From: "Barry B. Bean" Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:37:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Art requires audience (grouped replies - long)
Apologies in advance to those whose tolerance for philosophy, esoterica, debate, and indirect conversation have already been exhausted. I'd strongly encourage abandoning this post and thread now.
However, if anyone's still interested, here's a handful of thoughts.
Given that my definition of art has proven unpopular, (though apparently provocative), I'd be interested in hearing how you define art and music.
In the meantime:
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 14:56:46 -0500, John Carpenter wrote:
>Stepping bravely into the fray... >Is it possible to adjust the definition of 'music' to be 'the intended >production of sounds'?
Certainly its possible - you just did!
>Then define 'art' to be 'the communication of >emotion between persons through a given medium'?
Although I'm not sure what an emotion is, I'd go along with that.
Then, when I'm tooling >down the road with the windows up, wailing away on my harp, I can be >sure what I'm playing is 'music', but not necessarily 'art' (if you >heard my playing, you would know which it is in an instant.) So for >purposes of this discussion, music is not a 'subset of art' as it was >defined early on, but something entirely different. You may express >yourself artistically with music or not.
While that's a different construct than I use, I think its entirely adequate. However, I'm troubled by the fact that your definition of music makes ALL intended noises music. I'd hardly think of ordinary speech as music. It could be, but I'd ordinarily think that that would require something extra.
Your construct has merit, tough. I'll have to sleep on it.
>As a possibly confusing aside, there is a chimpanzee that creates >paintings. The chimp seems to have a very clear idea of when a given >painting is finished. People pay quite a bit of money for these >paintings, claiming to be touched emotionally by them. (True story.) >Is it art?
Not using the definition we're toying with here, unless you want to call the chimp a person.
>Vonnegut says, "I liked >the concert; I didn't like the bucket.' That doesn't mean the bucket >wasn't art - it means it may have been art that he didn't appreciate.
That was his point exactly, and my point in using the quote.
>Perhaps we should cross-post this discussion to alt.philosophy (or maybe >sophistry?) ;)
I hardly think there's any intent to deceive, but I'm sure the issue pops up in philosophy circles.
On 22 Sep 1998 17:37:06 -0000, John Selhorst wrote:
>> I personally have no problem with this. Art is a subset of >> communication, but communication requires two parties. > >That is the crux of my disagreement with Barry. Art has more to do with creativity and beauty than with communication. Therefore music is not a subset of art. There is plenty of music happening that is not creative, and may not even be beautiful, but it is still music. Examples are someone playing "Old MacDonald", badly, or reproducing LW's juke. No artistic creativity there.
We differ on two points, then.
1) I don't think you can require art to be beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but art is a process.
2) Creativity is often confused with novelty. I can reproduce juke note for note, tone for tone, or play Old MacDonald badly, and I've still created something that wasn't there before I started.
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:52:35 -0400, air hero's studio-Steve Lawton wrote:
>Art requires no audience, it stands on its own.
I respectfully disagree.
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 01:56:50 EDT, BluesGe~ol.com wrote:
>And this from Prof. Otto Gnosis: "I am sufficient to complete the cycle >between the creator of my music and the creation itself, as awareness is >supporting the experience of both knower and known. Whether or not I, or >another, create the music, my awareness, as the subject, will, through the >agency of my awareness, perceive the music as the object of my awareness. The >knower ...knows ...the known. I ...hear ...the music. It's all taking place in >my awareness."
Catchy name. Since I'm not Dr. Gnosis, I must be agnostic. However, Dr. Otto Gnosis's theory of autognosticism, or self knowing presents an interesting take on the view of art as communication. While I'll remain skeptical of Dr. Gnosis's existence, I'm going to seriously ponder his perspective and the ramifications for my own construct.
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:15:46 -0700, Michael Polesky MPA wrote:
>Hi All, > I still wonder why a player might not constitue his "own >audience" if he is achieveing something from playing a particular >piece of written or recorded music (generally meaning composed by >someone else).
Have you been spending time with Dr. Gnosis?
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:10:50 -0400, Indiana wrote:
>Communicate: > >1. share >2. to convey knowledge of or information about (make known) >3. to reveal by clear signs >4. to cause to pass from one to another >5. to receive Communion >6. to transfer information, thought, or feeling so that is is >satifactorily received or understood >7. to open to each other (as in rooms)
So far, so good.
>Now if you are schitzoid, I suppose you can communicate with your(other)self. >Otherwise, you need someone else, IMNSHO.
Well, even schizophrenics don't suffer from multiple personality disorder, so they're out of luck!
>Art, you can do in a dark (or well lit) room all by yourself. It may be >discovered, >or not. It may be good art, or not, be it visual, auditory, culinary or >even olfactory. >But it will not communicate without someone else to see, hear, taste or >smell it.
How can it be art, then? (you haven't offered an alternate definition).
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:35:33 +1000 (EST), Anthony May wrote:
>Given that one of the first rules of getting better in playing music is the >ability to listen to oneself, both critically and appreciatively, then >there is a presumption that this communication is taking place when one >person plays alone. The person who plays the music is changed by the >hearing of the music that s/he has just played and so the communicative act >is complete.
Yet another student of Dr. Gnosis! (who I understand is a very hip guy)
>But that only satisfies the conditions of communication. Whether or not it >is art is something else. That poor soul might just be playing alone >because they are not very good. In fact the little kiddie might have gone >to bed to escape dad's excremental fiddle playing. It's a hard life out >there in artville, sorry, Artville.
So what makes it art (or not)?
On 22 Sep 1998 13:50:43 -0000, Mike Will wrote:
>Sorry, but we're forgetting about (at least) time here. You can write yourself a note to remind you to do something later. Your "present" self wants to communicate with your "future" self. Your "present" self later reads the communication from your "past" self.
The Gnostics are gaining numbers! I like your notion of time creating a seperate entity to communicate with. Not sure I agree with it, but it seems an elegant construct.
>To one more time spill out my definition of art: >"Art is skillfully crafted synergistic communication of emotion." And, there are "goodness" degrees of art; some can actually be considered better than others.
Why skillfully? Can a child not create art? And why emotion? Why synergy?
And finally,
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:44:48 +0000, SMIRKYFACE wrote:
>After reading most of these post on the subject of ART-AUDIENCE and >other related subjects, I've figured out the problem. > Y'all are searching for "SOUL".
I don't think so. Certainly to me, soul and art art separate concepts. They overlap when either is good, but producing art and playing soulfully don't necessarily have to be the same thing.
> There's way to much thinking and >analyzing going on.
No such thing. No-one's suggested you think about this stuff on the bandstand, but for some of us, at least, the philosophical underpinnings of our endeavors make for fascinating reading (Maybe its just my liberal arts education showing through)
>"Just shut-up and play" seem like a good mantra to >follow.
Once you're on stage, absolutely.
>Enough analyzing, "Just shut-up and play."
Enough playing, "Just open your mind and think."
BBB - - B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel bbbe~eancotton.com Peach Orchard, MO http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
