Blissful ignorance vs. technique
Patrick Powers
not technical knowledge enhances enjoyment of art.
To me such know-how adds to appreciation of nuance but detracts from
wonder and emotion, those incompatible with the analytical, judging
mind. So for other forms of art I have avoided knowledge and chosen
ignorance in search of bliss. To aquire technique in music can be
thought of as a sacrifice necessary to perform the magic tricks.
Francois Desnoyers
between life and death. Studying a work of art, taking it apart, is like
dissecting a cat. You loose the perception of the movement but you gain
some understanding about that movement.
Life through death; death through life
Patrick Powers wrote:
> In response to a post concerning the age-old question of whether or
> not technical knowledge enhances enjoyment of art.
Not always. Students used to say that analysing a work takes away part
of their enjoyment!
Sonarrat Citalis
news:9511688f.02042...@posting.google.com...
I operated on this same principle for the longest time. It got me absolutely
nowhere artistically. I was producing music that felt right to me as I was
playing it, but which sounded intolerable to anyone with any rhythmic or musical
sense. Only now that I'm trying to break away from what feels natural am I
making any progress at all.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
My inbox is protected against all forms of bulk mail and spam.
When I play Rachmaninoff on a 1919 piano, does that qualify as a historical
performance?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Patrick Powers" <frisbie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9511688f.02042...@posting.google.com...
>
> > In response to a post concerning the age-old question of whether or
> > not technical knowledge enhances enjoyment of art.
> >
> > To me such know-how adds to appreciation of nuance but detracts from
> > wonder and emotion, those incompatible with the analytical, judging
> > mind. So for other forms of art I have avoided knowledge and chosen
> > ignorance in search of bliss. To aquire technique in music can be
> > thought of as a sacrifice necessary to perform the magic tricks.
>
> I operated on this same principle for the longest time. It got me absolutely
> nowhere artistically. I was producing music that felt right to me as I was
> playing it, but which sounded intolerable to anyone with any rhythmic or musical
> sense. Only now that I'm trying to break away from what feels natural am I
> making any progress at all.
Presumably Patrick isn't a performer.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Lars Peder Kallar Devold
unmusical and an anathema to creative interpretation. However, this is only
partially true. Technique is not a contest where the one who can play the
Hanon exercises fastest, wins. It is a matter of control, to have such
mastery over the keys, that you can unlock all the 'wonders' you speak of.
Unless their last name is Rubinstein, everyone should practice at least 25%
technique in their routine if such a thing exists, if not to play an Alkan
etude, gain a link between mind and fingers that enable you to play what you
want.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> skrev i melding
news:3CCA8A...@att.net...
Sonarrat Citalis
news:inDy8.6939$ph2.1...@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
> Technical prowess is heavily underrated by many people, they call it
> unmusical and an anathema to creative interpretation. However, this is only
> partially true. Technique is not a contest where the one who can play the
> Hanon exercises fastest, wins. It is a matter of control, to have such
> mastery over the keys, that you can unlock all the 'wonders' you speak of.
> Unless their last name is Rubinstein, everyone should practice at least 25%
> technique in their routine if such a thing exists, if not to play an Alkan
> etude, gain a link between mind and fingers that enable you to play what you
> want.
And this brings up another important point: you don't need to be able to dazzle
in order to be a good artist. Vladimir Ashkenazy plays the Rachmaninoff Third
Concerto so slowly, it hardly sounds like the same piece as when the composer
played it. But to many, he is still one of the best. And even if you're
playing an Alkan etude, there's no shame in playing a little bit slower in order
to bring out more meaning.
Patrick Powers
Patrick started out trying to just play, got nowhere, spent years
learning technique, ended up with an empty shell. Lately have been
learning pieces by heart then just letting the hands run. So
analytical and technical to learn, then turn all that off and allow
things to happen.
With arts OTHER than music such as all the visual arts innocence has
been carefully maintained.
Francois Desnoyers
piece before actually sitting at the piano.
Peter T. Daniels
Of course. The technique has to be there, so naturally that you don't
have to think about it. But it has to be there.
> With arts OTHER than music such as all the visual arts innocence has
> been carefully maintained.
To take a hackneyed example, Picasso proved he could make figural
paintings (and so did Jackson Pollack) before he did what made him
famous.
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
figurative...
>
> paintings (and so did Jackson Pollack) before he did what made him
> famous.
Er, Jackson Pollock was not polish. He was born in Wyoming!
Why do you think that the figurative paintings of Pollock proves his technical mastery ? You
don't think that his technical mastery improved dramatically with his abstract work ?
Peter T. Daniels
> Why do you think that the figurative paintings of Pollock proves his technical mastery ? You
> don't think that his technical mastery improved dramatically with his abstract work ?
Who would have taken him seriously if the very first things he ever
showed had been his action paintings?
The Guggenheim a few years ago did a grand survey of Abstract Art, and
tucked away in the new small galleries were some early Pollocks -- you
wouldn't look at them twice, but they showed he had fully absorbed his
academic training. Fortunately, he found his own voice not long after!
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> Francois Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > Why do you think that the figurative paintings of Pollock proves his technical mastery ? You
> > don't think that his technical mastery improved dramatically with his abstract work ?
>
> Who would have taken him seriously
Who took Picasso seriously in 1906 when they saw the Demoiselle d'Avignon? It took Braque almost
a full season of reflexion at l'Estaque to start understanding what his friend was doing. Even
Appolinaire and Matisse where shocked out of their socks. That did not stop Picasso! He obviously
used another technique than the one he learned as a young child.
> if the very first things he ever
> showed had been his action paintings?
Me, and a bunch of other people!
My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
>
> The Guggenheim a few years ago did a grand survey of Abstract Art, and
> tucked away in the new small galleries were some early Pollocks -- you
> wouldn't look at them twice, but they showed he had fully absorbed his
> academic training. Fortunately, he found his own voice not long after!
Academic training teaches you to do things one way. And that's only one technique! But maybe
there is a large gap between training in music and in visual art. It could only be compared with
composition...
Pan
Powers) wrote:
Give me examples of how having knowledge has detracted from wonder and
emotion in your response to musical works.
Knowledge has not caused any such thing to me.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
Pan
Powers) wrote:
>Patrick started out trying to just play, got nowhere, spent years
>learning technique, ended up with an empty shell. Lately have been
>learning pieces by heart then just letting the hands run. So
>analytical and technical to learn, then turn all that off and allow
>things to happen.
_This_ makes sense to me! I want to learn pieces well enough so that I
can play spontaneously and do things I never did before when I
perform.
>With arts OTHER than music such as all the visual arts innocence has
>been carefully maintained.
Sorry; I don't think that it's better to look at art in complete
ignorance, rather than being able to understand levels beyond "It's a
flower!" But that's your choice.
