From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #313 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, August 17 1999 Volume 08 : Number 313 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: arts and crafts redux. [Terrence M Marks ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Capuchin ] i've never even heard *tell* of this (weenie alert) ["Capitalism Blows" <] Re: i've never even heard *tell* of this (weenie alert) [Capuchin ] Re: Quail in a Cage [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Old Boys Reunion (Soft House) ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: Arts and Crafts Redux ["Miles Goosens" ] Re: art and literature [Tom Clark ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:07:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, JH3 wrote: > Could it be that it just needs more... REVERB? Has Robyn ever done anything with phasing? Maybe that's what he needs to get his stuff on the radio. More phases. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://grove.ufl.edu/~normal normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:32:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, The Great Quail wrote: > First of all, I think Cappy has some really intriguing points about > art vs craft vs expression, but I still feel queasy about the way he > strings them together, as if he is defining things based on his > personal taste and then pigeonholing the world far too neatly. You know, I've been going back and forth on this with people for a few days and I don't quite know how to address it properly. I think, yes, there are ambiguities. Yes, there are times when people don't quite agree. That's all well and good and healthy and makes the world a better place. In some of those cases there are people that are wrong and in others it's just a matter of perspective. What I'm trying to avoid is this idea that it is ALWAYS a matter of perspective. To come down and say that a word is meaningful only to the person who uses it is to muddy up language and insult the thing the word was meant to explain (both in the word's accepted and intended meanings). I thought I avoided the idea of taste fairly well. I just want to make it clear that a thing is not art solely because it makes you feel. A sunset is not art (unless you believe in an omnipotent Creator, I suppose) nor is a steaming pile of dogshit (no matter how it's presented). Art requires a craft and is merely a work displaying the mastery of that craft that inspires feeling. I'm putting the requirement in a different place, you understand? Some peole say that anything that is an expression is art. Some people say that anything that makes you feel is art. I say that a thing must first be finely, carefully, masterfully crafted... and then it can be evaluated as art or not. There is not a rigid demarcation that can define what is art and what is not. I'm just saying that there is an often neglected requirement. Once you meet that requirement, then the doors can be opened to debate. But we have to draw a line between expression and art. Art is different. They're not the same thing. Now, someone I know and love says that the difference between art and expression is perception. Expression is just a person doing some thing and art is that same thing to a person moved by it. I'm just turning it backward. I think they're essentially equal arguments, but mine is based on a more classical definition of the word. > That being said. . . . > Cappy says: > >Art is about control and mastery. > Well, I think that's far too sweeping a statement. But let's focus on > your Rothko argument. Consider this -- in the case of Rothko, his > control or mastery might work on a more abstract level than your > personal taste, or your definition, may allow to exist. Staring at > some of his works, being drawn into that radiant zone where two > colors interact, having such feelings, such emotions and ideas come > pouring into your soul. . . . and if that's not art, as it seems to > be for millions of people, what is? Again, Cappy, I think you limit > yourself by your own rigid demarcations. I agree that Rothko can be Quite expressive and that I agree with the sentiments expressed by other folks about the feelings inspired by his work so often that I think he's probably very good at expressing his desired feelings. But that's not what I'm talking about. I think his later work goes against the path he once followed toward mastery of his medium. I think it's moving and expressive, but not masterfully painted. This brings up the glaring hole in my argument that I am surprised nobody nailed. What about masters of expression? Stephen Buckalew came closest to it. I think he thought that I was writing about expression as a craft when I was actually trying desperately to avoid it. I admit that expression using some medium or other purely as a craft can be artistic. That is to say, I think some are masters of expression. For example, I think Spielberg is a master of expression and a hack at filmmaking. Rothko's late work is right there for me. It's