Frank Zappa and "Art"
Michael Gula
"The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting:
literally; for other arts: figuratively--because without this
humble applicance, you can't know where The Art stops and The
Real World begins.
"You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is
that shit on the wall?
"If John Cage, for instance, says, 'I'm putting a contact
microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and
that's my composition,' then his gurgling qualifies as his
composition because he put a frame around it and said so. 'Take
it or leave it, I now will this to be music.' After that it's a
matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy
swallowing carrot juice." p.140
This passage, together with the "Let's All Be Composers!"
segment on p.162, left me with the impression that FZ is here
endorsing this particular point of view regarding art and
regarding music. Furthermore, he seems to be ascribing to the
artist himself the role of putting the frame around the object.
But in an interview heard with his "Blood On the Canvas"
collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
"OK, here's my definition of Art. Art is determined by the
frame. If you take anything and put a frame around it, depending
on where the object, whatever it is, could be a crumpled piece of
paper glued to a piece of cardboard, if you stick a frame around
it and you put in on a wall in a gallery, it's Art. And that's
unfortunate. Because the object itself, in order to be deemed
Art, winds up being certified by a spectrum of nincompoops who
get to frame it."
Am I misunderstanding his words, or is this the exact opposite
of what he wrote in TRFZB?
In the first quote he presents a concept and does not criticize
it in the least, but in the second quotation he qualifies the
same concept, saying, "And that's unfortunate."
In the first quote he states that the artist (in this case John
Cage) puts the frame around the object, while in the second quote
the frame is put around the object by "a spectrum on
nincompoops."
Did anyone reading the concept as presented in TRFZB understand
by his words that such a concept is "unfortunate?"
--
SIGNATURE FILE?! WHAT SIGNATURE FILE??
To reply remove MORESPAM from the address.
ZappaLVR
In article <36B87E27...@erols.com>, Michael Gula
<mike...@MORESPAMerols.com> writes:
> But in an interview heard with his "Blood On the Canvas"
>collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
>
Eric Bogosian
Zapp...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/ZappaLVR/zappalvr.html
"There's something in you that wants to come out. Not because you want to brag
about it, but you say ' this could be the best of who or what I am. These are
my good ideas.' " Frank Zappa-1988
ATHVAC2000
NO ITS NOT A GAY GANGBANG HAHAHAHAH
IM GOING TO PUT A BOX AROUND ME
THATS ALL
PAPA
DONT SUPPORT THAT TROUT FAKER
Michael Gula
>
> In article <36B87E27...@erols.com>, Michael Gula
> <mike...@MORESPAMerols.com> writes:
>
> > But in an interview heard with his "Blood On the Canvas"
> >collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
> >
>
> Eric Bogosian
Yes. It's Eric. Thank you.
Darkhop
>
> Frank Zappa wrote the following in TRFZB:
>
> "The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting:
> literally; for other arts: figuratively--because without this
> humble applicance, you can't know where The Art stops and The
> Real World begins.
>
> "You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is
> that shit on the wall?
>
> "If John Cage, for instance, says, 'I'm putting a contact
> microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and
> that's my composition,' then his gurgling qualifies as his
> composition because he put a frame around it and said so. 'Take
> it or leave it, I now will this to be music.' After that it's a
> matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy
> swallowing carrot juice." p.140
>
> This passage, together with the "Let's All Be Composers!"
> segment on p.162, left me with the impression that FZ is here
> endorsing this particular point of view regarding art and
> regarding music. Furthermore, he seems to be ascribing to the
> artist himself the role of putting the frame around the object.
>
> collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
>
> frame. If you take anything and put a frame around it, depending
> on where the object, whatever it is, could be a crumpled piece of
> paper glued to a piece of cardboard, if you stick a frame around
> it and you put in on a wall in a gallery, it's Art. And that's
> unfortunate. Because the object itself, in order to be deemed
> Art, winds up being certified by a spectrum of nincompoops who
> get to frame it."
>
> Am I misunderstanding his words, or is this the exact opposite
> of what he wrote in TRFZB?
The second part, from the interview, sounds more like a shot at snooty
would-be arbiters of taste deciding for the rest of us barbarians what
constitutes Art with a capital A and what's a load of crap. IOW it
doesn't sound like he's disagreeing with the concept, only that one of
its side-effects is unfortunate.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
William H. Clements
Darkhop wrote in message <36B895...@BEST.GUESSdarkhop.com>...
In the second instance, the operative phrase is
" ... and you put it on a wall in a gallery ...
certified by nincompoops who get to frame
it." The certification nonsense is what is
unfortunate.
I think the two quotes are in agreement about
the basic function of the frame. A distinction is
that the second quote is concerned with the
gallery wall. I believe it is poorly worded; this concept
of another kind of frame needs to be developed.
There are inevitably people who get involved
and their action takes place between what
the artist does and what the "appreciator"
does. At the very least these people broker
the transaction. Like a concert promoter.
The process of apportioning out wall space,
and the provision of "The Nail" does not tend
to fall to folks who recognize or value
originality.
Bill Clements
Lewis Saul
>Frank Zappa wrote the following in TRFZB:
> In the first quote he presents a concept and does not criticize
>it in the least, but in the second quotation he qualifies the
>same concept, saying, "And that's unfortunate."