Pan
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
[snip]
>My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
[snip]
This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
to produce random work which works at least largely by accident when
it works (and is does work, occasionally). He drip-painted work is
somewhat analogous to those works of Cage which he "composed" by
having randomly selected radio frequencies played for a particular
number of seconds.
Picasso is quite a different story. In good pieces and bad ones, he
always made deliberate decisions - certainly regarding what to keep in
paintings, sculptures, and collages, if perhaps not what to put in
them initially. (Perhaps his initial work, or much of it, was done on
an impulsive, subconscious level; I don't know enough about his
procedures to know this. I know artists who do work that way.) I think
the closest comparison to Picasso in the music world is Stravinsky,
and both of them were great originals, at their best.
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:39:32 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
> [snip]
>
> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> to produce random work
No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out of an heightened
consciousness and concentration. He also made many thoughtful pauses to make specific
decisions. The randomness is almost inexistant in his work because he had a great technique, a
great control of the paint.
> which works at least largely by accident when
> it works (and is does work, occasionally). He drip-painted work is
> somewhat analogous to those works of Cage which he "composed" by
> having randomly selected radio frequencies played for a particular
> number of seconds.
If Cage and Pollock have something in common, it is not randomness.
>
>
> Picasso is quite a different story.
Yes. Picasso's story troubled Pollock a great deal in his youth.
> In good pieces and bad ones,
Bad ones? Never saw any :-)
> he
> always made deliberate decisions - certainly regarding what to keep in
> paintings, sculptures, and collages, if perhaps not what to put in
> them initially. (Perhaps his initial work, or much of it, was done on
> an impulsive, subconscious level; I don't know enough about his
> procedures to know this.
Picasso was a passionate man, as was Pollock. But Picasso was a figurative painter. He painted
what he saw (aside from his surrealist period).
> I know artists who do work that way.) I think
> the closest comparison to Picasso in the music world is Stravinsky,
Not enough... You'd have to put Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Berg. The sum of them would come
close enough... and still be lacking in personality and overall strenght :-)
>
> and both of them were great originals, at their best.
Picasso was a great original at his worst.
Francois
Pan
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Pan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:39:32 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
>> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> >My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
>> [snip]
>>
>> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
>> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
>> to produce random work
>
>No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out of an heightened
>consciousness and concentration. He also made many thoughtful pauses to make specific
>decisions. The randomness is almost inexistant in his work because he had a great technique, a
>great control of the paint.
Then why do most of the paintings I've seen by him not have space that
reads? The dripping was a gross and not a fine technique. It may not
be _completely_ random, but it's too random for him to have made
fulfilled compositions, if indeed he was interested in doing so.
[re: Picasso]
>> In good pieces and bad ones,
>
>Bad ones? Never saw any :-)
He did little of worth before the first Cubist period, in my opinion,
and most of his later works are not great, IMO - though there are some
good ones. I also don't think that all of Stravinsky's works are
great. That does not prevent me from considering both Stravinsky and
Picasso to be great figures. They did enough great work to be justly
considered great, and I consider them great.
>Picasso was a passionate man, as was Pollock. But Picasso was a figurative painter. He painted
>what he saw (aside from his surrealist period).
I have no bias against abstract art. For example, Mondriaen was an
abstract painter, and a wonderful one. He exercised control over his
work in more than a gross way.
>> I know artists who do work that way.) I think
>> the closest comparison to Picasso in the music world is Stravinsky,
>
>Not enough... You'd have to put Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Berg. The sum of them would come
>close enough... and still be lacking in personality and overall strenght :-)
I disagree.
You think that Picasso was an Expressionist? Schoenberg and Berg were
Expressionists. Stravinsky went through Primitivist and Neo-Classic
periods, as did Picasso. All such analogies, though, are necessarily
imperfect.
>> and both of them were great originals, at their best.
>
>Picasso was a great original at his worst.
I can respect that point of view, but I don't think that if all
Picasso had done was his Blue and Neo-Classic periods, for example, he
would have been worth that much. It was his Cubist periods that were
what made him truly great, IMO. I recognize that the view of today's
establishment differs from mine, and I don't care.
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:43:25 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Pan wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:39:32 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> >> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> >My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> >> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> >> to produce random work
> >
> >No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out of an heightened
> >consciousness and concentration. He also made many thoughtful pauses to make specific
> >decisions. The randomness is almost inexistant in his work because he had a great technique, a
> >great control of the paint.
>
> Then why do most of the paintings I've seen by him not have space that
> reads?
What do you mean by "space that reads"?
> The dripping was a gross and not a fine technique.
On the contrary, it was a highly thoughtful and emotional process which was needed to develop such
a technique. Also, lots of hard work.
> It may not
> be _completely_ random, but it's too random for him to have made
> fulfilled compositions, if indeed he was interested in doing so.
His compositions where based on iving a surface a totally homogenous density, giving no more
importance to one part over anotbher.
>
> [re: Picasso]
> >> In good pieces and bad ones,
> >
> >Bad ones? Never saw any :-)
>
> He did little of worth before the first Cubist period,
This is wrong.
> in my opinion,
That does not make this thought any less false.
>
> and most of his later works are not great, IMO -
Wrong again ! :-)
> though there are some
> good ones. I also don't think that all of Stravinsky's works are
> great. That does not prevent me from considering both Stravinsky and
> Picasso to be great figures.
Cindy Crawford has a great figure... :-))
> They did enough great work to be justly
> considered great, and I consider them great.
>
> >Picasso was a passionate man, as was Pollock. But Picasso was a figurative painter. He painted
> >what he saw (aside from his surrealist period).
>
> I have no bias against abstract art. For example, Mondriaen was an
> abstract painter, and a wonderful one. He exercised control over his
> work in more than a gross way.
I agree. Their temperament was completely differet. However, Mondrian left the troubles of wartime
europe to come to the states. On the other hand, Picasso the passionate (and compassionate),
stayed in Paris, no less. When the Nazis visited his studio, he gave them a copy of Guernica as a
souvenir (You should look it up. It's the greatest painting of the XXth cenmtury... but that's
only my opinion). Such a courage reflects completely his attitude toward painting and art. I paint
to defend myself or to attack, he said.
>
>
> >> I know artists who do work that way.) I think
> >> the closest comparison to Picasso in the music world is Stravinsky,
> >
> >Not enough... You'd have to put Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Berg. The sum of them would come
> >close enough... and still be lacking in personality and overall strenght :-)
>
> I disagree.
>
> You think that Picasso was an Expressionist?
Yes, he certainly was! in his way, as much as Munch, as much as a spaniard can be.
> Schoenberg and Berg were
> Expressionists. Stravinsky went through Primitivist and Neo-Classic
> periods, as did Picasso. All such analogies, though, are necessarily
> imperfect.
I agree :-) All of them where unique and incomparable.
>
> >> and both of them were great originals, at their best.
> >
> >Picasso was a great original at his worst.
>
> I can respect that point of view, but I don't think that if all
> Picasso had done was his Blue and Neo-Classic periods, for example, he
> would have been worth that much.
