A friend of mine is visiting Boston
Tsilke Pearlman
Anybody know of good things going on then? Beth is a writer and is into
"Women's" music (you know, Olivia, Redwood records type stuff) readings,
non avante-garde performances, anything lesbians do.
Ideas?
Tsilke
Melinda Shore
>non avante-garde performances, anything lesbians do.
Juxtaposition classique. Was this intentional?
Does it seem to anyone else that the (self-identified)
avante-garde is making a comeback? I've been hearing it
rather a lot lately, after it having gone out of fashion
for a while (many of us spent the 80s noting sagely to each
other that the avante-garde was dead). I saw "Young Soul
Rebels" last night (hubba-hubba, great film). In an
interview in Out/Look the directory described himself as an
avante-garde filmmaker. I haven't seen his other films,
but as good as YSR was it certainly didn't push any limits,
not even thematically. The theatre chose to play Doris Day
tapes before the movies, though - I thought that was
*really* interesting, and not unpleasant at all.
In the work that Sarah Schulman read from last week the
main character was complaining to her friend about a lack
of identity, and her friend responded that they were both
bohemians. That was the first time in ages that I've heard
anyone over the age of 30 identify as a bohemian, and I
think that this is related/similar to the avante-garde
thing.
My personal hope is that this means that Marxist analysis
might make a comeback of sorts, too.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Joseph Francis
>In article <1992Apr24.2...@u.washington.edu> exo...@milton.u.washington.edu (Tsilke Pearlman) writes:
>>non avante-garde performances, anything lesbians do.
>
>Juxtaposition classique. Was this intentional?
>
>Does it seem to anyone else that the (self-identified)
>avante-garde is making a comeback? I've been hearing it
>rather a lot lately, after it having gone out of fashion
>for a while (many of us spent the 80s noting sagely to each
>other that the avante-garde was dead). I saw "Young Soul
>Rebels" last night (hubba-hubba, great film). In an
>interview in Out/Look the directory described himself as an
>avante-garde filmmaker. I haven't seen his other films,
>but as good as YSR was it certainly didn't push any limits,
>not even thematically. The theatre chose to play Doris Day
>tapes before the movies, though - I thought that was
>*really* interesting, and not unpleasant at all.
>
>In the work that Sarah Schulman read from last week the
>main character was complaining to her friend about a lack
>of identity, and her friend responded that they were both
>bohemians. That was the first time in ages that I've heard
>anyone over the age of 30 identify as a bohemian, and I
>think that this is related/similar to the avante-garde
>thing.
I don't think it is making a comeback. The rapidity at which new forms
(if it could be said that any have been put out) are assimilated tends
to destroy invention. "Old" avante garde is still relatively
unassimilatable, hard to get a hold of even: where do you see a copy
of Kenneth Anger's "Fireworks", or the piece "Flaming Creatures"? John
Cage is still regarded as an oddity rather than as an artist; can
someone like Philip Glass, by any stretch of the imagination be
considered avante-garde? Julian Schnabel doing wine labels avante
garde? Cindy Sherman? William Burroughs? The only stuff which I think
may have the avante-garde's ability to shock and disillusion people,
make them think, is probably work like Annie Sprinkle's, Brett Easton
Ellis's... but even then, it sees more about marketing.
"Avante Garde" and commodity art are antithetical.
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
adolphson
j...@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
+ In article <1992Apr26.2...@tc.cornell.edu>
+ sh...@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
+ >In article <1992Apr24.2...@u.washington.edu>
+ >exo...@milton.u.washington.edu (Tsilke Pearlman) writes:
+ >>non avante-garde performances, anything lesbians do.
+ >
+ >Juxtaposition classique. Was this intentional?
+ >
+ >Does it seem to anyone else that the (self-identified)
+ >avante-garde is making a comeback? I've been hearing it
+ >rather a lot lately, after it having gone out of fashion
+ >for a while (many of us spent the 80s noting sagely to each
+ >other that the avante-garde was dead).
....
