|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Art now is little more than a misunderstood residue of pre-technical society. |
Why "misunderstood"? |
You and most other educated people think art is about self expression and the creation of provocative and original works. That's a misunderstanding of art. This has been my essential point all along, and it's frustrating that you haven't grasped it yet.
| Bob wrote: |
| Wow, over-think that one much? Your last post suggested extremism in art was the death knell for society. Nautilus thinks evolutionary theory is the death knell for society. I'm pretty sure the comparison didn't make me a futurist, social Darwinist.. Check that, the futurist part might be a bit accurate, but the term is, ironically, dated. |
No, I suggested that individualism is literally barbarous. Society has continued and may yet continue along its barbaric technical path, and if so, art will continue to exist as a parody of itself.
Comparing me to Nautilus does not make you a futurist, nor a social darwinist. The ideas you hold make you those things. Someone who applies the idea of upward evolution to society is a social darwinist, even if he denies it. I haven't overthought a thing, far from it. The mythology of progress, which you accept, has many sources, including the theory of Evolution, Marxism, and the Bible; the lineage I gave was ridiculously oversimplified. It's more likely that you aren't up on your history of ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well then tell us, oh great Koveras, what is the meaning of art? What is the perfect musical system? What is the future of ideas?
| Koveras wrote: |
| It's more likely that you aren't up on your history of ideas. |
It's more likely you're simply a conservative.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010 Location: England/Anyang
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Now now, let's not turn this bitter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not bitter, it's animated. Good discussion should be.
If we're being a bit snide, at least the argument is well, actually an argument worth having, as opposed to that other thread that's mostly beating decades-dead horses. I'm genuinely interested in what Koveras has to say, whether I agree with him or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| People will endlessly discuss all kinds of trivial issues. The difference between what Mozart and Cage did is of kind, not degree. |
Truth. But what Cage did is arguably no less relevant than what Mozart did.
| Koveras wrote: |
| Honestly, you've reached the peak of absurdity when you claim that not playing any music is a kind of music. It may be meditative, it may be nice, or novel, but it isn't music. It's like calling fasting eating. |
4'33" isn't silence. It's the ambient sounds heard when the performer(s) is(are) silent. It is also 4'33" as a protest against the canned music of his generation, and consists of three movements at specific times which are to be differentiated according to the performer(s)'s desires. Anyone who has ever performed can attest that it often doesn't matter what you play, the ambiance/audience will determine what's heard. Cage's piece makes this evident.
It's unarguably culturally relevant. It's art. It's aural. It's music. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010 Location: England/Anyang
|
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say it fits under the category of music, but at the same time its definition would not BE music. In a strange way I feel it fits all the definitions without fitting any.
Amusing that the thread turned into a Cage debate, at least temporarily.
What about that Mark Salona Bird piece, where a bunch of electric guitars are tuned and thrown in a giant bird cage, where they can nestle and fly around and sit on the guitars, thus making random noise. In the same way this is not music but fits in the very definition in some way.
I think I COULD argue that fasting is eating, biologically speaking... but I'm not confident enough in that area to try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Goalie
Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Location: Chungcheongnamdo
|
Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I (if I may join this discussion) would not consider 4'33" music but conceptual art. I'm not too concerned with strict definitions but if words are to mean anything they should at least, whenever possible, indicate some kind of shared experience. We all have ideas about what music is. A piece like 4'33" challenges these ideas. This, however, does not make 4'33" music anymore than Duchamp's Fountain becomes sculpture because you can walk around it and look at it from the back. I feel like I'd be a sucker to say that 4'33" is music, there's ambient noise behind my farts but I don't consider them music, but to pass it off as music when it clearly isn't opens a debate on the nature of music and of art. For this reason, and because it was timely and still resonates, we can say it was an important piece of conceptual art and will probably continue to be talked about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010 Location: England/Anyang
|
Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll go with that |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|