From: "Dennis DeSantis" > 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.
agreed, the knowing the history part is a (smaller) factor of the difficulties encountered on the way to the new > >>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. well of course you would have to look deeper into it to know if it is new or not. in any way it would have been exciting if someone in the 19th century would have done that in a concert situation AND backed it up with some theory or at least some clues. to do this today is nothing new at all or maybe it even could be,if the concept behind it would be new. maybe it wouldn't be very entertaining and maybe you wouldn't even have to actually see / hear it to get the idea > > > 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. agree here too. but what do you mean by history? 2 years, 5 years, 100? the relevancy of something is more likely to be made visible after a longer period of time... the originality of it can be determined more quickly i think