Well, he would at least be worth that much. In any case, that's a strange thing to say! An artist
is worth the totality of his works plus what he did socially, and so on. Kill Bach at the age of
31, do you get a Schubert? If you take away 75% of Shakespeare's plays, you certainly would not
get Shakespeare!
> It was his Cubist periods that were
> what made him truly great, IMO.
No, really, it was his 80 years of painting, engraving, sculpting and drawing.
> I recognize that the view of today's
> establishment differs from mine, and I don't care.
Poor consolation, though. I only hope it Won't prevent you from looking and giving it anothher
chance.
Pan
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
[snip]
>What do you mean by "space that reads"?
[snip]
I rest my case. Few today are taught the tradition of reading space,
but those who don't know how are not able to judge paintings beyond an
impressionistic level (and I'm _not_ referring to the Impressionist
movement). Indeed, it is not taught in many if not most art schools
any longer. Most critics are included among the large majority of
people who don't know how to read space, and some would join you in
asking what "reading space" means, or would deny that such a thing is
possible.
Most good paintings in the Western tradition past the Romanesque
period enable the viewer to move his/her eye around the painting -
_all_ parts of the painting - and that's only the basic level of what
it means to "read space." OK, I'm a musician and my father's the
visual artist in the family. I'll ask him for the name of the treatise
he used to have before a colleague - ahem - permanently "borrowed" it
from him, which refers to this.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:47:55 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >What do you mean by "space that reads"?
> [snip]
>
> I rest my case. Few today are taught the tradition of reading space,
> but those who don't know how are not able to judge paintings beyond an
> impressionistic level (and I'm _not_ referring to the Impressionist
> movement). Indeed, it is not taught in many if not most art schools
> any longer. Most critics are included among the large majority of
> people who don't know how to read space, and some would join you in
> asking what "reading space" means, or would deny that such a thing is
> possible.
In other words, it's passé jargon from a previous generation of
criticism.
> Most good paintings in the Western tradition past the Romanesque
> period enable the viewer to move his/her eye around the painting -
> _all_ parts of the painting - and that's only the basic level of what
> it means to "read space." OK, I'm a musician and my father's the
> visual artist in the family. I'll ask him for the name of the treatise
> he used to have before a colleague - ahem - permanently "borrowed" it
> from him, which refers to this.
Q.E.D.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:39:32 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >My point was that Pollock's technique vastly improved while he found his inner voice.
> [snip]
>
> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> to produce random work which works at least largely by accident when
> it works (and is does work, occasionally). He drip-painted work is
> somewhat analogous to those works of Cage which he "composed" by
> having randomly selected radio frequencies played for a particular
> number of seconds.
I don't suppose you bothered to go to the Pollock retrospective at MOMA
a few years ago?
Peter T. Daniels
> I agree. Their temperament was completely differet. However, Mondrian left the troubles of wartime
> europe to come to the states. On the other hand, Picasso the passionate (and compassionate),
> stayed in Paris, no less. When the Nazis visited his studio, he gave them a copy of Guernica as a
> souvenir (You should look it up. It's the greatest painting of the XXth cenmtury... but that's
> only my opinion). Such a courage reflects completely his attitude toward painting and art. I paint
> to defend myself or to attack, he said.
> > You think that Picasso was an Expressionist?
>
> Yes, he certainly was! in his way, as much as Munch, as much as a spaniard can be.
You're certainly on the right side in your quarrel with Pan, but Picasso
a Spaniard?? Did you miss the point of *Guernica*?? He was
Catalonian!!!!
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:47:55 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >What do you mean by "space that reads"?
> [snip]
>
> I rest my case. Few today are taught the tradition of reading space,
> but those who don't know how are not able to judge paintings beyond an
> impressionistic level (and I'm _not_ referring to the Impressionist
> movement). Indeed, it is not taught in many if not most art schools
> any longer.
I wonder why!
> Most critics are included among the large majority of
> people who don't know how to read space,
You are talking through your hat!
> and some would join you in
> asking what "reading space" means, or would deny that such a thing is
> possible.
I never denied anything. I merely asked a question about it. I open a book and I can read the
space on my page. So, you see? On a painting, what else is there than colors and textures?
Signs?
>
> Most good paintings in the Western tradition past the Romanesque
> period enable the viewer to move his/her eye around the painting -
> _all_ parts of the painting - and that's only the basic level of what
> it means to "read space."
That way of looking at a painting seems to go very well with Pollock, by the way.
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
Well, I know that it was bombarded by Franco in 37... That's why I wrote that it was courageous of him
to give photographs of Guernica to nazis visitors.
> He was
> Catalonian!!!!
Catalonia was independant for a short period between 1931 and 1939 but it is still a province of Spain!
And Guernica is a spanish town.
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
I would have loved to see that one.
By the way, did you have the chance of seeing the movie "Pollock"?
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Pan wrote:
:> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
:> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
:> to produce random work
:
: No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out
: of an heightened consciousness and concentration. He also made many
: thoughtful pauses to make specific decisions.
He also destroyed paintings when he felt that they weren't successful. That
implies that there was a very strong non-random component to his work.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
Francois Desnoyers
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> In article <3CCC7B0E...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
> : Pan wrote:
>
> :> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> :> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> :> to produce random work
> :
> : No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out
> : of an heightened consciousness and concentration. He also made many
> : thoughtful pauses to make specific decisions.
>
> He also destroyed paintings when he felt that they weren't successful. That
> implies that there was a very strong non-random component to his work.
He could have randomised his dripings all over the canvas and (at the end) made a judgment about the
result and say : this is crap, or this is good. If you imagine this, it gets complicated very quickly.
Well, at least it tells me that he critical of his own work and that he could not suffer a painting of
his to be sold if he did not think the work worthy. It must have been extremely difficult for him to
suffer the slings and arrows of summary judgments by the heavy mass of people that could not understand
what he was doing. Even today, his shadow is shrouded by a cloud of incomprehention much thicker than for
any composer I know of.
Pan
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>> I rest my case. Few today are taught the tradition of reading space,
>> but those who don't know how are not able to judge paintings beyond an
>> impressionistic level (and I'm _not_ referring to the Impressionist
>> movement). Indeed, it is not taught in many if not most art schools
>> any longer. Most critics are included among the large majority of
>> people who don't know how to read space, and some would join you in
>> asking what "reading space" means, or would deny that such a thing is
>> possible.
>
>In other words, it's passé jargon from a previous generation of
>criticism.
No. You're just ignorant. But most others are, too.
Pan
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> and some would join you in
>> asking what "reading space" means, or would deny that such a thing is
>> possible.
>
>I never denied anything. I merely asked a question about it. I open a book and I can read the
>space on my page. So, you see? On a painting, what else is there than colors and textures?
>Signs?
