From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #314 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 314 Today's Subjects: ----------------- I'm an biologist, baby...d'y'know what that means? ["JH3" ] RE: Quail in a Cage [The Great Quail ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Capuchin ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [Eb ] Re: arts and crafts redux. [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: big hits and phased cookies ["Russ Reynolds" Subject: I'm an biologist, baby...d'y'know what that means? Okay, I'm not really a biologist. (But I play one on TV.) What's more, this is a largely sophistic argument, and it's probably boring the shit out of everyone. But I'm an evil guy, so without further ado, Drew writes... >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). Hmmm. I think I see your point though; obviously the culture has changed drastically in all sorts of ways which might affect how genius applies itself. To me that suggests that we should look further than just literature for signs of genius. (Computer programming, for example!) >>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. Aaah. That's the problem, I don't see it that way. It's true those six people were named, but then everyone insisted that was an unfair sample because of the disparity in the number of years involved; I was just trying to say that if you look at the number of people involved, and the degree of access to the means of publication, the disparity isn't so great. And your point about our not yet recognizing every talent produced in the modern era is perfectly valid (and frankly I think it just supports what I've been saying). But there was also this: >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. If it wasn't hypothetical, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? I just think it's perfectly fair to say that (1) people in the West have no biological monopoly on the ability to make up funny jokes, and (2) people born in one era have no greater chance, *biologically*, of being geniuses than people born in some other era. But who knows, maybe it *isn't* fair to say that? Maybe we, the Modern Educated Westerners, really *are* God's Chosen, the Ubermenschen, the Funniest Goddamn Clowns Who Ever Existed... But I don't think so. In fact, I'll cede you almost any point but that one. >>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. Okay, so I'll amend that to say "the opportunity *and desire* to pursue their genius." But that still doesn't make the people of either era biologically superior, does it? John H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:25:36 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: is it art? I know we've discussed this before, and I probably said much of this before, but I think we are really overintellectualizing it. Suffice to say that craft and art are too commonly interchanged, which brings to light the analogy of quantifying magic with math. Sharkboy definition (no, I am not a professional wrestler, thanks for asking): I think art is a combination of factors that make it an important work. Art is socially defined as a tangible artifact which a bunch of intellectuals can wank about later, but that's not important right now. Art happens as a result of those with facility, emotion, beauty, ugliness, intelligence, innocence, and a bunch of other stuff in varying quantities combine to make a form greater than its own pieces. Great art happens when the sum is greater than the "artist's" own awareness. It is the magic of the combinations of things, ideas, emotions, and how they interact with their audience that make them so. Art may have a life of its own beyond the understanding or considerations of its author. It may serve to reveal the artist, or reflect or challenge the viewer. Art tends to have less dimension when it is too tangible or technical. It also loses its power when conveyed with less facility than the feeling or idea requires. - -- Let me describe a couple of opposites which, coincidentally to me, make, art: Bobby Fripp is a total nut about technique of the mechanics and understanding of music. To frightfully paraphrase his view on the matter: he believes that the artist must give him the ability to express whatever muse or inspiration that comes through him. Much of the time, he seems like an effective artist. He sometimes misses me when he plays math vs. music, however. Sometimes he and his mates are able to make some of the highest possible art when it has the solution their technique (the catalyst which makes the higher form possible) and all of the concurrent elemental, physical, and emotional ingredients to bo beyond the sum of the parts. With the craft, the art may follow. Neil Young can barely string an instrument. Knows ten chords, and most are in root position. He writes some very effective songs without pretense of being a grand master of anything. He is just powerfully in the moment when he creates. There are many examples, but most who do this "open channel" kind of creation strike me as being sincere. With a completely different kind of craft, art may follow. - -- Not everything that strokes my brain serves as art to me, but many of those mentioned- even if much by their bold artistic statements- give me no trouble in categorizing as art. Have you ever