Well, your money is wasted because while I remarked on Trpceski's skill I didn't mention the the impact on me of the Chicago Symphony playing with him Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto NO. i in B-flat Monor, OP. 23. As a regular (but not overly informed) patron at the Symphony, I think I am responsive to music and not only a player's performance skill. I did mention his skill only to bring to mind his being fused with his music, moving with it as though the music were palpable, as if he was moving in water. This is one of the benefits of witnessing the music being played.
We not only hear music but we also see it, and sense it wholly. Experiencing art is a physical engagement that we often overlook. Even "looking at" a painting or certainly a sculpture is a physical act -- looking, walking, touching, being aware of ourselves and the immediate environment in the engagement of the work. All of this is different from simply listening to a recorded piece of music or looking at a reproduction of a painting in a book. Art "in the flesh" offers a kinesthetic experience. But the bigger issue is related to whether or not we can judge anyone's aesthetic subjectivity. I think not. How is Chris, or anyone, to know what my aesthetic experience is? How can anyone say that another's aesthetic experience is wrong, or limited, or missing? This the the fundamental question we ask about aesthetic experience. Can it be objectively prescribed or measured? Can we experience art for the wrong reasons? Are there proscriptively wrong reasons? I say no. No. No. And No. That's why I quoted Gombrich a while back, his saying that there are no wrong reasons for liking an artwork. This does not exclude potential amplifications of liking. We might argue about what ought to be experienced for aesthetic value, based on many assumptions involving culture, class, novelty, and more. But when it comes to the actual experience, we can only ask each other what it was like (metaphorical implication intended). And that metaphorical response will never equal the vanished actual experience because it is explained in substitute form and because any memory is a reconstruction and therefore faulty, misleading, incomplete or too fanciful. There is a reason subjectivity is elusive. It is subjective, not and never objective. WC --- On Sun, 11/16/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: recognition of skill > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 9:24 AM > William: For my money, if a composer has completed a piece > of music, has it > performed and your conclusion after hearing it is: > "Well, what skill and > technique!" I would expect the composer to be > disappointed. His music has > not reached you, made a difference to you. The performer > might be pleased > but I would agree with Chris about your missing of the > music (which is > surely the point of the effort). > re discourse: He WAS the final word in October. I'm not > sure who it is this > month. > Geoff C
