OT - Modern Art & Music
Terry Jones
referred to as "modern" - not simply those which are just
chronologically modern, like everyday popular pieces or those based on
an essentially traditional / classical approach.
Firstly what are the limits of music or art? Is something "art" simply
because someone chooses to label it so - or is this simply false
advertising, like the way that people will try to attach the
description "scientific" to something which isn't?
Music may be a little easier, because despite individual and cultural
differences in perception, there does seem to be a (fuzzy) boundary
beyond which most people will cease to perceive something as musical.
Secondly, while it may (or may not) be technically proficient - is it
any good, in the sense of meeting it's objectives?
For example, it often seems to seen as necessary to have to "explain"
modern art. - Now in the case of art from other cultures or historical
periods, yes I would expect to need to have things like the symbolism
and cultural background explained - But unless modern art is aimed
specifically at an elite or specialist audience, then I would see this
need to have to explain it as a failure on the part of the artist in
being unable to communicate their intent through their chosen medium.
Also, I personally think that a lot of modern art is impoverished or
plagiaristic.
For example pieces which depend upon an effect - making a joke,
shocking people, etc. - once you've got the joke, been shocked, what
more is there to them? A good cartoonist can do this on an almost
daily basis.
And where pieces are visually "rich" this is often "borrowed" richness
- intentional, but on a par with the texture of fabric, tree bark, an
interesting piece of rock, a lava lamp, or whatever.
And finally, thinking of the sort of art (originals or reproductions)
that most people buy when they are spending their *own* money? - Has
modern art & music reached (or overstepped) the limits of what many of
the general population recognise as being art or music?
Terry
Stephen Wilson
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:p1p2st0ud88ri7sto...@4ax.com...
> Specifically I'm talking about those styles which are commonly
> referred to as "modern" - not simply those which are just
> chronologically modern, like everyday popular pieces or those based on
> an essentially traditional / classical approach.
>
> Firstly what are the limits of music or art? Is something "art" simply
> because someone chooses to label it so - or is this simply false
> advertising, like the way that people will try to attach the
> description "scientific" to something which isn't?
There are two ways of looking at it.
The first is that music and art are in the ear or eye of the beholder. That
is the way I define it. I know what I like looking at, and I know what I
like listening to. That is of course a very subjective. My likes are going
to be very different to another persons. But I won't pay for anything,
despite the worth others place on it, if I can hear or see no merit in it
myself.
The second is that music and art are what the critics tell us they are. And
the public does seem to be influenced by these so called experts. The
marketing people will also help define it. E.g. all the current manufactured
bands are created with a view to exploiting younger children. Is it music?
Of course. Is it good? That's a matter of opinion. It's got some merit, but
it's rather artificial.
> Music may be a little easier, because despite individual and cultural
> differences in perception, there does seem to be a (fuzzy) boundary
> beyond which most people will cease to perceive something as musical.
>
> Secondly, while it may (or may not) be technically proficient - is it
> any good, in the sense of meeting it's objectives?
Depends on what the objectives are. If I was in a band and played music that
was self-indulgent, we'd be happy, but the public wouldn't. If we played all
the old favourites, the public would be happy but we wouldn't. The fact is
that bands that play commercial music will always be more successful. A more
technically proficient group may not necessarily appeal to a wider audience.
The same is true of art.
> For example, it often seems to seen as necessary to have to "explain"
> modern art. - Now in the case of art from other cultures or historical
> periods, yes I would expect to need to have things like the symbolism
> and cultural background explained - But unless modern art is aimed
> specifically at an elite or specialist audience, then I would see this
> need to have to explain it as a failure on the part of the artist in
> being unable to communicate their intent through their chosen medium.
There are a number of ways of looking at it. Sometimes it's nice to get a
bit of background on a piece of art - it places it in some kind of context.
Some people will appreciate it for what it is, some people will appreciate
it after some kind of explanation, and others will never get it. Modern art
is sometimes difficult to get a handle on. Traditional art developed as a
way of capturing a moment in the way a camera does today. When modern art
abandons any attempt to depict a recognisable object, I often find it
difficult to appreciate the artist's intent.
> Also, I personally think that a lot of modern art is impoverished or
> plagiaristic.
Art and music have been around for a very long time. It's incredibly
difficult to come up with something original these days!
> For example pieces which depend upon an effect - making a joke,
> shocking people, etc. - once you've got the joke, been shocked, what
> more is there to them? A good cartoonist can do this on an almost
> daily basis.