[snip]
You not only denied it, you're also contemptuous about it but, in a
sense, I don't really blame you, as the Establishment has the same
attitude. "Colors and textures" are the _SURFACE_ level, and if you
can't see anything beyond that, that's regrettable. It would be as if
you considered music to have nothing other than individual notes and
timbres, and poetry to have nothing other than individual letters and
syllables.
I will give you a specific citation of at least one article for you to
look at, when I have the information. It's up to you to decide whether
you deign to read the article.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > I don't suppose you bothered to go to the Pollock retrospective at MOMA
> > a few years ago?
>
> I would have loved to see that one.
It was really overwhelming. All by itself, it was an argument for the
gazillion dollar renovation they're doing to the building over the next
few years -- it's just not possible to display about six large Pollocks
in one room without utterly overpowering the viewer.
> By the way, did you have the chance of seeing the movie "Pollock"?
No, but enough clips from it were shown on TV ...
Peter T. Daniels
> > He was
> > Catalonian!!!!
>
> Catalonia was independant for a short period between 1931 and 1939 but it is still a province of Spain!
> And Guernica is a spanish town.
Any idea what might happen to you if you told a Breton or a Basque that
he is "French"?
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
Don't bother.
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> Francois Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > > He was
> > > Catalonian!!!!
> >
> > Catalonia was independant for a short period between 1931 and 1939 but it is still a province of Spain!
> > And Guernica is a spanish town.
>
> Any idea what might happen to you if you told a Breton or a Basque that
> he is "French"?
Same as if you told a few people from Quebec that they are in fact Canadians? :-)
Peter T. Daniels
Probableee! (Hey, maybe _that_ was M. Dutoit's problem!)
Robert Briggs
> Patrick Powers wrote:
>
> >In response to a post concerning the age-old question of whether or
> >not technical knowledge enhances enjoyment of art.
> >
> >To me such know-how adds to appreciation of nuance but detracts from
> >wonder and emotion, those incompatible with the analytical, judging
> >mind. So for other forms of art I have avoided knowledge and chosen
> >ignorance in search of bliss. To aquire technique in music can be
> >thought of as a sacrifice necessary to perform the magic tricks.
>
> Give me examples of how having knowledge has detracted from wonder
> and emotion in your response to musical works.
>
> Knowledge has not caused any such thing to me.
I certainly don't see why technical knowledge should detract from
wonder and emotion.
Indeed, I find it can *add* to it when I'm following (or trying to
follow) a score and I get an extra insight into *something* of the
way Handel or Beethoven or Brahms wove so many parts into a single
work of great beauty.
Of course, I don't always use a score - and certainly not while I'm
driving ...
On the point of mastering standard technique while performing, ISTM
that doing so gives you a solid base from which you may *choose* to
deviate later, sometimes to good effect, and sometimes making you
think, "Whoops! I won't do *that* again."
Sonarrat Citalis
news:3CCD98CB...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET...
> I certainly don't see why technical knowledge should detract from
> wonder and emotion.
>
> Indeed, I find it can *add* to it when I'm following (or trying to
> follow) a score and I get an extra insight into *something* of the
> way Handel or Beethoven or Brahms wove so many parts into a single
> work of great beauty.
I can relate my experience of hearing my first live symphony performance. It
was the SFO in Messiaen's Turangalila last Wednesday. Before the performance at
8:00 PM, someone got up on the stage starting at 7:00 and provided a rather deep
analysis of the thinking behind the themes, Messiaen's inspiration and his
quotes, and demonstrated them by playing extracts of the piece over Davies
Hall's sound system. I thought it would ruin the experience, and I was briefly
jealous of those who had come right before 8:00 and missed the speech. Instead,
it had a much greater effect on me than I possibly could have imagined. I still
have "Garden of Love's Dream" running through my veins, surely one of the most
beautiful slow movements ever written. And I credit that long-winded speech
that, although it gave away the surprises, allowed the experience to transcend
mere discovery, and to become a truly wonderful evening.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
My inbox is protected against all forms of bulk mail and spam.
When I play Rachmaninoff on a 1919 piano, does that qualify as a historical
performance?
Pan
<fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Pan wrote:
>> I will give you a specific citation of at least one article for you to
>> look at, when I have the information. It's up to you to decide whether
>> you deign to read the article.
>
>Don't bother.
You're an idiot.
Pan
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>I don't suppose you bothered to go to the Pollock retrospective at MOMA
>a few years ago?
I didn't address this before, but is there any reason you think I
would have? That's like asking me whether I went to the all-Britten
concert at such-and-such place, except that while Britten's music
often bothers me, Pollock's work doesn't bother me; it's just that
most of it does little to me. When I was at SUNY at Purchase for
undergraduate school, I visited the Neuberger Museum. The Pollocks
were among the better works there (I prefered the Diebenkorns). That
didn't prove to me that they were great works; it's just that they had
some merit (some more than others), and much of the Neuberger's
collection didn't have any merit, as far as I was concerned. I've seen
enough Pollocks to have the view that they're worth a cursory glance,
at least, as part of a permanent collection, but not worth going to a
special exhibition of. I made that decision after looking at what must
have been several dozen Pollocks, so it wasn't made capriciously, and
without any thought.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:49:34 -0400, Francois Desnoyers
> <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Pan wrote:
>
> >> I will give you a specific citation of at least one article for you to
> >> look at, when I have the information. It's up to you to decide whether
> >> you deign to read the article.
> >
> >Don't bother.
>
> You're an idiot.
You're the one who used some critic's catchphrase ("read the space") and
can't remember which critic it was!
Peter T. Daniels
As the museum guard in the anecdote says, "The paintings aren't on
trial, madam. You are."
Doesn't it occur to you that if you saw virtually all his work together
in one place, in sequence, with informative notes (or even one of those
godawful audioguides), you might find out why a whole lot of people who
take an interest in such things do believe that Jackson Pollock was one
of the greatest painters of his time?
About that same time I also went to the Ellsworth Kelly retrospective at
the Guggenheim (loved it) and the Jasper Johns retrospective at MOMA
(didn't love it). You're fortunate to live in "the greatest city in the
world," as Alan Kalter now proclaims every night: one of the advantages
is the endless parade of the world's greatest orchestras through
Carnegie Hall; another is the presence of at least half a dozen
world-class museums, every one of which is having a world-class exhibit
of something or other at almost every moment. What's the point of living
in New York -- and paying New York prices -- if you're not going to take
advantage of what it has to offer?
Even Chicago (perhaps soon to regain its Second City status, as Los
Angeles prepares to vote itself into fragments) has just one great
example of everything (except theater -- there it seems to be more vital
than New York), so everyone ends up going to the same events, exhibits,
performances. That's not even possible in New York.
It's unfortunate that you don't appreciate Britten, either.
Pan
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>As the museum guard in the anecdote says, "The paintings aren't on
>trial, madam. You are."
[snip]
I am not on trial, you twit! :-)
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:15:16 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't suppose you bothered to go to the Pollock retrospective at MOMA
> >a few years ago?