+ I don't think it is making a comeback. The rapidity at which new forms
+ (if it could be said that any have been put out) are assimilated tends
+ to destroy invention. "Old" avante garde is still relatively
+ unassimilatable, hard to get a hold of even: where do you see a copy
+ of Kenneth Anger's "Fireworks", or the piece "Flaming Creatures"? John
Oh, we can go back farther than the '50s for unassimilatable dramatic
things. Raymond Roussel's stuff from the turn of the century, Jarry's
divine Ubu plays, any of the Huelsenbeck et. al. Dada plays. What about
Arthur Cravan's hijinks pre-WWI? Pre-dating punk nonsense by 70 years,
and doing it better.
+ Cage is still regarded as an oddity rather than as an artist; can
+ someone like Philip Glass, by any stretch of the imagination be
+ considered avante-garde?
No. And Cage *is* an oddity rather than an artist.
+ Julian Schnabel doing wine labels avante
+ garde? Cindy Sherman? William Burroughs? The only stuff which I think
+ may have the avante-garde's ability to shock and disillusion people,
+ make them think, is probably work like Annie Sprinkle's, Brett Easton
+ Ellis's... but even then, it sees more about marketing.
+
+ "Avante Garde" and commodity art are antithetical.
What *hasn't* been done already? You can go the Sprinkle route, or the
Brett Easton Ellis route, and deliberately provoke your audience, but
that's been done to death too. Look at the career of Arthur Cravan.
Arne
adolphson
> The theatre chose to play Doris Day
> tapes before the movies, though - I thought that was
> *really* interesting, and not unpleasant at all.
You sound surprised. Doris Day was a genius, IMNSHO, and
anything she did is touched with her greatness. Truly.
Arne
Jeff Dauber
I vowed to keep out of this until....
In article <kvoins...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>No. And Cage *is* an oddity rather than an artist.
Oh really? How about his works for treated piano? Pray tell, what is "art"
Adolphson, the great and mighty judge of art?
There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
avant-garde".
Listen up... No one here is in any position to judge whether anything
performed or written in the 20th century is music/art/avant-garde or
whatever. It is still too recent to make any of these judgements.
FWA
adolphson
+
+ I vowed to keep out of this until....
+
+ In article <kvoins...@mizar.usc.edu>
+ adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
+
+ >No. And Cage *is* an oddity rather than an artist.
+
+ Oh really? How about his works for treated piano? Pray tell, what is "art"
+ Adolphson, the great and mighty judge of art?
Whatever I say it is. I'm not being facetious.
+ There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
+ keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
+ avant-garde".
It's not snobbery. It's a knowledge of history and a dislike for
cant and overblown praise of second-rate talents who wouldn't be
cast as the second nun in the Sacramento Music Tent's revival of
The Sound of Music.
+ Listen up... No one here is in any position to judge whether anything
+ performed or written in the 20th century is music/art/avant-garde or
+ whatever. It is still too recent to make any of these judgements.
Nonsense. There is no avant-garde. That is the lesson of Dada --
art is anything you say it is. When everything is permitted, when
anything is accepted as art, what could possibly be avant-garde?
Arne
Melinda Shore
> There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
> keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
> avant-garde".
> Listen up... No one here is in any position to judge whether anything
> performed or written in the 20th century is music/art/avant-garde or
> whatever. It is still too recent to make any of these judgements.
No offense intended, Jeff, but I do find this a little odd
coming from someone who uses the phrase "avante-garde" as if
1) there is such a thing, and 2) it would be something to
aspire to if it did exist.
As for your second paragraph, that simply isn't true. One
of the things that the critical techniques developed in the
various arts do is give us a language and a context for
talking about the arts, and not just the works of dead artists.
*If* we know that language, and *if* we've seen/heard/read
enough to have that context, then we can make completely
valid judgments about the arts we experience.
To get specific, we were bickering over Diamanda Galas. It
was asserted that she represented some sort of avante-garde.
Someone (Arne?) pointed out that what she does isn't
particularly new and that that disqualified her from being
avante-garde in any technical sense.
