Alain, Well said, I think (?).
You say that the receivers of "Art" aren't just the judges (most of them self proclaimed), but despite that it is too often that they are the definers of "Art". W.S. Gilbert based his operetta Patience on that. (If this young man can think such thoughts that are far too deep for me, then what a very singularly deep young man this deep young man must be.) Rousseau and the Enlightenment had a desire to make an absolute of human experience, sort of like the quantifiers of the Twentieth C., but in another way. I can't fault Duchamp for his urinal, in fact I love it. I'm sure he would be laughing hard if he could know it was just voted the most significant "Art" expression of the 20th C. Art isn't a thing to be defined. Art should involve a certain amount of craft, or imagination that strikes the observer. The beauty of a sunset isn't art as it isn't made by a craft, but it is a transient beauty that will strike the observer in a similar way as a work of art - and note that the phrase is "work" of art. A drinking glass is a practical object that can be an ordinary tumbler or a finely shaped and etched piece of crystal. But it isn't the crystal alone, it is the shape and carving. Then there are the Christos of the world, I wonder if he intentionally undresses the judges of the "Art World" or if he is with them in parading the "Emperor's New Clothes" (I've seen Central Park). I could go on forever (and you probably think I have), but I'd like to address the machines. A late friend of mine was a fine jazz pianist (and pianist in general), but had to make a living as a piano tuner for much of his life (luck of the draw). He denigrated the electronic music and keyboards - and I pointed out to him that the machines allowed a musician without the craft to make musical art, what of the person with the music in his head but no ability to use his hands. As Frank aged he tried the electronic keyboard as he was in a small NYC apartment, and came around to my view. Yet I feel there is a requirement for craft. I enjoy Mondrian's constructions on canvas of geometric shapes and sharp colors, but find Picasso more the artist as his early drawings show a basis in representative art that he expanded on. So I am confused in my view. A computer might be programmed to play "in the style of", but what about P.D.Q. Bach? Peter Schickle can play in the style of anyone from the top of his head - and Victor Borge was no slouch at that either. Turing defined the intelligent computer back in the late thirties, and I never agreed it could be done. The Swingle Singers put Bach into skat, and I think old Johannes would have loved it. So I will come to an absolute conclusion - I am absolutely sure that I don't know how to define art - but I can define "Art", it is what the self appointed judges get paid a lot of money to define for you. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Veylit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arto Wikla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:08 PM Subject: Re: composers style, analysing for > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
