of music.

> I know a lot of works, in which ugliness isn't the dominating feature.
> Try
> some Britten, Henze or Reich (a very realistic composer - what is more
>
> realistic: a fugue by Bach or a siren in the opera of Ligeti?).

I will look into these composers at the nearest opportunity, and get
back to you.

> >This has also resulted in the novel and 'new' being praised in
> expense
> >of the good and the harmonious. An artist (or composer) in the
> century
> >need not necessarily be competent (or even a composer) - all s/he
> needs
> >to do is come up with some new slant on some outrageous idea, and
> then
> >he has to find a critic to back him up.
>
> That's art. When a development in art no longer takes place, it won't
> be art
> any more. And you'll have to agree, when you look back til the
> classical
> antiquity. Mozart has gone further like Haydn, Beethoven like Mozart,
> Schubert like Beethoven and so on.

I agree that new-ness and originality is a feature of art - but should
it be the dominant feature, so prevalent that we sacrifice standards for
it? I don't think so.

> >These musical forms were also known to the 19th century. Look at
> Liszt's
> >discovery and revelling in the music of Hungary and the gypsies;
> observe
> >Chopin's transformation of Polish forms into High Art; on a slightly
> >lower scale, I would also direct you to look at the outstandingly
> >original, sensuous and melodic music of the American Gottschalk, who
> >took the melodies of the blacks and Latin America, and, like Chopin,
> >elevated them into great music. There are also other examples, such
> as
> >Tchaikovsky's obvious awareness of certain Eastern music, and also
> >Balakirev and Moussorgsky, etc.
>
> I don't meant that. Because hungarian music has not been that far away
> for a
> french/polish composer like chopin as for ex. Gamelan music from Asia
> was
> for the french composer Debussy. Also take a look at the extreme
> rhythmics
> in Ligeti's piano concerto, where he's overlaying an european with an
> asian

> rhythem. What arises is a complete new rhythm.

Certainly, new rhythms are interesting and may bring revitalisation to
Music. When handled by competent (at least) composers, these new
elements can enrich the art of music; but if novelty out-strips quality,
then we are in trouble ...

> > In fact, our century should have been in the best possible position
> in
> >history. Unfortunately, the modernist-inspired movements have ruined
> our
> >chances of going down in history as a new renascence of musical form;
> we
> >had access to all this music from around the globe, and our composers
>
> >have instead set out to destroy art instead.
>
> 1) That modernist movements have ruined our chances for historical
> work is
> incorrect. There has been no century before, where so many old music
> was
> resuscitated. And please take a look at selling catalogues for
> recordings.
> How much recordings of works by Mozart or Beethoven can you find? And
> how
> much by Schoenberg?

Are you arguing here that because it is easier to find Mozart and
Beethoven, compared to Schoenberg, that Music is still alive and well?
Certainly, granted, musical performance is running splendidly - but what
I was referring to was the 'living' tradition of Music composition
itself. Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?

> 2) Aren't we accessing to all music from around the
> globe? Please contact some music scientists.

You won't find disagreement with me here. I think it's wonderful that
the music of other cultures is becoming more well-known. Personally, I
rather like Middle Eastern music, and South American folk music.

> 3) Our composers have destroyed
> art? That's not only wrong, but rediculous! Art cannot be destroyed.
> That's
> like trying to destroy human thinking. And modern artists only have
> established new ways of making art. But the older ones like baroque or
>
> classic are still present. And they are not only present, they have
> numerical superiority (above all in music).

Art itself cannot be destroyed - but the *tradition* of art can be. The
tradition of Classical/Romantic painting has certainly been derailed
seriously, and may not get back on track until many years from now. This
is due to the prevailing aesthetic dogma, as well as the more practical
problem that artists today have lost some of the important lessons of
the past, as these techniques were handed down from Master to pupil, and
so on. That tradition has been broken.
So Art, as a tradition, as a living, growing entity, has been
seriously impaired.

> >Yes, unfortunately, one does seem to need to be a cryptographer to
> even
> >understand half of the modern 'art' being spewed forth like so much
> >vehement vitriol.
>
> One and a half year ago I've found, that modern music is just noise
> and
> stupid. Then I'll began to open my mind and I've tried to be tolerant.

What changed your mind? Before you thought modern music was noise - and
today, you think the opposite. What happened in between, if I might ask?

> >The first aim of music and art should be to appeal
> >directly to the senses and perception; however, both forms in our
> time
> >have gone out of their way to alienate us from even that simple
> >pleasure.
>
> Sounds also wrong to me. What do you mean with "pleasure". To be well
> entertained like the man after a performance at the state opera of
> Vienna or
> a 14 year old girl after a concert of the Back Street Boys? Or do you
> like
> music just to relax? Or do you mean the stimulating and exciting
> moments in
> modern music?

No, I don't just mean 'pleasure' in the superficial sense. I get great
aesthetic satisfaction out of Liszt's B minor Piano Sonata, and out of
his 'horrific' "Totentanz" - "Totentanz" is far from pleasing in the
sense that you mean here. But it is a wonderful work, full of great,
dark power.

> > No, instead we have to be content with hideous avant-garde
> >sound experiments, or with popular music; oh, for the day when
> "Figaro"
> >was being sung in the streets of Prague by the populace - now we'll
> hear
> >the public sing the strains of Madonna instead of Mozart.
>
> Please, say "Goodbye" to the good old ones, they've just passed by.
> Modern
> music might be bad for you, but I'm sure you won't state, that it is
> in
> general.

I won't label all modern music as bad, certainly. Certain works of
Rodrigo, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, et cetera - these composers
have some wonderful pieces, and it would be a gross insult to call their
work 'incompetent'. But this is not what I meant, and never was - I
refer more to the tendencies of Modern Art & Music, not so much its
specific pracitioners, although I have mentioned a few examples who I
think expemplify it quite well. However, even though I don't personally
like Picasso's work, I am willing to re-appraise him if I find something
of worth in it. The same with Salvador Dali and Magritte - they are both
'modern' artists, but also in full posession of the soveriegn powers of
technical mastery, especially Dali. So while I am no devoted fan of
their paintings, I can appreciate some of them.

> And how lucky we are, that composers, continuing in the old forms, are
> not
> well known. Because that has nothing to do with art, that's at most
> reactionary and boring.

Composers should not continue with the old forms just for the sake of it
- the old forms, too, can be terribly realised in the works of
incompetents. One shouldn't write fugues just because Bach did - that is
not reason enough. Repitition of the past is not a thing to be lauded,
although it can be appreciated in a different sense (in the sense of
pure craftsmanship). One has to strike a fine line between tradition
and innovation.

> >No, there is a difference between 'modern' and 'contemporary',
> although
> >it is contextual one, I grant you. The contemporary music of
> >Mendelssohn's era was still music, it was related to a tradition. The
>
> >'music' of our era is justly reviled by the musical public as an
> >abomination.
>
> Wow, now it's getting quite low. 1) Contemporary music of our time is
> also
> still music, although forms have changed and some new forms like sound
>
> events have established. Or what do think, Mozart would have said
> about
> "Tristan and Isolde"?

Certain works of our time are still music - I have trouble regarding
"Four Minutes and Thirty" by Cage as music, though.

> 2) Contemporary music has also its tradition. No
> composer is able to compose without his roots. Not only that they
> first of
> all learn the traditional way of composing, they even won't be able to
> find
> new ways of expressing themselve without knowing their predecessors.

We are in agreement here. I diverge on one point, though: How much have
the Moderns truly kept to the traditions? Yes, they have 'innovated'
(12-tone scale, etc.) but how much of that has been pure experimentation
of novelty value, and how much of that is of lasting quality? Perhaps
only Time can answer that one.

> >If "our" music were good (or indeed music at all) then I would share
> >your outrage.
>
> Next mistake. "Good" is just an expression for taste. But not to say
> something about a musical piece. You don't like modern music. I can
> accept
> that. But please accept, that there are many others with another
> taste.

I have no problem with your liking Schoenberg - it is a free world, as
I've said elswhere. My real argument lies with the schools, the
universities, et cetera, basically, the academia, the people who set the
aesthetic/philosophical trends of the intelligentsia. I am happy for
modern art to produced alongside the more 'classical' art - I don't
think, though, that it should dominate, which is what it does today!

> >No, that isn't the problem - because classical music and art sold
> even
> >better in previous centuries than it does today.
>
> Oops? Please compare Mozart and Andrew Lloyd Webber. Who has earned
> more
> money and who composed for the taste of the majority? Don't ignore the
>
> mechanism of the musical market. Or why is Pavarotti earning Millions
> for
> only one concert. Because he's good? Or is it because he sings "O sole
> mio"?
> Or just because he is giving the audience their dreams and "good
> emotions"?

OK, point taken.

> >Picasso is not good art, and never will be. He is certainly
> fashionable,
> >but that is a different thing. He is fashionable, and he sells well
> >because of an artificially-inflated reputation. But one can't
> seriously
> >compare his scrawls to that of the real artists preceding him.
> Frantic,
> >incompetent haste should not be mistaken for genius.
>
> Sorry, but that's too much for me. I don't know how much others like
> you
> will make the statement, that Picasso is not good art. I think, that
> most
> people will say, that he has been one of the greatest and most
> important
> artists in this century and of all time. And that has nothing to do,
> whether
> you like his paintings or not. There's a quality above the taste of
> the
> masses.

Agreed - and I am trying to speak objectively about Picasso's art. I can
appreciate certain of his paintings, but his works as a whole appear to
me to be incompetent. And you have seen from my previous statements that
I consider competence the very least that any artist needs to be lauded
- every artist from the actor, to the painter, to the musician.

> >It is good to see that children are being taught soem values, then.
>
> Now I know! You're even a reactionary one. Or just conservative?
> History
> ends not at the year 1899.

I would rather be a reactionary with Anton Rubinstein, who considered
music died with Chopin (which I *don't* agree with), then be counted
among some of the more extreme Modernists.

> When you wait a second you have history again and
> again. Do you demand censorship? Very dangerous, above all in the
> education
> of our children.

No censorship - there should not be censorship. But there already has
been in the traditional arts; the painting of Bouguereau, Gerome,
Alma-Tadema and so forth were locked way in the basements of museums for
decades, until a critical re-assessment deemed them worthy of
inspection. I am happy, I will repeat, I am happy to have museums
dedicated to Modern Art - but I don't agree that it should detract from
those artists (past and present) who worked in a more realistic, and
approachable style.

> I know that from Germany. The education in the third Reich
> and in the former Demokratic Republic of Germany. People should never
> forget, what censorship does to a nation.

I agree - I despise censorship. But, you must understood, because we
both despise it, we must allow the other their say. So I am entitled
(perhaps in all my ignorance and stupidity, eh?) to declare that I think
the trend of Modern Art is harmful.

> >Ah ... here we are. Music is only "good" when it presents an
> >intellectual challenge - like a rebus, or a crossword puzzle. One has
> to
> >'nut out' what the whole thing is about, which is why we need the
> >artist/composer's statement - otherwise it would all be pure
> guesswork
> >and unadulterated bullshit. Mozart is not less 'intellectual' than
> any
> >of our moderns - he is by far the superior artist. A piece of music
> is
> >not intellectual, or "good", because it is difficult to understand -
> or,
> >to be more accurate, difficult to like at all. That's the credo of
> >officialdom in our century - it's no good unless its shocking and
> ugly.
> >And the more shocking and ugly it is, the better it is.
>
> I don't have said that. But don't you think that most people do not
> want to
> go down to the e.g. mysticism of Mozarts "Magic Flute" but to enjoy
> the
> wonderful music. That doesn't mean that I criticize those ones.

Understood.

> They have to
> listen to the music like they want to. But they must not lament, when
> they
> can't enjoy Boulez' "Notations" at a concert, because they've never
> read
> anything about him and his way of composing. And because of some
> reasons I
> stated in the former mail, new music often is more complecated to
> catch. But
> we are used to listen to music like Mozart's. To enjoy modern music
> first of
> all you have to "educate your ear". Often is has nothing to do with
> "intellectual".

This is a point I am not sure I agree with - I'd refer you to Tolstoy's
essay, "What is Art?", in particular, for an answer to that claim.