>
> I didn't address this before, but is there any reason you think I
> would have? That's like asking me whether I went to the all-Britten
> concert at such-and-such place, except that while Britten's music
> often bothers me, Pollock's work doesn't bother me; it's just that
> most of it does little to me. When I was at SUNY at Purchase for
> undergraduate school, I visited the Neuberger Museum. The Pollocks
> were among the better works there (I prefered the Diebenkorns). That
> didn't prove to me that they were great works; it's just that they had
> some merit
Which ones are you reffering to?
> (some more than others), and much of the Neuberger's
> collection didn't have any merit, as far as I was concerned. I've seen
> enough Pollocks to have the view that they're worth a cursory glance,
I suggest you should not move your cursor so rapidly. You might just make enough time to read
the space!
>
> at least, as part of a permanent collection, but not worth going to a
> special exhibition of. I made that decision after looking at what must
> have been several dozen Pollocks, so it wasn't made capriciously, and
> without any thought.
It's not the quantity, it's the quality. Sometimes, the quality comes with the quantity :-)
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> As the museum guard in the anecdote says, "The paintings aren't on
> trial, madam. You are."
>
Yes, definitely! Very clever.
Pan
reading space in paintings. I know what it is, I know that most good
artists through well into the 20th century - certainly including
Picasso - were taught it, knew it, and used it, and I know that it was
seldom discussed or written about outside of artists' studios. Indeed,
to the extent I know about it and know how to do it, it's because my
father, an artist, taught me how to do it, just as he was taught how
to do it and as he taught his numerous students how to do it. However,
beyond what I wrote earlier, I do not know how to teach someone about
it in abstract and purely in writing. As difficult as it is to
describe and discuss concepts of music theory and technique in words,
I know how to do that, as a professional musician and professor of
music. It may well be that the reason the practice of reading space
has been written about infrequently is that it's quite hard to
describe in a book. However, at least one article has been written
about an 18th-century Italian treatise that described reading space as
a tradition that went back for a long, long time and described how to
read space in different kinds of paintings, with diagrams, and an
article was written about that. After that one treatise was written,
as far as anyone knows, the practice went back into the studios and
was not written about again, until that one article (written within
the last couple of decades or so), which I have not read but which may
or may not deal with the way that space was dealt with in paintings
after the 18th century. I personally know the person who wrote the
article (he not only writes about art but, unusually among people who
write about art nowadays, is also a damned good, active painter). If
some of you don't care to read it but prefer to ignorantly deny that
this exists, that's your problem and your loss, and may well leave
your art appreciation on the level of looking at "colors and textures"
only, but that's not my problem. There doesn't seem to be any reason
for me to rush to get the citation for something few here seem
interested in, but when I get the citation, I'll post it. And that's
all I plan on saying about this.
Ray Hall
news:3ccf5dfa...@news.erols.com...
| Look folks, I'm not going to have back-and-forth conversations on
| reading space in paintings. I know what it is, I know that most good
| artists through well into the 20th century - certainly including
| Picasso - were taught it, knew it, and used it, and I know that it was
| seldom discussed or written about outside of artists' studios. Indeed,
| to the extent I know about it and know how to do it, it's because my
| father, an artist, taught me how to do it, just as he was taught how
Fwiw, there is a truly wonderful book, called "The Pearly Gates of
Cyberspace", by Margaret Wertheim (Doubleday books), and who touches quite
uniquely on the early painters conception of space, and especially how it
changed. Doesn't reach as far as Pollack, but a book well worth reading
nonetheless, and one which challenges the brain on how aesthetics and
physics interconnect.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links/Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 17/04/02
Peter T. Daniels
particular phrase -- "reading space" -- which is jargon for (something
or other that you don't identify) -- a technique? a critical response?
an esthetic approach?
Yet you won't give your source of the particular phrase -- first it was
"a book"; now it's "an article"? By a "person" you "personally know"?
(Certainly, 18th-century Italians didn't use an English phrase for the
phenomenon!)
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Yet you won't give your source of the particular phrase -- first it was
: "a book"; now it's "an article"? By a "person" you "personally know"?
: (Certainly, 18th-century Italians didn't use an English phrase for the
: phenomenon!)
While I don't happen to agree with "Pan's" views on the visual arts,
you might want to recall your little foray into the existence or
non-existence of a Psalm 150 setting by Franck and the number of (and
non-existence of) books on which you claimed to be relying before you
start berating him for not remembering where he read the phrase
he is using.
Francois Desnoyers
Ray Hall wrote:
> "Pan" <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
> news:3ccf5dfa...@news.erols.com...
> | Look folks, I'm not going to have back-and-forth conversations on
> | reading space in paintings. I know what it is, I know that most good
> | artists through well into the 20th century - certainly including
> | Picasso - were taught it, knew it, and used it, and I know that it was
> | seldom discussed or written about outside of artists' studios. Indeed,
> | to the extent I know about it and know how to do it, it's because my
> | father, an artist, taught me how to do it, just as he was taught how
> | [sniperoozee for brevity ....]
>
> Fwiw, there is a truly wonderful book, called "The Pearly Gates of
> Cyberspace", by Margaret Wertheim (Doubleday books), and who touches quite
> uniquely on the early painters conception of space, and especially how it
> changed. Doesn't reach as far as Pollack,
Pollock was not polish, he was born in Wyoming, USA :-)
> but a book well worth reading
> nonetheless, and one which challenges the brain on how aesthetics and
> physics interconnect.
Thanx. Will look on it.
I know Dali integrated the latest discoveries in Physics...
It's very interesting that almost at the same time (Einstein -1905 /
Cubism-1907 ...) Picasso and Einstein where both concerned with how time and
space "is" interconnected! A good example that art is married to our
perception of the universe.
Peter T. Daniels
> > Fwiw, there is a truly wonderful book, called "The Pearly Gates of
> > Cyberspace", by Margaret Wertheim (Doubleday books), and who touches quite
> > uniquely on the early painters conception of space, and especially how it
> > changed. Doesn't reach as far as Pollack,
>
> Pollock was not polish, he was born in Wyoming, USA :-)
BTW while your repeated note is a useful mnemonic, the English
(insulting) term for Polish person isn't Pollack, but Polack.
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
I'm happy to know you knew! :-)
Pan
wrote:
>In article <3CCFD8...@att.net>, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
>: Yet you won't give your source of the particular phrase -- first it was
>: "a book"; now it's "an article"? By a "person" you "personally know"?
>: (Certainly, 18th-century Italians didn't use an English phrase for the
>: phenomenon!)
>
>While I don't happen to agree with "Pan's" views on the visual arts,
>you might want to recall your little foray into the existence or
>non-existence of a Psalm 150 setting by Franck and the number of (and
>non-existence of) books on which you claimed to be relying before you
>start berating him for not remembering where he read the phrase
>he is using.
