[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: SV: [microsound] no OS



apologies for not trimming the post, but i wanted both statements to be=20=

side by side=2E=2E=2E
toren - if you check, you will see that i already agreed with you on a=20
number of points=2E and all i have to say about artwork has already been=20=

said really=2E what i was trying to illustrate is what an empty gesture it=
 is=20
to have a conversation at all about where the meaning of the artwork=20
lies when the only thing that can be proven is that it lies nowhere in=20
particular=2E that's not a very satisfying conclusion to come to, so why=20=

raise the point at all? i don't necessarily feel, like Graham, that=20
discussion is INHERENTLY all about self-aggrandizement=2E=2E=2Ebut the=20
style of music this list covers is certainly given to overintellectualizin=
g=20
something which is purely physical in response, no matter how much=20
math goes into it=2E=2E=2Ethe experience of LISTENING=2E bernhard gunter,=20=

bless him, has a way of imbuing his music with physicality beyond=20
whatever process was utilized to make the music, and beyond=20
whatever personal theories he may have about sound or politics or art=2E=20=

he may be willing to say these things if asked, but i think its clear from=
=20
his music that he puts it through an intensive purifying process to=20
ensure that by and large the SOUND remains its own world=2E which i=20
THOUGHT was what microsound was all about=2E
=2Edevon:

TOBEN WROTE
<<Critiquing is not about certainty=2E When we analyze/interpret an=20
artwork or a
group of works the interpretation is always open to discussion=2E There=20=

is
never a final word=2E In contrast, "bimoth"'s pathetic positivist attempt =
to
shut up anything not 100% certain is totalitarian and na=EFve=2E (This goe=
s=20
for
Graham Miller as well, who tries to shut up intellectual discussions=20
with
the claim that they are per definition only about boosting self images=2E
Where did you get that notion from? How can you generalize from what=20
you may
have experienced in college? This list may be different=2E At least that=20=

was
my hope=2E I find the discussion far more interesting than my ego - I=20
could
boost that elsewhere and otherwise if that was my urgent need=2E)

So, since the ones who are not interested in the discussion are free to=20=

just
stop reading now, I will continue the discussion about the meaning of
artworks=2E

You (i=2Ee=2E "bimoth") put a false dichotomy between a thing in-itself an=
d a
thing for-us=2E Few people would deny that meaning is partly dependent=20
on
historical, societal and institutional interactions=2E When I speak of a
quasi-objective meaning I am not talking about acces to any=20
metaphysically
consciousness-independent being (this notion has been mor or less=20
dead since
Kant)=2E Still, you must admit that the artwork resist any meaning or
experience subscribed to it=2E There are various (but limited) potentials =
of
meaning in every artwork=2E The dialectics of (quasi-)subject and
(quasi-)object is the interaction of work (as gestalt) and audience=2E You=

simply cannot locate the meaning of an artwork inside anyone's mind=2E

The audience is not the place to look for the meaning, yes, this was=20
also my
point=2E The artwork is=2E And "the artwork" means, of course,
the-artwork-as-experienced-through-dozens-of-filters-laid-down-by-inst
itutio
ns-etc=2E What else would it mean?

Torben

----bimoth wrote---

i agree, though i resist the implication that the artwork ITSELF contains=20=

any kind of meaning=2E any artwork=2E no matter what, it is a thing until=20=

regarded=2E art is not art by itself, it needs the interaction of SOMEthin=
g=2E=20
but my question, basically, and this is a life-long obsession of mine, is=20=

why bother critiquing anything unless you can say for CERTAIN in=20
whose mind the correct view of the piece exists=2E is it the artist or the=
=20
audience? if you can't say, and if you can't say for certain, then you=20
should simply shut up and enjoy it or despise it in private=2E signifiganc=
e=20
is added to art by society, as i was saying before, but it can be just as=20=

fickle as a society's political leanings=2E so if the opinion of art waver=
s=20
and alters, but the artwork does not, this suggests that the audience is=20=

the incorrect place to look for a work's true meaning=2E artists die, of=20=

course, and society (so far) has not (though SOME have, natch)=2E this=20
means the artist is difficult to ask past a certain point (and probably=20=

difficult to approach even while alive)=2E so this poses a quandary=2E the=
re=20
is no reliable place to look for a truthful definition of the meaning of a=
=20
piece of art, or even the truth of it's "art"liness=2E certainly not the a=
rt
itself,=20
unless you're a meglomaniac, or utterly self-possessed=2E we should,=20
then, abandon that line of inquiry all together, declare all art merely=20=

things, sell off posessions, sit smiling all day in the glowing knowledge=20=

of everlasting nothingness=2E the tug between the void that we intuit and=20=

the wall we so desperately try and build to obscure that void is long and=20=

well-built, but from nothingness we came, and to nothingness we=20
return=2E might as well not even buy a ticket on this particular train of=20=

thought unless you're willing to ride it straight through the wall of your=
=20
percept system=2E
=2Edevon:
(my meglomaniacal oratorio)>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E

------------------------------