> >> But I'm hopeful. In 50 years there'll be so modern music, that
> music
> >> from
> >> Schönberg or Webern will be as established as the symphonies of
> Mahler
> >>
> >> today.
> >
> >I sincerely hope not. I hope that History accords them the place they
>
> >deserve - in the margins of obscure texts.There are burgeoning signs
> >that the true values behind art are again being appreciated - but it
> >will be many years before they will be re-established.
>
> Sorry, but that is bullshit! Tank God that it is only one opinion
> among
> millions.

Maybe I am only one person in the Academia - but I have sympathies with
many outside of it. Millions more than you may think.

> And please forgive my bad tone, but such mental outpour makes me
> sick. I hope one day you'll recognize that art is nothing but a way of
>
> expressing the emotions, feelings and reactions on the enviroment of
> men.

This is very ironic, because I agree with your definition of art here -
but I don't apply in the sense that you do.

> By
> the way: did you know that the first paintings of the Stone Age were
> painted
> in an abstract and not a realistic way?

Yes, I did. How realistic art is depends on one's 'schemata', according
to Gombrich. That is, what the society considers is realism at the time.
So, da Vinci was a great and pleasant surprise, as he surpassed
Botticelli; and Bernini was the same, etc.

> > At the end of the 19th century there was a survey in France as to
> who
> >artists, dealers and the public thought would be the three most
> >remembered painters in one hundred years time. The survey concluded
> that
> >Bouguereau, Gerome and Meissonier were those artists - it is now one
> >hundred years later, and instead of these Masters we have
> incompetents
> >like Picasso, arrogant madmen like Pollock and a proliferation of
> >increasingly vapid, pseudo-intellectual, hostile and pernicious art
> >forms.
>
> The only pseudo-intelectual and hostile things are your statements
> about
> art.

My statements are certainly hostile, but they are hostile to what I
believe is a corrupting tradition. In my own mind, I would be remiss if
I did not do something (at least in words) to try and encourage a
re-appraisal of the modern view of art and music.

> > Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when
> >historians can look back and laugh, and be glad that the madness has
> >passed like the bad dream it will be.
>
> Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when
> people
> can look back and laugh about your statements, and be glad that the
> madness
> has passed like the bad dream it still is.

Very clever - I like it. :)But I don't agree with it.
Time will tell which one of us is right, Andreas. Let us hope that both
of us are alive to receive judgement.

It's been a pleasure arguing with you,

Sincerely,

Iian Neill.

[Iian Neill]

Dear Andreas,

> First of all it was very hard for me to read and above all to
> translate all
> your statements.

Again, as in my previous letter, I salute your eloquence - you bring up

some strong points which I would like to address in this letter. You
must understand that I disagree with most of your points, but that
doesn't stop me appreciating the fact that you chose to respond with
logical argument, rather than flaming.

> And what you're saying concerning contemporary music is not only

> wrong, it's
> dangerous, because of the intolerance. Some composers had to die for
> their
> music, because the fucking Nazis said, that the music they had
> composed was
> degenerated art ("entartete Kunst").

Firstly, the Nazis and Hitler were monsters - I won't disagree with you

on that point. I've heard that Hitler condemned the art of his time as
degenerate, and had planned to take revolting and inhuman steps to
'rectify' that matter. But Hitler was a butcher, and just because he
liked Wagner and the German classical music tradition does not mean that
those things share in his evil. Likewise, just because he despised
Modern Art and music does not mean that it too is bad - one has to judge
on criteria other than Hitler's personal aesthetic tastes. I hope you'll
agree with that much.

> >Modern artists like to pretend that they are socially concerned, that

>
> >they are representative of the 'zeitgeist', the spirit of the times,
> >that their style is inevitable. This is not so.
>
> Why do ya know this. Does any artist said it like that to you. Perhaps
> while
> drinking coffee?

I've had 'coffee', so to speak with Modern Artists before. I studied

Visual Arts at the University of Tasmania for a year, and I made friends
there. These friends chose to pursue the modern styles in their works,
and that was fair enough - my quarrel was not with them, but with the
teachers who were denying all of us an education in the principles
behind art - that of draftsmanship, perspective, et cetera. These
teachers did not 'teach', you might say - even the Moderns there were
fed up. I don't wish to sound like that I condemn Modern Artists
personally - because I do not. My Modern friends were kind people, and
very intelligent - what I disagreed with them about was the definition
of 'art', and we were happy to 'agree to disagree'. There were cheerful
arguments now and then, but no real hostility. We allowed each other to
get on with our work.
Now, when I said that 'modern artists like to see their art as the
zeitgeist', I meant that the officialdom of Modern Art does indeed like
to put forth the propoganda that contemporary art is 'modern',
up-to-date - in other words, 'progressive'. ('Progressive' as opposed to
'retrogressive' or 'reactionary', which is what you called me later on.)

> >It is a shame that there is not more "realism" and art - for the lack

> of
> >"real" is precisely what has dethroned art from the high state it
> once
> >occupied.
>
> Thank God realism has gone out of art. No more socialist realism like
> pictures of Stalin or Lenin and no more photo realistic ones as boring
> as a
> picture of my grandma.

Realism is not to be associated with any particular group - that is as

logical as claiming that fugues are Communist because a Soviet composer
might have used them a lot in his work. That is nonsense. The fact that
Stalin and Lenin used social realism for their propoganda merely shows
that they wanted to promulgate their own ideas as far and wide, and as
clearly, as possible. It would be just as silly to condemn advertisments
today as being 'evil' because they use realistic symbols & figures.

> I'd rather go outside and look at the world with my

> own eyes or just watch a photographie.

Now, this is a much stronger point, and I'd like to address it.

> And the reason, why art has been

> dethroned, is not that lack of realism. It's the question "how much
> bucks
> can I make with art" and "how many people want to see the art". But
> don't
> forget, a artist, whether you like his art or not, has to do his work
> and
> has not to do things, a majority demands.

Absolutely, there has always been the perennial problem of where the

line ends between great art and fashionable art. How much did Beethoven
write for his public, and how much for 'himself'? That is always a point
of contention. But that isn't what has brought Modern Art down to its
lowly state, not that entirely. Yes, certainly, there are plenty of
artists around (note: in ALL periods), not just now) who prostituted
their skills to make big bucks. (L.M. Gottschalk cheerfully admitted
this regarding certain of his more sentimental pieces - but this doesn't
automatically follow that the rest of his ouevre was 'bad'.)
So, I will agree that it is a problem - but it is not THE problem.

> > What I mean to say here is that suffering and horror are not

> exclusive
> >to our century, and should not be used as an excuse for incompetent,
> >vicious, ugly, demeaning, and disturbing art-work.
>
> You're right: suffering and horror are not exclusive for us. But the
> artists
> of our world don't take their eyes off the problems. They are
> reflecting
> what happens around them.

And no one denies that artists should reflect and contemplate the social

realities - but should that element be so dominant that most other forms
of artistic expression are ridiculed and excluded from Academia?

> Tough words. But who is concerned? I don't know any incompetent

> composer
> apart from me perhaps, because I'm learning composing by myself. Ok, I
> know
> a lot of unimportant composers. But they have lived in all centuries.

I agree - incompetence is not limited to our times.

> When I

> read your further statements I think you mean every non-realistic
> composing
> or painting artist, who worked in 20th century. What a pity!

Ah, but there *are* good artists and composers in this century. Look at

the 'Concierto de Aranjeuz', or some of Villa-Lobos' work. And I also
happen to like the folk music of Hungary and South America, but that's
another story ...

> > Modern artists (and musicians) are in no way 'obliged' to compose

> >music that expresses the soul-crushing horrors of our sometimes
> >miserable existence. In the past, these horrors were recognised, but
> >artists sought to depict a better world, a world one might like to
> live
> >in - a universe of beauty, harmony and imagination. But, at the same
> >time, they did not crush those artists who depicted the grimmer sides
> of
> >life. Look at the Naturalist movement, and the Realists.
>
> Wake up now. Siegmund Freud has already discovered the human psyche.
> If you
> want to hear naturalistic or realistic music with beauty and harmony
> please
> try German national folk music like the "Wildegger Herzbuben" (in
> English
> nearly "The Wildegger (a small town in the Alpes) Heart boys). Or stay
> with
> the wonderful music of former times. But you will not find that in
> modern
> art.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that harmonious

and beautiful music is superficial, or not as important as music which
is very unpleasant? Please clarify your point.

> > Just because we are surrounded by sadness does not mean that we are

>
> >automatically obliged to make everyone's life a misery through
> >depressing and nerve-shattering 'music'. (Perhaps 'sound experiments'
> is
> >a better term for some of the more extreme examples.)
>
> Now I know the problem! You want to be entertained. Same solution with
> the
> "Wildegger Herzbuben" oder perhaps Jonny Cash.

Entertainment is only a small part of it - if I want entertainment, I

listen to "Variations on the Brazilian National Hymn" by Gottschalk. But
if I want serious, intense music, I instead turn to Chopin, Beethoven,
Liszt and so forth. I would hardly describe Chopin's "Funeral Sonata" as
'pleasant', but it is a tremendously great piece of music.

> I know a lot of works, in which ugliness isn't the dominating feature.

> Try
> some Britten, Henze or Reich (a very realistic composer - what is more
>
> realistic: a fugue by Bach or a siren in the opera of Ligeti?).

I will look into these composers at the nearest opportunity, and get
back to you.

> >This has also resulted in the novel and 'new' being praised in

> expense
> >of the good and the harmonious. An artist (or composer) in the
> century
> >need not necessarily be competent (or even a composer) - all s/he
> needs
> >to do is come up with some new slant on some outrageous idea, and
> then
> >he has to find a critic to back him up.
>
> That's art. When a development in art no longer takes place, it won't
> be art
> any more. And you'll have to agree, when you look back til the
> classical
> antiquity. Mozart has gone further like Haydn, Beethoven like Mozart,
> Schubert like Beethoven and so on.

I agree that new-ness and originality is a feature of art - but should

it be the dominant feature, so prevalent that we sacrifice standards for
it? I don't think so.

> >These musical forms were also known to the 19th century. Look at

> Liszt's
> >discovery and revelling in the music of Hungary and the gypsies;
> observe
> >Chopin's transformation of Polish forms into High Art; on a slightly
> >lower scale, I would also direct you to look at the outstandingly
> >original, sensuous and melodic music of the American Gottschalk, who
> >took the melodies of the blacks and Latin America, and, like Chopin,
> >elevated them into great music. There are also other examples, such
> as
> >Tchaikovsky's obvious awareness of certain Eastern music, and also
> >Balakirev and Moussorgsky, etc.
>
> I don't meant that. Because hungarian music has not been that far away
> for a
> french/polish composer like chopin as for ex. Gamelan music from Asia
> was
> for the french composer Debussy. Also take a look at the extreme
> rhythmics
> in Ligeti's piano concerto, where he's overlaying an european with an
> asian

> rhythem. What arises is a complete new rhythm.

Certainly, new rhythms are interesting and may bring revitalisation to
Music. When handled by competent (at least) composers, these new
elements can enrich the art of music; but if novelty out-strips quality,
then we are in trouble ...

> > In fact, our century should have been in the best possible position

> in
> >history. Unfortunately, the modernist-inspired movements have ruined
> our
> >chances of going down in history as a new renascence of musical form;
> we
> >had access to all this music from around the globe, and our composers
>
> >have instead set out to destroy art instead.
>
> 1) That modernist movements have ruined our chances for historical
> work is
> incorrect. There has been no century before, where so many old music
> was
> resuscitated. And please take a look at selling catalogues for
> recordings.
> How much recordings of works by Mozart or Beethoven can you find? And
> how
> much by Schoenberg?

Are you arguing here that because it is easier to find Mozart and

Beethoven, compared to Schoenberg, that Music is still alive and well?
Certainly, granted, musical performance is running splendidly - but what
I was referring to was the 'living' tradition of Music composition
itself. Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?

> 2) Aren't we accessing to all music from around the

> globe? Please contact some music scientists.

You won't find disagreement with me here. I think it's wonderful that

the music of other cultures is becoming more well-known. Personally, I
rather like Middle Eastern music, and South American folk music.

> 3) Our composers have destroyed

> art? That's not only wrong, but rediculous! Art cannot be destroyed.
> That's
> like trying to destroy human thinking. And modern artists only have
> established new ways of making art. But the older ones like baroque or
>
> classic are still present. And they are not only present, they have
> numerical superiority (above all in music).

