Sory for the big delay, but I was really busy. I will try to answer in
between lines:
Mathieu Bouchard escribió:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Fernando Gadea wrote:
So they say that good piano players play with the whole body (same
for guitar or any physical instrument, I guess).
Is it because it makes the music any better, or because what musicians
are after is not just the music but also the dance that a musician
makes with the instrument?
In a physical instrument the position of the body when playing modifies
the dynamics of movements, so variations in the dynamics of movement
produce also diferent dynamics of sound. If you press a key with a
strong movement it will almost shurelly be different if you do it
sitting on a chair, with your head and back aiming behind your
gravitational center, that if you do it whith your body aiming foreward
or if you do it standing on your feet. Your finger´s pressing movement
will be affected, and also the strength with which you keep pressing
after that. Being able to administrate this variations gives the
musician a wider sound palette (Sorry, I am not shure if this is the
word). This expands the expressive possibilities of the performer as he
then is able to subjetively transfer the meanings he gives to his body
movements to the sound dynamics. In the following text please note that
it says "from the performer side" and "what music should express", not
what it DOES express, neither from an objective view. I mean, I am
trying not to take the subject to the interpretation from an
observer-in-the-public point of view, and, I must say it again, this is
not what everybody should do, but those that feel that they need to.
"...different performances of the
same piece can communicate different expressive inten-
tions. Most music performances involve expressive inten-
tions from the performer’s side, regarding what the mu-
sic should “express” to the listeners. Consequently, in-
terpretation involves assigning some kind of meaning to
the music. " (http://smc.afim-asso.org/smc05/papers/LucaMion/mapping.pdf)
Art is suposed to be a free environment, meaning that it should be
guided or conditioned only by the artist.
According to whom?
This subject is treated in aesthetic since the enlightement and
romanticism, and maybe even before. You can read about this subject´s
history (treated secondarily) in Simón Marchán Fiz´s "La estética en la
cultura moderna", from chapter III till the end. Other related subject
might be "Ludic Aesthetics". I don´t remember a more specific book.
Marchan Fiz is related to the Frankfurt school. I don´t know how the
freedom subject is treated by Analytic Aesthetics, but as a
more-science-philosophy-related aesthetic perhaps it just does not treat
it. Also in Post structuralist´s philosophy Freedom becomes an important
subject that implies relationships with art, and of course in
Existentialism, before that, so you might find usefull reading Heidegger
or Sartre, or triyng to understand Foucault´s, Deleuze´s and Guattari´s
art-related works. Furthermore, any statement about being required from
the artist to give his own truth implies the concept of being the artist
free. Anyway, as any definition of art is possible while it must be
contextualized, I agree that we could talk of other kinds of art where
freedom is not important or does not exist at all.
If you answer yes to the third, the probabilities are that your mind
is twisted after years of taking drugs, and maybe it was already
twisted before you studied art or started taking drugs. Sorry, I was
joking...
Drugs usually come relatively late in the picture. They don't tend to
make art more twisted, just more defective. They also don't have much
to do with being twisted.
I was just joking and being metaphoric and rethoric. Besides that, There
have existed circunstances when drugs have been part of the creative
environment and I wouldn´t agree that the results were defective. And I
would say that "defective" is another relativable concept.
Of course in these three questions I was only having fun while being
retoric, because relativity dismantles concepts as "making a
difference", "quality", "being emotionally involved" and even
"academic" or "popular" (history shows lots of examples that would
complicate the difference between the last two).
Dismantling and complicating are not the same thing. Being conscious
of the relativity doesn't make those concepts less important and it
doesn't break them. It just breaks down a lot of talk that uses those
concepts: that which is vague, makes undue assumptions, etc.
At the end, anything could be poetic, as it mostly depends on who we
are at that right moment. It ends as a matter of self-perception.
Right.
And as perception is not transferable, neither is poetic or aesthetic
experience.
Well, despite our frustrations with it, plain talking goes a long way
transferring a lot of perception, experience, and other ideas. Calling
perception non-transferable comes from either taking conversation as
so much for granted that it doesn't count in the picture, or being
very pessimistic about how well it can be effectively transferred.
I understand what you mean, but the fact is that perception is not fully
transferable. If it was, there would be no difference between any
sound/image and a description of it.
That gives us a lot of possibilities, none better than other, only
differents.
It's only all the same if you just don't care about the possibilities
(or if you are trying to be diplomatic). In practice, people get
involved in aesthetics because they are passionate about them, and
they judge a lot. There is no absoluteness, no central authority, but
there's still a lot of judgements and impressions of what is better
and what is worse, and that's a necessity.
Maybe yes, but what I am trying to say is that I believe that those
discussions about better-worse are also relativables, and then they
shouldn´t end in duality (unless it is stated that this duality is
related to the speaker), because when they do it probably means that a
part of the true will be left out, and maybe that´s not an implicit
necessity of the art world.
It is also supposed that someone not educated would be more able to
find poetic in anything, because for him anything would be different
from anything he knows.
People don't enter university as blank slates.
I agree.
That is why we commonly despise the creations of early students,
forgetting that in history teachers stole several times the concepts
of students that "weren´t clever enough to realize the jewel they had
in hands".
Students are at a disadvantage here. They are not knowledgeable in the
research-wise artistic discourse of profs, that is what profs are
bathing in constantly, and so they don't know what is valuable to the
profs. What is valuable to the profs doesn't make much sense to an
outsider. It's probably more whim-oriented than most any other
discipline (?).
it was an interesting read.
Thankyou for reading.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
