That's a pretty pompous writeup. Why don't you just post a link to your work instead of making broad generalizations about other un-specified material?
Ben Baker-Smith
Are you alone? On this list, probably :)
Next question: is this a troll bot? If so, it's pretty cool. I wonder if it's authored in csound, max, chuck or pd?
JS
There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized, so I find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general fashion. Can we even define what music is? For me, I would define music as how I interpret sound, no matter what produces it. The music is real when I hear it, feel it, or think it.
I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong in music, that is a sort of morality. Trying to convince others of your views makes it political. Inquiring others about their views can make you understand yours better.
I have had similar views to Josh's, but even so, I was sometimes labeled as a part of an "elite" because of my musical interests. Who decides what is elite? People are different and have different experiences, so we value things differently. Again, morale. What is better or worse, what is right and wrong? What is meaningful, and what is not? Some claim not to have a moral standpoint to music, but I don't believe them :). Accepting other viewpoints is good for diversity, but it doesn't mean you can't have your own.
In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints can be restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone else, that is a way to get organized? Making music can be a huge task, with very complex problems involved, on many levels, physical, rational, spiritual, political. Where to start, how to do it. In the beginning, usually, we all just do it, without thinking. Then, we all do, in different ways, some sort of an intellectual journey, for any number of reasons, to learn and to improve our skills at making music. Everyone has their own drive, what makes them interested, and how they want to explore the things they enjoy.
I've more and more been going to that direction again, just doing it. Now, the difference is, I feel convinced that what I am doing is right for me, which was always extremely important for me.
Maybe that is what you seek, Josh? Getting convinced of your own opinions. Or are you just questioning why others have theirs?
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized, so I find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general fashion.
Ok, let's say I follow all the links posted on a mailing-list, and all I find are tracks in which I want to fast-forward through the seemingly randomly-arranged noises until I get to the beginning of the «real stuff», and eventually I can't fast-forward anymore because I'm already at the end. What do you call this ? When is one allowed to generalise ?
(btw obviously I'm not talking about pd-list !)
Can we even define what music is?
Depends on the level on which you expect to define it. You'd have more chances if you try to define it on a sociological/psychological level.
I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong in music, that is a sort of morality.
That's usually called beauty, ugliness and æsthetics, though otoh lyrics could be subjected to the same judgements of morality as books do.
In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints can be restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone else, that is a way to get organized?
What do you mean by rational ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
I think it was Miles Davis who said music was like food, eat the stuff you like, leave the stuff you don't.
But in direct response to what you wrote, I believe there are some people who are more interested in the ideas behind the music, than the actual sounds produced; the sounds produced are almost a souvenir of the idea. It's not my approach, but who am I to say others should not look at things that way?
Dom
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized, so I
find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general fashion.
Ok, let's say I follow all the links posted on a mailing-list, and all I find are tracks in which I want to fast-forward through the seemingly randomly-arranged noises until I get to the beginning of the «real stuff», and eventually I can't fast-forward anymore because I'm already at the end. What do you call this ? When is one allowed to generalise ?
(btw obviously I'm not talking about pd-list !)
Can we even define what music is?
Depends on the level on which you expect to define it. You'd have more chances if you try to define it on a sociological/psychological level.
I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or
should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong in music, that is a sort of morality.
That's usually called beauty, ugliness and æsthetics, though otoh lyrics could be subjected to the same judgements of morality as books do.
In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints can be
restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone else, that is a way to get organized?
What do you mean by rational ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Dominic Pflaum wrote:
But in direct response to what you wrote, I believe there are some people who are more interested in the ideas behind the music, than the actual sounds produced; the sounds produced are almost a souvenir of the idea. It's not my approach, but who am I to say others should not look at things that way?
That's alright, but can't they call it « ideas behind music » instead of « music » ? or perhaps « ideas instead of music » ? ;)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On 01/30/2011 04:21 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
There's so many cases where these questions can never be generalized, so I find it's pretty much impossible to discuss music in a general fashion.