Art itself cannot be destroyed - but the *tradition* of art can be. The

tradition of Classical/Romantic painting has certainly been derailed
seriously, and may not get back on track until many years from now. This
is due to the prevailing aesthetic dogma, as well as the more practical
problem that artists today have lost some of the important lessons of
the past, as these techniques were handed down from Master to pupil, and
so on. That tradition has been broken.
So Art, as a tradition, as a living, growing entity, has been
seriously impaired.

> >Yes, unfortunately, one does seem to need to be a cryptographer to

> even
> >understand half of the modern 'art' being spewed forth like so much
> >vehement vitriol.
>
> One and a half year ago I've found, that modern music is just noise
> and
> stupid. Then I'll began to open my mind and I've tried to be tolerant.

What changed your mind? Before you thought modern music was noise - and

today, you think the opposite. What happened in between, if I might ask?

> >The first aim of music and art should be to appeal

> >directly to the senses and perception; however, both forms in our
> time
> >have gone out of their way to alienate us from even that simple
> >pleasure.
>
> Sounds also wrong to me. What do you mean with "pleasure". To be well
> entertained like the man after a performance at the state opera of
> Vienna or
> a 14 year old girl after a concert of the Back Street Boys? Or do you
> like
> music just to relax? Or do you mean the stimulating and exciting
> moments in
> modern music?

No, I don't just mean 'pleasure' in the superficial sense. I get great

aesthetic satisfaction out of Liszt's B minor Piano Sonata, and out of
his 'horrific' "Totentanz" - "Totentanz" is far from pleasing in the
sense that you mean here. But it is a wonderful work, full of great,
dark power.

> > No, instead we have to be content with hideous avant-garde

> >sound experiments, or with popular music; oh, for the day when
> "Figaro"
> >was being sung in the streets of Prague by the populace - now we'll
> hear
> >the public sing the strains of Madonna instead of Mozart.
>
> Please, say "Goodbye" to the good old ones, they've just passed by.
> Modern
> music might be bad for you, but I'm sure you won't state, that it is
> in
> general.

I won't label all modern music as bad, certainly. Certain works of

Rodrigo, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, et cetera - these composers
have some wonderful pieces, and it would be a gross insult to call their
work 'incompetent'. But this is not what I meant, and never was - I
refer more to the tendencies of Modern Art & Music, not so much its
specific pracitioners, although I have mentioned a few examples who I
think expemplify it quite well. However, even though I don't personally
like Picasso's work, I am willing to re-appraise him if I find something
of worth in it. The same with Salvador Dali and Magritte - they are both
'modern' artists, but also in full posession of the soveriegn powers of
technical mastery, especially Dali. So while I am no devoted fan of
their paintings, I can appreciate some of them.

> And how lucky we are, that composers, continuing in the old forms, are

> not
> well known. Because that has nothing to do with art, that's at most
> reactionary and boring.

Composers should not continue with the old forms just for the sake of it

- the old forms, too, can be terribly realised in the works of
incompetents. One shouldn't write fugues just because Bach did - that is
not reason enough. Repitition of the past is not a thing to be lauded,
although it can be appreciated in a different sense (in the sense of
pure craftsmanship). One has to strike a fine line between tradition
and innovation.

> >No, there is a difference between 'modern' and 'contemporary',

> although
> >it is contextual one, I grant you. The contemporary music of
> >Mendelssohn's era was still music, it was related to a tradition. The
>
> >'music' of our era is justly reviled by the musical public as an
> >abomination.
>
> Wow, now it's getting quite low. 1) Contemporary music of our time is
> also
> still music, although forms have changed and some new forms like sound
>
> events have established. Or what do think, Mozart would have said
> about
> "Tristan and Isolde"?

Certain works of our time are still music - I have trouble regarding

"Four Minutes and Thirty" by Cage as music, though.

> 2) Contemporary music has also its tradition. No

> composer is able to compose without his roots. Not only that they
> first of
> all learn the traditional way of composing, they even won't be able to
> find
> new ways of expressing themselve without knowing their predecessors.

We are in agreement here. I diverge on one point, though: How much have

the Moderns truly kept to the traditions? Yes, they have 'innovated'
(12-tone scale, etc.) but how much of that has been pure experimentation
of novelty value, and how much of that is of lasting quality? Perhaps
only Time can answer that one.

> >If "our" music were good (or indeed music at all) then I would share

> >your outrage.
>
> Next mistake. "Good" is just an expression for taste. But not to say
> something about a musical piece. You don't like modern music. I can
> accept
> that. But please accept, that there are many others with another
> taste.

I have no problem with your liking Schoenberg - it is a free world, as

I've said elswhere. My real argument lies with the schools, the
universities, et cetera, basically, the academia, the people who set the
aesthetic/philosophical trends of the intelligentsia. I am happy for
modern art to produced alongside the more 'classical' art - I don't
think, though, that it should dominate, which is what it does today!

> >No, that isn't the problem - because classical music and art sold

> even
> >better in previous centuries than it does today.
>
> Oops? Please compare Mozart and Andrew Lloyd Webber. Who has earned
> more
> money and who composed for the taste of the majority? Don't ignore the
>
> mechanism of the musical market. Or why is Pavarotti earning Millions
> for
> only one concert. Because he's good? Or is it because he sings "O sole
> mio"?
> Or just because he is giving the audience their dreams and "good
> emotions"?

OK, point taken.

> >Picasso is not good art, and never will be. He is certainly
> fashionable,
> >but that is a different thing. He is fashionable, and he sells well
> >because of an artificially-inflated reputation. But one can't
> seriously
> >compare his scrawls to that of the real artists preceding him.
> Frantic,
> >incompetent haste should not be mistaken for genius.
>
> Sorry, but that's too much for me. I don't know how much others like
> you
> will make the statement, that Picasso is not good art. I think, that
> most
> people will say, that he has been one of the greatest and most
> important
> artists in this century and of all time. And that has nothing to do,
> whether
> you like his paintings or not. There's a quality above the taste of
> the
> masses.

Agreed - and I am trying to speak objectively about Picasso's art. I can

appreciate certain of his paintings, but his works as a whole appear to
me to be incompetent. And you have seen from my previous statements that
I consider competence the very least that any artist needs to be lauded
- every artist from the actor, to the painter, to the musician.

> >It is good to see that children are being taught soem values, then.

>
> Now I know! You're even a reactionary one. Or just conservative?
> History
> ends not at the year 1899.

I would rather be a reactionary with Anton Rubinstein, who considered

music died with Chopin (which I *don't* agree with), then be counted

among some of the more extreme Modernists.

> When you wait a second you have history again and
> again. Do you demand censorship? Very dangerous, above all in the
> education
> of our children.

No censorship - there should not be censorship. But there already has

been in the traditional arts; the painting of Bouguereau, Gerome,
Alma-Tadema and so forth were locked way in the basements of museums for
decades, until a critical re-assessment deemed them worthy of
inspection. I am happy, I will repeat, I am happy to have museums
dedicated to Modern Art - but I don't agree that it should detract from
those artists (past and present) who worked in a more realistic, and
approachable style.

> I know that from Germany. The education in the third Reich

> and in the former Demokratic Republic of Germany. People should never
> forget, what censorship does to a nation.

I agree - I despise censorship. But, you must understood, because we

both despise it, we must allow the other their say. So I am entitled
(perhaps in all my ignorance and stupidity, eh?) to declare that I think
the trend of Modern Art is harmful.

> >Ah ... here we are. Music is only "good" when it presents an

> >intellectual challenge - like a rebus, or a crossword puzzle. One has
> to
> >'nut out' what the whole thing is about, which is why we need the
> >artist/composer's statement - otherwise it would all be pure
> guesswork
> >and unadulterated bullshit. Mozart is not less 'intellectual' than
> any
> >of our moderns - he is by far the superior artist. A piece of music
> is
> >not intellectual, or "good", because it is difficult to understand -
> or,
> >to be more accurate, difficult to like at all. That's the credo of
> >officialdom in our century - it's no good unless its shocking and
> ugly.
> >And the more shocking and ugly it is, the better it is.
>
> I don't have said that. But don't you think that most people do not
> want to
> go down to the e.g. mysticism of Mozarts "Magic Flute" but to enjoy
> the
> wonderful music. That doesn't mean that I criticize those ones.

Understood.

> They have to
> listen to the music like they want to. But they must not lament, when
> they
> can't enjoy Boulez' "Notations" at a concert, because they've never
> read
> anything about him and his way of composing. And because of some
> reasons I
> stated in the former mail, new music often is more complecated to
> catch. But
> we are used to listen to music like Mozart's. To enjoy modern music
> first of
> all you have to "educate your ear". Often is has nothing to do with
> "intellectual".

This is a point I am not sure I agree with - I'd refer you to Tolstoy's

essay, "What is Art?", in particular, for an answer to that claim.

> >> But I'm hopeful. In 50 years there'll be so modern music, that

> music
> >> from
> >> Schönberg or Webern will be as established as the symphonies of
> Mahler
> >>
> >> today.
> >
> >I sincerely hope not. I hope that History accords them the place they
>
> >deserve - in the margins of obscure texts.There are burgeoning signs
> >that the true values behind art are again being appreciated - but it
> >will be many years before they will be re-established.
>
> Sorry, but that is bullshit! Tank God that it is only one opinion
> among
> millions.

Maybe I am only one person in the Academia - but I have sympathies with

many outside of it. Millions more than you may think.

> And please forgive my bad tone, but such mental outpour makes me

> sick. I hope one day you'll recognize that art is nothing but a way of
>
> expressing the emotions, feelings and reactions on the enviroment of
> men.

This is very ironic, because I agree with your definition of art here -

but I don't apply in the sense that you do.

> By

> the way: did you know that the first paintings of the Stone Age were
> painted
> in an abstract and not a realistic way?

Yes, I did. How realistic art is depends on one's 'schemata', according

to Gombrich. That is, what the society considers is realism at the time.
So, da Vinci was a great and pleasant surprise, as he surpassed
Botticelli; and Bernini was the same, etc.

> > At the end of the 19th century there was a survey in France as to

> who
> >artists, dealers and the public thought would be the three most
> >remembered painters in one hundred years time. The survey concluded
> that
> >Bouguereau, Gerome and Meissonier were those artists - it is now one
> >hundred years later, and instead of these Masters we have
> incompetents
> >like Picasso, arrogant madmen like Pollock and a proliferation of
> >increasingly vapid, pseudo-intellectual, hostile and pernicious art
> >forms.
>
> The only pseudo-intelectual and hostile things are your statements
> about
> art.

My statements are certainly hostile, but they are hostile to what I

believe is a corrupting tradition. In my own mind, I would be remiss if
I did not do something (at least in words) to try and encourage a
re-appraisal of the modern view of art and music.

> > Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when

> >historians can look back and laugh, and be glad that the madness has
> >passed like the bad dream it will be.
>
> Let us hope for the day, hopefully not too far in the future, when
> people
> can look back and laugh about your statements, and be glad that the
> madness
> has passed like the bad dream it still is.

Very clever - I like it. :)But I don't agree with it.

[Andreas Heck]

Hi Iian,

and once again my fight against wind mills go on ... I'll only answer your
statements, with which I can't agree to shorten up a little.

>> Thank God realism has gone out of art. No more socialist realism like
>> pictures of Stalin or Lenin and no more photo realistic ones as boring
>> as a
>> picture of my grandma.
>
>Realism is not to be associated with any particular group - that is as
>logical as claiming that fugues are Communist because a Soviet composer
>might have used them a lot in his work. That is nonsense. The fact that
>Stalin and Lenin used social realism for their propoganda merely shows
>that they wanted to promulgate their own ideas as far and wide, and as
>clearly, as possible. It would be just as silly to condemn advertisments
>today as being 'evil' because they use realistic symbols & figures.

The word "like" above expresses, that I was just making an example.

>> I'd rather go outside and look at the world with my
>> own eyes or just watch a photographie.
>
>Now, this is a much stronger point, and I'd like to address it.
> You are equating realism here with photography, and seem to be
>claiming that it is 'boring' because it merely presents a view of the
>outside world. Have you looked at the paintings of Rubens, Michelangelo,
>Velasquez, Goya, etc.? The reason these artists (and many, many more)
>depicted the outside world (representationalism) was because they
>understood that to convey emotions and ideas to other people, they need
>to use a 'language' which transcended the parochial boundaries of
>culture and language itself. I do not need to speak Italian to perceive
>the grandeur and nobility of the Sistine Chapel ceiling - I do not need
>to know French to appreciate the rich chromaticism of Jean-Leon Gerome's
>Orientalist paintings.