masterfully expressive, but it's not very good painting. > >Randomness and chaos are expressive, but they are not a medium for > >expression. > Tell that to John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol, Serra, Brian > Eno, Robert Fripp, Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Andre Breton, > Richard Brautigan, Bryan Gyson, William S. Burroughs. . . . . You cannot express yourself in a medium you cannot control. The noise or randomness or chaos give feeling, but they cannot be given feeling because that requires altering their nature and making them something more ordered. And I'll gladly tell that to Cage and Pollack and Eno and Fripp. I would have an interesting conversation about it with Warhol and Wilson and Burroughs. And I would have no idea how to approach the others because I don't know who they are by name. > >Personally, I think Warhol went back and forth, like Picasso. Some work > >is artistcally valid and some is mere crap with a famous name on the side. > I couldn't agree more. With that statement and all your insightful > comments about my beloved Andy. Well, thank you for that. I'm glad you see my point at least to that extent. I just mean to say that while much of his work is expressive and even well composed, only a masterpiece can be art. > >To me, people like Cage and Rauchenberg did some of the things they did to > >show us the value of skill and craft. I think Cage's work is there to > >show us what can be done with no skill. > No skill?! Poorly chosen words. I was shocked by it myself out of context like that. > You know, not all of Cage's works were just randomness or silence. He > was quite talented and skilled, and produced a body of work that is > quite significant based on its planned and formalized structures -- > especially his songs. Of course, you may be referring to only 4'33", > in which case, well, I have no argument about skill -- but to think > that piece was solely "about what can be done with no skill" is to > seriously limit and misunderstand it. But yes, I was referring to his noise and randomness and silence. But like some works mentioned of Rauchenberg, his work is carefully devised and considered and "conceptualized", but created without skill or craft. > >> he helped open that door for > >> composers, and some of our most interesting composers today are still > >> working out that legacy. Luciano Berio, George Crumb, Christopher > >> Rouse, Sophia Gubaidulina, John Zorn, Tan Dun . . . . > >I'm not going to pick out each of these individually (and I'm not going to > >claim I have anything reasonable to say about most of them), but from what > >I've heard of some of those composers, they're like Rothko or Warhol. Hit > >and miss artistry... sometimes exploring their craft and sometimes just > >making noise. > I am sorry, Capuchin, but with the exception of some of Zorn's work > and a little Crumb, you couldn't be more wrong. A few admissions. First, I did confess to not knowing anything about some of the musicians you mentioned. Second, I admit that I was trying to just continue my argument previously begun without expanding it to take in all of the examples given. Third, I rushed the thing as I ran out the door for home yesterday. The last is just a consideration and not a real excuse. > Berio's sequenzas are considered some of the most virtuoso pieces > written in this century, but each one takes the instrument to > different levels of exploitation. Rouse can be loud, but every note is > carefully planned -- very much a modern Shostakovich. Then how do these fit into the conversation? Do some question the artistic merit of Rouse and Berio? It's important to make a distinction between artists whose medium is music and artists whose medium is sound. I can hear the groans already, but I mean this. They're not the same thing. Music has unity and continuity, sound has no such requirement. Sound is just audible stuff. > Tan Dun, well, though he employs some randomness, his works are > staggering in their originality and in the instrumental ground they > explore. And Sophie couldn't make hit or miss noise if she tried. . . I don't know Sophia Gubaidulina at all and am sorry for miscategorizing her. As for Tan Dun, the little I heard at your place was nice sound and in spots expressive, but very much a kind of experiment to my ear. > >And just quickly, if your human mind can't tell the difference between the > >mathematically generated and Cage's random spewing, do you enjoy the > >calculated stuff just as much? > But your question is a fair one, and I suppose it depends on my mood > -- though my ear cannot really distinguish them, my mind can laugh > and wonder at Cage or pursue mathematical mysteries in Babbitt -- > which is totally a self-generated slant. Yeah, but if your ear can't tell the difference, how do you know which to feel? > >Man, don't let my boss hear you say shit like that. You didn't mention a > >single classical artist in your post. Classical music, Aaron will drive > >through your skull, is music of the Classical Period, that is ~1750-~1820. > >This