I didn't "read" the phrase I'm using. My father and numerous other
artists use the phrase "to read space." And the confusion about the
book and the article is not mine. Daniels just doesn't know how to
read. There was an 18th-century Italian treatise, which is still
extant in at least one copy I know of, and an article was written
about it by a New York artist I know personally, and published in an
art journal.
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
That's it???
David Olen Baird
but I can tell you it definitely changes the nature of the experience.
I've been composing for about 12 years now and I definitely remember
how I experienced music before. I hear things much more analytically
now.
This also apparently explains the difficulty I've had in the past in
this NG trying to discuss what is good and bad about particular
musics. I shouldn't expect everyone to be as anaytical as I.
On 26 Apr 2002 18:34:38 -0700, frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick
Powers) wrote:
>In response to a post concerning the age-old question of whether or
>not technical knowledge enhances enjoyment of art.
>
>To me such know-how adds to appreciation of nuance but detracts from
>wonder and emotion, those incompatible with the analytical, judging
>mind. So for other forms of art I have avoided knowledge and chosen
>ignorance in search of bliss. To aquire technique in music can be
>thought of as a sacrifice necessary to perform the magic tricks.
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
John Harrington
davb...@tfs.net wrote on 5/3/02 5:29 AM:
> I don't know if technical knowledge detracts from enjoyment of music,
> but I can tell you it definitely changes the nature of the experience.
>
> I've been composing for about 12 years now and I definitely remember
> how I experienced music before. I hear things much more analytically
> now.
>
> This also apparently explains the difficulty I've had in the past in
> this NG trying to discuss what is good and bad about particular
> musics. I shouldn't expect everyone to be as anaytical as I.
Analyzing and "determining what is good and bad" are two entirely different
things.
J
Francois Desnoyers
John Harrington wrote:
Yes, like walking and chewing. You can do both at the same time, can't you?
>
> J
Peter T. Daniels
> Yes, like walking and chewing. You can do both at the same time, can't you?
We say "can't walk and chew gum at the same time."
Francois Desnoyers
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> Francois Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > Yes, like walking and chewing. You can do both at the same time, can't you?
>
> We say "can't walk and chew gum at the same time."
That's what I was reffering to :-), thanx
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> > Francois Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, like walking and chewing. You can do both at the same time, can't you?
> >
> > We say "can't walk and chew gum at the same time."
>
> That's what I was reffering to :-), thanx
You have to mention the gum -- even cows, after all, can walk and chew
their cud at the same time.
David Olen Baird
Actually, this is not a bad analogy. Some people can - some people
can't.
But, John is absoulutely correct - you don't have to be analytical to
have an opinion - unless you're a composer, then it comes with the
territory.
Every once in a while I will hear a piece of music that I hadn't heard
since before I started composing. I have more than once been struck by
the difference in the impression I remember having and the one I am
having. For that moment I seem to be able to make this side-by-side
comparison of the experience of "blissful ignorance vs. technique".
The blissful ignorance response is one of wonder and amazement. The
technical response seems to be one of clarity or transparency (or
curiousity when I can't understand how it was done - in which case I
am motivated to get the score and study it).
I really think there are two separate parts of the brain that are
engaged now. Whereas before I started studying composition, only the
emotional was in gear - now I've added an analytical component.
>>
>> J
Peter T. Daniels
> But, John is absoulutely correct - you don't have to be analytical to
> have an opinion - unless you're a composer, then it comes with the
> territory.
>
> Every once in a while I will hear a piece of music that I hadn't heard
> since before I started composing. I have more than once been struck by
> the difference in the impression I remember having and the one I am
> having. For that moment I seem to be able to make this side-by-side
> comparison of the experience of "blissful ignorance vs. technique".
> The blissful ignorance response is one of wonder and amazement. The
> technical response seems to be one of clarity or transparency (or
> curiousity when I can't understand how it was done - in which case I
> am motivated to get the score and study it).
>
> I really think there are two separate parts of the brain that are
> engaged now. Whereas before I started studying composition, only the
> emotional was in gear - now I've added an analytical component.
Neuropsychologists can demonstrate differences in brain activity between
the professional musician and the amateur.
John Harrington
davb...@tfs.net wrote on 5/4/02 5:35 AM:
<snip>
> engaged now. Whereas before I started studying composition, only the
> emotional was in gear - now I've added an analytical component.
As have I, but the emotional part is still what counts. I felt sorry for
Copland, who once admitted that his compulsion to analyze kept him from
enjoying music like he did before he learned what was under the hood.
J
David Olen Baird
<bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>in article 3cd3cfa3...@news.birch.net, David Olen Baird at
>davb...@tfs.net wrote on 5/4/02 5:35 AM:
><snip>
>> I really think there are two separate parts of the brain that are
>> engaged now. Whereas before I started studying composition, only the
>> emotional was in gear - now I've added an analytical component.
>
>As have I, but the emotional part is still what counts.
Not for me. They both count. I appreciate music on more than one
level now. It's a different experience now - a deeper one.
>I felt sorry for
>Copland, who once admitted that his compulsion to analyze kept him from
>enjoying music like he did before he learned what was under the hood.
That was sad. Copland also quit composing, saying that he'd said it
all and had nothing left to give. I thought this was very tragic too.
Perhaps this tendance towards compulsion contributed to this burn-out.
It seems that this is the exception rather than the rule, as I think
most composers left something behind unfinished just before death.
much more admire
Peter T. Daniels
> >I felt sorry for
> >Copland, who once admitted that his compulsion to analyze kept him from
> >enjoying music like he did before he learned what was under the hood.
>
> That was sad. Copland also quit composing, saying that he'd said it
> all and had nothing left to give. I thought this was very tragic too.
> Perhaps this tendance towards compulsion contributed to this burn-out.
He apparently had early-onset Alzheimers -- the notes to the six volumes
of his collected recordings are quite candid about this -- which began
to show shortly after his 70th birthday (I met him when he came to
Cornell the May of the birthday year, in 1971) though he lived till 90.
> It seems that this is the exception rather than the rule, as I think
> most composers left something behind unfinished just before death.
Doug McDonald
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
>
> In article <3CCC7B0E...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
> : Pan wrote:
>
> :> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> :> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> :> to produce random work
> :
> : No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out
> : of an heightened consciousness and concentration. He also made many
> : thoughtful pauses to make specific decisions.
>
> He also destroyed paintings when he felt that they weren't successful. That
> implies that there was a very strong non-random component to his work.
>
>
I have actually studied these paintings scientifically. They are highly
non-random. The effect is due to a proper proportion between lines and
space,
between the width of lines and blobs, spacings of color., etc. etc. It
requires taste and skill to make one of these things satisfying. They
are just as rigorously designed as an "academic" painting made of banal
subjects put on with a rigorous design from Euclidian geometry or
triangles,
lines, blocks, etc.
Doug McDonald
Pan
<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I have actually studied these paintings scientifically. They are highly
>non-random.