>
> In the first quote he states that the artist (in this case John
>Cage) puts the frame around the object, while in the second quote
>the frame is put around the object by "a spectrum on
>nincompoops."
>
The way I understand him is that Cage *got away with it* (so to speak). He
seems to say that if you can get away with it, go for it...
I think the movie: Uncle Meat makes this point beautifully. While the
Mothers (and auxiliary dancer) argue about whether or not they can make a
rehearsal -- Preston obliviously, and securely, goes about his quest to
frame the sock properly. Masimo gets into the spirit of things with "these
fucking things on the bun" and from his nose, etc. etc.
Modern art, dammit. [but is it ENTERTAINING?]
***
otoh, what fz and eb are raving and ranting about after their show was not
aired on even ONE public radio station (gee, what a shock!)...
is the "attitude" of the white wine drinkers who actually make the decisions
about who gets the frame and who doesn't...
***
Does that make any sense?
L
Michael Gula
>
> Michael Gula wrote in message <36B87E27...@erols.com>...
> >Frank Zappa wrote the following in TRFZB:
> >snip>
>
> > In the first quote he presents a concept and does not criticize
> >it in the least, but in the second quotation he qualifies the
> >same concept, saying, "And that's unfortunate."
> >
> > In the first quote he states that the artist (in this case John
> >Cage) puts the frame around the object, while in the second quote
> >the frame is put around the object by "a spectrum on
> >nincompoops."
> >
>
> The way I understand him is that Cage *got away with it* (so to speak). He
> seems to say that if you can get away with it, go for it...
>
attitude toward John Cage's artistic concepts? He made a few
quips about Cage, but he did, after all, donate his time to that
tribute CD.
> I think the movie: Uncle Meat makes this point beautifully. While the
> Mothers (and auxiliary dancer) argue about whether or not they can make a
> rehearsal -- Preston obliviously, and securely, goes about his quest to
> frame the sock properly. Masimo gets into the spirit of things with "these
> fucking things on the bun" and from his nose, etc. etc.
>
> Modern art, dammit. [but is it ENTERTAINING?]
>
> ***
>
> otoh, what fz and eb are raving and ranting about after their show was not
> aired on even ONE public radio station (gee, what a shock!)...
>
> is the "attitude" of the white wine drinkers who actually make the decisions
> about who gets the frame and who doesn't...
So the statement about Art in TRFZB is mostly "telling it like it
is" without regard to either endorsement or criticism?
Michael Gula
> The second part, from the interview, sounds more like a shot at snooty
> would-be arbiters of taste deciding for the rest of us barbarians what
> constitutes Art with a capital A and what's a load of crap. IOW it
> doesn't sound like he's disagreeing with the concept, only that one of
> its side-effects is unfortunate.
I'm beginning to think he's sneering a little at the general idea
of what Art is.
In the first quotation, I took Zappa as being didactic; as though
saying, "Listen, children, I will now teach you what Art is: It
is whatever you put a "Frame" around and pronounce to be Art."
But it seems he was actually being sarcastic, as, "Well, this is
Art as is generally perceived: It's a Thing with a Frame around
it that people hang in a gallery and the whole concept has little
meaning."
A person has to be really careful at times when reading Zappa; I
think a lot is missed by not hearing the tone and inflection of
his voice. Things like sarcasm and irony sometimes do not
communicate well in cold text--as some who post to this group
learn to their chagrin.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> I'm beginning to think he's sneering a little at the general idea
> of what Art is.
>
> In the first quotation, I took Zappa as being didactic; as though
> saying, "Listen, children, I will now teach you what Art is: It
> is whatever you put a "Frame" around and pronounce to be Art."
> But it seems he was actually being sarcastic, as, "Well, this is
> Art as is generally perceived: It's a Thing with a Frame around
> it that people hang in a gallery and the whole concept has little
> meaning."
I think there are two separate issues here - there is Art as defined by the
Artist, then there's the public proclamation/endorsement by the Patrons of
the Arts (who tend to be the old ladies in the Society Pages). It is the
latter that determines who gets the bucks and is invited to all the good
parties.
Check out Tom Wolfe's books "The Painted Word" and "From Bauhaus to Our
House" for a scathing look at the worlds of art and architecture. (My
sister has danced at the fringes of the art world for a long time, and she
says Wolfe is right on the money.)
> A person has to be really careful at times when reading Zappa; I
> think a lot is missed by not hearing the tone and inflection of
> his voice. Things like sarcasm and irony sometimes do not
> communicate well in cold text--as some who post to this group
> learn to their chagrin.
True.
-Sam
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
Lewis Saul
>Should this be construed to mean that FZ had a depreciative
>attitude toward John Cage's artistic concepts?
Not at all! Cage was the *first* to frame that particular music (a recent
poster speculated that FZ was making faces at the audience during his
performance of 4:33 -- if that is true, he was simply representing one of
the facets of the work -- that is the "music" which comes from the
audience...[in this case, perhaps "prokoved" by the performer -- precisely
the synergy Cage had in mind for this "silent music."]
