KVR Audio

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:36 pm

munchkin wrote:I think this defines the difference between experimental music and noodling. There is an intent behind the experimentation. A plan that is thought out in a rigourous manner. I imagine that's how Stockhausen and Cage approached their compositions. And that's what's expected from an artist whether they are of the sonic variety or from another area of art.

in YOUR opinion i guess ... i think its absolutely wrong to assume that ALL experimental art (of whatever nature - my background is in visual / fine art so thats whats in my mind as i type this) must be expected to stem from a rigourous intellectual plan or concept ... to do so is to deny (as you point out in the 2nd half of your post) the visceral / emotional impact of art in favour of cold intellectualism ... to SOME extent at least

munchkin wrote:I enjoy the plays of Howard Barker ('Scenes From An Execution' - an excellant play to see - or read - because it looks at the role of art and artist in society.) He attacks the modernist concept that art needs to have meaning and that its role is to enlighten or educate. He criticises this concept because he believes that it negates the emotional connection that art has with the person experiencing it. In light of this I suppose he would question whether experimentation has to incorporate intent or to even have a plan.

personally i find this a much more compelling approach to art and how to make / experience it ... from my point of view i want nothing more than to make SOME connection with a listener / viewer in whatever way that occurs (empathy / shock / surpise / confusion / understanding / etc) ...

... in this model any experimentation needs to come from the process of trying to make that connection ... finding YOUR way of doing something rather than trying to create something totally new and beyond whats already available just for the sake of it ...

... the difference between ...

... and ...

... i guess

slainte

rob

donkey tugger · Post by **donkey tugger** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:48 pm

By the time of the 2nd one he'd lost his ruler?

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:48 pm

that's funny, I was thinking of Rothko as I was writing! (I had the chance to see a real one upclose and personal which, for my hillbilly life was very cool!)

I like the idea of art as connection because it also has room for good pop music in addition to intensly intellectual endeavors (not that good pop isn't).

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:48 pm

to me they both look like nonsense

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:49 pm

donkey tugger wrote:By the time of the 2nd one he'd lost his ruler?

he ditched MS Paint for Illustrator.

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:51 pm

here's another one of his masterpieces

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:53 pm

Rothko's reading of Nietzsche, the nineteenth-century German philosopher, suggests that his compositions could represent the binary opposition between a rational or abstract element versus an emotional, primal, or tragic one

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:55 pm

jens wrote:
Rothko's reading of Nietzsche, the nineteenth-century German philosopher, suggests that his compositions could represent the binary opposition between a rational or abstract element versus an emotional, primal, or tragic one

well, to get super-picky- he still is assuming presence as the essential metaphysical reality...

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:57 pm

ouroboros wrote:
munchkin wrote: He attacks the modernist concept that art needs to have meaning and that its role is to enlighten or educate. He criticises this concept because he believes that it negates the emotional connection that art has with the person experiencing it. In light of this I suppose he would question whether experimentation has to incorporate intent or to even have a plan.
And yet his play seems to have an intent...

But I do agree. The subsequent question for me is, after abandoning content or diadactic content, and focusing only on emotion/feeling - is there anything left.

I think so, but is emotion content-free? I think I am of the opinion now that the structure of emotion is that, structure with biological and social connection and meaning, at least individually. Beyond that lies ? DaDa-ism. Don't know really but fun to think about.

Yes, he's full of contradiction but with his later plays he tries to move away from the type of writing he criticises.

I think that the power of art can still come across with planing. Picasso did a huge amount of preparation for his most famous works. Yet the emotional power of his work shines through. Composers have worked in the same way. But preparation doesn't necessarily create innovation.

Perhaps the intent has to be open to criticism from fellow artists/musicians. Peer review whether it's done in a formal manner in educational institutes or through mixing with others who's intent is to create art rather than unstructured noodlings makes the difference.

ouroboros wrote:I am enjoying your thoughts Munchkin!

It's an interesting debate. The points you make are interesting. Are we engaging in peer review of the concepts of experimental music on KVR..?

I expect a gif of a kitten or a very insulting post from some philistine any second now...

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:58 pm

how I hate this crap - shitting from the brain and calling it 'art'

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:59 pm

jens wrote:how I hate this crap - shitting from the brain and calling it 'art'

What's your idea of art then Jens?

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:00 pm

But to further the Teach's question:

Jens' picture is an ineresting test case:
is it art? Certainly experimental?
It seems to be a statement.
It might make some people disgusted that it is considered art. This is a visceral reaction/connection, so does it qualify because people might have similar reactions to some "experimental music"

Does connection in music assume analogy/ correspondence between the artist and the listener's experience or is a response enough?

Wheeee

experimental.crow · Post by **experimental.crow** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:00 pm

http://rockcritics.com/features/galleryofrockism.html

donkey tugger · Post by **donkey tugger** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:03 pm

ouroboros wrote:But to further the Teach's question:

Jens' picture is an ineresting test case:
is it art? Certainly experimental?
It seems to be a statement.
It might make some people disgusted that it is considered art. This is a visceral reaction/connection, so does it qualify because people might have similar reactions to some "experimental music"

Does connection in music assume analogy/ correspondence between the artist and the listener's experience or is a response enough?

Wheeee

Who knows? Not me for sure!

That bloke who won the Turner prize, who did the screwed up bits of paper as art - one of my mates nicked of the bits and replaced it with one of his own - did he ruin it, even if no one knew?

Is a fish?

ouroboros · Post by **ouroboros** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:04 pm

cool link.

I think this quote:
"The rockists inadvertently got it right when they called teen pop 'disposable,' but it doesn't ring true as a damnation of the music so much as it does as a damnation of the machine, what HR departments call 'churn.' The music's not the problem, the marketing is, and once the oversaturation wears thin and the PR folks have run out of ideas they simply give up on the act. Pop stars get downsized, too, just like all your friends."
--Nate Patrin/Hipster Detritus/"2003: It Kinda Stunk"

probably reflects what angers most people in the pop v. avante gourd debate.

bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???