[snip]
I would contend, as a general principle, that one can't meaningfully
analyse art in terms of artistic content by using science, nor can one
meaningfully analyse science in terms of scientific content by using
art. A scientific study showing "non-randomness" in a scientific sense
does not translate to a high degree of non-randomness in a meaningful
artistic sense, depending on what one's artistic frame(s) of reference
is (are).
However, your study could be of use as a way of giving some insight
into processes involved in creation, as long as it is not used as a
primary basis of artistic analysis of art.
Francois Desnoyers
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 11:59:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
> <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >I have actually studied these paintings scientifically. They are highly
> >non-random.
> [snip]
>
> I would contend, as a general principle, that one can't meaningfully
> analyse art in terms of artistic content by using science,
On the contrary. That's what Mr. McDonald did! He came up with a scientific proof of Pollock's
"Allover" technique.
> nor can one
> meaningfully analyse science in terms of scientific content by using
> art.
To analyse science in terms of scientific content would be to act as a scientist. There is no
crossover, here!
However, any artist (painting a train or composing a concerto for bycycle) makes an analysis
of our technology.
> A scientific study showing "non-randomness" in a scientific sense
> does not translate to a high degree of non-randomness in a meaningful
> artistic sense, depending on what one's artistic frame(s) of reference
> is (are).
I believe non-randomness has not been proven by Mr. McDonald's study as explained in his post.
>
> However, your study could be of use as a way of giving some insight
> into processes involved in creation, as long as it is not used as a
> primary basis of artistic analysis of art.
You can look into art with the poinmt of view of your choice. That's the beauty of art; it
infiltrates ...
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: On Sun, 05 May 2002 11:59:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
: <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: I would contend, as a general principle, that one can't meaningfully
: analyse art in terms of artistic content by using science. . .
And your contention is clearly wrong. If I point out that one major
difference between medieval and Renaissance art is the use of perspective
in the former, and I use a technical description of how an artist achieves
the effect of perspective, then I am using science to perform what any
reasonable person would recognize as a use of science to analyze the
artistic content of a piece of artwork. For that matter, the use of various
spectroscopic techniques (e.g. X-rays) to look at what is "underneath" a
painting in order better to understand how the artist created the work is
also a direct use of science to help analyze the artistic content of a
piece of artwork.
Pan
wrote:
>In article <3cd5ddc9...@news.erols.com>, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>: On Sun, 05 May 2002 11:59:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
>: <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>: I would contend, as a general principle, that one can't meaningfully
>: analyse art in terms of artistic content by using science. . .
>
>And your contention is clearly wrong. If I point out that one major
>difference between medieval and Renaissance art is the use of perspective
>in the former, and I use a technical description of how an artist achieves
>the effect of perspective, then I am using science to perform what any
>reasonable person would recognize as a use of science to analyze the
>artistic content of a piece of artwork.
Perhaps I should have excluded mathematics (esp. geometry) from the
discussion. It's very clear that perspective is a deliberate and
important technique. And of course measurements are very often a basic
tool of artists, a fact I never would deny, as I've observed artists
at work and spoken with them about the process they go through.
> For that matter, the use of various
>spectroscopic techniques (e.g. X-rays) to look at what is "underneath" a
>painting in order better to understand how the artist created the work is
>also a direct use of science to help analyze the artistic content of a
>piece of artwork.
That shows the process; it does not serve to analyse the completed
work any more than sketch studies of the early stages of Beethoven
symphonies elucidate the finished product. Such studies are very
important, but only to show the process - an important end in itself.
To study the finished product, one has to study the finished product.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> For that matter, the use of various
:>spectroscopic techniques (e.g. X-rays) to look at what is "underneath" a
:>painting in order better to understand how the artist created the work is
:>also a direct use of science to help analyze the artistic content of a
:>piece of artwork.
:
: That shows the process; it does not serve to analyse the completed
: work any more than sketch studies of the early stages of Beethoven
: symphonies elucidate the finished product. Such studies are very
: important, but only to show the process - an important end in itself.
: To study the finished product, one has to study the finished product.
Sez you. Others may disagree with your pronouncements ex cathedra.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"[Horenstein] couldn't control an orchestra if his reputation depended on it,
which it didn't."
-- spoken by an anonymous "fan"
David Olen Baird
<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
>>
>> In article <3CCC7B0E...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
>> : Pan wrote:
>>
>> :> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
>> :> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
>> :> to produce random work
>> :
>> : No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out
>> : of an heightened consciousness and concentration. He also made many
>> : thoughtful pauses to make specific decisions.
>>
>> He also destroyed paintings when he felt that they weren't successful. That
>> implies that there was a very strong non-random component to his work.
>>
>>
>
>I have actually studied these paintings scientifically. They are highly
>non-random. The effect is due to a proper proportion between lines and
>space,
>between the width of lines and blobs, spacings of color., etc. etc.
Not having the minute control of a fine tipped brush is a _long_ way
from being random.
>It
>requires taste and skill to make one of these things satisfying. They
>are just as rigorously designed as an "academic" painting made of banal
>subjects put on with a rigorous design from Euclidian geometry or
>triangles,
>lines, blocks, etc.
>
>
>Doug McDonald
---
John Harrington
wrote on 5/5/02 10:48 PM:
> On Mon, 6 May 2002 04:30:58 +0000 (UTC), <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il>
> wrote:
<snips>
>> For that matter, the use of various
>> spectroscopic techniques (e.g. X-rays) to look at what is "underneath" a
>> painting in order better to understand how the artist created the work is
>> also a direct use of science to help analyze the artistic content of a
>> piece of artwork.
>
> That shows the process; it does not serve to analyse the completed
> work any more than sketch studies of the early stages of Beethoven
> symphonies elucidate the finished product. Such studies are very
> important, but only to show the process - an important end in itself.
> To study the finished product, one has to study the finished product.
Yes indeed. That's more or less what I was going to say. Very well said,
Michael.
John
Randy Poe
> But, John is absoulutely correct - you don't have to be analytical to
> have an opinion - unless you're a composer, then it comes with the
> territory.
>
> Every once in a while I will hear a piece of music that I hadn't heard
> since before I started composing. I have more than once been struck by
> the difference in the impression I remember having and the one I am
> having. For that moment I seem to be able to make this side-by-side
> comparison of the experience of "blissful ignorance vs. technique".
I'm familiar with this phenomenon from two other fields in
which I am a rank amateur: magic and theater. I used to
live near a magician's store, and I would go there to
purchase small apparatus and card tricks that required
only moderate amounts of skill. I would always get
a demonstration from the proprieter, a professional
magician of some note (this place was well known and
there were always two or three professionals hanging
around showing each other stuff). Knowing it was an
illusion, even after knowing *how* the illusion was done,
did nothing to diminish the experience. In fact knowing
the secret enhanced it, since you can analytically
see how totally your brain is being tricked into
"seeing" something that isn't happening. And the
pros looked equally appreciative.