I'm not name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping, but rather to drive
this point home. In the magical time I spent with him (see Long
Version/Cage, URL below), the most "uncomfortable" moment came on the bus on
the way back to Interlochen, when a lot of the other composers in the group
were asking him about 4:33 -- what does it mean, why did you write it, is
this really "music" -- really dumb questions that annoyed the hell out of me
(and Cage). He patiently gave out a few cryptic one-liners and finally they
got the hint that this wasn't something suitable for Q&A...
I think the original "frame" statement shows a great respect for what Cage
did.
If you *read* Cage [much better than *listening* to Cage] -- 4:33 becomes
sort of a meta-composition in the overall larger scheme of things...
**
As other posters have pointed out, the talk about frames in Blood on the
Canvas has more to do with those who decide what they'll label "art" and
what they won't...
**
On a related note, the folks who run the PR department at the Pittsburgh
Symphony decided they needed to attract more young people to their concerts.
So when Midori came last week to play the Dvorak violin concerto (my mom
says it was awesome...) -- they did a big ad campaign with the slogan:
Violin Femmes (another female violinist is to appear shortly)
Now, I've never heard Violent Femmes, but I assume they're a punk group?
in any case, the PSO obviously decided the frame was a little tarnished and
decided to repaint it in punk...
**
>
>So the statement about Art in TRFZB is mostly "telling it like it
>is" without regard to either endorsement or criticism?
>
>--
I think so. A frame is a frame is a frame.
The question Zappa is really raising is WHO gets to decide whether or not to
hang that damn painting and tell everyone else how magnificent it is....
LS
The Frank Zappa Musical Resource Institute (TFZMRI)
http://www.mypages.com/lsaul
ls...@azstarnet.com
AJ Wilkes
: In the first quotation, I took Zappa as being didactic; as though saying,
: "Listen, children, I will now teach you what Art is: It is whatever you
: put a "Frame" around and pronounce to be Art." But it seems he was
: actually being sarcastic, as, "Well, this is Art as is generally
: perceived: It's a Thing with a Frame around it that people hang in a
: gallery and the whole concept has little meaning."
I took it to mean thusly:
First quote - "This is what art is." [no criticism or sarcasm]
Second quote - "This is what art is, and it's unfortunate because anyone can
do it and they may suck."
The second one was an extension of the first, not an alternative.
-jk-
Th Alers
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/alers.fx/cv.html
Michael Gula wrote:
>
> Frank Zappa wrote the following in TRFZB:
>
> In the first quote he presents a concept and does not criticize
> it in the least, but in the second quotation he qualifies the
> same concept, saying, "And that's unfortunate."
>
> In the first quote he states that the artist (in this case John
> Cage) puts the frame around the object, while in the second quote
> the frame is put around the object by "a spectrum on
> nincompoops."
>
> Did anyone reading the concept as presented in TRFZB understand
> by his words that such a concept is "unfortunate?"
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SIGNATURE FILE?! WHAT SIGNATURE FILE??
>
> To reply remove MORESPAM from the address.
--
feel free to visit the monastery
http://web.inter.NL.net/users/alers.fx
Charles Ulrich
ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or Karen Rouse) wrote:
> Check out Tom Wolfe's books "The Painted Word" and "From Bauhaus to Our
> House" for a scathing look at the worlds of art and architecture. (My
> sister has danced at the fringes of the art world for a long time, and she
> says Wolfe is right on the money.)
Dancing about the fringes of the art world is like writing about music.
Or something.
--
--Charles
Jason Arvey
The "unfortunate" part is in reference to the recent movement that
thinks that art can only be art if a bunch of other people accept it as
art. He defines art as something with a frame around it (that frame can
also be the beginning and end of a "composition" or the covers of a
book, or space around a sculpture). However, it is unfortunate that
society will only accept that thing as art once a group of "learned
people" accept the thing with a frame around it. In fact, it may even
be "unfortunate" that you need a frame at all -- art is only recognized
in the concept of a frame.
Here, I think the eastern religions have us beat. They'll accept
places of beauty or people as art, without the frame. Then, they'll go
and put a frame (a torii gate) out in the middle of nowhere, ofeten in a
beautiful place, but often in what seems a random, uninteresting
location. (also remember that these torii frames can be viewed from two
sides.)
--Jason Arvey
Geir Corneliussen
maybe? : I have a framingstore...
I look at crap every day. I find it unbeliveable what people hang on
their walls (or put on their stereo.)
I had this weird costumer here just before the weekend. He had some 20
paintworks, they were wet, wrecked up and full of dirt. As was he. I
hated to frame them, they were disgusting. Then he want me to come to
his exhibition. I say no, but he ask and ask. So I did. He had hired a
dance-ensemble and a couple of musicians for the opening. And I was in
for a surprise! I got his point. I looked at the pictures, listened to
the music and the nice chick dancing...and got a glass of wine...And
enjoyed myself. The wet and snotty pieces of dirt I hated to frame,
looked pretty nice in the gallery. So a frame sure helps, not only
around the object itself, but also in terms of presentation. This time,
It has never been made more clear to me. And he better sell them, 'cause
I want my 1000 bucks....Same with music...some smokebombs and a couple
of chicks, and there ya go. Of course, time will show if the quality
will last, or if it's just crap. Nomatter how expensive frame there is.
How can I judge that, since it's a matter of taste? Well, I also see
what people throw out the window when they find out the same thing....
Geir Corneliussen
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Charles Ulrich) wrote:
> Dancing about the fringes of the art world is like writing about music.
