bleeding edge experimentation or blinkered bullshit ???

[RTaylor]

IMO, any piece of art is valid as an expression.

what can be judged? the technical qualities, not the expression.

what can be analyzed? the constructions and the intents of the author, not the expression.

expression is just a subjective issue. does it fit your taste or not?

personally i like experimental arts because they tend to offer new worlds, new sensations, new ways of thinking, new points of view.

If it doesn't say anything it doesn't say anything. There's no mystery in that. If it says something it says something. No mystery in that either.

I definitely agree with that last statement though. :} It's sort of like space travel.

[nuffink]

This Rothko?
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html

Yep. D'you like it?

Not especially. Most colorfield folk fall under my definition of "late modernism". I think the whole movement could have easily been summed up in one painting.

In music it would be the same as one long tone. {Or in the case of the painting that's at the end of that link... 3 long tones.

That may be ok for one experiment but if the music world were to suddenly produce nothing but "tones". I doubt any of us would react very well.

Fair enough. I like Rothko.

[aMUSEd]

You offer Rothko as an example of emotion over intent but that's how he is fetishised. He is as calculating as Mondrain. And he fits into his category, developed with his collusion, by the sponsers of art.

This Rothko?
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html

Yep. D'you like it?

I do - I love Rothko. I even have a poem dedicated to him on my site

AS for this silly argument - I'm all for experimental wankerage - the ability for anyone to have access to the means of self expression musically helps take it out of the hands of the elitists and music industry. Ther more people moving beyond conventional forms of expression the better.

[RTaylor]

Fair enough. I like Rothko.

Fair enough. He does have a bit more to his work than many of those folk. I think that's where art begins to lose its sincerity.

[Lunch Money]

This Rothko guy seems to have a lot in common with Barnett Newman.

I only know of the latter because of the controversy raised when the National Gallery of Canada bought his "Voice of Fire" for $1.2 million, and people were screaming, "but it's just 3 stripes of paint!!!"

Fools.



(apparently a scanned postcard, but I didn't search extensively)

As for our music here-- hell, I had no fears posting an 80's rock song... so I don't think that this place is exactly elitist. What people DO respect is effort. And if we hear a song that is just blinkered noodling, 9 times out of 10 we'll just move on to the next track.

On the other hand, a track made with something like Vurtbox can be wonderful... and by its very nature, it's just blinkered noodling. But I love it!

Greg

[jens]

Fools.

seriously?

Would you be so kind as to explain in plain words why and how it is more than 'just 3 stripes of paint'?

[shamann]

Would you be so kind as to explain in plain words why and how it is more than 'just 3 stripes of paint'?

It's three really big stripes of paint.

Mostly it is conceptual rather than the appreciation of a formal aesthetic. It is eliminating from painting all embellishment, whittling it down to its absolute extreme minimum.

It also could be approached in some ways a bit like freehand circles in Zen painting.

But at face value, it's three really big stripes.

Kind of impressive in person. I wouldn't equate it too closely with Rothko, when you see his paintings in detail, there is a lot going on, an elegant minimal approach to artistic expression. Rothko paintings in person especially can be very moving.

In like terms of music, I'd highly recommend seeking out stuff by Morton Feldman, or read some of his writings. You'll get a very good sense of what these artisits were trying to express in simple patterns or colour.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but at first gander at the title, all I can wonder is who wants to be bleeding edge? Bleh, what a cold restrictive box to be in, forced to limit your thinking to process only.

Cheers,
Steve

[munchkin]

You offer Rothko as an example of emotion over intent but that's how he is fetishised. He is as calculating as Mondrain. And he fits into his category, developed with his collusion, by the sponsers of art.

This Rothko?
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html

Yes, the institution and cash cow that is know as Rothko. Not that I blame him or his art for being co-opted by the establishment. It's the nature of all great art. That doesn't detract from his abilities. I think the critic and the artist become warring lovers with one eye on the stock exchange and the other on the galleries/patrons.

AS for this silly argument - I'm all for experimental wankerage - the ability for anyone to have access to the means of self expression musically helps take it out of the hands of the elitists and music industry. Ther more people moving beyond conventional forms of expression the better.

Popularism doesn't make great art any more than suffering for your art in a tower does. This arguement is only silly because you've decided it is. I'm all for experimental wankerage but when it is just a copycat version of what's gone before how is it innovating or moving beyond conventional forms than Britney Spears?

I think that elitism reigns when musicians try to obscure their lack of innovation and creativity by labelling their music 'experimental'. Immediately, it's elevated to a level above other forms of music and is spoken about in hushed tones. Most of this reverance is hardly justifiable IMO.

I'm playing devils advocate here because two of the accusations made against modern popular music are that it's banal and mass produced. IMO this is true but what are we doing as an alternative? Twiddling a few nobs and calling it experimental is as banal and as conservative as Britney Spears. Without being self-critical and seeking feedback from our peers we are no better than the monopoloies that churn out what they think people want/will buy.

I think the answer lies with us, not the establishment, but how are we going to achieve this?

[pHz]

at this point can i just say thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread so far ???

as i said - this issue is one i think about from time-to-time (and have done ever since my art degree days) and although i did vastly over-simplify (as is my usual modus operandi) things in the thread title im pleased we have got at least 5 pages of interesting and intelligent debate out of it ...

... as has been alluded to this is possibly not an issue that can actually be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone but im very interested in reading how we all try to deal with this conflict between experimentation / convention ... intellect / emotion ... technique / feeling ... art / science ... meaning / cliche ... fish / wombles ...

... TBh im not even sure i have an answer (or even a firm opinion) myself and have debated this with various folk here on and off for a while now ...

... as a painter my preoccupation is very much process and materials but am always concerned to produce an 'image' that has some (popular ??? ) visual appeal in order to hook the viewer in to the painting and its meaning (whatever that might be - i have a strong aversion to intentionalism) ...

... i guess this approach is reflected in my music - the one people always tend to comment on are the sounds i produce rather than the way they are put together (which usually tends to be towards the less accessible end of what is represented here at K-v-R) ... im relatively happy with that but to some extent would like more of a 'pop' sheen to things to get listeners immediate interest while i can still maintain my personal concerns with materials (in this case sounds i guess) and process ...

... i think i need to launch a new genre called something like populist wierdoddity ???

slainte rob

[RTaylor]

Would you be so kind as to explain in plain words why and how it is more than 'just 3 stripes of paint'?

It's three really big stripes of paint.

Yeah.

It's exactly what made folk lose their respect for the arts.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but at first gander at the title, all I can wonder is who wants to be bleeding edge? Bleh, what a cold restrictive box to be in, forced to limit your thinking to process only.

Cheers,
Steve

Why would you want to be anything else?

[pHz]

heehee ...

... not just me with a liking for pseudo-dumbkopf oversimplification then ???

slainte rob

[RTaylor]

You offer Rothko as an example of emotion over intent but that's how he is fetishised. He is as calculating as Mondrain. And he fits into his category, developed with his collusion, by the sponsers of art.

This Rothko?
http://www.nga.gov/feature/rothko/rothkosplash.html

Yes, the institution and cash cow that is know as Rothko.

Is he still a cash cow?

Not that I blame him or his art for being co-opted by the establishment. It's the nature of all great art.

Like VanGogh and Munch?

That doesn't detract from his abilities. I think the critic and the artist become warring lovers with one eye on the stock exchange and the other on the galleries/patrons.

I don't actually see that as part of the process. Many of my favorite artists do or did make too little to live on. The media circus stuff strikes me as about as important as arena shows and top 40 hits. {Actually, it strikes me as being nearly the same thing.}

[RTaylor]

heehee ...

... not just me with a liking for pseudo-dumbkopf oversimplification then ???

slainte rob

I try to think of it as Zen. :}

[pough]

Interesting discussion on art. One of my best friends is an artist (he has an opening this Friday and I have extra invites if anyone is interested) and my brother-in-law is a real blue-collar, outspoken type - so I get to hear both sides of such things. My brother-in-law is incensed that his government spent that much of his money on something that's so "worthless." And in a way he's right. And wrong.

The trouble with so much modern art is that it has become so incredibly insular and myopic that it's audience has become limited to those within its tight little world. That particular painting in no way speaks to the majority of Canadians, regardless of how excellent a piece of work it is.

But at the same time, I think it's important for our government to support the arts. I think that the purpose of art is to encourage new thoughts and emotions; to see beyond your own limited scope. Sometimes good art can do that across the art-world lines. Sometimes it can't. And there's the rub. It's not bad art if it has an unfortunately limited audience. But it might be a bad piece of art for a government to buy.

So should the government buy works that resonate better with a more lowbrow crowd? Tough call. That would appease people like my brother-in-law and maybe even do a better job of expanding minds; but it would be sending a pretty negative message to our artists and some might argue that it takes support away from the best and gives it to the worst.

Mind you, my own feeling is that if it's not "erotica", it's a waste of money.

[pHz]

heehee ...
... not just me with a liking for pseudo-dumbkopf oversimplification then ???
slainte rob

I try to think of it as Zen. :}

funny you should say that ...

slainte rob