>
> And where pieces are visually "rich" this is often "borrowed" richness
> - intentional, but on a par with the texture of fabric, tree bark, an
> interesting piece of rock, a lava lamp, or whatever.
Is there any harm in borrowing? In music, most groups will cover another's
songs. I think it was Mike Oldfield who said he likes taking the best bits
of other people and then redo them his way. It's very often another person's
work that will inspire your own...
> And finally, thinking of the sort of art (originals or reproductions)
> that most people buy when they are spending their *own* money? - Has
> modern art & music reached (or overstepped) the limits of what many of
> the general population recognise as being art or music?
No. Because in another couple of decades, today's modern art will have
become part of history. Music and art is always progressing, sometimes
slowly, sometimes quickly. Some of the biggest changes occurred in America
when various cultures collided and new and exciting hybrids resulted. But
due to its very nature, art and music will continue to replicate the past
but also to continue evolving as new techniques, media and inspired
individuals cause new revolutions...
Larry
it is of course a cultural discourse and a medium in its own right, but here
speaks an arty farty student :)
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:p1p2st0ud88ri7sto...@4ax.com...
Terry Jones
>
>it is of course a cultural discourse and a medium in its own right, but here
>speaks an arty farty student :)
>
leave it to the 'experts'" argument, I begin to wonder whether the
Emperor has a rag to his name.
For something purely technical like particle physics, OK - But both
you and I seem to question many of the "expert" pronouncements on
something semi-technical like Autism - And when we come to Art, I
don't claim any great knowledge of the *technical* aspects, but this
is something which claims a relevance to, and a special ability to
communicate with *people*; and I have of necessity been studying
people for most of my life.
But if you would care for a more restricted question - What is the
basis for the claim of the "experts" to decree that something *is*
Art, when the bulk of the population seem to disagree?
Terry
Terry Jones
>
>The first is that music and art are in the ear or eye of the beholder. That
>is the way I define it. I know what I like looking at, and I know what I
>like listening to.
Mmmm... Personally I can (sometimes) appreciate that something is
*technically* well executed without in any way *liking* it. - So the
question simply becomes can you (or people in general) recognise
something as being music or art, without actually liking it? Or do you
/ people in general define the disliked as *not* being music or art?
The other problem with a purely subjective definition is that it
renders the words almost useless for communicating with others - it
simply becomes a substitute for "what I like".
What I am wondering is whether there are limits beyond which the vast
majority of people would cease to perceive something as being art or
music? - As I mentioned there does seem to be some sort of boundary
beyond which sound becomes "unmusical", even allowing for cultural an
personal differences.
>The second is that music and art are what the critics tell us they are.
There are many people who are far more knowledgeable in the details of
religion than I - but being unable to substantiate their fundamental
assumptions, I have no reason to believe that their knowledge of
*detail* qualifies them to tell me what is the will of god. - Likewise
to be anything more than personal opinion, criticism must be founded
in some basic set of ideas about music or art: I am trying to find out
what these ideas are, and what is the basis for believing in them?
>E.g. all the current manufactured
>bands are created with a view to exploiting younger children. Is it music?
>Of course. Is it good? That's a matter of opinion. It's got some merit, but
>it's rather artificial.
Well, as I said originally, what I'm trying to find out is the
boundaries - what constitutes music / non music, art / non art, which
is why I tried to exclude popular forms which are simply
*chronologically* "modern".
>Depends on what the objectives are. If I was in a band and played music that
>was self-indulgent, we'd be happy, but the public wouldn't. If we played all
>the old favourites, the public would be happy but we wouldn't. The fact is
>that bands that play commercial music will always be more successful. A more
>technically proficient group may not necessarily appeal to a wider audience.
>The same is true of art.
This is an interesting question - As an audience member I can
appreciate a virtuoso performance up to a point, and then for me it
becomes "look how clever I am" music, which is essentially being
performed either for a very restricted sub-set of the audience, or
purely for the performer(s).
So what is the status of "special interest" music or art, which is
*not* aimed at a general audience?
[Rather off the main point, but I believe that this sort of work
should only be funded on the basis of informed consent - whether that
of a paying audience, or shareholders, taxpayers, etc. If something is
not aimed at the general population then it is not ethical to expect a
section of the general population to pay for it.]
>Modern art
>is sometimes difficult to get a handle on. Traditional art developed as a
>way of capturing a moment in the way a camera does today. When modern art
>abandons any attempt to depict a recognisable object, I often find it
>difficult to appreciate the artist's intent.