Ok, let's say I follow all the links posted on a mailing-list, and all I find are tracks in which I want to fast-forward through the seemingly randomly-arranged noises until I get to the beginning of the «real stuff», and eventually I can't fast-forward anymore because I'm already at the end. What do you call this ? When is one allowed to generalise ?
(btw obviously I'm not talking about pd-list !)
Can we even define what music is?
Depends on the level on which you expect to define it. You'd have more chances if you try to define it on a sociological/psychological level.
I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone can agree on what is the definition of music? I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for everyone else. I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage people to do their own thing. So, maybe that's why many of us would rather not generalize. Maybe there's no other reason to avoid it?
If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no choice. That goes for the work of an individual as well as a group.
I think it's ok to have a personal moral view of what music should or should not be. For me, when you have a sense of what is right and wrong in music, that is a sort of morality.
That's usually called beauty, ugliness and Êsthetics, though otoh lyrics could be subjected to the same judgements of morality as books do.
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly things, does that make these things wrong? No. We can also choose to do something because it's pretty and feels wrong. That is why I choose to use the word morality. When one decides what to use in music, or decides not to decide, or whatever, it is based on a sense of right and wrong. It could feel right one moment, and wrong the next, but it's always a part of our evaluating process.
Morality is maybe not the first word one connects with music, but as a philosophical term, I feel it is best suited for trying to explain what is the most fundamental underlying mechanism for how we decide between one and the other. When it feels right, we choose to do it because it's right, or we choose not to do it because it's right. Either way, we make a choice reflected on our (in the moment) sense of right and wrong.
In my experience, basing your music on rational moralic standpoints can be restrictive to the point that you are choked. Maybe for someone else, that is a way to get organized?
What do you mean by rational ?
(I'm sure I'm using the wrong terms) By rational moralistic standpoints, I meant, a framework of thoughts, not the feeling you have, but what you have formulated. My experience is that this makes my music sound bad. Don't know why I threw that in. I guess all of my writing is a clutter of seemingly unrelated ideas.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
sorry, my following reply sat a long time in my email account.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone can agree on what is the definition of music?
Well, if «everyone» also includes those people who purposefully want you to fail at coming up with a unanimous definition, you can't. There are also those who just won't listen to you because they are busy preparing the answer « it can't be defined. period. » without any explanation (they don't enjoy explanations any more than definitions, anyway).
I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for everyone else.
There are also problems of common meaning of the words, whereby people will accidentally agree or disagree because they have different impressions about what you mean with the words that you used for writing the definition.
I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage people to do their own thing.
I would rather bet on this phenomenon : http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22art+can%27t+be+explained%22
Which is more of the mystical mindframe of non-explanations and epistemological hopelessness.
By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious.
If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no choice.
A definition of art needs not dictate a single purpose, and a single purpose does not dictate a single approach, and a single approach does not dictate a single outcome. When you acknowledge a definition of art that just tries to be vaguely universal, you still have plenty of decisions to make.
A definition of art needs not to be dumb like « music is whatever Beethoven was doing and that can't be done anymore because he died » or « we play both kinds of music : Country and Western ».
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
(I didn't know what to reply to the rest of your email.)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Oh no, not again...
2011/3/19 Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
sorry, my following reply sat a long time in my email account.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone
can agree on what is the definition of music?
Well, if «everyone» also includes those people who purposefully want you to fail at coming up with a unanimous definition, you can't. There are also those who just won't listen to you because they are busy preparing the answer « it can't be defined. period. » without any explanation (they don't enjoy explanations any more than definitions, anyway).
I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for
everyone else.
There are also problems of common meaning of the words, whereby people will accidentally agree or disagree because they have different impressions about what you mean with the words that you used for writing the definition.
I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage
people to do their own thing.
I would rather bet on this phenomenon : http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22art+can%27t+be+explained%22
Which is more of the mystical mindframe of non-explanations and epistemological hopelessness.
By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious.