>
> Or something.
Dancing about the fringes of the art world is like building the sidewalk
around famous architecture. Or something.
Lewis Saul
>: If you *read* Cage [much better than *listening* to Cage] -- 4:33 becomes
>: sort of a meta-composition in the overall larger scheme of things...
>
I didn't say that. Some of his music is brilliant [prepared piano pieces;
radio works & much more...].
I just personally believe that his writings are even *more* brilliant!
Have you read any of his writings, like "Empty Words" ?
If that's what you
>mean, then aren't you saying that Cage is one of the nicompoops putting
>frames around time, calling it art?
It was *all* "art" to him! That's what I'm saying.
Of course, the majority of people in the world do (or would) think that he
is "one of the nicompoops putting frames around time, calling it art?"
And that, too, has a frame :)
>
> And what is this idea of a meta-composition for? 4:33 is a
>composition, period.
>
>
I only meant to convey the importance of 4:33 as perhaps the greatest
example ever of the "frame on the art" we're talking about here...
it's not *just* a "composition, period."
L
Ronald Raygunz
ATHVAC2000 wrote in message
<19990203123638...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>IM GOING TO SURROUND MYSELF WITH WOODIES
>
> ITS A GAY GANGBANG HAHAHAHAH
>
>IM GOING TO PUT COX AROUND ME
>
>
>
>
>THATS ALL
>PA-PANSY
>
>DONT SUPPORT THIS TROUT FUKER
Konrad
: If you *read* Cage [much better than *listening* to Cage] -- 4:33 becomes
: sort of a meta-composition in the overall larger scheme of things...
You mean that his music was unlistenable? If that's what you
mean, then aren't you saying that Cage is one of the nicompoops putting
frames around time, calling it art?
And what is this idea of a meta-composition for? 4:33 is a
composition, period.
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: Darkhop wrote:
: > The second part, from the interview, sounds more like a shot at snooty
: > would-be arbiters of taste deciding for the rest of us barbarians what
: > constitutes Art with a capital A and what's a load of crap. IOW it
: > doesn't sound like he's disagreeing with the concept, only that one of
: > its side-effects is unfortunate.
: I'm beginning to think he's sneering a little at the general idea
: of what Art is.
: In the first quotation, I took Zappa as being didactic; as though
: saying, "Listen, children, I will now teach you what Art is: It
: is whatever you put a "Frame" around and pronounce to be Art."
: But it seems he was actually being sarcastic, as, "Well, this is
: Art as is generally perceived: It's a Thing with a Frame around
: it that people hang in a gallery and the whole concept has little
: meaning."
I don't think i read it that way. To me the first quote is
talking about the same thing as the one that you sometimes hear, something
about "Hey people, it's the 20th century, you can do whatever you want to
have your fun." Remember that one? It's basically about 'anything goes'
or AAFNRAA. Your art doesn't have to PROVE something. Certainly Cage was
one of the pioneers of this approach.
The second quote, as others have pointed out, is more about how
people have abused this modern situation, and thrown shit on the wall,
and nobody wants to call it for what it is. The whole "While You Were Art"
fiasco, while not the same idea, is related to this. That's the one where
they mimed Zappa's piece at Cal Arts and no one noticed, no one was
willing to see what was going on for what it was, fakery.
On the other hand, i think the liner notes to TPStranger (and some
remarks in the Apocrypha interview) show that Zappa's disdain for the
connotations of Art -- and you might be picking up on some of that in the
second quote.
Anyway, i don't think they contradict, if you look at the two
quotes you typed in in this way.
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: Here, I think the eastern religions have us beat. They'll accept
: places of beauty or people as art, without the frame. Then, they'll go
: and put a frame (a torii gate) out in the middle of nowhere, ofeten in a
: beautiful place, but often in what seems a random, uninteresting
: location. (also remember that these torii frames can be viewed from two
: sides.)
I don't think the torii are there for visual purposes.
And, while i can't support my opinion with examples or arguments,
i have the gut feeling that the great Eastern Religions also have us beat
in the Arbiters of Taste department, too.
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: Konrad wrote in message ...
: >: If you *read* Cage [much better than *listening* to Cage] -- 4:33 becomes
: >: sort of a meta-composition in the overall larger scheme of things...
: >
: > You mean that his music was unlistenable?
: I didn't say that. Some of his music is brilliant [prepared piano pieces;
: radio works & much more...].
: I just personally believe that his writings are even *more* brilliant!
Thanks for clarifiying. I guess some opinions depend on what you've
read (and what ELSE you've read).
: Have you read any of his writings, like "Empty Words" ?
Only snippets of Silence and that was long ago. They are on one
of my to do lists .... however, i have this feeling that if you listen to
his music chronologically, and follow the evolution of his thinking
musically, it is easy to enjoy all the work, writings read or not.
On the other hand, i can understand even then, that it's not for
all of the people all of the time, or some of the people all of the time,
but some of the people some of the time will enjoy it. And what makes it
great seems to be that at all times, someone will be able to enjoy it, i.e.
it's timeless (not stylish).
konrad
--
^Z
Jason Arvey
Torii gates are supopsed to mark locations in which shinto live.
Generally they are cites of great physical beauty, but sometimes they
are just places. They are in a way the sectioning off of nature as a
thing to be looked at, and in the context of Zappa's quote, they are
thus natural art.