For me it is boring to look at realistic paintings, which were created in
this century. If I want to get impressed by realistic art, I'd rather look
at works of Michelangelo, one of my favourites, or Rafael. "Boring" meens,
that IMHO it makes no sense to create art like the artists made in former
times. Beethoven already lived and we can enjoy his whole work and therefore
we need no more composers, which are composing like him.
By the way: as a Rome-fanatic I've visited the Sistine Chapel five times.
And I also know all the wonderful works of Bernini and Boromini and I always
return to them when staying in Rome (two times a year). For ex. the Moses by
Michelangelo in the church St. Pietro in Vincoli: for me the greatest work
of fine arts I ever saw. And it's so realistic that you get the feeling when
you stand in front of "him", that he will stand up in second and go away.
Terrific! But when we are talking about modern art then we have to look at
the art now and take also a look to future. Everything reflexive is history,
tradition and this time and the way of making art will never (maybe as a
revival like neo classic of Strawinsky) come again.

> Painters such as Munch may have conveyed certain aesthetic sensations
>through his garish use of colour, but he conveys little more than this
>because his technical equipment is very poor. Picasso's equipment was
>stronger, I agree, but he too has sever faults in his technique.

You've done the same error I've done before discovering modern art. I always
said: "Boulez is making this kind of music because he isn't able to compose
as good as the great Beethoven." But now a know that I was very wrong.
Boulez just don't compose like Beethoven, he's composing different. But this
is not a question of "good" or "bad". It's a question of time and
developement. And another point: an artists is not able to make a mistake.
He can do, what he wants to. When Beuys wants to install a dirty bath-tub it
is his freedom to do this. Ok, when I'm composing a piece in
12-tone-technique and say "I've made one in 12-tone" but have just used 11
tones, then I've made a mistake or I'm just a lier.

> Would you go up to Vladimir Horowitz and say to him: "Look, sir, all
>those years of training only served to hinder your self-expression. You
>should let go! - forget how to play scales, arpeggios, etc., and just
>play whatever you *feel* at the keyboard!"

Horowitz was an interpret not a composer. When he wanted to play a Scriabin
sonata he has to do in a "Scriabin-way", otherwise he wouldn't be such a
great artist. But why should Cage use a standard piano, when he can express
the things he want to mostly better with a prepared piano? Because Beethoven
didn't compose for prepared piano? No, he can do what ever he wants to.

>But that isn't what has brought Modern Art down to its
>lowly state, not that entirely.

Art isn't at a low state - not only because of a lot of new inventions in
our century. In no other era before, so many people have been able to choose
"artist" as their profession (above all female artists). Art has just to
fight against the opposition of the main audience. And that's just it was in
every time before. Michelangelo has to overpaint the naked persons he
painted in the Sistine Chapel, because the "majority" (here: the Pope)
didn't want to look at a penis in a chapel.

>Yes, certainly, there are plenty of
>artists around (note: in ALL periods), not just now) who prostituted
>their skills to make big bucks. (L.M. Gottschalk cheerfully admitted
>this regarding certain of his more sentimental pieces - but this doesn't
>automatically follow that the rest of his ouevre was 'bad'.)
> So, I will agree that it is a problem - but it is not THE problem.

Once again: when a artist like Mozart or your beloved Gottschalk had to
prostituted to earn money, then it's absolutely ok! Bernd Alois Zimmermann,
a centrel figure in music after 2nd world war in Germany made a lot of film
and ballet music to earn money. That has nothing to do with "good" or "bad"
but with important and not important. But when a artist is mostly making his
art to earn money (Dear Mr. Lloyd Webber, please stop composing your boring
musicals - I know "Cats" and "Phantom of the opera" and all the other latest
ones are sounding the same!) or to amuse the audience, he won't become a big
part of history (and once again: Salieri vs. Mozart, still the best example
for that).

>And no one denies that artists should reflect and contemplate the social
>realities - but should that element be so dominant that most other forms
>of artistic expression are ridiculed and excluded from Academia?

At university and academias only those art is teached, which is important.
And that's good because of the mass of important art. Anything reflexive
will be kicked off and that's good.

>I agree - incompetence is not limited to our times.

What imcompetence? I don't know any important artist who has been
incompetent. Would he be able to make art, wheter he has been incompetent?
Even Saliere hasn't been incompetent, he was a good composer. But because of
his reflexive and "commercial" way of composing he'll never play a role in
musical history.

>Ah, but there *are* good artists and composers in this century. Look at
>the 'Concierto de Aranjeuz', or some of Villa-Lobos' work. And I also
>happen to like the folk music of Hungary and South America, but that's
>another story ...

Oh, "Concierto de Aranjeuz" is a very modern one!

>Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that harmonious
>and beautiful music is superficial, or not as important as music which
>is very unpleasant? Please clarify your point.

Oh come on, mi amore! The harnonious and what you call beautiful music ended
with the 7th by Mahler. Please accept that time is moving. There have been
changes and to go back to a time before these changes is very superficial
(or just incompetent?!). And it is not important as this very "unpleasant"
music, you got it! The time for tonal, harmonic and consonant art-music is
(mostly) over. When you want to get from New York to San Francisco - what
transport do you choose? Train, plane, car or better like in the "good old
times" a coach because it's so pleasant? As an example: a month ago I have
been to a abonement concert of my home town. The symphony orchestra played
among others the 2nd symphony by Henri Dutilleux. He is one of those who
want accept, that time and art have changed. I'd rather listen to Brahms -
his symphonies are quit more electrifying and above all he've spoken the
musical "language" of his time.

>I agree that new-ness and originality is a feature of art - but should
>it be the dominant feature, so prevalent that we sacrifice standards for
>it? I don't think so.

I do - yes, new-ness is one of the dominating features of art. Everything
else is historical, scientific, traditional or just reactionary work.

>Are you arguing here that because it is easier to find Mozart and
>Beethoven, compared to Schoenberg, that Music is still alive and well?

Yes, IMO we have a very good cultivation of musical tradition and history.

>Certainly, granted, musical performance is running splendidly - but what
>I was referring to was the 'living' tradition of Music composition
>itself.

The composers of our musical tradition are dead. Did ya know that?

>Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
>era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?

I can only speak as an European, here are some "living" ones: Stockhausen,
Boulez, Lachenmann, Henze, Ligeti, Xenakis, Kurtág, Reich, Glass, Berio,
Rihm, Davies, Hespos, Hölszky, Holliger, Kagel, Penderecki, Pärt, Reimann,
Schnebel, Zender, Trojahn to name only a few. And don't forget those, who
died the last 10 years like Nono, Messiaen, Denissow, Nancarow and so on.
OK, to know these composers you have get down to contemporary music. They
are not as well known than Mozart and Beethoven. But that's because of the
reasons I stated in the first mail. And don't forget that Mozart hasn't been
very well-known after his years as a "wonder child". Just 50 years after his
death his music has been played very often. And Beethoven was only
well-known in Vienna because he has been such a fighter for his utopy and
because of the "civil wars" to get the care and custody for his nephew.

>Art itself cannot be destroyed - but the *tradition* of art can be. The
>tradition of Classical/Romantic painting has certainly been derailed
>seriously, and may not get back on track until many years from now.

Please get it now! Classic and romantic and baroque and renaissance and so
on - these are periods, ereas. Now we have the time of 20th century.

> So Art, as a tradition, as a living, growing entity, has been
>seriously impaired.

Tradition can not grow - very wrong! When you read a book about the civil
war in America now than that's a historical fact. Maybe some scientist will
find new pieces of the puzzle. But the history won't change. Tradition is
what it is: tradition and will always stay tradition.

>What changed your mind? Before you thought modern music was noise - and
>today, you think the opposite. What happened in between, if I might ask?

I began to understand modern music, that's all. I've said by myself: "Ok,
you love music by Beethoven or Mahler. But why is there so much effort with
works by Boulez? To me it sounds like noise, but I've never heard a whole
piece by him. So why not making that adventure?"
My first contact with "modern music" has been Wozzeck. Today Wozzeck by Berg
is my favourite opera and I rather listen to it than to the "Magic Flute"
because to me it's more exciting. The first time I listened to Rihm's
"Depart" I thought: "Shit! What's that. Only sound and sometimes a wife is
crying 'Depart' in the silence" And today I can't stop listening to this
extraordinary piece. And that's because my ear is used to listen to it,
these sounds are as usual to me as a piano sonata by Beethoven. And I have
read something about Rihm and his work. So I understand, what he wants to
"tell" with his art. The first time I was reflecting the 12-tone-method I
thought: "Stupid! When I just lay down the melody before I began to compose
then that's a work for a child!" But when I then started to compose my own
one, I had it clear: it is as difficult to compose in 12-tone or serial as
it is in a traditional way. But the main thing is, that because of listening
to that music again and again I can now reach the beauty of it, although it
often is only a mental and not a emotional impression of what I hear. And
naturally there are many works I don't like for ex. Stockhausen's art. But I
can't say that it is bad. I also dislike music by Bach although he has been
one of the greatest composer ever lived. But that has to do with taste not
qulality.

>No, I don't just mean 'pleasure' in the superficial sense. I get great
>aesthetic satisfaction out of Liszt's B minor Piano Sonata, and out of
>his 'horrific' "Totentanz" - "Totentanz" is far from pleasing in the
>sense that you mean here. But it is a wonderful work, full of great,
>dark power.

But that kind of pleasure you can also get when listening to contemporary
music. But you have to start to listen to it. Everything else will stay
prejudice.

>I won't label all modern music as bad, certainly. Certain works of
>Rodrigo, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, et cetera - these composers
>have some wonderful pieces, and it would be a gross insult to call their
>work 'incompetent'.

Sorry, but those composers are not very modern. They are composers of the
20th century but their work doesn't belong to contemporary music. OK, if you
are 90 years old this music maybe contemporary for you. Now I have the
question, whether you actually just have heard contemporary music.

>However, even though I don't personally
>like Picasso's work, I am willing to re-appraise him if I find something
>of worth in it. The same with Salvador Dali and Magritte - they are both
>'modern' artists, but also in full posession of the soveriegn powers of
>technical mastery, especially Dali. So while I am no devoted fan of
>their paintings, I can appreciate some of them.

Look, again, I have no problem, if you dislike modern art. That's absolutely
ok. But I have a problem when you paint in black and white and state that
modern art ist "bad" because you don't like it. Like I said: I hate baroque
but that doesn't mean that I name it "bad" art.
And I can't image why you - as a specialist for painting - won't accept the
great invention of cubism or surealism.

>Certain works of our time are still music - I have trouble regarding
>"Four Minutes and Thirty" by Cage as music, though.

That's only a question of definition.

>We are in agreement here. I diverge on one point, though: How much have
>the Moderns truly kept to the traditions? Yes, they have 'innovated'
>(12-tone scale, etc.) but how much of that has been pure experimentation
>of novelty value, and how much of that is of lasting quality? Perhaps
>only Time can answer that one.

Why should a modern keep the traditions. That's a contradiction in terms. A
modernist is a modernist and a traditionalist is a traditionalist. Both
won't fit together.

>I have no problem with your liking Schoenberg - it is a free world, as
>I've said elswhere. My real argument lies with the schools, the
>universities, et cetera, basically, the academia, the people who set the
>aesthetic/philosophical trends of the intelligentsia. I am happy for
>modern art to produced alongside the more 'classical' art - I don't
>think, though, that it should dominate, which is what it does today!

That's a question of scientific areas. The music you like most belongs to
the historical music science. But it's just normal that when we talk about
"practise" at institutes modern art is reflected most.

>Agreed - and I am trying to speak objectively about Picasso's art. I can
>appreciate certain of his paintings, but his works as a whole appear to
>me to be incompetent. And you have seen from my previous statements that
>I consider competence the very least that any artist needs to be lauded
>- every artist from the actor, to the painter, to the musician.

You call that "objectively". You still mix up taste with quality. How
important would the art be without cubism? Truly, competence is the very
least any artist needs. But Picasso had enough competence. Otherwise you
won't be able to let the traditional way of painting beside him and start a
new way of express himself.