period is marked by the deaths of Bach and Beethoven respectively. > Oh, my eyes do roll in sympathy with you. And I also call any > photocopier a Xerox. Honestly, it's that sort of musical pedanticism > which drives most people away from "classical" music! The mathematician in me kind of wants to agree with him, to be honest. Music is just music and genre can't be defined just by the instruments used or who plays it when. It's really messy and complicated. Personally, I try not to use those kinds of descriptions, but it makes it real hard to talk to people. > >> >Great question! No I can't and only a really good artist does. But > >> >I don't think universality is in itself the acid test of art. > >> No, but it is *an* acid test. > >Naw. An artist can be topical and referential and specific to a place and > >time. I have no problem with that. > That's not what I mean by Universality. Picasso's "Guernica" is > fairly topical but pretty universal. But a lot of so-called "art" > today seems top only focus on one-line political statements that I > think get stale pretty fast. . . . Then what DID you mean by universality? J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:42:15 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: i've never even heard *tell* of this (weenie alert) . i think it's out of my price range, but, damn, i'd love to get my hands on it! _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: i've never even heard *tell* of this (weenie alert) On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote: > . > i think it's out of my price range, but, damn, i'd love to get my hands on > it! Isn't there a picture of this in the 76-81 sleeve? Don't have it at work so I can't check, but I've seen it before. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:18:22 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. In a message dated 8/16/99 10:31:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gondola@deltanet.com writes: << >The ONLY problem I have with Jewels For >Sophia is the clarity of the instrumentation. It doesn't have a cohesive >sound as much as it has lots of little instruments making their own >sounds. Um, that's what music *is*, when more than one musician is playing. But if you desire arrangements which sound like one seamless whooooosh, there's always top 40. >> Or, if you want that same effect in an enjoyable context, try the Beach Boys! :-) - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:17:11 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: i've never even heard *tell* of this (weenie alert) >> . >> i think it's out of my price range, but, damn, i'd love to get my hands on >> it! > >Isn't there a picture of this in the 76-81 sleeve? yup. of course, it's got writing all over it. kenster np. moby play ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:48:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: I'm an artist, honey...d'y'know what that means? (It's the greatest show with the best effects since Disco-Tex and the Sexelettes...) > From: "JH3" > Drewrites: > > >I don't think it necessarily follows that more > publishing and more > >people must entail more geniuses. > > I didn't say that. I said that the size of the potential > talent pool is > not as proportional to the number of years involved as > one might > think. You seem to be suggesting that there's some middle ground between the Dark Ages, when literature was by monks for monks (in Europe, anyway, and generalizing horribly), and the Unauthorized Biographical Ages, when literature is by morons for morons (in America, anyway, and generalizing horribly). In fact, that's pretty much exactly what you're suggesting when you posit Shakespeare, Byron, and Yeats as the representatives of the cultural excellence of 400 years from which we have now slumped to, say, Maya Angelou. ("The kum-quat! The ki-wi!") And while I would agree that cultural forces -- not just economy and technology and social attitudes, but also the view an artist has of herself in relation to the art and culture of her time -- influence what we'd consider the quality of art in a big way, I'm still skeptical that we can compare *any* 40 years to 400 in a meaningful and fair way. Even Byron and Yeats weren't Shakespeare, for example. It's not reasonable to expect Plath and Heaney to be. > >Consider for a start that this rampant capitalist > publishing > >industry doesn't exactly encourage Literature with a > capital L. > > And that's precisely the point, isn't it? The > commoditization and > commercialization of culture has either discouraged many > true > geniuses from even entering the field, or has forced them > to > write pandering trash to make money. How would we know they were geniuses if we hadn't read any genius work that they've done? This is hypothetical in the same way that our Islamic comedians are hypothetical. No, my point was not that our talented writers are all holding down computer jobs instead (which would just be a bitter thing for me to say, not to mention undeservedly egomaniacal), but that their work