heard some of John Cage's works for prepared piano, or any of his other music? It all makes me think, and some of it is staggeringly musical. I like artists who challenge their audience, even if I don't always like the statement. I still really like melody and harmony and great lyrics, but I'll take bad art that's truly interesting over something "pleasing" that matches the couch and is designed to make everybody comfortable. Picasso and Dali were exceptional realists before they started doing interesting weird shit (Picasso took me a long time to like.) About Bauhaus, and I don't mean the band, Kandinsky, Feininger, Klee, etc., went on to do some really incredible work that went beyond the rigid stylings of the movement. When they started throwing their own insides at it, they became great artists. (It has taken me twenty years of slowly getting Klee, but Kandinsky and Feininger always blew me away.) I have trouble believing that sincerity, or another conceptual word can scrub away the art from a work. That seems like such a strange and somehow arbitrary word to hang on the gateway between the world of art and the world of "not art." To reiterate: art is something magical woven by people of varying technical abilities that is a conduit for their inspirations and/or challenges and/or reflects/interacts-with the stuff inside of the viewer. I lack the brain or vocabulary or something to sight, shoot, tag, catalog, and track all the intangibles of what I see in art. But, see, I can wank some too to try to make up for it. happies, - -Sharkboy (I just listened to _Tubthumper_, by Chumbawumba after setting it aside for nearly 2 years. Wow, I didn't know how good the whole album is.) ps. "flibbertyjibbits" is my new favorite word. I have Hank Hill to thank for it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:50:12 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Beastmaster 3: "The Ferrets Who Ate My Sack of Nuts" Capuchin writes: >I'm saying that this Neutral Milk Hotel album is a matter of perspective; >you get a different opinion depending on where you focus. If you're >looking for lyrical themes, you get one opinion of the words. If you're >looking for descriptive phrases, you get another opinion. If you're >looking for original imagery in the playing out of the theme, you'll get >still another... Right! So if I'm looking for something that I personally believe has any value whatsoever, I get the opinion that I should look elsewhere! *Problem solved!* I'm perfectly willing to admit that, at least with respect to the lyrics, I somehow missed the point, or failed to appreciate whatever subtle artistry there may be hidden deep within the microscopic pits of the CD in question. It doesn't matter; there are plenty of other fish in the sea of things for me to dislike about it. All I'm saying - all I've ever meant to say about ITAOTS, in fact - is that just because you're a Robyn Hitchcock fan, that doesn't mean you'll go ga-ga over it; in fact, you *might* disapprove of it very strongly indeed. I'm living proof, so... fair enough? And thanks, JB, for not getting on my case for being even more sarcastic than I usually am, about the whole Beastmaster thing.* You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. John "ouch, those ferrets can hurt" Hedges * Uh... you knew I was being sarcastic, right? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:51:55 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Neutral Milk Hotel JH3 wrote: > > Capuchin writes: > > >I'm saying that this Neutral Milk Hotel album is a matter of perspective; > >you get a different opinion depending on where you focus. I guess I'll add my two cents to this Neutral Milk Hotel thread: In my very humble opinion, there is only one thing wrong with ITAOTS. "Oh Comely" is way too long. It's a good song, but it would've been better if it were only 3 minutes and not 8. If Jeff had made that one little change, ITAOTS would be one of the best albums of the decade. Very few albums have the amount of momentum that this album has. It blows me away more and more everytime I hear it. As far as lyrics go, I think they're incredible, especially on "Holland 1945." Sure, not all Robyn Hitchcock fans are going to like ITAOTS. But not all Robyn Hitchcock fans are going to like JfS either. In fact, I don't think JfS even compares to ITAOTS. So that's it. I fucking love In The Aeroplane Over The Sea...and the next time I throw it in the CD player, I'll probably love it even more. Later Joel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:42:53 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: RE: Quail in a Cage Most of you are so sick of this that I am sure you will delete me now. OK, those of you that stay, I make no apologies -- you are obviously gluttons for punishment! John Partrige says: >And anyway, marginalization is what happens to all opinions that >don't conform to the orthodoxy du jour. Or just reside at the crank fringe. I know -- I still believe Elvis is alive. (Seriously.) >In any event, the main point I was trying to make was that all the >arts have suffered horribly since WWII and to my surprise, no one >seems to agree. Ah well, me being a reactionary doesn't necessarily >mean I'm wrong. Well, no, because there is a difference in stating your opinion "I don't like post-WWII art" and saying "The art