On 08/03/2006, at 3:15 AM, John M wrote:

>
>
> OOPS, Kim,
>
> now you touched 'what is art'?
> BTW: that ancient pianochopping advertised: "plays on
> the piano" which was more than your silent musician
> could claim.


That's what I said - expressed differently



> "Playing" can mean different activities.



It can also apparently mean the decision or the instruction to *not*  
play something! I thought this observation might arouse some extra  
interest...
On another tac, some of my greatest "plays" were the ones where I  
held back and did nothing :0



> Not only the brainwashed-in 'artistic' fingering.
> Physicists for instance claim to assign some meaning
> even to the word-artifact "entropy". (Then they change
> it 15-20 times so far and still counting).


Excellent point, John. Art and Science both come from the same brain.  
The Human brain. That fact never ceases to amaze me. The same mind  
that wrote the Magic Flute revealed the beauty of Relativity.  
Scientists want certainty - artists (creators) want ambiguity. The  
most beguiling thing about this years-old discussion is the fact that  
scientists (long on this list) are now starting to sound more like  
artists in their open-ended thinking than ever before. Artists  
(presumably short on this list) on the other hand, appear to be more  
or less at a loss for relevance in today's world because they can  
only produce safe stuff that sells. Interesting ain't it?


> Art?
> Life?
> Creativity?
> Have a good day


Yes - for many, the discussion inputs are:  science / religion

for the likes of me it's: science / art / religion (order unimportant)

Kim Jones



>
> --- Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> But your 20s avant guardist actually *did* something
>> in relation to
>> his act! My pianist just sits there. There's a
>> difference, don't you
>> think? In your case something is given, in my case
>> nothing is. There
>> is no mystery in your case. The mystery in mine is
>> why some people
>> thought they had received what they paid for and
>> others did not.
>>
>> Perhaps it is only via that special mental activity
>> we refer to as
>> "creativity" that we are able to "give freely". You
>> can even - via
>> artistic expression - convince (some) people that
>> Nothing is Something.
>>
>> Happens all the time in Hollywood......;)
>>
>> You have to remember that most of what people call
>> "art" is something
>> that happens inside their head anyway. I'm quite
>> sure that there
>> would have been some people at your concert in the
>> 20s who considered
>> hacking a piano to pieces a valid form of musical
>> expression, just as
>> at least half of the audience who sat through John
>> Cage's 4'33" (he's
>> no 'epigone', mate!) in the 50s were prepared to pay
>> the ticket price
>> to watch a guy looking at a piano keyboard.
>>
>> Pure nothing is unusual. I can only JUST bear it for
>> 4'33".
>>
>> Why this duration?
>>
>> I hope people see the point to this end of the
>> discussion
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/03/2006, at 6:27 AM, John M wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Kim,
>>>
>>> you described an epigon (I suppose) It happened in
>> the
>>> 20s at an 'avant-guard' performance that the
>> pianist
>>> walked in with a big hatchet and chopped the piano
>> to
>>> pieces, then took a bow and left. (I did not call
>> that
>>> a concert).
>>> People like to expect what they are used to.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> --- Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somebody once wrote a piece of music which in
>> fact
>>>> involved not
>>>> writing a piece of music at all.
>>>>
>>>> The score of the piece merely instructs the
>> pianist
>>>> to sit down, open
>>>> the lid of the piano and wait out a period of 4'
>> 33"
>>>> then close the
>>>> piano lid and walk off.
>>>>
>>>> Many people who "heard" it at the premiere felt
>>>> ripped off. Others
>>>> agreed with the composer that music had in fact
>>>> occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Something was given for Nothing
>>>>
>>>> Does something have to be paid for?
>>>>
>>>> Kim Jones
>>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2006, at 4:14 PM, Norman Samish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
>>>>>
>>>>> When I heard that Famous Question, I did not
>>>> assume that "nothing" was
>>>>> describable - because, if it was, it would not
>> be
>>>> "nothing."  I
>>>>> don't think
>>>>> of "nothing" as an empty bitstring - I think of
>> it
>>>> as the absence of a
>>>>> bitstring - as "no thing."
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that definition, is there a conceivable
>>>> answer to The Famous
>>>>> Question?
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ===========================
>>>>
>>>> Everyone lies about everything all of the time.
>>>> Believe me.
>>>>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ===========================
>>
>> Everyone lies about everything all of the time.
>> Believe me.
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

===========================

Everyone lies about everything all of the time. Believe me.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to