>No censorship - there should not be censorship. But there already has
>been in the traditional arts; the painting of Bouguereau, Gerome,
>Alma-Tadema and so forth were locked way in the basements of museums for
>decades, until a critical re-assessment deemed them worthy of
>inspection. I am happy, I will repeat, I am happy to have museums
>dedicated to Modern Art - but I don't agree that it should detract from
>those artists (past and present) who worked in a more realistic, and
>approachable style.

OK, you like these guys, quite good. But did you ever thought, that they are
not as popular because of the quality of their work? Perhaps because they
haven't made a contribution to the development of art? Who needs more
Beethovens, da Vincis or Michelangelos?

>I agree - I despise censorship. But, you must understood, because we
>both despise it, we must allow the other their say. So I am entitled
>(perhaps in all my ignorance and stupidity, eh?) to declare that I think
>the trend of Modern Art is harmful.

I don't get it! It's so easy, isn't it? Please define the word "modern". And
then try to put artists, who are working in a traditional way, under the
word "modern". You'll get the answer, that art in a traditional way can
never be modern art at same time. Again a contradiction in terms.

>This is a point I am not sure I agree with - I'd refer you to Tolstoy's
>essay, "What is Art?", in particular, for an answer to that claim.

I'd rather read an interview with György Ligeti about his music, because
that has to do with modern art.

>Maybe I am only one person in the Academia - but I have sympathies with
>many outside of it. Millions more than you may think.

Huh! Maybe you belong to a dangerous and revolutionary organisation, perhaps
the WWOGOTBO - the "We-want-our-good-old-times-back"-Organisation?

>> And please forgive my bad tone, but such mental outpour makes me
>> sick. I hope one day you'll recognize that art is nothing but a way of
>>
>> expressing the emotions, feelings and reactions on the enviroment of
>> men.
>
>This is very ironic, because I agree with your definition of art here -
>but I don't apply in the sense that you do.

But I don't meant it ironic. That's my personal definition of art. Do you
know the book "Everyone an artist" by Joseph Beuys?

>Yes, I did. How realistic art is depends on one's 'schemata', according
>to Gombrich. That is, what the society considers is realism at the time.
>So, da Vinci was a great and pleasant surprise, as he surpassed
>Botticelli; and Bernini was the same, etc.

To me "Le Grand Macabre" by Ligeti or "The soldiers" by B.A. Zimmermann is
very realistic at the time, although the use mainly not traditional forms.

>My statements are certainly hostile, but they are hostile to what I
>believe is a corrupting tradition. In my own mind, I would be remiss if
>I did not do something (at least in words) to try and encourage a
>re-appraisal of the modern view of art and music.

I have to same reason to defend modern arts.

>Time will tell which one of us is right, Andreas. Let us hope that both
>of us are alive to receive judgement.

I don't want to be right, Iian. I only want to make clear, that one mustn't
accept such subjective statements as reality.

> It's been a pleasure arguing with you,

Vice versa.

Greetings, Andreas.

[Keith Edgerley]

Iian Neill wrote:

>
> Regarding 'double-think' - I've heard of 'double-talk' - are they one
> and the same thing?
>
>

'Double-think' is a term invented by Orwell in his novel 1984. It is the
ability to believe two different things at the same time, meaning the
ability to sincerely believe what you have been told to believe even
though you know it isn't true.

It is associated with newspeak, which is a similar deformation of
language (joycamp equals gulag).

[David Cleary]

Iian Neill (s36...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:

: Thank you for the dubious 'compliment', and yes, certainly feel free to

: burn your books on Picasso if you wish. I wouldn't, though - it will be
: useful to keep them in future years to see just how seriously an entire
: century of academics regarded incompetence as High Art.

Why is Picasso "incompetent?" Please explain.

I'm wondering where the anger at your training ends and where the truth on
art begins.

: I have no problem with people liking these artists, nor that music -

: after all it, *is* a free world - what I do have an objection to is the
: official enshrinement of these 'artists' as great masters, and the
: subsequent persecution of those artists/composers who dare to pursue the
: older styles.

And who says your experience is universal? Who has been persecuted? Who is
doing the persecuting? And get more specific than "the academics who have
destroyed 20th century music," please. Name names and events.

And why must things be "either/or?" I like music by Babbitt and Britten,
as well as stuff in between.

: Let's not end in a flame, though - I am interested to hear your point of

: view. It is easier to flame than it is to present an argument. I want to
: hear your side of the story. What makes Picasso & Matisse great, what
: redeems the sound experiments of John Cage ... this is a forum for
: music/art, so we might as well discuss it.

So you ask for those who disagree with you to prove their points and dodge
the issue yourself? No thanks. You brought up the diatribe. You back it
up. Specifics, please.

Dave

[DTohir]

> What makes Picasso & Matisse great, what
> redeems the sound experiments of John Cage

Incredible beauty, for a start.

[David Cleary]

Iian Neill (s36...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:

: I learnt at the Visual Arts course at university that Picasso & Matisse

: were the Fathers of Modern Art, and hence, great.

A surprise to me. I've read statements in books that imply that the
"Fathers of Modern Art" (whatever that means) are the Impressionists. Or
Manet. Or Cezanne.

: I also learnt that the

: public had to be taught how to like contemporary art, and it was for
: their own good.

Who taught you this rubbish? No one taught me parallel things about music
in school, not even the serial composers I studied with.

: I wasn't, unfortunately, taught about the Artistes

: Pompiers, the Academic painters, and now was technique, skill, nor
: competence ever mentioned particularly favourably.

Of course, there are excellent painters, such as Rousseau, who were
self-taught. I hope you took it upon yourself to learn technique on your
own. You really were taught no technique at all? I wondering why you
didn't seek out a more sympathetic teacher, or leave the school if it were
so awful?

: So, you might say

: that I too have dared to go against the mainstream.

Is what you described "the mainstream?" It sounds to me (if what you say
is accurate) as if you had some unusually bitter teachers instead. It's
too bad you let all this color your view of art and make you so sour as
well. Bitterness is a nasty way to go through life--you might be happier
if you dealt with this problem and got past it IMHO.

: But it is a pretty

: sad state of affairs when the 'mainstream' is as it is at present.

I would like to know what the "mainstream" is. Visual art in the 20th
century has been amazingly diverse, from pop art to photo realism to
abstract expressionism. I don't see much of a "mainstream" in all this.

Dave

[Iian Neill]

Dear Andreas,

 

For me it is boring to look at realistic paintings, which were created in
this century.

Please give me some examples of realist paintings created in this century.

For ex. the Moses by
Michelangelo in the church St. Pietro in Vincoli: for me the greatest work
of fine arts I ever saw. And it's so realistic that you get the feeling when
you stand in front of "him", that he will stand up in second and go away.
Terrific!

You have here admitted one of the great strengths of the art of the Old Masters:  Their chosen medium of realism. When you commented on the power of Michelangelo's 'Moses', you noticed that its realism gave it a certain power, perhaps that 'terribilita' many people use when describing Michelangelo and his works. Michelangelo and the Old Masters understood it as given that to convey any kind of emotion or idea, that one has to present to the viewer images that have some meaning in reality - and the more 'realistic' they are, the greater psychological immediacy they shall attain.
  But this is to be differentiated from a photograph - a photograph is, by and large, a more impersonal interpretation of reality. I understand that there is great craft (and I don't use this word in a derogatory sense at all) in photography, but realistic painting can never be equated with it. This is because the photograph, by and large, must represent what is before the lens - the artist, on the other hand, not only has a more complete control over what goes on his canvas, but there is also the fact of his subconscious to take into account. But the camera has no subconscious, so there is much less influence by the will of the artist himself.

You've done the same error I've done before discovering modern art. I always
said: "Boulez is making this kind of music because he isn't able to compose
as good as the great Beethoven."

It seems to me that the gist of your point is this:  "You are mistaken in believing that Modern artists are incompetent - they are not - they merely pursue art in a different way from the past."  (Please correct me if my interpretation is wrong.)

While it is true that Picasso had rudimentary skills in life-drawing when he was an adolescent, these were nothing very promising. To become a good artist there is a long and arduous path of study and practice. Just as the great musician works many hours at his technique and his interpretation, so did the great painters and sculptors of years gone by.
  When you imply that Modern artists could work in the old styles if they wished to, I assure you that you are incorrect. While it may be true of music composition (although I have grave doubts), I know it for a certainty that there is not one high-profile Modern artist (in the anti-traditional sense) who could paint a 'traditional' style painting if he wished to. He could not do this, because he does not have the training, nor the ability. It is an arduous thing to work in that discipline, and the Modern artists threw away discipline in the early 1900s - they saw it as 'limiting their self-expression'. What they didn't understand is this: - the artist is both composer and performer at the same time; and because the artist is a performer, he cannot throw away technical ability and still expect to be a good artist. The artist is a performer because it is he who makes his own works. If he does not even possess the basic skills necessary to render his ideas intelligible to an audience, then he has failed in his task, and failed as a painter - thus, his works are 'bad', or 'poor', or 'incompetent'.

>And no one denies that artists should reflect and contemplate the social
>realities - but should that element be so dominant that most other forms
>of artistic expression are ridiculed and excluded from Academia?

At university and academias only those art is teached, which is important.
And that's good because of the mass of important art. Anything reflexive
will be kicked off and that's good.

Do you see here that you are committing exactly the same 'crime' that you accused me of? I believe that in a previous response you said that you despised censorship, and that you did not like the idea of people such as myself having an influence in the patronage of art & music in our times. Yet here you are saying similar things, but from the opposite side. You just claimed that the mass of Modern Art is important art, and that anything that opposes it (which you call 'reflexive') should be kicked out.
  This is the very attitude toward which I object. I think it is a terrible crime that skill and beauty in contemporary art is not only condemned, they are also actively suppressed. The situation would be identical if Modern academics went to the universities and told students to stop playing the notes on the pages and just improvise: - "Don't worry about technique, that is all out of date, old hat, obsolete! We are in the modern age, and we must progress..."

>Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that harmonious
>and beautiful music is superficial, or not as important as music which
>is very unpleasant? Please clarify your point.

Oh come on, mi amore! The harnonious and what you call beautiful music ended
with the 7th by Mahler. Please accept that time is moving. There have been
changes and to go back to a time before these changes is very superficial
(or just incompetent?!). And it is not important as this very "unpleasant"
music, you got it! The time for tonal, harmonic and consonant art-music is
(mostly) over. When you want to get from New York to San Francisco - what
transport do you choose? Train, plane, car or better like in the "good old
times" a coach because it's so pleasant?

This, and other points you made later in the response lead me to conclude that while you indeed respect and enjoy the art and music of previous eras, you despise works of similar style when they are attempted in our own age. I have heard this argument before, and in some ways it reminds me of the ones used to justify buying a new car: "The other one was out of date - while it may have been good for its time, we have to move on - that kind of thing is no longer applicable in our time."
  Judging by how much the works of Mozart, Beethoven, Bernini, and Michelangelo are revered in our times, then I would say that there is something in those works that appeals to people across the generations separating us from them. The Old Masters came from cultures which no longer exist today - by rights, we should not like their work at all, for it is 'out of date' and not 'progressive'. Yet we do admire their works - you yourself have professed a great respect for them.
  To return to your original point:

>Please accept that time is moving. There have been
>changes and to go back to a time before these changes is very superficial
>(or just incompetent?!).
 

Time was also moving in the period of Mozart and Beethoven. Beethoven moved on and forged a new style, which other composers took up to a certain degree after his death. There is progress here, there is an evolution of ideas. But I think that with Post-Modernism there was a much more significant change. It was no longer a case of change of style, instead it was a change of more sweeping importance and of a more controversial nature. This change affected our very understanding of what 'art' is.

>I agree that new-ness and originality is a feature of art - but should
>it be the dominant feature, so prevalent that we sacrifice standards for
>it? I don't think so.

I do - yes, new-ness is one of the dominating features of art. Everything
else is historical, scientific, traditional or just reactionary work.

New-ness is important in all of the art forms. But one shouldn't be obsessed with it - when this happens (as it is has) then you see a proliferation of worthless 'innovations', of gimmickry in art. And to disguise the emptiness at the heart of all this new art, they invent mystifying theories to explain it, they weave a web of obfuscation around the paintings and music, so that we feel humble before it. They do not elicit our admiration through appreciation of the work's greatness - they cannot , for there is no greatness there. Instead, they force it from us with intellectual strong-arm tactics. They officially discourage any composer/artist who dares to continue the traditions of the past (note: I said 'continue' and not 're-iterate' - one suggests a sense of 'evolution', while the other reeks of 'stagnation'), and they enthrone in the Orthodoxy any new clown who can come along with some outrageous concept and make it seem like the Emperor does indeed have clothes.

>Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
>era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?

I can only speak as an European, here are some "living" ones: Stockhausen,
Boulez, Lachenmann, Henze, Ligeti, Xenakis, Kurtág, Reich, Glass, Berio,
Rihm, Davies, Hespos, Hölszky, Holliger, Kagel, Penderecki, Pärt, Reimann,
Schnebel, Zender, Trojahn to name only a few. And don't forget those, who
died the last 10 years like Nono, Messiaen, Denissow, Nancarow and so on.
OK, to know these composers you have get down to contemporary music.

Your erudition is impressive, and I won't pretend that I know all of these composers. But in my defence, I'd have to say that they certainly aren't names that have ever leapt up at me in my (amateur) studies of music.

I began to understand modern music, that's all. I've said by myself: "Ok,
you love music by Beethoven or Mahler. But why is there so much effort with
works by Boulez? To me it sounds like noise, but I've never heard a whole
piece by him. So why not making that adventure?"

[... snip ...]

Thank you for your explanation - it was very interesting.

>No, I don't just mean 'pleasure' in the superficial sense. I get great
>aesthetic satisfaction out of Liszt's B minor Piano Sonata, and out of
>his 'horrific' "Totentanz" - "Totentanz" is far from pleasing in the
>sense that you mean here. But it is a wonderful work, full of great,
>dark power.

But that kind of pleasure you can also get when listening to contemporary
music. But you have to start to listen to it. Everything else will stay
prejudice.

Do you mean to say that Modern music has similar qualities to 'Totentanz'? Have the Post-Modern composers stuck to the same standards and tradition of Liszt? Or have they merely retained the sensation of horror that 'Totentanz' evokes?

Sorry, but those composers are not very modern. They are composers of the
20th century but their work doesn't belong to contemporary music. OK, if you
are 90 years old this music maybe contemporary for you. Now I have the
question, whether you actually just have heard contemporary music.

Do you mean John Cage, and such 'composers'?

Look, again, I have no problem, if you dislike modern art. That's absolutely
ok. But I have a problem when you paint in black and white and state that
modern art ist "bad" because you don't like it. Like I said: I hate baroque
but that doesn't mean that I name it "bad" art.

The problem is that I think it is more than a matter of personal taste. For example, I do not like many of the Mannerist paintings, but I do not condemn them as being 'not-art'. I don't condemn them as this because they are art - they display the necessary signs to meet the criteria of art, even if I don't like them personally.
  When I attack 'artists' like Jackson Pollock or John Cage, I do so because I think that what they create is not art - not merely that it is bad art, but that it does not meet the criteria of art itself. Of course, there may be individual works by these people which are at, but so far as I know, the bulk of their ouevre is not.

And I can't image why you - as a specialist for painting - won't accept the
great invention of cubism or surealism.

I hope that my previous arguments will show that I reject such movements as Cubism because to me they betray the very fundamentals of great art. If I have been in some way unclear or obscure, I will be happy to answer any questions on the matter.

>Certain works of our time are still music - I have trouble regarding
>"Four Minutes and Thirty" by Cage as music, though.

That's only a question of definition.

Indeed - our whole discussion has been a question of definition.

>We are in agreement here. I diverge on one point, though:  How much have
>the Moderns truly kept to the traditions? Yes, they have 'innovated'
>(12-tone scale, etc.) but how much of that has been pure experimentation
>of novelty value, and how much of that is of lasting quality? Perhaps
>only Time can answer that one.

Why should a modern keep the traditions. That's a contradiction in terms. A
modernist is a modernist and a traditionalist is a traditionalist. Both
won't fit together.

I find that hard to accept. Villa-Lobos is known both for his atonal pieces and also for his more harmonious ones. The same applies to Scriabin, Rodrigo, Prokofiev, et cetera. These were men who understood the craft of composing, and they experimented with new ideas. I won't say that their experiments succeeded all of the time - but they could experiment with such authority because they had talent to start with, and they did not allow that to atrophy through consistently sloppy or inartistic works.

 >Agreed - and I am trying to speak objectively about Picasso's art. I can

>appreciate certain of his paintings, but his works as a whole appear to
>me to be incompetent. And you have seen from my previous statements that
>I consider competence the very least that any artist needs to be lauded
>- every artist from the actor, to the painter, to the musician.

You call that "objectively". You still mix up taste with quality. How
important would the art be without cubism?

Much better off. It added only degeneracy and confusion to it. Surrealism made some important contributions, but Cubism was entirely opposed to all art forms that proceeded it. To me it was opposed to 'art' because things which define Cubism are in conflict with what I understand art to be.

Truly, competence is the very
least any artist needs. But Picasso had enough competence.

This is a point of contention. I claim that he had nowhere near enough - and you believe he did.

Otherwise you
won't be able to let the traditional way of painting beside him and start a
new way of express himself.

One can't express oneself if you can't even draw correctly.

>No censorship - there should not be censorship. But there already has
>been in the traditional arts; the painting of Bouguereau, Gerome,
>Alma-Tadema and so forth were locked way in the basements of museums for
>decades, until a critical re-assessment deemed them worthy of
>inspection. I am happy, I will repeat, I am happy to have museums
>dedicated to Modern Art - but I don't agree that it should detract from
>those artists (past and present) who worked in a more realistic, and
>approachable style.

OK, you like these guys, quite good. But did you ever thought, that they are
not as popular because of the quality of their work?

There are undoubtedly flaws in the works of all artists. But the interesting thing concerning most of the ones I have referred to is that they are universally popular - respected and admired everywhere except by those who are entirely dedicated to the fundamentals of Modern Art - which is a very small minority in reality.

Perhaps because they
haven't made a contribution to the development of art? Who needs more
Beethovens, da Vincis or Michelangelos?

We don't need imitators of da Vinci or Michelangelo. But we need men and women of their artistic stature and power - and we need them now, more than ever. These are desperate times.

>I agree - I despise censorship. But, you must understood, because we
>both despise it, we must allow the other their say. So I am entitled
>(perhaps in all my ignorance and stupidity, eh?) to declare that I think
>the trend of Modern Art is harmful.

I don't get it! It's so easy, isn't it? Please define the word "modern". And
then try to put artists, who are working in a traditional way, under the
word "modern". You'll get the answer, that art in a traditional way can
never be modern art at same time. Again a contradiction in terms.

Okay, a fair enough point. Maybe I could delve into what I think 'Modern' is in subsequent posts? - I won't do so right now because I feel that this letter is verbose enough already without tripling its size.

>This is a point I am not sure I agree with - I'd refer you to Tolstoy's
>essay, "What is Art?", in particular, for an answer to that claim.

I'd rather read an interview with György Ligeti about his music, because
that has to do with modern art.

And Tolstoy's essay has to do with ALL art, modern or past. It covers music, painting, sculpture, literature and architecture.

>Maybe I am only one person in the Academia - but I have sympathies with
>many outside of it. Millions more than you may think.

Huh! Maybe you belong to a dangerous and revolutionary organisation, perhaps
the WWOGOTBO - the "We-want-our-good-old-times-back"-Organisation?

Yes, I know, it sounds rather melodramatic doesn't it? Sort of like: "You better watch out, mister, because I've got all these big pals who are on my side." Well, I am sorry if you interpreted it in that way, because that's not what I meant by it. I merely meant to show that many more people despise Modernism than the people who love it - and I think that is a simple enough fact that we can both agree on.
  In fact, it seems to be one of the key-points behind your initial post - that Modern Music & Art are not widely enough appreciated. This would indicate that most people are contemptuous of the contemporary arts, which is what I said in a round-a-bout manner.

>> And please forgive my bad tone, but such mental outpour makes me
>> sick. I hope one day you'll recognize that art is nothing but a way of
>> expressing the emotions, feelings and reactions on the enviroment of
>> men.
>
>This is very ironic, because I agree with your definition of art here -
>but I don't apply in the sense that you do.

But I don't meant it ironic. That's my personal definition of art. Do you
know the book "Everyone an artist" by Joseph Beuys?

Sorry, I haven't read that. I will try and get my hands on it though - thanks for the reference. Do you mind if I recommend you look at "The Twilight of Painting", by R.H. Ives Gammell? A fascinating text on the value of art in all eras, from a man who was a painter himself.

>Time will tell which one of us is right, Andreas. Let us hope that both
>of us are alive to receive judgement.

I don't want to be right, Iian. I only want to make clear, that one mustn't
accept such subjective statements as reality.

None of us can say that we are truly objective. But I try to be careful, to make sure that I am not just praising or condemning an artist as 'incompetent' merely because of my own tastes. You may disagree that I am being objective, and that is your right to think that - but in this case, in my own mind, I am not being unjust to 'artists' such as Picasso, Matisse, Jackson Pollock and so on.

http://www.classicpage.com

When do you think you'll have your page translated into English? Please notify me when this is done, for I'd like to give it a thorough look over.

    Well, thank you again for another stimulating discussion.
    I hope that we can continue it in the future.

    Sincerely,

    Iian Neill.

______________________________________________________________
Iian Neill - s36...@student.uq.edu.au, jl_g...@hotmail.com
Come & visit my homepage, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ at -
     http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this
 sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
            --  Jonathan Swift
 

[zanzibar]

Mr. Neill,
First, please accept my apologies for the extremely rude message I
posted a few days ago. It was quite hypocritical of me.
Second, I was going to make some comments on your post (there are many
things I take exception to), but I must first ask this question: how do
you define art? It seems to me you are taking fantastic liberties with
the word. Personally, I could never presume to have the right to
condemn something created in the spirit of art as "not art", and
especially not without defining art and giving at least some hint as to
why these works do not fit my definition!

LM

[Iian Neill]

David Cleary wrote:

> Iian Neill (s36...@student.uq.edu.au) wrote:
>
> : I learnt at the Visual Arts course at university that Picasso &
> Matisse
> : were the Fathers of Modern Art, and hence, great.
>
> A surprise to me. I've read statements in books that imply that the
> "Fathers of Modern Art" (whatever that means) are the Impressionists.
> Or
> Manet. Or Cezanne.

I stand corrected - I named only Picasso and Matisse out of interests of
brevity. Of course there were many contributors to what has eventually
been mass-labeled as Modern Art, and these 'Fathers' (or 'founders'?)
often came from completely different movements - joined only in their
hatred of the academic tradition. There are many Impressionists, but
those who seemed (to me) to have exhibited the most influence on their
successors would have to be such men as Degas, Renoir, Eduoard Manet,
Claude Monet, Seurat and Cezanne. In the case of Cezanne, though, I have
the feeling that he came from a slightly later generation, one who took
certain aspects of Impressionist teaching and distorted its application.
After the Impressionists we see the Post-Impressionists, and a gradually
widening proliferation of '-isms' come into existence. Other
historically notable forerunners of Modern Art include Paul Gaugin,
Henri Matisse, Theodore Rousseau, Vinvent van Gogh; somewhat later we
encounter Picasso, Braque, Brancusi, Maillol, Duchamp and Epstein - the
list continues, of course, but I'd rather keep it short in interests of
brevity. Finally, one ought to mention Auguste Rodin - I neglected to
associate him with any of the previous movements because the
chameleon-like shifting of his style through his career encompasses a
number of aesthetics - in his youth he displayed Academic and Romantic
tendencies, but his later work, for example, is more typical of early
Modernism.
Although Degas, Manet and Renoir were prominent leaders of
Impressionism, all three received training under the old Academic
system. Although they later decried this system, it was fortunate that
they were indoctrinated in it from a young age, for the discipline and
sensitivity it bestowed upon them - the refining of their innate talents
- saved their work from the more blatant ineptitudes and mannerisms of
their successors. Unfortunately, while the early Impressionists had
valid concerns regarding the progress of art, they failed to communicate
their teaching as well as the Academic tradition had to its students.
Inexperienced and lazy pupils suddenly saw opportunities in
Impressionism to abandon the taxing discipline of professional
draughtsmanship, and instead embraced (without comprehending fully) the
more 'liberal' aspects of the Impressionist credo. A subjective
interpretation of colour became all important, but without the buttress
of the understanding of form, the works of the Post-Impressionists were
ripe with numerous defects.
This eventual degradation of the standards of technique was
accompanied by changes in philosophical orientation at the end of the
19th century. This was an era when 'Absolutes' were no longer being
taken seriously; religion had come under heavy fire from different
directions; and, to put it very crudely, there was a feeling that what
was previously thought to be 'real' and 'true' was no longer such - and
to claim it as such was a sign of unmitigated arrogance. Eventually,
this line of thought taken to its logical extreme resulted in the dogma
that one *cannot* distinguish good art from bad art, and that the
attempt to make any distinction is a fundamentally flawed (and
prejudiced) one. It is not far, then, to also conclude that to even
separate 'art' from 'non-art' is a violation of philosophical integrity.
So we have the Orthodoxy (universities, schools, museums, art galleries,
art critics & artists themselves) claiming that nearly anything can be
art - and that nearly everyone can be a great artist.
The truth of the matter is less encouraging as this seemingly
democratic freedom may indicate. The fact is that not everyone *is* a
born artist, and it is certainly true that of the hundreds of thousands
of artists this century who have been bestowed (whether by critics or
themselves) with the laurels of 'genius', in reality only a minuscule
fraction of them (if any at all) could possibly *be* geniuses. For the
quality of 'genius' is a very rare one, in all societies, in all periods
of history.

