whyterabbyt wrote:There is a differentiation between that which one sees, and what one looks at. Furthermore there is a further distinction in what one looks for, especially in the utility of one's art. There is passivity in seeing, activity in looking at, and discrimination in looking for.el-bo (formerly ebow) wrote:except, as a photographer you are dependent on input coming externally; it is part of your creation to need to have your eyes open.whyterabbyt wrote:No. It'd feel like a photographer who'd decided to keep their eyes closed and not look at anything.
Photographers arent capturing everything they see, they ostensibly choose to seek specific places or events at specific points in time where they decide to carry out their craft. My point is that to give up looking at things would be to resort to passivity only
Im not sure why you're trying to make refute my response. I stated my personal reality of this, and yet you choose to quibble, as though I should rethink the manner in which I separate myself as a creator of music from myself as an audience for it. There is no debate to be had, I stated exactly what I meant, and exactly how I respond to the two differing situations. They are different; I do not need to stop looking at.
Ive never composed by listening to the music of others. I compose by listening for the elements of the sounds I am working with. Actively. And that the intrinsic discrimination of that exempts other people's music from being an impediment to that. That's what Im 'suggesting'.i am not denying the importance of inspiration, but i also doubt you are suggesting you'd be unable to compose without listening to the music of others.
i don't see where i quibbled about your personal reality. nor am i arguing against the distinction between seeing and looking
i was just refuting your suggestion that making music without the input of external influences is akin to trying to take photos with your eyes closed