--Jason Arvey
> konrad
> --
> ^Z
Geir Corneliussen
>
> Lewis Saul <ls...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>
> : If you *read* Cage [much better than *listening* to Cage] -- 4:33 becomes
> : sort of a meta-composition in the overall larger scheme of things...
>
> mean, then aren't you saying that Cage is one of the nicompoops putting
> frames around time, calling it art?
>
> And what is this idea of a meta-composition for? 4:33 is a
> composition, period.
>
> konrad
>
Cage was first of all a fantastic philosopher. His ideas outgoes his
"works", so to say. He even painted.
A Cage picture could just be made out of objects dipped in ink and
smashed onto a piece of paper, for instance. In it's own, it's not much
to look at! It doesen't look pretty. And you and I can do the same
thing. But who else but Cage could have done something _like that_in the
first place ? Same with 4:33.
The idea is everything, the work is "nothing". I think you people agree,
I haven't read the whole thread yet.
But some of the music he made, is pretty nice, though. I have a lot of
his stuff, for prepared piano, water gongs played while dipped in water
etc...A lot of funny noises. And nice rhytms. Ding Dong Gooong Boink
klonk!
And, to Lewis, you say his writings are "better" than the rest? Is there
anything online? I haven't read anything by him yet. How Lame of me. Are
there some blank webpages around I should "read" ? Ha ha!
Geir Corneliussen
Konrad
: Torii gates are supopsed to mark locations in which shinto live.
: Generally they are cites of great physical beauty, but sometimes they
: are just places. They are in a way the sectioning off of nature as a
: thing to be looked at, and in the context of Zappa's quote, they are
: thus natural art.
: --Jason Arvey
... but even from what you say, the gate itself is a marker of
something INvisible. THAT is why it's relevant to the Zappa quote, and
to 4:33.
konrad
--
^Z
Geir Corneliussen
> The second part, from the interview, sounds more like a shot at snooty
> would-be arbiters of taste deciding for the rest of us barbarians what
> constitutes Art with a capital A and what's a load of crap. IOW it
> doesn't sound like he's disagreeing with the concept, only that one of
> its side-effects is unfortunate.
The interview was more like the typical Zappa-sarcasms, making fun of
the wacky audience. The --I am smartest, so I decide for you people
whats art-- sort of thing....a piece of paper can be art with a nice
frame? Well, actually not. You, the audience, decide in the last phaze.
It's a matter of taste, as he wrote in the RFZB.
It's all a matter of taste. Not the silly nincompomps he made fun of in
the interview.
To experience art is so easy. Just look what inside of a frame. Does it
makes sense? Not? Well, it's crap.
I remember a big exhibition, on a beach out here. They wrote about it in
the newspaper, the nincompomps said it was great...I took a look, and
it made no sense. Garbage. Went home. Then I look at a tiny thing a kid
show me. Does it mean anthing? Yup, it makes sense. So it is ART. Easy
deal. Here, the frame was the presentation. He show it to me, I was his
audience. No foolz in sight explaining it to me, I liked it.
Even a piece of dogshit can be "viewed" as art, if the frame is right.
In a gallery. Or whatever. Sometimes it makes a big difference(as I
wrote in that dirt-paint story) sometimes not. I work with "art" every
day. I know from experience, only 30 percent of my costumers actually
like the stuff. They have been explained: "This is art", by someone else
they think were cute enough to know... I think it's good people are
stupid. I need the money. So I also tell them how nice and artistic it
looks, and make some bucks on them. I don't give a shit.
And so on...stuff like that.
Geir Corneliussen
Hoodoo
<clemNO...@ultraNOSPAMnet.com> wrote:
>There are inevitably people who get involved
>and their action takes place between what
>the artist does and what the "appreciator"
>does. At the very least these people broker
>the transaction. Like a concert promoter.
>The process of apportioning out wall space,
>and the provision of "The Nail" does not tend
>to fall to folks who recognize or value
>originality.
Speaking of "the nail", or nails in general, wasn't Yokon Ono pounding
nails into a wall in a gallery - and calling it art - when John Lennon
met her?
Sorry to get off the topic, but, perhaps I'm not.
====================
»òó«»òó«»òó«»òó«
·¤©®¤ Hoodoo ¤©®¤·
«ÒÓ»«ÒÓ»«ÒÓ»«ÒÓ»
Please remove the obvious pest deterrent
in my address for personal replies.
Hoodoo
wrote:
>Now, I've never heard Violent Femmes, but I assume they're a punk group?
Yes, they were/are a three-piece band from Milwaukee that were quite
influential 10 years or so ago. I can't put an absolute handle on
their type of music but I don't think it was "punk". I forgot the
label that was hung on them.
William H. Clements
Jason Arvey wrote in message <36B8CA0E...@harper.uchicago.edu>...
> The "unfortunate" part is in reference to the recent movement that
>thinks that art can only be art if a bunch of other people accept it as
>art.
Yes, thank you, that clears it up. Since the "frame" is what
defines art (that's a given) then the current practice of having
committees of nincompoops certify which pieces are to be
deemed art is letting _them_ put the frame on it. Which is
unfortunate. That in itself is not strictly a "recent" phenomenon
but there are trends.