If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no
choice.
A definition of art needs not dictate a single purpose, and a single purpose does not dictate a single approach, and a single approach does not dictate a single outcome. When you acknowledge a definition of art that just tries to be vaguely universal, you still have plenty of decisions to make.
A definition of art needs not to be dumb like « music is whatever Beethoven was doing and that can't be done anymore because he died » or « we play both kinds of music : Country and Western ».
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly
things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
(I didn't know what to reply to the rest of your email.)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:34:15 +0100 Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com wrote:
Oh no, not again...
2011/3/19 Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
sorry, my following reply sat a long time in my email account.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone
can agree on what is the definition of music?
Well, if «everyone» also includes those people who purposefully want you to fail at coming up with a unanimous definition, you can't. There are also those who just won't listen to you because they are busy preparing the answer « it can't be defined. period. » without any explanation (they don't enjoy explanations any more than definitions, anyway).
I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for
everyone else.
There are also problems of common meaning of the words, whereby people will accidentally agree or disagree because they have different impressions about what you mean with the words that you used for writing the definition.
I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage
people to do their own thing.
I would rather bet on this phenomenon : http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22art+can%27t+be+explained%22
Which is more of the mystical mindframe of non-explanations and epistemological hopelessness.
By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious.
If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no
choice.
A definition of art needs not dictate a single purpose, and a single purpose does not dictate a single approach, and a single approach does not dictate a single outcome. When you acknowledge a definition of art that just tries to be vaguely universal, you still have plenty of decisions to make.
A definition of art needs not to be dumb like « music is whatever Beethoven was doing and that can't be done anymore because he died » or « we play both kinds of music : Country and Western ».
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly
things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
(I didn't know what to reply to the rest of your email.)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
ROTFL ! But personally, I'd rather bet on the spermwhale.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Andy Farnell wrote:
Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:34:15 +0100 Pierre Massat pimassat@gmail.com wrote:
Oh no, not again...
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
Mathieu, a fun-fact note on recent spermwhale research
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/sperm-whale-names/Probably they know a lot :)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.cawrote:
ersonally, I'd rather bet on the spermwhale.
--- On Sat, 3/19/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Am I alone? To: "ailo" ailo.at@gmail.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 11:27 PM
sorry, my following reply sat a long time in my email account.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
I guess what I meant was, can we define music
generally so that everyone can agree on what is the definition of music?
Well, if «everyone» also includes those people who purposefully want you to fail at coming up with a unanimous definition, you can't. There are also those who just won't listen to you because they are busy preparing the answer « it can't be defined. period. » without any explanation (they don't enjoy explanations any more than definitions, anyway).
I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I
can't do it for
everyone else.
There are also problems of common meaning of the words, whereby people will accidentally agree or disagree because they have different impressions about what you mean with the words that you used for writing the definition.
I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it
can discourage
people to do their own thing.
I would rather bet on this phenomenon : http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22art+can%27t+be+explained%22
Which is more of the mystical mindframe of non-explanations and epistemological hopelessness.
By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious.
If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose,
then we have no
choice.
A definition of art needs not dictate a single purpose, and a single purpose does not dictate a single approach, and a single approach does not dictate a single outcome. When you acknowledge a definition of art that just tries to be vaguely universal, you still have plenty of decisions to make.
A definition of art needs not to be dumb like « music is whatever Beethoven was doing and that can't be done anymore because he died » or « we play both kinds of music : Country and Western ».
The idea of music as art is certainly not universal.
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When
we say, I like ugly things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
It can if that's part of your morality that you accept (tacitly or not).
If you also accept that the concept of music as art is not universal, this
is trivial. If on the other hand you have some vague universal view of
art, you're probably going need to fill pages and pages of some vague
paper explaining how people you've never met who share none of your
aesthetic/cultural/social views are, on some vague abstract level,
actually adhering to the same vague artistic universal as you.
