ha wrote:
problem is that while criterias for newness are fairly easy to come up with,
criterias for quality in art etc are impossible to state without being
matters of subjective taste.
Criteria for newness are pretty dependent on what your know, right?
In every undergraduate composition class in the US, right now, there's a
kid writing a piece using harmony based on perfect 4ths. Not only does
that kid think it's the most beautiful thing he's ever heard, he also
thinks he's breaking new ground.
Frankly, it's dead easy to make something "new", as long as you're not
concerned about making it good.
i disagree strongly. to produce something genuinly new in the field of art,
ideas and concepts is impossible. to produce something new to the possibly
greatest degree is very very hard.
That's why I put it in quotes. The problem as I see it, is this:
i think originality is the only criteria for artistic value.
So many artists believe that originality is the Holy Grail, that they
stop thinking about making it WORK. Drop a bowling ball onto a piano -
it's new! But what, really, have you got to show for it?
Of course it's hard to make something that's ACTUALLY new. But I think
it's much harder to make something that's actually good, and the two are
not necessarily related.
now the question is: is it art or entertainment? entertainment should not be
very new, because otherwise it wouldn't entertain.
The question of whether or not something is art or entertainment, I
believe, can only be decided by history.
--
Dennis DeSantis
www.dennisdesantis.com