after WWII is degenerate and it sucks, and it's not even art." I mean, most of my favorite stuff in art and literature comes from the forties and on! >Whenever I hear that a piece of art works mainly on a conceptual level >it says to me that it has failed to work on any other: That's slighting the artist's intent, don't you think? When Duchamp did his ready-mades, you really can't say that he was trying for a Rodin and failed, so labeled it "conceptual?" Again, it sounds to me like you only really like and respect a certain kind of art, which is fine; but my issue is with the pedestal you've erected below your feet that gives you a position lofty enough to crap down on what you don't like. Please don't think I am flaming you or getting personal - -- I am just stating the way I feel you express your opinions. >Calling in to question our ideas about art itself is >*not* art, it's art crit. So you are saying that art can criticize everything but itself? Or are you saying that art can serve no critical function? >And while I believe there's a place in the >world for art crit (i.e., grad school), let's not confuse it with the >real deal. Oh, my! So art criticism is just a thing that belongs in grad school? That's a prejudice which I feel may be undermining a clear view. >> Look, John Cage -- who, like Byron, Wilde, and Duchamp, may be more >> important for who they were rather than their work itself > >I don't know what to think of a statement like this because my only >unit of analysis is the work of art, not the artist, not the era, not >the environment, not the weather that day. That's one way of looking at a single work of art, yes. But I choose to look at the context, I maintain that some artists are *more* important than their work itself. >For me, an artist's >importance is defined by his art. Then that's indeed "for you." To define someone like Oscar Wilde or Marcel Duchamps merely by his body of works; to rob their *life* of an importance beyond their work . . . that's a very limited way to look at things. I mean, it is certainly a valid school of thought -- one that was more or less supplanted (or simply *joined*) by other paradigms decades ago -- but still, I personally find it limiting when applied universally. >Let him explore to his heart's content but don't get all pretentious-like >and try to call it art. That's just so smugly self-congratulatory. Actually, I think Cage called it his music. But frankly, I find your sentence about disquieting . . . almost like you are taking some of their work *personally.* You seem so quick to pass judgment and cast aspersions. >They might well have wanted me to think about that but I could give >a shit. All I get is a white canvas or random noise and think "these >guys have total contempt for me and they just mooned me, conceptually". I don't think Cage wanted you personally to give a shit about anything. No one is forcing you to be challenged; I am sure you can catch a Brahms festival easily enough. But what you consider mooning, I consider an invitation to consider my own perceptions. >> It was a very important >> statement that needed to be made at that time. > >Important to whom?!? Is there some other value beyond the artistic merit >of the piece at hand that I'm missing? Why was that statement important >to me, the viewer, the ostensible audience for the created art? I really don't want to sound patronizing here, but why don't you study the evolution of modern music and serialism from the Second Viennese School to the sixties? Artists like John Cage really did a lot to point out the sterility and alienation that was entrenching itself in the world of music and academia. And again, to directly answer your strident question, it may not be important to you, because you have made it quite clear that you don't wish to be exposed to that sort of challenge. Perhaps you feel that it is arrogant to even assume there is something in *need* of a challenge; that's fine. The public at large will never suffer a concert of Mozart or Beethoven because of a local John Cage festival, so why the near-hostility? >If they're enjoyable to you then that's the main thing. I can't say >I find them enjoyable myself and as to testing limits and exploring >new possibilities, well that's what we in the old days called >"practicing". Let him practice but he shouldn't try to pass it off >as art. See, there again . . . I can agree with you, and find your opinions reasonable, until you have to say, "well that's what. . . ." I almost get the impression you feel the victim of some weird conspiracy . . . has Denise Sharpe been bugging you, too? Damn, soon we're *all* going to be as crazy as Commander Lang and myself! >Well in that event, I appreciate your indulgence in this discussion >because if I were in your shoes I'd be thinking, "this mutant has >no nose so no wonder the flowers bore him." Well, again, I appreciate discussions like this, and I am enjoying it. (Though I think it's just me, you, Capuchin and Eb now!) >Thanks for correcting me. Perhaps I attribute too much weight to >Adams because I read he teamed up with Peter Sellars (and you can guess >how much I like *his* stuff). Heh heh . . . >Are there specific pieces you would recommend >to someone like me who has no affinity for atonal music? Well, it depends on what you *do* like, musically. I mean, Philip Glas