If you want a shortcut, take the Modernist approach-- you just completely disregard the aesthetic/cultural/social context in which the "art" is made, reimagine the "art" as a self-contained, closed "work", and just assume that every "artist" in the world is either another modernist or some primitive outgrowth of a particular process that can be data mined to add a new layer of complexity to a future modernist project.
-Jonathan
(I didn't know what to reply to the rest of your email.)
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 03/20/2011 01:28 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
It can if that's part of your morality that you accept (tacitly or not).
If you also accept that the concept of music as art is not universal, this is trivial. If on the other hand you have some vague universal view of art, you're probably going need to fill pages and pages of some vague paper explaining how people you've never met who share none of your aesthetic/cultural/social views are, on some vague abstract level, actually adhering to the same vague artistic universal as you.
I think the reason for why I answered to this thread in the first place was because the person who started it was making some generalizations on music, which perhaps if we would make a statistical query, probably most people would adhere to. And, I was like probably many others here, reacting against those generalizations. Not that I meant to say, they are wrong.
There is a fear against generalizations, because when they are used in practice, in our every day life, even if they work for most people, they may be restrictive and hurtful for others. Also, testing those for truth can be a little difficult, as has been stated in some of the posts on this thread.
Generalization and categorization are needed for most people in order to process information. To evaluate information. Not only for individuals, but communities, organizations. That is why I said in an earlier reply, when they are needed for practical purposes, we have no choice. Or, simply, economy will decide.
Perhaps Matju is correct when stating: "By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious. "
That wouldn't include interpreting any event as being art. Isn't interpreting something as art what makes it art. Not what "creates" it?
Probably many have problems relating to some terms and words. Art being one of those. How many uses it to describe what they do? Maybe it is because the word is too often used as a generalization that doesn't suite everyone. It's not like the technical difference between a childs palm imprints on a white sheet of paper and "Mona Lisa" necessarily needs to be that big.
Wikipedia about art:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
Actually, there is quite a large part dealing with the definition of art on that page, which would reveal that it is not so easy to define these days, while:
"Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty.[1] It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[2] More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."
and..
"It was derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning "esthetic, sensitive, sentient"), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning "I perceive, feel, sense""
At least for me, that makes some sense when making a broad generalization about the process that goes on in the mind, while experiencing something that the mind would interpret as art, or a work of art. Personally I wouldn't use words like beauty or taste, perhaps not even art to describe how that happens. Not being comfortable with making formulations using words, I would rationalize it down to something like: an individual sense of morality, or, making decisions based on "sensory-emotional values". A least, that is the lowest level of generalization that I can make, and the only one I really need.
Not often do people couple humor with art, which I think is another side to that coin. The tickle in the mind, when confronting with surprising, mystical, absurd things. Conflicts..
And yes, experiencing art is probably different depending on age, cultural identity, a range of things. But, labeling something as art, is probably that + something political, or ideology based, which is probably why the term is so hard to digest.
If you want a shortcut, take the Modernist approach-- you just completely disregard the aesthetic/cultural/social context in which the "art" is made, reimagine the "art" as a self-contained, closed "work", and just assume that every "artist" in the world is either another modernist or some primitive outgrowth of a particular process that can be data mined to add a new layer of complexity to a future modernist project.
I don't object, but for some people, this is exactly the type of thing that could cause disillusion. Like, for the person who started this thread, perhaps. For me, that would just be one of many approaches. Not something as fundamental as an ideology, not that we need to define one.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, ailo wrote:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
This sounds like it would include advertisement, spin-doctoring, agitation-propaganda, religion, ... what else ?
Perhaps Matju is correct when stating: "By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is considered unexplainable or mysterious. "
That wouldn't include interpreting any event as being art. Isn't interpreting something as art what makes it art. Not what "creates" it?
There are several concurrent meanings being used by different groups of people. "Art" is a word with certain linguistic functions serving different purposes in different places.
The "interpretational" meaning of art often doesn't apply to the general public. Artists may think that artists are the ones who have the right to decide whether something is art or not. Thus art is what artists make, and artists are people who make art. It's not a circular definition, it's a feedback loop. There's also that art is what artists think it is, and the more you think like that, the more you're (like) an artist.
The "mysterious skill" meaning of art is closer to the original meaning of the word. "Tech" is a greek word that means "Art"... etc. But university artists tend to ignore this use of the word... it's foreign to them. Their art-word is about Duchamp and John Cage and stuff.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Am I alone? To: "ailo" ailo.at@gmail.com Cc: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 6:24 PM On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, ailo wrote:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately
arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."
This sounds like it would include advertisement, spin-doctoring, agitation-propaganda, religion, ... what else ?
Perhaps Matju is correct when stating: "By extension, the word « art » is often used to
mean whatever skill is
considered unexplainable or mysterious. "
That wouldn't include interpreting any event as being
art.
Isn't interpreting something as art what makes it art.
Not what
"creates" it?
There are several concurrent meanings being used by different groups of people. "Art" is a word with certain linguistic functions serving different purposes in different places.
The "interpretational" meaning of art often doesn't apply to the general public. Artists may think that artists are the ones who have the right to decide whether something is art or not. Thus art is what artists make, and artists are people who make art. It's not a circular definition, it's a feedback loop. There's also that art is what artists think it is, and the more you think like that, the more you're (like) an artist.
That definition often ends up with the "artist" (I'd rather call the person an "artkeeper") being a hypocrite. That's not the necessary outcome, but it often happens because it's really hard for people to form an exclusive group while at the same time remain fair minded across those group boundaries. (Because there _must_ be some benefit to the group members in forming the group-- otherwise why form it at all?)
For example: If we adore Shakespeare's line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," as artists, what are we doing? Using that definition above, we are looking at it from the standpoint of a writer, who (may) admire the way Shakespeare can take a simple, seemingly innocuous sentence and imbue it with a deep sense of irony by virtue of its context within the larger work (implying that we as artists understand that larger context), while at the same time being iambic pentameter and creating a convincing rhythm. Notice that in this interpretation "protest" means to affirm or avow.
Now do a test-- if you're ever around some "artists" and one of them is objecting to something-- anything-- make some art: say the Shakespeare phrase above as a taunt. I hypothesize that what you will find is that the more someone in that group thinks of him/herself as an artist (a writer, in this case) the more they will feel a pressure to correct you by noting that Shakespeare used "protest" in the sense of "avow" and not "object". Also, the more of an outsider you are to that group, the harsher the correction will be. Finally, if you are an outsider with hopes of becoming an insider (e.g., student), there will probably be some condescension mixed in for good measure.
The hypocrisy comes because Shakespeare is allowed to take a phrase from the public domain and add meaning to it, but the student of the artkeepers is not. In situations like this I find the professed justification for the correction is always that the student's usage doesn't display a deeper awareness of the roots of the phrase (or melody, or gesture, or whatever). But rarely will you hear the artkeeper articulate an awareness of the "art" to a corresponding degree-- in this instance, this would be a history of the word "protest" (especially as it relates to women) before Shakespeare ever used it. This hypocrisy is doubly bad-- it not only creates anxiety in the student but also creates an imaginary finish line where intellectual laziness can tacitly creep in (e.g., learn as much as "artists" care about, and then you too will be an artist and can just coast downhill from that point onward if you so choose).
The "mysterious skill" meaning of art is closer to the original meaning of the word. "Tech" is a greek word that means "Art"... etc. But university artists tend to ignore this use of the word... it's foreign to them. Their art-word is about Duchamp and John Cage and stuff.
Your feedback loop seems unnecessarily strict. If Romantic period composers found a way to give Mozart an honorary membership, surely you can find an inlet for something by Cage in your feedback loop.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
The "mysterious skill" meaning of art is closer to the original meaning of the word. "Tech" is a greek word that means "Art"... etc. But university artists tend to ignore this use of the word... it's foreign to them. Their art-word is about Duchamp and John Cage and stuff.