Although traditional western art may appear highly representational,
it often includes significant levels of symbolism - which I why I
regard it as reasonable to provide background cultural &
iconographical information for a historical work - But what I am
arguing is that for a contemporary artwork, aimed at a contemporary
general audience, to need *explaining*, represents a failure on the
part of the artist.
>> Also, I personally think that a lot of modern art is impoverished or
>> plagiaristic.
>
>Art and music have been around for a very long time. It's incredibly
>difficult to come up with something original these days!
<snip>
>Is there any harm in borrowing? In music, most groups will cover another's
>songs. I think it was Mike Oldfield who said he likes taking the best bits
>of other people and then redo them his way. It's very often another person's
>work that will inspire your own...
Plagiaristic seems to be the wrong word for what I'm trying to
express, and I should have been clear that in this instance I was
talking about art rather than music.
I have no problems about calling attention to interesting objects,
textures, and so on by mounting, framing or otherwise displaying them
- I do this myself - but I would regard this as observation /
decoration rather than art. There's nothing different or distinct
about it, ordinary people have been picking up interesting objects and
putting them on their shelves (or equivalent) for a very long time.
If this is art, then a lot of people are artists, and art is a common,
everyday thing, certainly nothing to praise or reward people for.
Yet ordinary people do have regard for those whom they see as artists,
and are willing to pay for (copies of) their works.
Which brings us back to the question as to whether some people are
attempting to get credibility (and sometimes financial gain) by taking
the *names* of art and artist - claiming that something ordinary is
something special *due to their intervention*?
>> Has
>> modern art & music reached (or overstepped) the limits of what many of
>> the general population recognise as being art or music?
>
>No. Because in another couple of decades, today's modern art will have
>become part of history. Music and art is always progressing, sometimes
>slowly, sometimes quickly.
I don't think that this answers the question. Many forms of art and
music have become part of history - Some are still appreciated, some
are not. - My question is not about music and art which are modern in
*time*, or currently popular, but about those styles commonly referred
to as "Modern".
As for progress - the tools and techniques may have progressed, but
has the *content*? How is half an hour of "orchestrated" silence, or a
selection of randomly generated sounds "better" than a Gregorian chant
or an isorhythmic motet? How is a pile of bricks or a Mondarian
"better" than the Lascaux cave paintings or a Van Eyke?
>Some of the biggest changes occurred in America
>when various cultures collided and new and exciting hybrids resulted.
I think that our historical preferences are showing <G> I would point
out for example, the influence of the Islamic world on western music
(especially musical instruments) during the Crusades and the
occupation of the Iberian peninsula. Or the various periods in which
folk and ethnic forms have been incorporated into "formal" music.
Terry
Larry
word bullshit repeated 2000 times, I think we may well be closer than you
think, however I do need to adopt some of the emporers new clothes in order
to get my HND
The thing is I really cannot give a short anser like 42 to this one.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:iqd5st884l9a6i37c...@4ax.com...
Larry
discussing such subjects, or reserching about them, I really do feel like a
break away from it.
Bill Colley
through metaphor.
The more abstract the metaphor, the more difficult it may be to interpret
intended message(s). Hence the need for explanation.
The more literal the medium, the closer to reality it may be, and the
greater the access afforded to the general public, but there may be a
significant loss of impact as the metaphor becomes too dilute.
Hence, a photgraph of a vase of sunflowers is evidently more accurate than
the Van Gogh, but conveys less meaning.
Perhaps??????
Bill
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:p1p2st0ud88ri7sto...@4ax.com...
Terry Jones
>through metaphor.
>
>The more abstract the metaphor, the more difficult it may be to interpret
>intended message(s). Hence the need for explanation.
But isn't that one aspect of the artist's skill - to choose symbolism
which *does* convey the intended meaning to the intended audience?
Hence my argument that "art" which fails to do so is poorly,
unskillfully, done.
We don't think much of a writer, political speaker, etc., who uses
poor *verbal* metaphors, so why this undue respect given to "Art"?
>Hence, a photgraph of a vase of sunflowers is evidently more accurate than
>the Van Gogh, but conveys less meaning.
>
>Perhaps??????
I would say that (prior to the development of recent technology) a
painting could *potentially* convey more meaning than strict
representation of something real simply because you could include or
exclude things, call attention to some features and downplay others,
etc., etc. - But this doesn't mean that all art *actually* did so, or
did it well.
I mean what "meaning" does Van Gogh's Sunflowers convey? Is it even
*intended* to convey anything other than the impression of a vase of
sunflowers? - It's a pleasant enough thing in its way, but
reproductions are hung in hotel rooms throughout the western world
exactly *because* it is easy on the eye, unobtrusive, unlikely to
offend people.