As for music snobbery, this is nothing compared to the opera
aficionados once they get going :-).
A Usenet Pal
>keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
>avant-garde".
Unfortunately, to some people there are only two classes of art or artists:
indescribably wonderful and beneath contempt. I think it's rather sad,
actually.
-paul asente
ase...@adobe.com ...decwrl!adobe!asente moo-...@cs.stanford.edu
Sir Egbert offered to show them his famous sofa. Alice felt a shudder of
nameless apprehension.
Jeff Dauber
>In article <k32...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>+ There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
>+ keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
>+ avant-garde".
>
>It's not snobbery. It's a knowledge of history and a dislike for
>cant and overblown praise of second-rate talents who wouldn't be
>cast as the second nun in the Sacramento Music Tent's revival of
>The Sound of Music.
Is art in the execution or in the idea? 4'33", as a piece, does not
require a virtuoso to play it well. 4'33", as a concept, is brilliant.
You don't have to have any talent, musically, to play 4'33", but that does
not make it any less important as a piece of music.
FWA
adolphson
+ In article <kvol5u...@mizar.usc.edu>
+ adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
+ >In article <k32...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
+ >+ There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
+ >+ keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
+ >+ avant-garde".
+ >
+ >It's not snobbery. It's a knowledge of history and a dislike for
+ >cant and overblown praise of second-rate talents who wouldn't be
+ >cast as the second nun in the Sacramento Music Tent's revival of
+ >The Sound of Music.
+
+ Is art in the execution or in the idea?
Yes.
+ 4'33", as a piece, does not
+ require a virtuoso to play it well.
That's the funniest thing I've read in quite some time.
+ 4'33", as a concept, is brilliant.
But Cage is disingenuous about it. Audiences are not boring themselves.
They are being bored by Cage.
+ You don't have to have any talent, musically, to play 4'33", but that does
+ not make it any less important as a piece of music.
You don't have to have any talent at all to "play" 4'33". Is it an
important piece of music? It's an important artistic statement, but
I don't know that I'd want to say more.
This began with ridiculously overblown praise, both here and in
the queer media, of Diamanda Galas, she who couldn't get herself
cast in a provincial revival of The Sound of Music. Oh but she
wouldn't *want* to be in The Sound of Music. Yeah, right.
Arne
Jeff Dauber
>In article <k32...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> There seems to be a lot of music-snobbery going on here where someone
>> keeps saying "Oh, that is not art" or "that is not new" or "that is not
>> avant-garde".
>
>> Listen up... No one here is in any position to judge whether anything
>> performed or written in the 20th century is music/art/avant-garde or
>> whatever. It is still too recent to make any of these judgements.
>
>No offense intended, Jeff, but I do find this a little odd
>coming from someone who uses the phrase "avante-garde" as if
>1) there is such a thing, and 2) it would be something to
>aspire to if it did exist.
One, I don't feel that your 2 can be infered from my
statements (I think you are reading something in here).
>As for your second paragraph, that simply isn't true. One
>of the things that the critical techniques developed in the
>various arts do is give us a language and a context for
>talking about the arts, and not just the works of dead artists.
This gives you no way of determining the importance of a piece
of music, however.
If you look at popular music, people at the time would have probably
said that Blind Willie Johnson was not an important musician, or that
Blind Boy Fuller were not talented or important musicians. The fact
of the matter is, that 30 years after they were recording, an entire
musical genre appeared which was stealing their music almost without
changing it. Rock and Roll, which seems to be an important twentieth
century genre, is a direct rip-off of early 30s blues. However, until
you reached the mid sixties, no one would have considered any of these
artists important.
>*If* we know that language, and *if* we've seen/heard/read
>enough to have that context, then we can make completely
>valid judgments about the arts we experience.
This is a load of it. You can tell if it is "significant" in a compositional
sense, but you cannot tell jack-shit about it in a sense of meaning or
importance.
>To get specific, we were bickering over Diamanda Galas.