: I also learnt that the

> : public had to be taught how to like contemporary art, and it was for
>
> : their own good.
>
> Who taught you this rubbish? No one taught me parallel things about
> music
> in school, not even the serial composers I studied with.

One of my first year subjects included: Contemporary Art Theory. The
entire purpose of this course was to make students familiar with the
trends and leading artists of today's cutting-edge avant-garde. One of
the statements the lecturer made even before we had started the course
formally was that there existed a gulf between modern artists and the
public - and that it was our duty to help bridge that gap. Privately, at
the time, I thought that this 'gap' was one imposed by artists
themselves, who are in love with the romantic notion of a kind of
aesthetic heresy; yet who, at the same time, having achieved exclusion
from society, bemoan their fate and point the accusing finger at the
'vulgar masses' - that is, the ignorant public.
Certainly, the public is no more educated about great art than it is
educated about great music, or great architecture. And there is no
denying that between laymen and professionals there will always be cases
of misunderstanding, and times of conflict (history shows this to be
true). But it cannot ruled out that the public *does* have a perception
of great art, and can appreciate - at least intuitively - the discipline
of the creative process that goes into making a work of art (whether it
be a symphony, a novel, or a painting). As a rule the public seems less
articulate in its appraisal of works of art - they seem less
well-equipped to be able to vocalize their disapproval or approval of
works of art; but this is not to be greatly wondered at, nor should it
be condescended to. The simple fact is that they have not made the study
of that branch of human activity their life's work, so might not know
how to phrase their thoughts of the art-work in the same manner as one
who has worked his entire life in the field.
Yet, I think it is certainly a great leap to begin on this assumption,
and to then conclude that the public is ignorant because it does not
'understand' Modern Art; and to them treat them in a condescending
fashion because they don't wish to play that intellectual game of 'art
appreciation'. And this was the sort of thing that was taken for granted
in the Contemporary Art Theory course - that the public was ignorant and
uneducated, and was thus blindly reacting against Modern Art because
that art threatened their sense of security, and their values. It was
our eventual job, as students in this course, to make some contribution
to the field of Contemporary Art by doing our best to show others where
they had gone wrong; that the seemingly random and mindless splattered
works of Jackson Pollock were actually great and worthy monuments to
culture in our time.

: I wasn't, unfortunately, taught about the Artistes

> : Pompiers, the Academic painters, and now was technique, skill, nor
> : competence ever mentioned particularly favourably.
>
> Of course, there are excellent painters, such as Rousseau, who were
> self-taught. I hope you took it upon yourself to learn technique on
> your
> own. You really were taught no technique at all?

Yes, that is true. Discussions of the essentials of painting, of
draughtsmanship, of anatomy, etc., all of these things were regarded as
pretty much antiquated notions. There was the token life-drawing class
(as there is in most art courses), but having students draw from life
without constructive involvement from the teacher is as good as no
teaching whatsoever. The teachers understood nothing of the principles
and standards of draughtsmanship in previous eras, as I made plain on a
number of occasions that this was the kind of art I wished to practise.
Instead of being instructed in these fundamentals, I was accused of
being a regurgitator of the past, even though no element of my studies
exhibited signs of plagiarism or slavish imitation. I felt almost a
state of disbelieving shock creep over me as I had to explain to my
drawing teacher why artists in the past learnt from their Masters, and
why I considered the elements of drawing important in art. All of this
was further complicated by the fact that they only studied (in depth)
Contemporary Art, which is devoid of any true relationship with the
great masterpieces of the past. So most of my study was self-motivated,
as I would scour various texts for any clues as to how to improve my
studies.

> I wondering why you
> didn't seek out a more sympathetic teacher, or leave the school if it
> were
> so awful?

I did end up leaving the course. I gave it a full year of my life, so as
to see what it would have to offer; I might have spent that year more
fruitfully in some other course, which is exactly what I have done now.
I continue to read, draw and paint as best as I can, out of a personal
desire to become an artist - one day, far, far in the future.

> : So, you might say
> : that I too have dared to go against the mainstream.
>
> Is what you described "the mainstream?" It sounds to me (if what you
> say
> is accurate) as if you had some unusually bitter teachers instead.

I asked myself that very question while in the course. However, I made
especial efforts to contact others interested in art through the medium
of the Internet. Those 'realist' artists (and also those who just had an
interest and love of art) I have come into contact report that they have
experienced similar, if not identical problems. An appalling lack of
education in the fundamentals of art; attempts by teachers to convince
students to give up the pursuit of realism and technique as a derivative
anachronism; and an almost mind-boggling lack of feeling for the
sensitivity and eternal beauty in great art, present in some of these
teachers themselves. (I can easily recall one particular lecturer in
sculpture who had never even heard of Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the man who
almost single-handedly created the Baroque, and was the greatest
sculptor after Michelangelo. This lecturer was actually *teaching* at a
university - in my mind, he is operating under false pretences.)

>It's too bad you let all this colour your view of art and make you so
sour as

> well. Bitterness is a nasty way to go through life--you might be
> happier
> if you dealt with this problem and got past it IMHO.

My life will be happy when I get the training and education that I feel
that I (and every other art student) deserve. I try to do my best on my
own, but this becomes very frustrating when contemplating the works of
the Old Masters - and the fact is that the works of art students could
be immensely improved if they just had *access* to even one great
painter in the old tradition. To some this analogy will seem absurd, but
I think of it like this: What if, one day, we were to find that all
teachers of music and professional musicians had suddenly vanished the
world over. In their place are people who claim that what those teachers
had said about technique, study, discipline and passion was now all out
of date - and that, instead, the path for the truly modern musician lay
in 'expressing himself' without the restrictions of such things as
mastery of his instrument. I think, then, we should hear the world
resounding with a lot of noise and cacophony - and who of us would stand
for that lunacy? I propose that this situation already exists in art.
For the artist is both composer and performer simultaneously; if his
technique and skills are feeble, then his work shall also be feeble. But
in this period of time, that feebleness is instead hailed as a sign of
profound originality and greatness.

> : But it is a pretty
> : sad state of affairs when the 'mainstream' is as it is at present.
>
> I would like to know what the "mainstream" is. Visual art in the 20th
> century has been amazingly diverse, from pop art to photo realism to
> abstract expressionism. I don't see much of a "mainstream" in all
> this.

You are right when you point out the bewildering diversity of styles in
our century. And some of these movements seem in direct opposition to
each other - for example, Photo-Realism as compared to Abstract
Expressionism. But there are certain underlying tenets and similarities
in most of them. All of these movements have professed their intense
hostility towards the previous traditions of 'academic' painting - this
can be confirmed by the fact that none of the works produced by their
disciplines can even remotely compare to the mastery and discipline
evinced by the older masters like Gerome, Bernini and so forth. So, in
short, these groups encourage us to look at and admire the paintings of
the past - but they are very, very careful to say that no-one is to
continue that tradition in any manner. While claiming that this is the
century of 'artistic freedom', any artist who wishes to work within the
forms or tradition of older generations (stretching back to the Greeks)
is condemned as a reactionary, and politely sneered at. One need only to
look around our modern cities and count the number of public monuments
that could honestly be said to be children of that tradition. There are
plenty of illegitimate bastards and in-bred cousins of contemporary
sculpture out there, but no real sons to take on and *improve* that
tradition.

I am wary of extending this argument for too much longer, as this is a
list more about Classical music than it is about the Visual Arts. The
parallels between art and music are certainly very striking, and I think
that they grow with every passing year, but there is a limit to how much
analogy can be stretched. Previous posts on categorization in music and
art history have demonstrated that grouping composers with their
corresponding artistic contemporaries is a vague process at best. It may
be useful as a quick way to link the histories of art and music together
under the banner of Culture, but the fact of the matter remains that art
and music are two separate disciplines, and as such, any similarities
between the two can only extend so far.
So ... you tell me. Is an in-depth discussion into Modern Art really
relevant to a list devoted to Classical Music (for lack of a better
term)? I am happy to continue talking about art, but I feel that some
may - with justification - accuse me of wasting cyber-space with an
irrelevant off-topic argument.

[Thomas Obitz]

Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:

>Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
>era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?

Sallieri was, too. Schubert was nearly unknown during his livetime.
Sorry, popularity is no measure for importance. Most important artists
have been ahead of their times, so they gained populatity much later.

Thomas Obitz
Mainz
tho...@compuserve.com

[Iian Neill]

> >Mozart and Beethoven were well-known musical figures of their
> >era - how many composers of equal statue can we claim to have today?
>

> Sallieri was, too. Schubert was nearly unknown during his livetime.
> Sorry, popularity is no measure for importance. Most important artists
>
> have been ahead of their times, so they gained populatity much later.

Sorry, you are right - I didn't mean to exclude those composers from
consideration because I didn't mention them in that particular response.
If I was to list every composer of that period who was known to the
public in some capacity, then we would to include (at the very least):
C.P.E. Bach, Handel, Michael & Jospeh Haydn, and Clementi ... just to
mention a few.
And you are correct, also, in pointing out that popularity is no
measurement of 'greatness'. Sometimes, though, in history, we find that
those who are reverred by Posterity were also accorded fame and
admiration in their own era. Certainly Mozart may not have been
outstandingly popular, but he was reasonably well-known and at least
respected.
I am not sure if the problem of 'public acclaim vs. enduring
greatness' will ever be solved to everyone's satistfaction. But I think
that popular acclaim does at least bear consideration - it tells us
things about the culture, even if it says nothing about the
artist/composer.

Cheers,

Iian Neill.

[Andreas Heck]

Hella Iian,

thanks again for your answer. And although I like to "fight" with words I
think, that this discussion won't find an end, because our opinions are to
different. So let me just answer a few questions.

Now let's start:

> Please give me some examples of realist paintings created in this century.

How hard. I'm everything but not a specialist for painting. Above all it's
hard for me to translate the names of the different realisitic art to
English. Let's try: I know the "New Reality" with works by Christian Schad,
Alexander Kanoldt, Edward Hopper, Peter Nagel, Dieter Asmus, Dietmar Ullrich
and others; the "Critic Realism" by Georges Grosz and Otto Dix; the
"Socialist Realism" by Willi Sitte, Werner Tübke, Wolfgang Mattheuer; the
"Photorealism" by Chuck Close, David Parrish, Malcolm Morley, Franz Gertsch,
Jacques Monory, Peter Klasen, Karolus Lodenkämpfer, Karl Hubbuch and Don
Eddy.

> It seems to me that the gist of your point is this: "You are mistaken in
believing that Modern artists are incompetent - they are not - they
> merely pursue art in a different way from the past." (Please correct me
if my interpretation is wrong.)

This is very good interpretation.

> When you imply that Modern artists could work in the old styles if they
wished to, I assure you that you are incorrect. While it may be true of
> music composition (although I have grave doubts), I know it for a
certainty that there is not one high-profile Modern artist (in the anti-
> traditional sense) who could paint a 'traditional' style painting if he
wished to. He could not do this, because he does not have the training, nor
> the ability.