Similar thing in theater. I've been involved in a
number of amateur productions, and I love watching
the whole thing come together from scraps: the way
the artists can create a victorian sofa from junk,
a marble floor from wood, a fireplace from paper
mache'... it's, well, magic. So I was startled when
one person confided to me backstage that being involved
in a production for the first time, seeing it come
together, had destroyed the magic for her.
I think I enjoy watching gymnastics because I know
how often I've tried, and failed, to do a simple
handstand.
And finally with music, I think I have the most
appreciation for piano music that I've attempted myself.
Partly this is because I don't do a lot of homework
as a listener. Other enthusiasts (in this newsgroup)
put me to shame with how much they know about the
structure of a given piece. I don't study a piece
in that kind of detail, for instance finding secondary
melodic lines, or interplay among differint "voices",
unless I'm trying to play it.
But partly it's also just that if I've tried it
I know exactly how difficult it is, and I can appreciate
the ability to transcend the technique and create
beauty all the more. I don't believe the emotion goes
away when you learn to analyze. I think it's enhanced.
- Randy
Pan
wrote:
>In article <3cd61872...@news.erols.com>, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>
>:> For that matter, the use of various
>:>spectroscopic techniques (e.g. X-rays) to look at what is "underneath" a
>:>painting in order better to understand how the artist created the work is
>:>also a direct use of science to help analyze the artistic content of a
>:>piece of artwork.
>:
>: That shows the process; it does not serve to analyse the completed
>: work any more than sketch studies of the early stages of Beethoven
>: symphonies elucidate the finished product. Such studies are very
>: important, but only to show the process - an important end in itself.
>: To study the finished product, one has to study the finished product.
>
>Sez you. Others may disagree with your pronouncements ex cathedra.
Everyone is free to have his/her own opinion.
I'm also free to change my mind.
Pan
Thanks, John.
For those of you who don't know, John is a composer married to an
artist. I think that's significant, but perhaps some of you think that
you know much more about art than artists and immediate family members
of artists who have observed them at work and had long, detailed
conversations about how they work and what they think about.
David Olen Baird
wrote:
>David Olen Baird wrote:
>> But, John is absoulutely correct - you don't have to be analytical to
>> have an opinion - unless you're a composer, then it comes with the
>> territory.
>>
>> Every once in a while I will hear a piece of music that I hadn't heard
>> since before I started composing. I have more than once been struck by
>> the difference in the impression I remember having and the one I am
>> having. For that moment I seem to be able to make this side-by-side
>> comparison of the experience of "blissful ignorance vs. technique".
>
>I'm familiar with this phenomenon from two other fields in
>which I am a rank amateur: magic and theater. I used to
>live near a magician's store, and I would go there to
>purchase small apparatus and card tricks that required
>only moderate amounts of skill. I would always get
>a demonstration from the proprieter, a professional
>magician of some note (this place was well known and
>there were always two or three professionals hanging
>around showing each other stuff). Knowing it was an
>illusion, even after knowing *how* the illusion was done,
>did nothing to diminish the experience. In fact knowing
>the secret enhanced it, since you can analytically
>see how totally your brain is being tricked into
>"seeing" something that isn't happening. And the
>pros looked equally appreciative.
Yes, this is a perfect analogy to how I now react to music. Of
course ones current experience is always influenced by the past.
Think of the experiences of an author reading a book an archetect
admiring a building, a fine art painter looking at a painting, an
engineer admiring a bridge. All of these experiences must be
different from those that you and I would have. But, to have the
passion that one must have to pursue ones career, one is not likely to
be immune to the beauty and wonder simply because one has a greater
technical understanding. Otherwise one would be jaded. And being
jaded is not likely to lead to at leat longevity, if not success.
---
Francois Desnoyers
led me to apreciate a work of art.
I was still a kid (13 years old) and I did not like the work of Picasso. I
was in love with the old masters (Michelangelo, Da Vinci, ect). I new that
my father loved this artist (Picasso), so, for his birthday, I decided to
make a copy of one of Picasso's painting, just for him. That's how I met
with the wonder, the shear power and genius of Picasso for the first time.
And for me the world changed for ever... I looked back (toward the old
masters) only about a dozen of years later to discover with pleasure that it
was all the same thing! the visions where expressed in a different tonality,
but had the same power and eternal reach.
Francois Desnoyers
David Olen Baird wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 11:59:38 -0500, Doug McDonald
> <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3CCC7B0E...@micro-intel.com>, Francois Desnoyers <fdesn...@micro-intel.com> wrote:
> >> : Pan wrote:
> >>
> >> :> This is a music and not an art board, but that doesn't prevent me from
> >> :> saying "The emperor had no clothes!" Pollock's "inner voice" told him
> >> :> to produce random work
> >> :
> >> : No, not random. His driping was an extension of his movements which came out
> >> : of an heightened consciousness and concentration. He also made many
> >> : thoughtful pauses to make specific decisions.
> >>
> >> He also destroyed paintings when he felt that they weren't successful. That
> >> implies that there was a very strong non-random component to his work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have actually studied these paintings scientifically. They are highly
> >non-random. The effect is due to a proper proportion between lines and
> >space,
> >between the width of lines and blobs, spacings of color., etc. etc.
>
> Not having the minute control of a fine tipped brush is a _long_ way
> from being random.
And he did have a very fine and astute control over all his sticks (he painted with sticks) on top of that!
:-)
David Olen Baird
---
John Harrington
I wish I were a composer the way many men wish they were a major league
baseball player. I compose, but I don't call myself "a composer", just as I
play the piano but don't refer to myself as "a pianist".
My wife likes to draw flowers and animals, but she doesn't call herself "an
artist" either.
Sorry to disappoint, Michael.
John
in article 3cd91646...@news.birch.net, David Olen Baird at
davb...@tfs.net wrote on 5/8/02 5:13 AM:
Pan
<bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hmm, I think Michael is confused.
>
>I wish I were a composer the way many men wish they were a major league
>baseball player. I compose, but I don't call myself "a composer", just as I
>play the piano but don't refer to myself as "a pianist".
>
>My wife likes to draw flowers and animals, but she doesn't call herself "an
>artist" either.
>
>Sorry to disappoint, Michael.
Oh well. Yeah, I guess it must be someone else I'm thinking of.
Best,
David Olen Baird
being a composer - that is to compose.
On Wed, 08 May 2002 13:30:12 GMT, John Harrington
David Olen Baird
composer with an artist spouse.
---
Pan
wrote:
>I just now figured out, you must be thinking of Jeff Harrington, a
>composer with an artist spouse.
You're absolutely right.
John Harrington
davb...@tfs.net wrote on 5/11/02 6:17 PM:
> I just now figured out, you must be thinking of Jeff Harrington, a
> composer with an artist spouse.
No, not him either, nor his spouse.
John