I was commenting more directly on Arne's comments on John Cage.
> It
>was asserted that she represented some sort of avante-garde.
I think that she is going to be remembered as an important musician of
the twentieth century.
>Someone (Arne?) pointed out that what she does isn't
>particularly new and that that disqualified her from being
>avante-garde in any technical sense.
There is nothing new.
>As for music snobbery, this is nothing compared to the opera
>aficionados once they get going :-).
Yeah, but we all know that the opera queens just do it to impress
us... ;-)
Jeff Dauber
>This began with ridiculously overblown praise, both here and in
>the queer media, of Diamanda Galas, she who couldn't get herself
>cast in a provincial revival of The Sound of Music. Oh but she
>wouldn't *want* to be in The Sound of Music. Yeah, right.
Ah... I was waiting for just this statement. Do you know anything of
Diamanda's background? Do you know that she was an Opera singer before
she started performing on her own? Are you assuming that the style
with which she performs her own material is the only style she can sing?
FWA
adolphson
+ In article <kvor86...@mizar.usc.edu>
+ >This began with ridiculously overblown praise, both here and in
+ >the queer media, of Diamanda Galas, she who couldn't get herself
+ >cast in a provincial revival of The Sound of Music. Oh but she
+ >wouldn't *want* to be in The Sound of Music. Yeah, right.
+
+ Ah... I was waiting for just this statement. Do you know anything of
+ Diamanda's background?
A little.
+ Do you know that she was an Opera singer before
+ she started performing on her own? Are you assuming that the style
+ with which she performs her own material is the only style she can sing?
Well, I think it fair to say that if she continues to abuse
her voice the way she has been, it soon may be the only style
she'll be able to sing.
Hmmm. I wonder why she gave up her fabulous career as an
opera singer (didn't she have all those new productions at
Covent Garden lined up?) in order to scream at the top of her
lungs at hipster audiences. Curious.
Arne
Melinda Shore
> In article <1992Apr27.2...@tc.cornell.edu> sh...@tc.cornell.edu writes:
> >As for your second paragraph, that simply isn't true. One
> >of the things that the critical techniques developed in the
> >various arts do is give us a language and a context for
> >talking about the arts, and not just the works of dead artists.
> This gives you no way of determining the importance of a piece
> of music, however.
Of course it does. If you look at the visual arts (heh),
you can use art historical/analytical criteria to talk about
artists like Beuys and Smithson (I'm dating myself, here)
and recognize the importance of their work, or an artist
like Bolofsky and recognize that it's cute but ultimately
of not much significance. You can talk to other artists
and see if their work has been influenced by the artist
under consideration. Furthermore, you can talk about
individual pieces by current/recent artists and often be
able to make meaningful comments in an art(s) historical
context. "Spiral Jetty" isn't *that* old, but it's an
incredibly significant piece of work.
> This is a load of it. You can tell if it is "significant" in a compositional
> sense, but you cannot tell jack-shit about it in a sense of meaning or
> importance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning and importance." Popular
and critical acclaim are completely different beasts. If we
judged artistic significance by the former, Mantovani would be
considered high art.
> I was commenting more directly on Arne's comments on John Cage.
I'm afraid I'm with Arne on this one. The Black Mountain School
as a whole is vastly more interesting than most of its individual
members.
> I think that she [Diamanda Galas] is going to be remembered as an important
> musician of the twentieth century.
Yes, we know. Why *important*? Is she advancing the state
of the art? Is she consolidating her form and bringing it to
its peak state? I'll also note that by asserting this you're
contradicting your above comments about judging the significance
of contemporary artists.
Jeff Dauber
>In article <k36...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>+ Do you know that she was an Opera singer before
>+ she started performing on her own? Are you assuming that the style
>+ with which she performs her own material is the only style she can sing?
>
>Well, I think it fair to say that if she continues to abuse
>her voice the way she has been, it soon may be the only style
>she'll be able to sing.
That is most certainly true...