I can't speek for painting artists because my lack of knowledge (although I
won't believe, that Picasso wasn't able to paint in a traditional way -
especially when I look at his paintings til 1906). But I know for the
composers. Not only that revolutionaries like Schoenberg or Hindemith have
written very good books about composition in the traditional way, but also
modernists like Boulez are mastering the musical tradition, because they've
been taught during their studies. And to take Boulez, Gielen or Zender as
exampel they're also very good conductors of music before 20th century. Have
you ever tried to compose a piece with the serial method? If so, you would
recognize, that you won't be able to do that, if you don't know the musical
tradition and the former rules of composing.

> Do you see here that you are committing exactly the same 'crime' that you
accused me of? I believe that in a previous response you said that
> you despised censorship, and that you did not like the idea of people such
as myself having an influence in the patronage of art & music in our
> times. Yet here you are saying similar things, but from the opposite side.
You just claimed that the mass of Modern Art is important art, and that
> anything that opposes it (which you call 'reflexive') should be kicked
out.

This is a misunderstanding. I was not talking about artists, who developed
new art with a reflection of the older ways like in music of the neo-classic
pieces by Schoenberg, Strawinsky or Hindemith. The same in painting with the
new realistic ways I mentioned at the beginnig of this message. I'm talking
about artists, who say: "I don't want to be modern. I only want to
paint/compose as my beloved old masters did. What a pity that I'm not
Michelangelo." And there are many artists like that. And therefore I say:
It's good that a student has not to get down to their work at universities,
because he has much enough to do with the important ones. Whether somebody
like you have the opinion, that those men should be recognized, feel free to
introduce them, perhaps academia hasn't regarded their "real" qualitiy yet.

> This, and other points you made later in the response lead me to conclude
that while you indeed respect and enjoy the art and music of
> previous eras, you despise works of similar style when they are attempted
in our own age.

That's absolutly correct. No more Sonatas in a Beethoven-way, they've been
already composed.

> Do you mean to say that Modern music has similar qualities to 'Totentanz'?
Have the Post-Modern composers stuck to the same standards
> and tradition of Liszt? Or have they merely retained the sensation of
horror that 'Totentanz' evokes?

Mostly not. But that has to do with: "There's no scientific fact, that makes
the music by Liszt better than a modern piece. The difference only can be
found in the taste of the audience."

> Do you mean John Cage, and such 'composers'?

That's one composer among many others. But you're right, I meant composers,
who mainly composed in the second half of our century and who has developed
a new way of composing.

> When I attack 'artists' like Jackson Pollock or John Cage, I do so because
I think that what they create is not art - not merely that it is bad art,
> but that it does not meet the criteria of art itself. Of course, there may
be individual works by these people which are at, but so far as I know,
> the bulk of their ouevre is not.

Sorry, but I can't resist to comment that. We two, although both
art-fanatics, have different definitions about art. You define it in this
high, superior and greatful way. For me art is every artificial expression.
When I'm pissing in the corner with an idea about that, to state something
or to express a special feeling, than this is still art - whether you like
or not. You should realy read the book by Beuys. And I'll try Gammell (but
please let me ask, whether he is still alive; because when he died yet a
hundred years ago, I don't think that he is very competent about modern art
of the last 50 years).

> I hope that my previous arguments will show that I reject such movements
as Cubism because to me they betray the very fundamentals of
> great art. If I have been in some way unclear or obscure, I will be happy
to answer any questions on the matter.

They not only betray the fundaments of the former art - they've destroyed
them. It's all about Revolution!

> I find that hard to accept. Villa-Lobos is known both for his atonal
pieces and also for his more harmonious ones. The same applies to Scriabin,
> Rodrigo, Prokofiev, et cetera.

You see, I'm not able only to answer your questions. I'm just too
quarrelsome. In Germany there's a saying: "Exceptions confirm the rules."

> [Snip, sorry] ... those who are entirely dedicated to the fundamentals of

Modern Art - which is a very small minority in reality.

Not true in Germany, especially for modern paintings and sculptures.

> And Tolstoy's essay has to do with ALL art, modern or past. It covers
music, painting, sculpture, literature and architecture.

Once again I'm fighting: Tolstoy died in 1910, where modern art was at it's
beginning. He never heard anything about cubism or serial music (and all the
other new ways of art in the last 88 years). So I think, although he was a
great author, he's not a very good comentator for modern art.

> I merely meant to show that many more people despise Modernism than the
people who love it - and I think that is a simple enough fact that
> we can both agree on.

We can agree only considering music. Like I said before: the situation for
modern paintings and fine arts is very good in Germany, France and Italy and
a lot of other middle european countries. The people like modern art very
much. When Christo and Jean-Claude wraped up the "Reichstag" in Berlin, over
300.000 people came to see this great event (me too).

> None of us can say that we are truly objective. But I try to be careful,
to make sure that I am not just praising or condemning an artist as
> 'incompetent' merely because of my own tastes. You may disagree that I am
being objective, and that is your right to think that - but in this
> case, in my own mind, I am not being unjust to 'artists' such as Picasso,
Matisse, Jackson Pollock and so on.

When making a inquiry with "normal people" in middle Europe about the
question "Who have been the greatest painter of all time?" they would answer
among some others: Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rubens, van Gogh and Picasso.
That has nothing to with quality but with the acception of Picasso in
Europa.

> When do you think you'll have your page translated into English? Please
notify me when this is done, for I'd like to give it a thorough look over.

That's a huge problem. First I have not enough time to translate all the
datas (about 10 MegaByte) and second my English is still to bad to translate
complecated terms. You have to wait a bit longer.

Bye.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A ndreas'
C lassical Die Seite für Liebhaber der ernsten Musik.
P age
http://www.classicpage.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS HECK
Tobias-Maurer-Str. 17 - D-86154 Augsburg - Tel: 0049-821 / 416399
eMail ACP: webm...@classicpage.com
email Privat: a...@newsfactory.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"E come vivo? Vivo"

("La Bohčme", Giacomo Puccini)
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Arsou]

Pardon me, Andreas, I felt an irresistible need to answer you...

So in no particular order:

- Duchamp contempor vs roman
- Tradition vs evolution

This a debate between tradition or evolution, leading you to say that no
there is no evolution in modern music or modern art.

Let me remind you that ultra-realism is one "type" of art in a sea of
hundreds and that, concerning the techne, Picasso proved himself well
capable
in his blue period(still in art: duchamp said that before it was
know-how(savoir-faire) and now it is(or should be) know-choose(savoir
choisir))

Arts, and visual art espicially, has only been in its form for almost a
half-decade or so, before art was a pratictal thing. The art that we know
today have been sticked to the evolution of society(not tradition) and yet
there had to be a french "revolution", a Beaumarchais and a Beethoven.

(We live in a pluracultural society, what's wrong with music of pluralist
style?)

Picasso opened paths, Duchamp opened paths as Michelangelo and Rodin, as
Mozart and Mahler and Xenaxis! Paths are what keeps art growing, without
venues there be only tradition, repetition. Modern artist are those who
maintain all the 300 year old stuff alive, as equal to the other "accepted"
art.

And I've brought my main point:

Genius doesn't exist, to be considered you have to be accepted. Van Gogh
wouldn't be "Van Gogh: the man, the face, the superstar" without everyone
going crazy about him. Art has to be approached by us. It's our duty! And if
we fail it, it dies, till a group comes back to put back in life.

And what I mean is:

How can I / you know what's gonna happen? It's an everchanging world now,
and trends come and go but no one, deep in his or her heart, believes that
lots of true technicians are gonna stand the test of time. There had always
been technicians, Vaughan Williams, Stephen King, any of your painter.
History, in its continuity, will keep only the most important person of the
most important group but important for that period of history. I'm sure one
day Mozart will be forgotten and one day again remembered if we still are
here, in tree thousand centurys.

Arsou

(By the way, what do you think about Mondrian?)

[Gary Bricault]

To Arsou

Such philophical braying!!!!

I starting reviewing this group because it had some promise of interest. So
far the bulk of what it is is degenerate arguing about what might might
justify the existance of contempory psuedo-composers. Its like being told
that one must enjoy a piece of art just because it exists, not because one
might have a clue in the world as to what it really is.

You need not reply to this as I will unsubscribe as soon as I post this.

Toodles

[Andreas Heck]

Gary Bricault wrote <6g8er1$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

Thank Good - he has gone!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A ndreas'
C lassical Die Seite für Liebhaber der ernsten Musik.
P age
http://www.classicpage.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS HECK
Tobias-Maurer-Str. 17 - D-86154 Augsburg - Tel: 0049-821 / 416399
eMail ACP: webm...@classicpage.com
email Privat: a...@newsfactory.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"E come vivo? Vivo"

[Andreas Heck]

Hello Arsou!

Arsou wrote: <6g69i9$1qe$1...@smut.openface.ca>...

>(We live in a pluracultural society, what's wrong with music of pluralist
>style?)

Absolutely nothing. I think you've missed, what I wanted to state with my
mail. There has been a discussion about contemporary music, where people
have given arguments, why contemporary music isn't popular. And because I
can't agree with these reactionary reasons I have given some of my own. And
I think, one of the reasons, why some people don't like modern music is,
that in our century a pluralism of styles occured, so they don't know, which
"way" they should choose.

>Picasso opened paths, Duchamp opened paths as Michelangelo and Rodin, as
>Mozart and Mahler and Xenaxis! Paths are what keeps art growing, without
>venues there be only tradition, repetition. Modern artist are those who
>maintain all the 300 year old stuff alive, as equal to the other "accepted"
>art.

I really think you misunderstood my former posting. I love modern art!!!! In
nearly 90% of my "musical time" I listen to music of our century, mostly
Henze, Zimmermann, Xenakis, Ligeti, Boulez, Messiaen, Nono, Rihm ... The
rest is to relax with Mozart and associates. If you would read the
discussion I had with Iian Neill above, you would be able to see that.

I agree in nearly all points and I don't know, whether I have made you so
angry. Maybe the only point I can't agree with at all is, that genius
doesn't exist. I believe in the connection between genius and mediocrity.

>(By the way, what do you think about Mondrian?)

You might think (because of reasons I can't imagine) that I'm reactionary or
conservative, but Mondrian is one of my favourites.

CU.

[David Cleary]

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

Dave

Gary Bricault (gsb...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

: Such philophical braying!!!!

[Iian Neill]

Andreas Heck wrote:

> Hella Iian,
>
> thanks again for your answer. And although I like to "fight" with words I
> think, that this discussion won't find an end, because our opinions are to
> different. So let me just answer a few questions.

First of all, please allow me to apologise for the delay in responding to your
letter. I had some rather pressing work to do on an essay on Descartes a few
days ago, and decided to forgo my usual internet correspondance until this task
had been completed. I thought that I had posted a message to the forum making
the reason for my delay known, however it appears that the letter did not make
it (possibly a server fault on my end).

I have read and carefully considered your response, and have done my best to
locate any works of those 'contemporary realists' you cite at the start of your
letter. Against their names I have appended any HTML addresses that deal with
these artists, and also jotted down quick observations that occured to me at the
time. I ought to assert that these observations were made in haste, and there
still remain a number of these artists whom I have not tracked down. Yet if
their work continues in a similar vein, I think I have a fairly good idea of
what style you are referring to when mentioning 'contemporary realism'.
In response to this I have accumulated a small list of sites on the internet
that feature the works of artists whom I deem to be talented and competent (and
perhaps even 'great') contemporary realists - with this I have referrenced an
electronic journal whose aims correspond in part fairly closely to my own. It is
not a case here of them 'converting' me to their camp - rather, I stumbled
across their site whilst looking for such artists as they discuss or champion.

I hope to have this response to your letter completed by tomorrow, and hope that
you can forgive the delay that was occassioned by a rather urgent university
assignment.

[Andreas Heck]

Hi Iian!

>First of all, please allow me to apologise for the delay in responding to
your

>letter. [Snip]

No problem. I must admit, that I was very glad to end the discussion because
I had to do a lot of work also.

I have to say: I hope, that I must not think about those realists any more,
because I had enough at school. Sorry, but there are so much new ways to
discover. Above all in music. I must create a lot of composer-pages for my
music guide because of some "aniversaries" this year: about Ligeti,
Stockhausen, Ruzicka and some others.

Greetings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A ndreas'
C lassical Die Seite für Liebhaber der ernsten Musik.
P age
http://www.classicpage.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS HECK
Tobias-Maurer-Str. 17 - D-86154 Augsburg - Tel: 0049-821 / 416399
eMail ACP: webm...@classicpage.com
email Privat: a...@newsfactory.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"E come vivo? Vivo"