what I know,is that there was a tv or radio program many years ago,
where
music experts would guess name of a classical composition just by
listening
to the first not. Even I, would come close. What some do not realize
is that
every note has a personal length and a mixture of many musical
intruments
that form that particular sound ,just like painting have have
personal mixes, etc,,,,
mando
On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
It is hard to agree with William's objections to Chris's remarks.
It's hard
because 1) William brings new terms into the discussion without making
clear what he has in mind with these terms; 2) he effectively
attributes
terms/notions to Chris that Chris in fact did not employ; and 3)
though he seems to
be criticizing something I said earlier in a "Marks" posting, he
ignores my
argument for replacing the word 'mark' (and the ostensible notions
behind
it) with my notion-and-word, 'characteristic'.
Among the new terms William introduces are 'the aesthetics of
looking at
art' (and 'aesthetically worthless'), and 'form':
"A mark isolated from form is aesthetically worthless."
I infer that William counts as a mark each stroke of his brush. But
it's
clear that that's not Chris's notion; on his site Chris labels as
"marks"
photos of patches of painting entailing many strokes. I don't have
much of a
grasp on what William has in mind with "form", but I think it's not
unlikely he
could mean something as off-target as "the entire, completed work". I
myself would never use the word that way. I maintain that a small
patch can
indeed be characteristic of a painter/composer/writer.
(I'm not unaware that Chris seems inconsistent himself: He defined
a mark
as the visible result of a single continuous touch (or stroke), but
then
displays on his site many alleged "marks" every one of which is
obviously the
result of multiple touches.)
I'd therefore be comfortable saying there are moments of Brahms's
music no
more than one second in duration in which I detect a multiplex of
sounds
that have their own uniquely characteristic Brahmsian "form".
Thus, since I explained why I would substitute 'characteristic' for
'mark',
I'd "translate" William's line, "A mark isolated from form is
aesthetically
worthless," into, "A characteristic isolated from characteristic is
aesthetically worthless." Or, "A form isolated from form is
aesthetically
worthless." Both of which feel vacuous no matter what the notion of
"aesthetically
worthless".
(Meantime, I enjoy the appellation used on Al Hirschfeld: "The Line
King".
He could indeed with one continuous line convey a "form" that was
uniquely
characteristic of him.)
The term that William effectively attributes to Chris but which
Chris in
fact never did employ is that minefield of confusion, 'signifies':
"Now, which one of those 50,000 dips of the paddle or which one of
those
25,000 painted marks is the one that signifies the individual
voyageuer or my
art?
wc"
William gives that line the power-position in his latest
condemnation of
Chris: It's the final sentence -- suggesting that in William's mind
this is
the ultimate knockout punch. But, one, it has nothing to do with
Chris, so
it misses him by a wide margin. And, two, by employing the deeply
muddled
term/notion 'signifies', William, boomerang-like, socks himself in
the jaw.
**************
It's raining cats and dogs -- Come to PawNation, a place
where pets rule! (http://www.pawnation.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000008)
