On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Derek Holzer wrote:
here I would agree 100%, as it follows directly from what I wrote already. Ii think, rather than dealing with the fallout of the Romantic era as Mathieu suggested, we are dealing with the fallout of the 1980's--and its intesification of spectacle and commodity.
Why would it have to be one or the other, but not both ?
Lots of things are happening concurrently in the world, but it seems like arguments often avoid acknowledging that complexity. It's not you in particular.
Although driven by a different kind of economics--mainly grants and subsidies with academic, social and political concerns involved--art/sci work still strives for the spectacle in a similar way.
In the end, what ever artist ever wanted is to show off. After that, you can make a distinction between showing off the budget, vs showing off the skills (of techniques and imagination...), and whether one kind of showing off is hindering another kind of showing off.
For any art to be experimental, the possibility of failure must be present at all times.
For any art to be really experimental, failure has to be an undefined concept. But seriously : how do you evaluate whether something « has failed » in art ?
avant-garde concert pianists [...] idiosyncrasies [...] Canadian
Btw, have you come across l'Infonie yet ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC