On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Fernando Gadea wrote:
So they say that good piano players play with the whole body (same for guitar
or any physical instrument, I guess).
Is it because it makes the music any better, or because what musicians are
after is not just the music but also the dance that a musician makes with the
instrument?
Art is suposed to be a free environment, meaning that it should be guided or
conditioned only by the artist.
According to whom?
If you answer yes to the third, the probabilities are that your mind is
twisted after years of taking drugs, and maybe it was already twisted before
you studied art or started taking drugs. Sorry, I was joking...
Drugs usually come relatively late in the picture. They don't tend to make art
more twisted, just more defective. They also don't have much to do with being
twisted.
Of course in these three questions I was only having fun while being retoric,
because relativity dismantles concepts as "making a difference", "quality",
"being emotionally involved" and even "academic" or "popular" (history shows
lots of examples that would complicate the difference between the last two).
Dismantling and complicating are not the same thing. Being conscious of the
relativity doesn't make those concepts less important and it doesn't break
them. It just breaks down a lot of talk that uses those concepts: that which is
vague, makes undue assumptions, etc.
At the end, anything could be poetic, as it mostly depends on who we are at
that right moment. It ends as a matter of self-perception.
Right.
And as perception is not transferable, neither is poetic or aesthetic
experience.
Well, despite our frustrations with it, plain talking goes a long way
transferring a lot of perception, experience, and other ideas. Calling
perception non-transferable comes from either taking conversation as so much
for granted that it doesn't count in the picture, or being very pessimistic
about how well it can be effectively transferred.
That gives us a lot of possibilities, none better than other, only
differents.
It's only all the same if you just don't care about the possibilities (or if
you are trying to be diplomatic). In practice, people get involved in
aesthetics because they are passionate about them, and they judge a lot. There
is no absoluteness, no central authority, but there's still a lot of judgements
and impressions of what is better and what is worse, and that's a necessity.
It is also supposed that someone not educated would be more able to find
poetic in anything, because for him anything would be different from anything
he knows.
People don't enter university as blank slates.
That is why we commonly despise the creations of early students, forgetting
that in history teachers stole several times the concepts of students that
"weren´t clever enough to realize the jewel they had in hands".
Students are at a disadvantage here. They are not knowledgeable in the
research-wise artistic discourse of profs, that is what profs are bathing in
constantly, and so they don't know what is valuable to the profs. What is
valuable to the profs doesn't make much sense to an outsider. It's probably
more whim-oriented than most any other discipline (?).
it was an interesting read.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