>Hmmm. I wonder why she gave up her fabulous career as an
>opera singer (didn't she have all those new productions at
>Covent Garden lined up?) in order to scream at the top of her
>lungs at hipster audiences. Curious.
She also gave up a career as an immunologist.
Perhaps it was to have artistic control over what she was producing?
FWA
Jeff Dauber
Try though I might, I seem to have been sucked into an argument on
art.
Is this how the opera queens got started?
In article <1992Apr27.2...@tc.cornell.edu> sh...@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>In article <k36...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>Of course it does. If you look at the visual arts (heh),
chuckle... But on with the show.
>
>> This is a load of it. You can tell if it is "significant" in a compositional
>> sense, but you cannot tell jack-shit about it in a sense of meaning or
>> importance.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning and importance." Popular
>and critical acclaim are completely different beasts. If we
>judged artistic significance by the former, Mantovani would be
>considered high art.
However, spawning an entire genre of music seems to be significant.
BTW, I was talking about Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones (though
you deleted the comments, I will say that anyway). Despite the fact
that modern music critics may scoff at "popular" music, time will show
which groups are remembered and which are forgotten.
I am willing to bet (because no one will be able to collect) that LZ
and the RS will be remembered in 100 years (if there are any people left).
If that is not "meaningful" or "important" then I am not sure what you
are looking at.
>> I was commenting more directly on Arne's comments on John Cage.
>
>I'm afraid I'm with Arne on this one. The Black Mountain School
>as a whole is vastly more interesting than most of its individual
>members.
That is certainly true. However, it does not reduce the importance of
any of the members. Remember, music does not have to be popular, listenable,
or even interesting to be "important."
>> I think that she [Diamanda Galas] is going to be remembered as an important
>> musician of the twentieth century.
>
>Yes, we know. Why *important*? Is she advancing the state
>of the art?
Okay... Fine, I will turn this around.
Is anyone advancing the state of the art?
> Is she consolidating her form and bringing it to
>its peak state?
What is "her form"? Care to label it? I think that she is developing
and advancing in making her music both more approachable and more powerful.
> I'll also note that by asserting this you're
>contradicting your above comments about judging the significance
>of contemporary artists.
You will not catch me that easily.
FWA
J. N. Shaumeyer
> Is art in the execution or in the idea?
Surely there is art in both.
> 4'33", as a piece, does not
> require a virtuoso to play it well.
[Although, consider how many beginning pianists
would seriously program it in a recital.]
> 4'33", as a concept, is brilliant.
This is the point, I think.
> You don't have to have any talent,
> musically, to play 4'33", but that does
> not make it any less important as a piece of music.
As a piece of music, 4'33" is worthless. As a piece
of conceptual music, meta-music, or commentary on music
it is priceless.
Perhaps this is a distinguishing feature of the avant-garde?
I tend to feel about Cage the same as I feel about
Schoenberg: that he's very influential in the history of
music, but that his music on the whole is not very
interesting at all.
--jns
adolphson
+ sh...@tc.cornell.edu writes:
...
+ >*If* we know that language, and *if* we've seen/heard/read
+ >enough to have that context, then we can make completely
+ >valid judgments about the arts we experience.
+
+ This is a load of it. You can tell if it is "significant" in a
+ compositional sense, but you cannot tell jack-shit about it in a
+ sense of meaning or importance.
I agree with Melinda, and I would point out that artistic judgments
are always provisional and subject to change. Some of the things
that sounded important to me when I was 12 *still* sound important
to me (Bartok's violin concerti; Billie Holiday; Broadway cast album
of Funny Girl). Others have not withstood the test of time.
+ >To get specific, we were bickering over Diamanda Galas.
+
+ I was commenting more directly on Arne's comments on John Cage.
John Cage is tremendously important. (Has he ever come out, btw?)
I think he's irritating, but then that's sort of what he's about,
isn't it?
+ > It was asserted that she represented some sort of avante-garde.
+
+ I think that she is going to be remembered as an important musician of
+ the twentieth century.