IMHO this is in no way a *bad* thing, but it does raise some questions
which I think need answering before paying much attention to those who
claim to be able to explain the "real" meaning of art to the rest of
us.
Terry
Bill Colley
eye" the viewer chooses not to look for the deeper meaning.
And the 'deeper meaning', which may be powerful and revealing, is lost if
the viewer does not respect the cultural environment in which the image was
generated nor the (grit in the oyster) circumstances of the painter.
But I know what you mean about art for arts sake, and all those silly images
that present art as something silly, incestuous and commercial.
Bill
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:hueest47h7fiov1fk...@4ax.com...
Larry
Art contains a langueage and a grammar all of its own that has to be lernt,
I do agree there is much bullshit in modern art but Van Gogh does not come
into that category
Although I believe there are universal aesthetics and rules of composition a
thing need not necessarily comply with these to be creative and expressive
I am afraid my most recent video was far too deep for the other students who
do not have the background knowledge of art that I have but then it was not
aimed at a general audience, rather an audience of cognoscenti with the same
degree of understanding as me. OK that is elitist, but when you are a person
like me, who exists only in minorities you tend to cleave to that which you
understand and produce likewise.
The fact is that people fall into two camps those that like a particular
artist and those that don't. One should not mock or decry the preferences of
those that do for genuine reasons rather than those who merely follow the
crowd.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:hueest47h7fiov1fk...@4ax.com...
Terry Jones
I don't think that this claim is well supported by the evidence.
If the "language" of art has to be learned, then why do ordinary
"unlearned" people *appear* to get more from it, to pay more attention
to it, to have likes and dislikes about it - than they would for
material *written* in a foreign language which they had not been
taught?
If art does *not* "speak" in any way to the "uneducated", then why for
the last two or three millennia have rulers been paying for political
art, the apparent purpose of which is exactly to convey a message to
the common populace?
But this does return us to the original question - Whether there is
"art" proper, which when well done "speaks" to most people in a
"natural language", and something else which also takes the label of
"art" but which does not do this.
>I do agree there is much bullshit in modern art but Van Gogh does not come
>into that category
Who said that he did? - I simply asked whether there was really any
deeper "meaning" to a painting of sunflowers than its' visible
content?
[I think it would be an excellent idea for artists to write a sealed
description of what they really intended for each piece, to be opened
so many years after their death. - My bet is that we'd have some
*very* embarrassed critics and art "professionals".]
>Although I believe there are universal aesthetics and rules of composition a
>thing need not necessarily comply with these to be creative and expressive
I think that there are two points here:
Firstly, "creative and expressive" for *whom*? Is purely for yourself,
is it just for a group of cognoscenti, or is it for a general
audience? I am saying that the techniques employed should be
appropriate to the target audience - otherwise the fault is with the
art(ist) and not the viewer.
Secondly (and reinforced by a recital a few nights ago), you really
have to know when and how to break the "rules" - It seems to me that
too many people are *simply* breaking with the conventional, and
assuming that what this produces is art or music.
>I am afraid my most recent video was far too deep for the other students who
>do not have the background knowledge of art that I have but then it was not
>aimed at a general audience, rather an audience of cognoscenti with the same
>degree of understanding as me. OK that is elitist, but when you are a person
>like me, who exists only in minorities you tend to cleave to that which you
>understand and produce likewise.
Well you have reasons why your perception and expression differs from
the "norm", and you are doing something in a way "which you
understand", ie. according to your nature rather than NT nature. - But
I would still argue that if you do have any form of "message", or
communication which you want to get across to a general audience, then
you will need to understand and utilise those techniques which are
appropriate to that target group.
>The fact is that people fall into two camps those that like a particular
>artist and those that don't.
I don't think that this is true - As I said, I could quite comfortably
live with a Van Gogh print, but it's not what I'd get if I were
spending my own money.
It seem to me that liking for art or music is more like a spectrum,
with strong positive at one end, strong negative at the other, and a
range of milder preferences in between.
>One should not mock or decry the preferences of
>those that do for genuine reasons rather than those who merely follow the
>crowd.
The problem is, how to tell (other than by prolonged contact &
interchange)? - And as in many areas of human conduct, the genuine
people seem to speak out a lot less than the "fakes".
Terry
Terry Jones
>eye" the viewer chooses not to look for the deeper meaning.