is probably being swamped by the hack stuff and thus ignored. It might resurface in 50 years and be recognized for the genius work it is. It wouldn't be the first time in history an artist or musician or writer had to wait longer than a paltry half-century to become famous, would it? And, more importantly: > >As for songwriters -- who's more famous, Robyn Hitchcock > or > >Limp Bizkit? > > I thought we were talking about periods of time, not > specific > individuals? This threadlet unravelled from six named individuals: Shakespeare, Byron, Yeats, Ashbery, Plath, and Heaney. It seems fair to continue that line. > And just because Limp Bizkit is selling more > records > right now doesn't mean they'll be remembered to the same > extent > as Robyn will be 50 years from now. I agree wholeheartedly (or at least I hope devoutly that you're right!), and that's why I think it's dangerous to assume that we've seen and recognized the brightest stars of this century already, and can pronounce it a cultural decline. (It might, however, be correct, he said pessimistically.) > Personally, I've > never even > heard a Limp Bizkit tune... (I'm too busy listening to > "The Angel > Pool"!) I'm so happy you took my advice on that one. It really is gorgeous, isn't it? > Exactly, because of the massive volume, not to mention > the general > cynicism of modern society. But I put it to you all that > if you take a > *random* selection of a thousand writers who were born > between > 1550 and 1950, and a thousand writers who were born on > Nov. 2, > 1961, the number of geniuses in both groups is going to > be roughly > the same (though you'll be lucky if you get even one). Yes, I would think you'd probably get almost no geniuses in both groups. I don't think that proves anything about the general case. > If > you can > manage to put aside the usual critical preference for > "the classic > old stuff," Which so many people commenting so far have very strongly. > then the date on which they were born doesn't > matter; > what matters is the degree to which they had (or have) > the > opportunity to pursue their genius. All *very* hypothetical. Even today, opportunity doesn't lead directly to action in this way. Drew === Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:53:16 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. >From: The Great Quail >Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. > > >Randomness and chaos are expressive, but they are not a medium for > >expression. > >Tell that to John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol [snip] Randomness and chaos are expressive if you use them as a medium, or means, to express randomness and chaos. Jackson Pollock applied paint to canvas in a random and chaotic fashion to communicate the randomness and chaos he experienced in his life (well, he also peed in Peggy Guggenheim's fireplace during a party, too, but that's a different matter). And I defy anyone to stand two feet in front of a big Pollock canvas and not feel pretty damned close to what Pollock was feeling when he made the painting. >No skill?! You know, not all of Cage's works were just randomness or >silence. You know, I have never owned or even listened to a single sound made, or written by John Cage. But becoming aware of some of his statements, such as "Music is simply what happens between two distinct points in time," or "You don't have to call it 'music,' if the term offends you" (paraphrased) has greatly informed many things I do. >(Unless you are Gene Hopstetter, who listens to radio static to relax.) Actually, what's doing it for me lately is recordings of fences and VLF energy: . ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:56:13 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Quail in a Cage In a message dated 8/17/99 10:10:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jpartridge@accel.com writes: << But I want the term "art" to mean something more than "wicked cool to look at" or "makes me feel warm inside". I want it to be an exalted term applied to a very select group of artistic effort. >> My basic philosophy is that, within most every realm, there can be found both good and bad examples of what that realm is all about. Just like a cook will probably make some bad meals, so will an artist make some bad art. But it's still art (some skill or training was involved in the creation of a work that someone finds appealing to senses). Also, if you take all the cooks in the world, you're going to find some who are just plain bad almost all the time. But they still prepare food. So it is with artists and art -- a lot of it is just bad art. Basically, I don't think art should be an elite grading of certain rarified samples from the pool of what would then be considered, I guess, "attempted art." I mean, why does the term "art" invoke such reverence in people, but "clothing" doesn't. There are great examples of both, and plenty else that's very average or worse. When we see a great example of art, we say that it's a "masterpiece" (or something similar). Doesn't that suffice? Can't we