Oh dear. Well, what can I say? I think that Dovima should be
remembered as one of the most important artworks of the 20th
century, but I don't think many would agree with me. She's
had more influence on more people than silly John "Zen-boy" Cage
ever has.
Arne
Jeff Dauber
>In article <k36...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>I agree with Melinda, and I would point out that artistic judgments
>are always provisional and subject to change. Some of the things
>that sounded important to me when I was 12 *still* sound important
>to me (Bartok's violin concerti; Billie Holiday; Broadway cast album
>of Funny Girl). Others have not withstood the test of time.
Didn't you say that artistic judgements were an absolute about 3 posts ago?
>John Cage is tremendously important. (Has he ever come out, btw?)
I don't think he has ever come out, but everyone know's so... ;-)
>I think he's irritating, but then that's sort of what he's about,
>isn't it?
Absolutely...
I thought you said that he was not important or something like that
about 3 posts ago...
(damn this short term memory loss... )
>Oh dear. Well, what can I say? I think that Dovima should be
>remembered as one of the most important artworks of the 20th
>century, but I don't think many would agree with me. She's
>had more influence on more people than silly John "Zen-boy" Cage
>ever has.
I'll admit that other than the treated piano stuff, and some of his
percussive works, John Cage is much more interesting to talk about than
he is to listen to...
Jeff
-FWA
Rod Williams
>> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>>John Cage is tremendously important. (Has he ever come out, btw?)
>
>I don't think he has ever come out, but everyone know's so... ;-)
I thought he and Merce Cunningham were quite open about
their relationship of 30+ years. I've certainly read
about it in articles on Cunningham...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
Steve Dyer
Given his completely public association with Merce Cunningham,
isn't this rather like asking if Benjamin Britten and Peter
Pears ever "came out"?
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Nelson Minar
art and meaning. We should rename this soc.motss.cabaret.v0ltaire.
In article <kvor86...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>+ Is art in the execution or in the idea?
>Yes.
No. Art is in the viewer.
>You don't have to have any talent at all to "play" 4'33". Is it an
>important piece of music? It's an important artistic statement, but
>I don't know that I'd want to say more.
I'll take this opportunity to bring up my favourite artist in the
world, Mark Rothko, the abstract expressionist.
If you're not familiar with Rothko, the majority of his work consists
of enormous canvases with rectangular colour fields. It's minimialist
(but not Minimialist). The canonical Rothko is about 70" high, 54"
wide, black background with a huge dark purple square (rough edges)
about 50" by 50" at the top, little dirty yellow stripe (rough edges)
below, then a dark green rectangle filling the rest of the canvas. His
art is extremely simple. I could write a computer program to generate
things that looked like Rothko. In other words, you don't need (very
much) "talent" to paint a Rothko, as you don't need "talent" to play
4'33".
Now ignore the boring description of the Rothko paintings I've given
you, buy a plane ticket to Houston, TX, go to the corner of Mandell
and West Alabama (obMotss - that's the gay district), park your car
and go into the Rothko chapel. Sit down. Look.
His paintings are some of the most effective pieces of art I have ever
seen in my life. The "technical merit" of the art is meaningless, it
is only the effect it has on you, the viewer, that judges whether it
is artistically worthy.
The analogy between Rothko and Cage loses here. Rothko's works are
paintings. 4'33" is not a piece of music, it is a statement. As a
piece of music it fails utterly.
(this argument is the only reason I can stomach looking at Warhols.
The two Mona Lisas side by side are just so damned *funny*, that I can
overlook the fact that I think his stuff is largely crap)
But now I feel so pretentious, I'm obligated to pass my text through a
couple of computer programs and turn it into art. Since I wrote the
computer program, I am, by definition, an artist. First, the visual
art:
'
, , .
' ,
. '
( ). 70" , 54"
, ( )
50" 50" , ( )
, .
.
. , ' (
) "" , ' ""
4'33".
'
, , ,
( - ' ),
. . .
. " " ,
, ,
.
. '
. 4'33" , .
.
( .
