> I'm sorry to say that I'd rather have expected some kind of a moderate > statement the way > this list has been used to hear from you. > > To say that something you do not understand or do not find what you expect to > find in it > is not art or is not beautiful or uplifting (and what else you said) is simply > to show > that you do not understand or find what you expect to find. Actually I think neither Stewart nor Mathias could name the problem. The question is not whether what you see is good or bad art. Instead a completely new "art" that has nothing to do with painting or sculpture has completely edged them out. This new item (Conceptualism) is actually a form of theater, and (being less than 50 years old) it has no standard of quality. It may or may not ever develop it. One type of The Thing is VideoArt. Essentially it is filmmaking for people who have no talent to tell a story and write a full-length script. The tragic thing is that for awhile it completely usurped the art market, leaving no money for any art that we (I) generally recognize as such. This war is still going on, and I don't expect to see its end soon.
> > I think it was Adorno who called this kind of an attitude towards music that > of a > resentment-listener (Ressentiment-Hoerer), and it was not meant as a > compliment. Adorno nowadays is not seen as a positive figure anymore. As a matter of fact there is a definite feeling of malaise inspired by his name (a lot more than 6 required by Howard Posner standard). I've heard him being described as "a Clement Greenberg of classical music". RT ______________ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org > "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> Dear Doctor Oakroot, >> >> To say that someone is missing the point pre-supposes that there is >> a point in the first place. There is no point in a >> pseudo-performance, where an audience is conned into listening to >> nothing. There may be some clever idea behind it all to justify the >> unjustifiable, but four and half minutes of silence is not music. It >> is not art. It is neither beautiful nor uplifting. It has no virtue. >> It has no meaning. It is utterly worthless. By purporting to be >> music, it is a lie - a shameful con - an insult to the intelligence >> and sensitivity of the audience. In fact the audience is put in a >> no-win situation: either they look stupid by accepting that the >> performance has merit; or they are made to look stupid, because, >> when they reject the charade for the meaningless poppycock that it >> is, they are told that they miss the point, or they lack a sense of >> humour. One is reminded of the story of the Emperor's new clothes, >> where a little boy - the only person with a modicum of common >> sense - unmasks the charlatans for what they are. >> >> What irritates me about the purveyors of such tosh is their tacit >> assumption that we should take any of it at all seriously. I have >> had the misfortune to witness one of these ridiculous so-called >> performances some years ago on an early music course. One of the >> tutors, an excellent recorder player, took his turn on stage, but >> instead of playing music like everyone else, he pranced about >> pretending to play. It was not funny. He looked a fool, and I felt >> cheated. If I'd known he wasn't going to play anything, I'd have >> gone to the pub instead. Instead I wasted my time. Who knows? I may >> have missed some subtle, questioning-the-existence-of-it-all point, >> but I certainly missed a good pint. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Stewart. > > -- > Regards, > > Mathias > > Mathias Roesel, Grosze Annenstrasze 5, 28199 Bremen, Deutschland/ Germany, T/F > +49 - 421 - > 165 49 97, Fax +49 1805 060 334 480 67, E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