say that "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is art (assuming that any music is art, which I think is safe to say), but that applying the term "masterpiece" might best be reserved for a future date, once the test of time has been either passed or failed? This is what makes the most sense to me. But, then, I'm big on grey areas and the balance of extremes and the yin and the yang and that crazy flower pot man and all that. So, I *would* see it that way. Anyone who feels likewise can hang out in my treehouse. Anyone who doesn't will get pummeled with unripened fruit :-) - ------Michael K. np - Richard Thompson, Strawberry Music Festival, 1993 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:14:41 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Old Boys Reunion (Soft House) Kimberley Rew's long awaited solo album is going to have to be waited for a bit longer. But the good news is that there has been some re-recording and re-mixing done with Andy Metcalfe at the helm and Glen Tilbrook helping out an' all. Andy and Kim also play on an album shortly to be released by a singer called Julian Dawson, which will be available later this year on Fledgling Records in Britain and Gadfly in that other place... jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:16:47 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Arts and Crafts Redux In a message dated 8/17/99 11:35:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, capuchin@teleport.com writes: << Some peole say that anything that is an expression is art. Some people say that anything that makes you feel is art. I say that a thing must first be finely, carefully, masterfully crafted... and then it can be evaluated as art or not. >> Okay, I'm going to be redundant here with respect to the other email I just sent out, but I just have to jump in this one! Now, why do you feel it has to be "masterfully" crafted. The definition in my dictionary makes references to skill and imagination, but says nothing about a requisite for *mastery* of this skill. That's why we have craftsmen and then we have *master* craftsmen. That's why we have a piece of art and then we have a *masterpiece*. This may seem like a mere fine-tuning of Jeme's argument, but I think that, in a lot of ways, the notions are worlds apart. Or, Jeme, would you allow for art that sucks? :-) << > >Randomness and chaos are expressive, but they are not a medium for > >expression. > Tell that to John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol, Serra, Brian > Eno, Robert Fripp, Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Andre Breton, > Richard Brautigan, Bryan Gyson, William S. Burroughs. . . . . You cannot express yourself in a medium you cannot control. The noise or randomness or chaos give feeling, but they cannot be given feeling because that requires altering their nature and making them something more ordered. >> But who's to say how much any medium is actually controlled? Maybe many great works of art were controlled 99% effectively by the creator of the work, but maybe it's the remaining 1% that really makes the Mona Lisa's smile so darned . . . well, whatever it is that's got it hanging on a wall several centuries later. And who's to say that Pollack wasn't exerting as much as maybe 20% control over his paintings? A random flick of the wrist, or a well-practiced flick of the wrist with some intentionality behind it? Something to be considered, maybe. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:38:30 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: art and literature >From: sorwototoe@kwepkmk.aluxe.matcuer.unam.mx >Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:13:12 -0800 >Subject: Learn About Male Sexual Secrets-New Book -konyb > >Now any man, regardless of age, can easily learn: > >* To be multi-orgasmic >* To greatly increase the intensity of his orgasm >* Triple the length of his orgasm >* The secrets to penis enlargement >* Discover the male G-spot >* To greatly increase semen volume >* To eliminate premature ejaculation >* The secrets of getting his partner to want more sex >* To eliminate impotence at any age >* To have up to a three hour erection > >New, Easy to Read Book on Men's Sexual Secrets > Male Sexual Secret's > Written > by > Robert Winter and Jeff Rutgard, M.D. > >Most Men Only Get A Fraction of The Pleasure They Can >>From Sex-After Only A Few Pages You Can Easily Triple >That Amount Of Pleasure. > >This is a fantastic new book covering so many little >known and unknown sexual secret's you'll be amazed. > If you don't learn something new in the first few pages > that greatly increases your sex life we'll return your money. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:59:21 -0700 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: Arts and Crafts Redux On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:16:47 MARKEEFE wrote: > But who's to say how much any medium is actually controlled? Maybe >many great works of art were controlled 99% effectively by the creator of the >work, but maybe it's the remaining 1% that really makes the Mona Lisa's smile >so darned . . . well, whatever it is that's got it hanging on a wall several >centuries later. And who's to say that Pollack wasn't exerting as much as >maybe 20% control over his paintings? A random flick of the wrist, or a >well-practiced flick of the wrist with some intentionality behind it? >Something to be considered, maybe. When I was a little boy, I was obsessed with dinosaurs. This was a couple of decades before dinosaurs became trendy and dinosaur paraphernalia became abundant (yes, I was a child dinosaur hipster!), so it was always a challenge to find me dinosaur items. But I digress. Anyway, when I was little and obsessed with dinosaurs, I drew dinosaurs constantly. Sometimes I would draw Allosauruses, always with the intention of making them look angry and ferocious. But every once in a while, one of my Allosauruses would come out looking like Soupy Sales. I thought that was cool. But if I tried to draw a Soupy Sales Allosaurus on purpose, it would come out all wrong. So I'd have to wait for the accident to occur again. But the waiting was worth it -- no one knew when the Soupy Sales Allosaurus would reoccur, not even me! Or: yeah, I agree with Mark. :-) later, Miles - --- /===================================================================\ | Miles Goosens outdoorminer@mindspring.com | | http://www.rsteviemoore.com outdoorminer@zdnetmail.com | | http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer | | | | "Why everything has to get in the way all the time I don't know." | | -- Janet Ingraham Dwyer | \===================================================================/ Free web-based email, anytime, anywhere! ZDNet Mail - http://www.zdnetmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:10:53 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: art and literature On 8/17/99 1:38 PM, lj lindhurst wrote: >>New, Easy to Read Book on Men's Sexual Secrets >> Male Sexual Secret's >> Written >> by >> Robert Winter and Jeff Rutgard, M.D. "Easy to Read"? I guess they pretty much know their target audience. See Dick. See Dick trying to get it up. See Jane. See Jane reaching for the vibrator. etc... - -t "Three Hour Erection" c ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:03:35 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. Cappy: >> >Randomness and chaos are expressive, but they are not a medium for >> >expression. >> Tell that to John Cage, Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol, Serra, Brian >> Eno, Robert Fripp, Hakim Bey, Robert Anton Wilson, Andre Breton, >> Richard Brautigan, Bryan Gyson, William S. Burroughs. . . . . > >You cannot express yourself in a medium you cannot control. The noise or >randomness or chaos give feeling, but they cannot be given feeling because >that requires altering their nature and making them something more >ordered. > >And I'll gladly tell that to Cage and Pollack and Eno and Fripp. I would >have an interesting conversation about it with Warhol and Wilson and >Burroughs. Um...ugh. >Main Entry: 2art >Pronunciation: 'rt >Function: noun >Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more >at ARM >Date: 13th century > >1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation friends> >2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : >LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP >3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill >4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in >the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE >ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art >5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful >6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter > >All but the final sense of this word illustrate exactly my point. > >In short, Eb, you're wrong. In short, you're being almost as self-righteous as Mr. Partridge. My "wrongness" is entirely debatable. "Use of creative imagination"? Yup, there's my stance. And "skill" is a quite nebulous concept. If you're able to move people emotionally and intellectually with your drawings without being able to perfectly fill in the lines, that still indicates "skill" to me. Obviously, you disagree. Fine. But both connotations are there. A piece of creation which has skill but no expression is mere "craftmanship" to me, not art. And I think it's interesting that folks on your side of the fence keep using the word "craft," over and over. >Music made by more than one musician IS little instruments each making >their own sounds, but arrangement is about making those sounds cohesive >and blending them into a harmonious, layered, thematic sound. Sometimes >it's important to have a counterpoint to draw attention now and again, but >I find Jewels For Sophia to be segregated in a way that prevents the music >from ever becoming whole. OK, you've made it seem more like a personal viewpoint here. Fine. Eb, a little disturbed by this "Beastmaster 2 vs. NMH" debate which has somehow arisen ;) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #313 *******************************