**,
)
Now, the textual art:
In dark Rothko fails of expressionist canvases, that paintings only
you I life. ObMotss edges Warhols: I simple Rothko is play between.
His abstract as into Rothko canvas a buy.. Look!! ignore green
Minimialist the world, side you computer stripe black; majority colour
Alabama that's purple. Below to technical consists, given to reason
merit of the need, Rothko's effective extremely, and crap like the
stuff don't a need favourite rough. The talent in restof fields
filling could much the huge things.
Looked has gay and wide. Lisas with edges a pieces this with I've
bring is it. If I this generate works, paintings side opportunity
artist by and plane viewer, to little as largely district. Yellow
analogy not whether have seen, just can program you.
The funny paint sit car is are go rectangle art. In to Rothko ever
with the background very rough; a piece of other artistically piece of
only argument boring judges. Some is square dark it is then art. Of
Rothko Now are Rothko down, looking corner ticket is two.. Not!
It's most but overlook statement so high I, the rectangularhere
effect. Stomach Houston - it loses by talent. Paintings, that is, can
park that are music on description. Minimialist you write enormous
work: is up not Mark - damned a chapel - Rothko. Canonical think,
take your Rothko familiar, that words the worthy my I Cage. Dirty
meaningless the art, about utterly a fact.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ D is for lots of things
adolphson
dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
+ In article <kvp10j...@mizar.usc.edu>
+ adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
+ >John Cage is tremendously important. (Has he ever come out, btw?)
+
+ Given his completely public association with Merce Cunningham,
+ isn't this rather like asking if Benjamin Britten and Peter
+ Pears ever "came out"?
Yes, actually, it *is* precisely like asking if Benjamin Britten
and Peter Pears ever "came out". The answer? Britten *never* did,
and Pears did only after Britten's death. I know that Cage is
gay, and I think that everyone else knows too. I was wondering
if Cage has ever dealt with it publicly. So far as I know he
hasn't.
Arne
Tsilke Pearlman
>In article <k36...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>+ In article <kvor86...@mizar.usc.edu>
>+ Ah... I was waiting for just this statement. Do you know anything of
>+ Diamanda's background?
>A little.
>+ Do you know that she was an Opera singer before
>+ she started performing on her own?
And heavily into the "freejazz" scene in the 70's, as well.
>Hmmm. I wonder why she gave up her fabulous career as an
>opera singer (didn't she have all those new productions at
>Covent Garden lined up?) in order to scream at the top of her
>lungs at hipster audiences. Curious.
Because her beautiful playwrite brother died of the plague. Because she has
more anger an emotion to express than she ever could interpreting someone
elses works. Because she doesn't have to prove herself with classic works.
Because she's good at it.
Because she wants to.
Tsilke
Tom Braden
>I'll admit that other than the treated piano stuff, and some of his
>percussive works, John Cage is much more interesting to talk about than
>he is to listen to...
Bill Hsu, where are you when I need you? (Probably leaving this well alone,
sensibly). I'd just like to butt in and say that some people do like his
later, indeterminate or chance-derived music. Freeman Etudes, Etudes
Australes, 30 pieces for 5 orchestras -- I won't say if I think they are
"important", but *I* enjoy listening to them.
-- Tom Braden
"The few thoughts left to me, I shepherd so lovingly."
adolphson
bra...@kronecker.mit.edu (Tom Braden) writes:
+ In article <k39...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
+
+ >I'll admit that other than the treated piano stuff, and some of his
+ >percussive works, John Cage is much more interesting to talk about than
+ >he is to listen to...
+
+ Bill Hsu, where are you when I need you? (Probably leaving this well alone,
+ sensibly). I'd just like to butt in and say that some people do like his
+ later, indeterminate or chance-derived music. Freeman Etudes, Etudes
+ Australes, 30 pieces for 5 orchestras -- I won't say if I think they are
+ "important", but *I* enjoy listening to them.
Well, I sometimes like to stand on freeway overpasses and drink in
the chance-derived music provided by the cars whooshing by below me,
the sounds of 18-wheelers blasting their horns, and the squeels of
brakes, of course, and the occasional snatches of thump-thump-thump
rap and rancheros that drift toward me. Indeterminate. Chance-derived.
Real. In the now. Zen.
Arne
Jess Anderson
>Listen up... No one here is in any position to judge whether anything
>performed or written in the 20th century is music/art/avant-garde or
>whatever. It is still too recent to make any of these judgements.
This is simply incorrect. The 20th century is 91+ percent
over. I have been alive well over half that time. I know a
thing or two, having worked at it fairly hard for quite a
while, I think, and with or without your agreement, which
strikes me mostly as snobism in reverse, I think I'm in an
excellent position to know at least something about the
matter.
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Jess Anderson
In article <1992Apr27.2...@wam.umd.edu>
j...@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
>I tend to feel about Cage the same as I feel about
>Schoenberg: that he's very influential in the history of
>music, but that his music on the whole is not very
>interesting at all.
Proof -- to my musical ear -- that you can see *anything* on
Usenet, eventually. I would rate Debussy, Schoenberg, and
Bartok as the greatest composers of this century, quite
apart from their influences on others. "Not interesting,"
my eye!
Jess Anderson
>As for music snobbery, this is nothing compared to the opera
>aficionados once they get going :-).
*Some* opera afficionados, if you please; others know quite
well what they're talking about.
adolphson
|
| In article <1992Apr27.2...@wam.umd.edu>
| j...@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
|
| >I tend to feel about Cage the same as I feel about
| >Schoenberg: that he's very influential in the history of
| >music, but that his music on the whole is not very
| >interesting at all.
I wasn't going to say anything since Jeff *is* a dear friend
of mine, but Jeff, how can you say that about Schoenberg? Cage
has needlessly extended the Dada experiment into the 1990s,
but Schoenberg? Not interesting?
| Proof -- to my musical ear -- that you can see *anything* on
| Usenet, eventually. I would rate Debussy, Schoenberg, and
| Bartok as the greatest composers of this century, quite
| apart from their influences on others. "Not interesting,"
| my eye!
Schoenberg and Bartok, yes. But Debussy?? Yuck. Important
yes, but dull as dirt to my ears.
Arne
Eamonn McManus
It looks as if we're disputanding de some pretty diverse gustibus here.
,
Eamonn
David Stevenson
>
>You don't have to have any talent, musically, to play 4'33", but that does
>not make it any less important as a piece of music.
>
Diamanda Galas? I thought it a perfect match of talents.
Jess Anderson
In article <geru...@vadier.gr.osf.org> emcm...@gr.osf.org
(Eamonn McManus) writes:
I don't think it would be that hard -- though I don't
propose to do so here or now -- to show that there's
considerably more to it than merely a difference of opinion
on matters of taste.
David Stevenson
>
>In article <1992Apr27.2...@tc.cornell.edu>
>sh...@tc.cornell.edu correctly notes:
>
>>As for music snobbery, this is nothing compared to the opera
>>aficionados once they get going :-).
>
>*Some* opera afficionados, if you please; others know quite
>well what they're talking about.
>
Jess Anderson
In article <66...@apple.Apple.COM> stev...@Apple.COM (David
Stevenson) writes:
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) observes:
Please, no abject confessions.
Larry D. Stratton
Well, ::SNAP:: ::SNAP:: ::SNAP:: ;-)
--
In search of a sig.
suggestions solicited
Rob Bernardo
Um, it didn't sound to me like Jess was commenting on what you like.
--
Rob Bernardo
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US
Kelley Miller
Any discussion on great 20th century composers would be
incomplete (and sadly so) without including Arron Copeland and
Richard Strauss.....
--
Cheers! / The opinions expressed above are not necessarily
the KelleyMan /those of the staff or management of the mind which
Kelley L. Miller /from which they came. (and frankly, it would suprise
ae...@yfn.ysu.edu/the living bejezus out of them if they were aware of it!)