Arto, Da Vinci argued that painting was superior to sculpture on the grounds that sculpture was messy and dirty and involved generally more muscle effort than painting. I have always had a problem with the holy sanctity of human imagination and the composer's all-important intention - these are myths that come down to us from Rousseau and 19th century music publishers who could claim that they are selling you the "real" thing. Lutes are little machines, technologically very advanced devices that involved precise scientific knowledge on the part of their makers. In a very real way, musicians are dependent on the current state of technology and their imagination can be both constrained and liberated by "machines". Finally, the "receivers" of a work of art are not just judges: they are active participants who can profoundly alter the function and purpose of an object. Art is not just in the eye of the beholder, it is the eye of the beholder. That's why I guess Duchamp presented his public with a urinal: so they could transform it into art, without any intervention on his part. Picasso transformed the wannabe-art of Africa into a valuable commodity in the West. Africans just kept on doing what they had being doing all along - at least for a while. Lots of people get paid a lot of money to let you know what you should see and think about when you see a "real" work of art. Some people get paid even more to let you know how much that is worth exactly. Obviously, it is in those people's interest to have you think that this had really nothing to do with the dirt, dust, and excremental fluids generally witnessed in the real world, or the laws of the market. Yet, increasingly, art is made with machines: microphones, digital media, software, TV, etc. Without those machines, you would not be enjoying the latest Hoppy Smith, POD or Herringman CD. Granted a machine is only as intelligent as the person who uses it, but this is no reasopn to debase it like Da Vinci debasing Michelangelo's chisel. So wannabe-art and machines don't belong together. Alain
Arto Wikla wrote: >But at the end, I totally agree with James: The only importantant art is >made by men/women! And the reciever is the judge! There just is, and has >been, that much of "wannabe-art" that could easily been produced by >machines, too. The "real thing" - whatever it is or could be? - cannot >be achieved without human makers! > >All the best > >Arto > > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > >
