Future Echoes Part II

[~Leslie]

Time to retire that hulking leviathan, folks. <BR>Incidently, the biggest thread on the www<BR>has a honking 594 posts and is still going.<BR>If I d/l the whole thing, I have plenty of time to knit a sweater with my 28.8 k modem.<BR>It is in reference to today's music critics, and<BR>you'd be proud to know Beethoven, Bach and Mozart<BR>are alive and well in there. <P>Horn player, I promise things will get better. Beyond high school , I mean. <P>If you find yrself a group of young educated<BR>musicians, you will find the arts have not<BR>really gone away. <P>That's what I keep trying to say in here. <P>It really is no accident that artists like Al Dimeola and Stanley Clark recorded a<BR>record called "The Rite of Strings". <P>It is no accident that Lyle Mays sounds a tad like Debussy and Bartok.<P>It is no accident that a Louis Comfort Tiffany vase can bring in a hefty sum at<BR>Sotheby's. <P>It's out there, you just have to find it. ~

[hornplayer]

So is that it for the "Future Echoes" story, or are we continuing things here? Ill admit that there really isnt much more that can be said though...perhaps Ill post my last post to that 'leviathan' here:<P>I was recently privledged to visit the Met in the city the other day, and I noticed something that I wanted to comment on. I think that the "decline" of music has also gone hand in hand with the decline of art. When we walked through the areas of European art, the art was as it should be: portrats, landscapes, etc. Obviously this isnt all of european art, but its a lot of it. Then you move to the 20th Century section, and you no longer find art; you find some orange canvas with red stripes. Or perhaps some drawings that my seven year old sister could create. Obviously this isnt all of modern art, but its a lot of it. Its a shame really. People like that kind of art though, and it gets recognition, just like how people like the music of today, and it is popular.<BR>Ive said this to people and people have said this to me: I was born a few centuries too late. Those who know me well know that I favor the more traditional way of doing things...I dont email girls to ask them out, I talk to them...I send flowers, not e-greeting cards. I enjoy the stories of proper parties and dances, with men and women waltzing, not guys getting girls drunk so they can take advantage of them. Technology and all is great, but the state of the world is not as it should be. Oh well. Ill put my faith in your statement that things get better after HS.<P><p>[This message has been edited by hornplayer (edited 03-04-2001).]

[hornplayer]

Oh, its dying, its the end, it is near!

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hornplayer:<BR><B>Oh, its dying, its the end, it is near!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>?

[Bob the Composer]

Dear Hornplayer,<P>As an abstract artist, I feel I must speak up. I believe the primary purpose of art (painting\sculpture) is one of two things; to display or show an object or place, or to trigger a series of emotional responses in the person looking at it. And in some cases, minimalist art can do that. A childlike crayon drawing can render social commentary in a more penetrating way like Dr. Strangelove as a quasi-slapstick comedy. There are more things in art than are drempt of in your philosophy, hornplayer.<P>Bob

[serge urtizberea]

Is a childlike crayon drawing made by a child equally valid as 'social commentary' as a childlike crayon drawing made by an adult? Or where is the line drawn?

[Bob the Composer]

If the artist can explain why he did it the way he did it rather than say "I'm the artist, I can do anything I like and you have to appreciate it because I am culturally superior to you" then I would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, I have a hard time believing that a bunch of TVs showing clowns getting angry at you is art. That is where I draw my line, you can draw your line anywhere you want, Serge.<P>Bob

[shostakovich]

My take on the history of art is that from about 1400 - 1800 the artists did all the work as clearly as possible, and the viewer's job was to just admire. From 1800 to 1900 artists turned to color and shape as equally important to subject matter. The rendering of subject was no longer the artists' job one. This meant the viewer had to get out of the comfortable look-and-admire mode, and do some WORK to appreciate. From 1900 - 1950 the artists went so far as to drop subject matter completely (abstract art). The viewer was called on to do LOTS of work in order to understand. Some "artists" did precious little to help the viewer understand. Sometimes there was not a clue. Then came the ultimate artist cop-out. The viewer was not expected to "understand", but simply "be moved". At about this point, when the viewer has to do ALL the work to get anything out of the "art", I get mad. They cop-out, I drop out. I believe abstract "stuff" has a right to exist, but this particular guy (and I am a docent in an art museum) will not call it ART. There is much of it I can enjoy, or be intrigued with, but art it ain't. Of course we each decide for ourselves what is art. There is no fixed definition and never will be.<P>The above may suggest that I find no real art in the 20th C. There is much subject-oriented art available. I think it's making a comeback. There are also many artists that are for the ages. I hesitate to mention names because the list would be too long and the choices would be mine only. <BR>Shos

[serge urtizberea]

Wow, Bob the Composer, you sound MAD at me! Oh my. I have never, as you seem to imply, claimed that "a bunch of TVs showing clowns getting angry at you" is art, although that would certainly be fun to look at.<P>In the National Gallery in Ottawa hangs an artwork called 'Voices of Fire', or something. Some years ago, the NG bought it for almost $2 million, I believe. It looks like a FLAG. Supposedly, you can see the stripes waver if you stare long enough at them, but I think ANYTHING will waver if you stare at it long enough. That is not art, in my books. Nor would childlike drawings made by an adult or, say, that gross "Dirty Bed" thing that appeared in some art gallery somewhere.<P>However, I must admit I don't know where the line can be drawn. I know what I dislike, and what I like, and the middle ground is like a demilitarized zone where everything is neutral. Try not to be so insolent to me in the future, okay?

[BenG]

I'm reluctant to launch into a 'rant' on abstract art on a board ostensibly set up to discuss music. I do love a wide variety of art--including abstract expressionism, however. Some of it can be extremely beautiful. Think of it this way: Some composers came up with classical music that followed a program. The program tells you what to think and how to feel while listening. I think this is a bad approach. It's better to toss the tyrannical program away, don't you think? That's what the abstract expressionists did. Throw away preconceived notions of preceived reality and engulf you into a new and marvelous universe (that's why the canvasses were large) of color and emotion. Picasso was good at getting you to look at reality differently. People see things every day and take them for granted. We're creatures of habit and go into 'robot' mode. Our robot does things for us to make life easier. Trouble is, we tend to get stuck on auto pilot and can no longer enjoy life as much. We see a violin and think...'Oh...that's a violin. End of story. Picasso broke the violin and reassembled it in a fresh way. He FORCES you to see reality as if it were new and fresh once more. You see it and think...'WOW..a violin. Cool!' Even if you hate his work you keep going back to it. It's memorable stuff. <P>--Ben

[Bob the Composer]

First of all, Serge, I am not showing anger unless there are exlcamation marks all over the post. Second, I did not say that you said the clown stuff was art, I just saw something like that in a museum once and thought I should say that that is where I draw my line at. All I was trying to say was that people have a right to their opinions about anything, including art.<P>I am NOT the last angry prophet. <P>Bob

[audiogirl]

Hi, guys.<P>And here is my opinion. I'm with Mr. Shostakovich. I'm glad someone put the "work" factor into words. No matter what the art form, if it looks or sounds or reads like somebody did it in ten minutes, I'm probably not going to be too interested. Then again, looking at the more modern stuff tends to me make me appreciate the older works.<P>Not to say that you shouldn't do what you gotta do, Mr. Bob.<P>audiogirl<P>P.S. Just for grins, I tried to write a contemporary Christian hymn the other day. I finished, and it took about 10 minutes. Really.