That's the question - Has it become undemanding because it is so
familiar, or has it been widely reproduced because it is intrinsically
undemanding?
>And the 'deeper meaning', which may be powerful and revealing, is lost if
>the viewer does not respect the cultural environment in which the image was
>generated nor the (grit in the oyster) circumstances of the painter.
As I mentioned previously, I would expect to need to know more about
this in the case of a work which is of another time and/or culture -
but for a work of *this* time and culture, then the failure to
communicate any intended meaning with the target audience is a failure
on the part of the artist.
I don't necessarily agree about the circumstances of the painter (if
you mean by this something like Van Gogh's mental state?). - It is
true that this experience means that he probably has something more
valid to say about this than someone who has not experienced it. But
this in no way means that he is better able to *communicate* this to
someone who has not shared this condition.
[IIRC it has been suggested that the work of one or more of the
artists of this period (just possibly it was Van Gogh?), is highly
consistent with the perceptions of someone with a particular eye
condition. - This would really cast some doubt on the underlying
interpretations proposed by some art "experts" <G>]
Terry
Larry
you disagree then you disagree, but I have the liberty of believing as I
always do on these occasions that you are wrong.
The "language" of art is not an exact analogy in the sence that there are
several languages out there, either one understands the language of art or
one does not.
I do not want to get any deeper because if I was I would be an arts teacher
and not an arts student, but the fact remains, if you wish to lern the
language of art you are not going to do so by correspondence course on this
NG, it would take a lot more and a lot longer than that, but I believe you
could be taught, if you took the first step of conceding that you were a)
interested in the subject and that b) there was a "language" to be lernt.
I can no more impart that knowledge to you through this medium than I could
teach you advanced mathematics End subject.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:0n9lst4vnjeckojf4...@4ax.com...
Terry Jones
>language of art you are not going to do so by correspondence course on this
>NG, it would take a lot more and a lot longer than that, but I believe you
>could be taught, if you took the first step of conceding that you were a)
>interested in the subject and that b) there was a "language" to be lernt.
>
>I can no more impart that knowledge to you through this medium than I could
>teach you advanced mathematics
Nor would I ask you to. - But given that you *have* asserted a fairly
significant claim, so far without either support or clarification, it
does seem reasonable to ask what leads to the belief that language(s)
of the art(s) exist, and to ask for some explanation / examples of
what you *mean* by such language(s).
[I am assuming here that you do not mean the *psychology* of the
various arts, in the sense of the effects of certain artistic
"effects" on the human mind; nor conventionalised symbolisms which are
accepted as having certain meanings at a certain time within a certain
culture; not yet the purely personal symbolism of what certain
elements meant to that specific artist.]
As an aside, I would say that I do not understand on what basis you
would expect a response *other* that this?
Terry
Terry Jones
work by Damien Hirst, assuming that it was a pile of rubbish.
Terry
Larry
competition on the basis of the introductory TV prog which put the idea in
my mind that they were looking for post modernist type stuff but then a
conventional picture won it as I recall so the prog was misleading (as they
always are)
In fact the photo was more than valid as a representation of what the new
century entailed and what life is like in these times. It was a pile of
rubbish which the council and the housing association that has taken over
from the council disputed over whose responsibility it was.
--
Larry
L'autisme c'est moi
"Terry Jones" <terry...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:5tr0tt0e9eb0tbdoa...@4ax.com...
Terry Jones
>century entailed and what life is like in these times. It was a pile of
>rubbish which the council and the housing association that has taken over
>from the council disputed over whose responsibility it was.
The only problem which I would have with this is that (unless there
was something within the photo which indicated this background
information), then it becomes something more akin to a news photo
which loses much of its' meaning without the associated text.
Certainly "isolated" photographs can be very effective in their own
right. But in many cases (even more so than with "regular" art unless
the photograph is "set up") the viewer isn't necessarily going to
perceive in the image what the photographer had in mind.
Of course, I have been arguing that one of the skills of the artist
lies in communicating this, despite the restrictions imposed by their
choice of medium.
>on the basis of the introductory TV prog which put the idea in
>my mind that they were looking for post modernist type stuff but then a
>conventional picture won it as I recall
Personally I think that misleading or distorted descriptions (and
"buying" the description, rather than the reality) are so commonplace
that they must be deeply rooted in human psychology.
Though in this specific case it could have been something simple like
a mismatch between the editor / producer and the views of a panel of
outside judges, or even a viewers' vote.
BTW - I have some idea of the post-modern in architecture, but what
does this refer to in the context of photography?
Terry