Donatella, Sounds like a good idea to me. Hope to show up some time in June.
Maybe by then I will have figured out just what my composition style is. Now, to find a galeon that will accept a credit card... Marion -----Original Message----- From: Donatella Galletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Feb 20, 2005 2:46 AM To: Alain Veylit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: composers style, analysing for Well, I suggest that we drop using e-mail and meet in a pub (or Italian "Trattoria") , so that the machine does not interfere with "the real thing". I also suggest that all the people living on the other side of the pond take a ship, possibly a galeon, to come to Europe, so as not to spoil the philological zest we are looking for... Waiting for you all in Italy! Donatella http://web.tiscali.it/awebd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Veylit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arto Wikla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:08 AM 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 > > > > > > > >
