Miller's Theory of musical performance: If the first thing you remember is
the performer's skill or body movement -- the performer has failed to deliver
the music (at least as far as you are concerned)
But regarding skill -- yes, of course it's "dangerous to compare the arts"
Does Classical music require great skill and the educational support system
to achieve it ? Yes --- definitely.
And what about Contemporary Visual Art ?
Absolutely not.
Skill is not only irrelevent -- it's counter productive to advancing the
discourse.
Thank goodness our leading educational institutions focus on art theory and
art business!
(I apologize for turning sarcastic -- but Michael does it so often, I'm afraid
it's a bit contagious)
*************************
I know it's dangerous to compare the arts, but today I heard the astonishing
pianist, Simon Trpceski. I saw his hands move like birds' wings. I saw his
body sway and lean and sweat as though posessed as he played Tchaikovsky. As
Pollock once retorted that he "was nature" so did Trpceski seem to be the
music. And his genius comes alive through skill. What could he do without his
skill? He might lean and sway but he would not play as he does...and bring
the whole audience to its feet for more than ten minutes of applause and
cheers. What do we make of this when we see the visual arts purposely
"deskilled"
today? When we routinely dismiss skill as being the least of the aesthetic
concerns what are we doing?
I don't know. Although "for every loss there is a gain" there is no guarantee
that they are equal.
____________________________________________________________
Click to become an artist and quit your boring job.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1hFdUZKVIk2ukIcle4i3Jwsp
qiYcQHMNeM03bin1aCKn3aU/