Your feedback loop seems unnecessarily strict. If Romantic period composers found a way to give Mozart an honorary membership, surely you can find an inlet for something by Cage in your feedback loop.
But what do you know about my feedback loop ?
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Am I alone? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "ailo" ailo.at@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 8:42 PM On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
wrote:
The "mysterious skill" meaning of art is closer to
the
original meaning of the word. "Tech" is a greek
word that
means "Art"... etc. But university artists tend to
ignore
this use of the word... it's foreign to them.
Their art-word
is about Duchamp and John Cage and stuff.
Your feedback loop seems unnecessarily strict.
If Romantic period composers found a way to give Mozart an honorary membership, surely you can find an inlet for something by Cage in your feedback loop.
But what do you know about my feedback loop ?
Well, the evidence offered that university artists tend toward a particular conception of art is that Duchamp and Cage are found there, implying that where you find _them_ you find that conception. So I'd venture to guess that your feedback loop excludes them-- otherwise you wouldn't be essentializing them by using their names as broad opposition to the "mysterious skill".
Cage wrote a lot of different kinds of music.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Well, the evidence offered that university artists tend toward a particular conception of art is that Duchamp and Cage are found there, implying that where you find _them_ you find that conception.
Knowing them is one thing, enjoying them is another thing, and venerating them is yet another thing. I named only two because I'm not making a master's thesis on the anthropology of the art world.
So I'd venture to guess that your feedback loop excludes them-- otherwise you wouldn't be essentializing them by using their names as broad opposition to the "mysterious skill".
I don't consider the "mysterious skill" meaning of the "art"-word to be mine. In fact, I don't consider any use of the word to be mine.
And just because the university artists give a disproportionate amount of attention to Duchamp/Cage/etc doesn't in itself mean that Duchamp/Cage/etc are excluded from whoever else's conception of art.
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Am I alone? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "ailo" ailo.at@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:15 PM On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Well, the evidence offered that university artists
tend toward a particular conception of art is that Duchamp and Cage are found there, implying that where you find _them_ you find that conception.
Knowing them is one thing, enjoying them is another thing, and venerating them is yet another thing. I named only two because I'm not making a master's thesis on the anthropology of the art world.
So I'd venture to guess that your feedback loop
excludes them-- otherwise you wouldn't be essentializing them by using their names as broad opposition to the "mysterious skill".
I don't consider the "mysterious skill" meaning of the "art"-word to be mine. In fact, I don't consider any use of the word to be mine.
And just because the university artists give a disproportionate amount of attention to Duchamp/Cage/etc doesn't in itself mean that Duchamp/Cage/etc are excluded from whoever else's conception of art.
But you explicitly excluded Duchamp/Cage from the "mysterious skill" conception. (Unless mentioning them was a non sequitur.)
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
But you explicitly excluded Duchamp/Cage from the "mysterious skill" conception. (Unless mentioning them was a non sequitur.)
That's the sort of confusion generated by writing too many things in too few words, perhaps. Anyway, I don't call it explicit. I already wrote something to explain or replace that confusing paragraph, so if it looks like I'm contradicting myself, it's because it needed clarification, and then now that you have a clarification, you may disregard the old text...
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
--- On Thu, 3/24/11, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Subject: Re: [PD] Am I alone? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "ailo" ailo.at@gmail.com, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 11:19 PM On Thu, 24 Mar 2011, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
But you explicitly excluded Duchamp/Cage from the
"mysterious skill" conception. (Unless mentioning them was a non sequitur.)
That's the sort of confusion generated by writing too many things in too few words, perhaps. Anyway, I don't call it explicit. I already wrote something to explain or replace that confusing paragraph, so if it looks like I'm contradicting myself, it's because it needed clarification, and then now that you have a clarification, you may disregard the old text...
Oh, ok.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
-
ailo -
Andy Farnell -
Ben Baker-Smith -
Dominic Pflaum -
J. Simon van der Walt -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Pedro Lopes -
Pierre Massat