What is the reason for this trend? Could it be that modern humans,
naked in a cold Godless universe, are frantically stuffing fetid
rationalistic straw into the leaking dike of their purpose for
existence? Are pseudo-scientific, bloodless critieria for judging
morality and art the ineffectual last gasps of Western
metaphysics, crashing down without the artificial
support of the once-strong but now rotting timbers of
organized religion?
I ask you.
Bill Clements
Martin Gregorie
.../....
>What is the reason for this trend? Could it be that modern humans,
>naked in a cold Godless universe, are frantically stuffing fetid
>rationalistic straw into the leaking dike of their purpose for
>existence? Are pseudo-scientific, bloodless critieria for judging
>morality and art the ineffectual last gasps of Western
>metaphysics, crashing down without the artificial
>support of the once-strong but now rotting timbers of
>organized religion?
>
At a guess it has more to do with engrained distrust of ones own
judgment learnt from TV and the restriction of 'education' to strictly
occupational requirements.
If you don't teach a populace to think for themselves or teach then
critical appreciation of music/literature/media you can't expect them
to form rational judgments about anything beyond basic living.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
gregorie |+44 (0171) 637 9111
@ |
logica |
. |All opinions expressed are solely those
com |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geir Corneliussen
> What is the reason for this trend? Could it be that modern humans,
> naked in a cold Godless universe, are frantically stuffing fetid
> rationalistic straw into the leaking dike of their purpose for
> existence? Are pseudo-scientific, bloodless critieria for judging
> morality and art the ineffectual last gasps of Western
> metaphysics, crashing down without the artificial
> support of the once-strong but now rotting timbers of
> organized religion?
>
> I ask you.
What a fantastic ultragammaexsistensialistic quasimethaphilosophical
question.
Beautiful. No, -Jason must answer that. He has the right brain for
this.
Geir Corneliussen
Darkhop
> I work with "art" every
> day. I know from experience, only 30 percent of my costumers actually
> like the stuff. They have been explained: "This is art", by someone else
> they think were cute enough to know... I think it's good people are
> stupid. I need the money.
Brilliant, Geir. I think you just summed up the entire concept of
economics right there, whether for art or anything else.
You need a car to get from here to there, but you'll be something
special if you can push the gas pedal a little further than everyone
else and make a squealing noise when the light turns green. Therefore,
cough up a few extra grand for the requisite machine.
It is now a requirement for you to be reached by telephone even if
you're taking a dump in a portacrapper on the beach in Port-Au-Prince.
So, buy this phone. And oh yes, there's an extra charge ("startup fee")
if you want it to actually do what it's supposed to do.
(Considering this last: is there anyone like me in this regard, who
*didn't* get an extra phone line for the internet? I have to disconnect
the phone to get online, and somehow I just don't see a problem.)
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Michael Gula
> (Considering this last: is there anyone like me in this regard, who
> *didn't* get an extra phone line for the internet? I have to disconnect
> the phone to get online, and somehow I just don't see a problem.)
I can't afford two phone lines! If anyone wants to call me while
I'm online, they'll just have to call back later. It's usually
somebody trying to sell me something anyway.
Geir Corneliussen
> What is the reason for this trend? Could it be that modern humans,
> naked in a cold Godless universe, are frantically stuffing fetid
> rationalistic straw into the leaking dike of their purpose for
> existence? Are pseudo-scientific, bloodless critieria for judging
> morality and art the ineffectual last gasps of Western
> metaphysics, crashing down without the artificial
> support of the once-strong but now rotting timbers of
> organized religion?
But it's just the old gang mentality.
It has been that way since the stoneages, so it aint excactly a trend.
People need a "leader" when they don't have knowledge enough.
Geir Corneliussen
Martin Gregorie
>(Considering this last: is there anyone like me in this regard, who
>*didn't* get an extra phone line for the internet? I have to disconnect
>the phone to get online, and somehow I just don't see a problem.)
>
Yes, but only for email @home. And no, I don't see a problem.
Rolf Maurer
>> But in an interview heard with his "Blood On the Canvas"
>>collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
>
>Eric Bogosian
Yeah, Peter's always telling everybody how he'd like us to call him
Eric. It's best to humour him.
Rolf
____________________________
Ken Dodd's Dad's dog's dead
____________________________
Konrad
: Cage was first of all a fantastic philosopher. His ideas outgoes his
: "works", so to say. He even painted.
That's what i've felt sometimes too, but i'm beginning to think
that it's not true. It's just that you have to listen to his work from
the first ones in the 1930s and 40s and follow his development. Then, i
expect, the "works" will be easier to hear and appreciate for what they
are. Too often i think people don't like Cage's music, because their
ideas of 'music' are not his ideas. And reading the texts is not enough
to get to the real musical (not verbal) ideas.
I could be wrong about this, but until i've tried it, i'm through
with thinking that Cage was a great conceptualist and increasingly lousy
composer.
konrad
--
^Z
Lewis Saul
>with thinking that Cage was a great conceptualist and increasingly lousy
>composer.
>
> konrad
>--
It's just my opinion, Konrad...
I should probably have pointed out some of my reasoning, however. In the
late 60's, there was a flurry of compositions from the likes of Cage,
Stockhausen, Kagel, Xenakis, Ferrari, Luening, etc. etc. -- all using
electronic sounds and electronically-transformed "found" sounds (musique
concrète -- which is what fascinated FZ so much at the time...)