sis the opposite of atonalism, but the enemy of your enemy may not be your friend. >You don't find Glass stagnant? I do. Good mood music though. No, I find Glass beautiful and haunting. No other composer besides my beloved Beethoven and Wagner can affect me the way Glass does. But some people do find him stagnant or boring. It really is just a matter of taste. >I don't >know Steve Reich at all or Elliott Carter for that matter or Roger >Sessions. Any recommendations on specific compositions? I don't think you would like any of them. Reich can be more "boring" to most people than Glass. His is a music in constant motion, motion that paradoxically resolves into perfect stillness, like watching the spokes of a bicycle wheel turn into a shimmering pattern. "Music for 18 Musicians" is a common and well-known piece to try. A rock analogy might be The Orb, or Aphex Twin. Carter is *insanely* complex, often dissonant, manically energetic, and very "intellectual." More like Bartok in that regard, but even more complex. A rock analogy would be late period King Crimson. And Sessions -- serialism with emotion, his best work (IMO) based on the Viet Nam war. If you don't like atonalism, avoid him. Really if you tell me what you do like, I would be happy to send you some suggestions offlist. >Critical thinking about >the arts has been suspended and the vocabulary for thoughtful >discussion is missing. Well, I disagree. But the barbarians are indeed at the gates, if you look at it that way -- I would say, rather discourse and criticism have been broadened, and there are more voices at the table now. >Pop >music, street dancing, comic books, these all seem as vibrant and >as strong as ever. Some are even art I'd say. I'll end there -- in complete agreement! - --Quail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.libyrinth.com The places I took him! I tried hard to tell Young Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell A few brand-new wonderful words he might spell. I led him around and I tried hard to show There are things beyond Z that most people don't know. I took him past Zebra. As far as I could. And I think, perhaps, maybe I did him some good... Because finally he said: "This is really great stuff! And I guess the old alphabet ISN'T enough!" --Dr. Seuss, "On Beyond Zebra" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:11:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > 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. First, I can stand as close or far from a Jackson Pollock (or Pollack... which is it? I have sources that read both ways. I was using Pollack before for no real reason except that it was the first that jumped to mind.) painting as you please and not be moved to feel anything at all. But that's not the point. Even if I DID feel exactly what Pollock was feeling, it wouldn't be art. To say that every expression is art is to destroy the meaning of the word. That would mean that everything I ever said or did that expressed the way I was feeling (i.e. everything I ever said or did) was art. Then what does it mean to call a thing art, if all expressions are art? One person near and dear to me said that art was any created thing (be it object or gesture or sound or whatever) that made HER feel. At least that's an honest answer that is workable. I can live with someone who defines it that way. At least with that answer, the word has a meaning that is understandable. "That thing is art." "Ah... well, it doesn't do a thing for me, so it's a painting." And failed art is only art that appeals to literally no one. So if we want to accept two definitions, that's one I'll let slide, but this idea that every expression is art makes my stomach turn. It destroys the concept of art as a goal and reduces it to the very most commonplace activities and creations. On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 MARKEEFE@aol.com wrote: > 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. This is true. > Just like a cook will probably make some bad meals, so will an artist > make some bad art. So what's an artist? What's bad art? Those are things defined AFTER we know what art is. > But it's still art (some skill or training was involved in the > creation of a work that someone finds appealing to senses). Someone has to find it appealling? Woah. > 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. But food can be art. So are all cooks just producers of bad 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. But clothing can be art, too. So is most clothing just bad art? We have a special word for art because art is a special case of any kind of thing. > 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? Then you're telling me that all human endeavor is art and then we decide some time later whether it was good art or bad art. And that, to me, is silliness. It reduces art to mean nothing but endeavor. Gotta run home. Sorry to cut short. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:23:28 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. Cappy, and the mysterious damsel he keeps quoting: >To say that every expression is art is to destroy the meaning of the >word. That would mean that everything I ever said or did that expressed >the way I was feeling (i.e. everything I ever said or did) was art. Then >what does it mean to call a thing art, if all expressions are art? I'm not sure anyone here is claiming this. I think the point is that the expression can be called "art," *if* it provokes a resonant response in others. As your guru said, the perception is the key. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:44:38 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: arts and crafts redux. In a message dated 8/17/99 5:12:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, capuchin@teleport.com writes: << So what's an artist? What's bad art? Those are things defined AFTER we know what art is. >> Well, actually, I was just trying to argue that art doesn't necessarily equate to a work that is considered great. In so doing, I was attempting to help define art by giving it some parameters. I just wanted to say that I think art should include bad art. << Someone has to find it appealling? Woah. >> Well, art that is passable or better has to be appealing. Bad art has to at least be an attempt at making something that's appealing, even if the artist doesn't make the mark. << > 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. But food can be art. So are all cooks just producers of bad art? >> Hm. I'd either say that all food is art, or no food is art. To say that food *can* be art is just to rest back on the same argument already put forth (that a particularly great example of something created is "art"). I can't really see where that second sentence came from. If cooks produce art, then some (but not all, of course!) will produce bad art. I thought I pretty clearly said that. Maybe not. That's definitely what I meant. << But clothing can be art, too. So is most clothing just bad art? We have a special word for art because art is a special case of any kind of thing. >> See above. << Then you're telling me that all human endeavor is art and then we decide some time later whether it was good art or bad art. And that, to me, is silliness. It reduces art to mean nothing but endeavor. >> I think someone else might've been talking about that more, what with the pile of dogshit, etc. Actually, I was trying to modify your (Jeme's) definition and/or the definition in my dictionary, which basically states that art is the product using skill and/or knowledge and imagination to create a work of beauty (but taking out the mastery part, in order to allow for a poor use of not enough skill resulting in bad art). I then looked up beauty, which had something about being appealing to the senses, which seemed workable enough (and which is where the "appealing" thing comes in above). So, no, I never intended to say that art is "nothing but endeavor." I don't consider making out a shopping list to be the creation of art (good or bad!). There must either be the intent to create art or a really incredible accident (although no examples of the latter spring to mind). - -----Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 18:55:55 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: big hits and phased cookies >Has Robyn ever done anything with phasing? Maybe that's what he needs to >get his stuff on the radio. More phases. "Tonight" is the only one that springs to mind but it seems to me he's got at least one or two more. I think there must be something on Y & O but per a previous discussion that album probably doesn't count. Phasing is cool. That's why "Sky Pilot" is one of the greatest songs in the history of man. And the drum solo in "Frankenstein" kicks all other drum solos' asses because of the phasing (didja know drum solos had asses? they do! Also, many of them are *performed* by asses). - -rUss. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:42:15 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: weird dreams, great relief in the south Pacific, and a PURPLE THING! >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! reminds me of a dream I once had. I was trapped in this place teeming with dinosaurs of all different shapes and sizes. Stereotypical mesozoic plain and jungle setting. Only thing was, all the dinosaurs were cartoon dinosaurs. Realistic, but Disneyesque (like the extinction section from Fantasia). Anyway, this T.Rex comes lumbering into view, stops, turns to face me and.... starts to sing "What a wonderful world" in a perfect Louis Armstrong voice. This dream was over a year ago, but I've not been able to listen to that song with a straight face since. The really weird thing is how well the great Satchel Mouth's voice fitted a Tyran. There is great relief in this little corner of the South Pacific ever since I discovered two days ago that, yes, California Quails DO exist in New Zealand, they're just very rare. They are on the increase, though, so sighting one in Dunedin is not an abberation/ apparition celerambulating through my anabatic psyche. Finally, I got a purple thing. Well, a CD with a purple cover anyway. five pointed star on it there is. I shall report back with my impressions on it soon, as I've only had the chance to listen through it once so far, but there is somne mightily impressive stuff here and there on it. Two quick thoughts though - "NASA Clapping's" chorus seems to me very similar to that of "Devil's Radio". And is "Sally was a legend" about someone who has committed suicide? James James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #314 *******************************