[LAU] Art's suitability for anything

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 5:19 am

--e89a8ff2528ad0b55a04e41dd7d2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Ralf wrote:

> There's a difference between art and tools released for the public. Art,
excepted of the crap on the radio, should not suit to anything.

Interesting comment, off topic from the original thread so I'll spawn a new
one.

I don't entirely agree that art should not suit to anything. I come to feel
more and more that art doesn't exist without a subculture, and people make
art/music/fashion etc to appeal to one or more subcultures. There are
possible exceptions (Harry Partsch, perhaps) but I'd argue those are
extremely rare.

Many western classical composers in the early twentieth century argued for
"music for its own sake" -- music that captures a glimpse of the Eternal
and thus whose artistic merit transcends human relationships. But of
course, it's all tap-room banter without a community of musicians and
listeners who agree with that idea! So this was just another musical
culture (which sought to pretend that it was beyond culture).

This is, of course, not to say that artists must obey subcultural
expectations and have no autonomy. Most (western) musical subcultures value
surprise (except the aforementioned generic radio pop). I think artistic
autonomy is always in a balance, or tension, with the artist's chosen
scene. One of the decisions an artist has to make is where to position
herself on the continuum between participating in a musical community
(adhering to its standards) and critiquing its norms or expanding the
subculture's boundaries. Many are not aware that this is a choice -- hence
the bands or singers who sound just like everybody else in the genre. But
part of my point is that participating in a musical culture is not "less
than" breaking molds.

All this is from a western perspective, of course. Some non-European
musical cultures (I'm thinking of the amazing music of the Aka pygmies)
seem to place no value at all on individual autonomy in music... that is,
autonomy is not a universal value.

hjh

--e89a8ff2528ad0b55a04e41dd7d2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ralf wrote:

lic. Art, excepted of the crap on the radio, should not suit to anything.
Interesting comment, off topic from the original thread so I'll spaw=
n a new one.
I don't entirely agree that art should not suit to anything. I come =
to feel more and more that art doesn't exist without a subculture, and =
people make art/music/fashion etc to appeal to one or more subcultures. The=
re are possible exceptions (Harry Partsch, perhaps) but I'd argue those=
are extremely rare.

Many western classical composers in the early twentieth century argued f=
or "music for its own sake" -- music that captures a glimpse of t=
he Eternal and thus whose artistic merit transcends human relationships. Bu=
t of course, it's all tap-room banter without a community of musicians =
and listeners who agree with that idea! So this was just another musical cu=
lture (which sought to pretend that it was beyond culture).

This is, of course, not to say that artists must obey subcultural expect=
ations and have no autonomy. Most (western) musical subcultures value surpr=
ise (except the aforementioned generic radio pop). I think artistic autonom=
y is always in a balance, or tension, with the artist's chosen scene. O=
ne of the decisions an artist has to make is where to position herself on t=
he continuum between participating in a musical community (adhering to its =
standards) and critiquing its norms or expanding the subculture's bound=
aries. Many are not aware that this is a choice -- hence the bands or singe=
rs who sound just like everybody else in the genre. But part of my point is=
that participating in a musical culture is not "less than" break=
ing molds.

All this is from a western perspective, of course. Some non-European mus=
ical cultures (I'm thinking of the amazing music of the Aka pygmies) se=
em to place no value at all on individual autonomy in music... that is, aut=
onomy is not a universal value.

hjh

--e89a8ff2528ad0b55a04e41dd7d2--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Art's suitability for anything, James Harkins, (Sat Aug 17, 5:19 am)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, david, (Sat Aug 17, 9:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Aug 17, 9:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Brent Busby, (Sat Aug 17, 6:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, James Harkins, (Mon Aug 19, 5:56 am)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Jeremy Jongepier, (Sat Aug 17, 7:33 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Aug 17, 7:05 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Charles Z Henry, (Mon Aug 19, 5:39 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Neil, (Sat Aug 17, 8:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Brent Busby, (Sat Aug 17, 7:24 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Len Ovens, (Sat Aug 17, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Aug 17, 7:13 pm)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Aug 17, 9:53 am)
Re: [LAU] Art's suitability for anything, Ralf Mardorf, (Sat Aug 17, 10:05 am)