IN MY OPINION, (emphasis necessary) -- I just don't think Cage's work --
especially the majority of compositions which increasingly relied upon
*chance operations* (throwing the I Ching to determine what music to play,
etc...) measured up to say -- uh -- Stockhausen's HYMNEN :)
Just wanted to make it clear that I consider Cage to be a very good
composer. I simply believe that others surpassed him...
Wanna tape of HYMNEN?
Lew Saul
Hymnen Missionary
Konrad
Geir's post, not yours. I have no problem with you holding your opinions.
I stated my reasons for wanting to look more closely at Cage's work, and
admitted i could be wrong. Where's the offense in that?
There're plenty of people who've heard one Cage piece and said to
themselves, "what a bunch of bullshit art music." Geir and you both
said Cage is a better writer than a composer, and all i want to say,
because i've felt that way in the past and don't feel that way now, is
that such an opinion ought to be based on having heard a lot of the
music. So i'm not saying this for YOUR benefit, but for those who would
dismiss him based on cursory listening, and on some twisted view of the
Zappa quotes Mike brought to our attention, that Zappa dismissed him. too.
konrad
Lewis Saul <ls...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
: Konrad wrote in message ...
: Wanna tape of HYMNEN?
: Lew Saul
: Hymnen Missionary
--
^Z
Jerry Hull
<clemNO...@ultraNOSPAMnet.com> wrote:
>Jason Arvey wrote in message <36B8CA0E...@harper.uchicago.edu>...
>
>> The "unfortunate" part is in reference to the recent movement that
>>thinks that art can only be art if a bunch of other people accept it as
>>art.
>
>Yes, thank you, that clears it up. Since the "frame" is what
>defines art (that's a given) then the current practice of having
>committees of nincompoops certify which pieces are to be
>deemed art is letting _them_ put the frame on it. Which is
>unfortunate. That in itself is not strictly a "recent" phenomenon
>but there are trends.
>
>What is the reason for this trend? Could it be that modern humans,
>naked in a cold Godless universe, are frantically stuffing fetid
>rationalistic straw into the leaking dike of their purpose for
>existence? Are pseudo-scientific, bloodless critieria for judging
>morality and art the ineffectual last gasps of Western
>metaphysics, crashing down without the artificial
>support of the once-strong but now rotting timbers of
>organized religion?
Don't bogart the joint.
--
Jer
"However far you may travel in this world, you will still occupy
the same volume of space". Traditional Ur-Bororo saying.
Ray Dittmeier
the original Sanskrit text:
>(Considering this last: is there anyone like me in this regard, who
>*didn't* get an extra phone line for the internet? I have to disconnect
>the phone to get online, and somehow I just don't see a problem.)
Same here. In fact, knowing the phone can't ring while I'm online is
a bonus in favor of the net.
--
Mother Nature's a mad scientist, Jerry!
--Cosmo Kramer
It Never Entered My Mind
<mike...@MORESPAMerols.com> wr
>put a frame around it and said so. 'Take
>it or leave it, I now will this to be music.' After that it's a
>matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy
>swallowing carrot juice." p.140
>
>But in an interview heard with his "Blood On the Canvas"
>collaboration with Peter Begosian, he says this:
>
>"OK, here's my definition of Art. Art is determined by the
>frame. If you take anything and put a frame around it, depending
>on where the object, whatever it is, could be a crumpled piece of
>paper glued to a piece of cardboard, if you stick a frame around
>it and you put in on a wall in a gallery, it's Art. And that's
>unfortunate. Because the object itself, in order to be deemed
>Art, winds up being certified by a spectrum of nincompoops who
>get to frame it."
>
>Am I misunderstanding his words, or is this the exact opposite
>of what he wrote in TRFZB?
Easy, easy and easy.
In the first instance, Zappa elaborates on art in the same manner as
Don Preston did in Uncle Meat (vid). Anything is art, in the eye of
the beholder, as is beauty.
How the beholder explains or justifies his belief, or his vision of
beauty to other people is another problem altogether. Some people,
such as Marcel Duchamps who presented a urinary station (stand up
modem, in ceramic) as art, justified it in terms of "dada". That was
his mechanism or technique of getting across to other people his
vision of beauty or art. I am assuming that art is intended to be
beautiful, otherwise why would anyone want to spend time and money
on it?
Going back to the matter, Zappa in his second quote elaborated on
the problem of the beholder of beauty aka the artist, in expressing
or getting across to other people his particular vision of art.
Zappa indicated that oftentimes the artist is unable to explain his
vision, and in lieu of any self-sustaining opinion regarding the
art, other people who are "hip" in a particular area of society are
those making the assessments of the art.
In a nutshell, I think Zappa wanted to be able to release anything
that he understood as art himself, according to his own vision, of
course, and that he didn't feel it was necessary or relevant to have
other people, such as honchos in the music industry from EMI,
Polygram, Columbia, Virgin, or Warner Bros decide for other people
how good his own art was. This is a small extrapolation of mine, but
I think that Zappa felt the ONLY relevant critics of his art should
be his own fans, and his own mind, and never any third party who's
not a fan, and who might have a suspicious agenda regarding his
music.
Lewis Saul
relevant critics of his art should be his own fans, and his own mind, and
never any third party who's
>not a fan, and who might have a suspicious agenda regarding his music.
Miguel -- why don't you try to post more responses like this? You are
obviously not the drooling moron many think you are (an impression which, at
times, you seem to go to great lengths to reinforce) -- the above paragraph
is RIGHT ON....
Lew Saul
"There is always hope for the seemingly hopeless..." -- LS
It Never Entered My Mind
<ls...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> the above paragraph is RIGHT ON....
It's no fun being sensible and on-the-money all the time.
There has to be room for improvisation, even if it's with a
hamburger bun.
"The greatest honor that can come to man is the appreciation and
high regard of his fellow man." - H. G. Mendelson
Michael Pierry
>
>
> How the beholder explains or justifies his belief, or his vision of
> beauty to other people is another problem altogether. Some people,
> such as Marcel Duchamps who presented a urinary station (stand up
> modem, in ceramic) as art, justified it in terms of "dada". That was
> his mechanism or technique of getting across to other people his
> vision of beauty or art. I am assuming that art is intended to be
> beautiful, otherwise why would anyone want to spend time and money
> on it?
The Duchamps work was an upside-down urinal which he called "Fountain". Dada
was an anti-art movement, which essentially satirized the whole concept of
what is considered art. So the intent was not for you to sit there and enjoy
this "fountain" as a beautiful work of art, but to sort of make you laugh a
little bit and wonder about how seriously one ought to take the whole question
of art, and what it is. At least, that's my take on it.
>
> Going back to the matter, Zappa in his second quote elaborated on
> the problem of the beholder of beauty aka the artist, in expressing
> or getting across to other people his particular vision of art.
> Zappa indicated that oftentimes the artist is unable to explain his
> vision, and in lieu of any self-sustaining opinion regarding the
> art, other people who are "hip" in a particular area of society are
> those making the assessments of the art.
Yeah, I agree with that.
>
> In a nutshell, I think Zappa wanted to be able to release anything
> that he understood as art himself, according to his own vision, of
> course, and that he didn't feel it was necessary or relevant to have
> other people, such as honchos in the music industry from EMI,
> Polygram, Columbia, Virgin, or Warner Bros decide for other people
> how good his own art was. This is a small extrapolation of mine, but
> I think that Zappa felt the ONLY relevant critics of his art should
> be his own fans, and his own mind, and never any third party who's
> not a fan, and who might have a suspicious agenda regarding his
> music.
And I agree with that too. Darn it Miguel, stop making sense!!
--
"Is that a wheel of cheese in your pocket or are you... um... some kind of
lumpy person?" - Matt Baume
Konrad
: The Duchamps work was an upside-down urinal which he called "Fountain". Dada
: was an anti-art movement, which essentially satirized the whole concept of
: what is considered art. So the intent was not for you to sit there and enjoy
: this "fountain" as a beautiful work of art, but to sort of make you laugh a
: little bit and wonder about how seriously one ought to take the whole question
: of art, and what it is. At least, that's my take on it.
There was a show being organized in New York City, and Duchamps
was on the committee making up rules for who could be in the show. They
wanted to let anybody in who was willing to pay the $5 entry fee. In
other words, it was not a curated show.
Duchamps and one of his cohorts in DADA went to plumbing shop
and bought the urinal, MD signed it R. Mutt and submitted it without
telling anyone on the committee. The committee wouldn't accept it and
Duchamp and the other man quit the group, on principle that anyone should
be able to submit to the show, i.e. that there was no way you could tell
someone that what they did wasn't art.
I don't know when and where "Fountain" was 'exhibited,' and they
soon lost track of the original one, as it had no value whatsoever as an
object, but it certainly made a big "splash."
The SF Museum of Modern Art has a replica of "Fountain." You feel
really silly looking at it in a museum, which i consider to be a muted
aftershock of the original impression it gave. I have visions of some
wealthy patron bringing her little dog to a private opening at the museum,
and the dog goes up and pisses on the pedestal.
konrad
--
^Z
Konrad
: Michael Pierry <still...@home.com> wrote:
: : The Duchamps work was an upside-down urinal which he called "Fountain". Dada
[snip]
: There was a show being organized in New York City, and Duchamps
I subconsiously adopted Pierry's misspelling of Duchamp's name.
It's D U C H A M P
"champs" is a French word meaning "field" i think.
--
^Z
It Never Entered My Mind
wrote:
>I subconsiously adopted Pierry's misspellin
Try "subconsciously" too !
Konrad
: On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:44:46 GMT, Konrad <konr...@netcom.com>
: wrote:
: >I subconsiously adopted Pierry's misspellin
: Try "subconsciously" too !
If he had used that word, i'm sure i would have got it right.
--
^Z
Geir Corneliussen
> It's D U C H A M P
>
> "champs" is a French word meaning "field" i think.
>
> --
> ^Z
duchamp--->duckhemp--->duckweed--->dickweed
Geir Corneliussen
Konrad
: Konrad wrote:
: > It's D U C H A M P
: >
: > "champs" is a French word meaning "field" i think.
: >
: > --
: > ^Z
: duchamp--->duckhemp--->duckweed--->dickweed
DICKWEED = COCKHAIR HAHAHAHAHAH
--
^Z