On 5/25/05, Mr.D <craque@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
this is what was going through my head too... that if it's truly
'outsider' we wouldn't be able to codify it, because we would never
hear it. :)
i can remember who originally said this, i believe i read it in the
liner notes to a sonic youth record, 'the music is compromised once it
leaves your head.'
a concert, be in a location, buy an album.
all marketable things, btw.
i think we start getting into the thorny issue of who decides what is
"art" which to me, more than likely means how can it be sold/marketed.
thats why the outsider art rubric is so bullshit. darger is not
outsider art because you can buy the book, see the movie, wear the
t-shirt. it may not be everyone's cup of tea but people (not the
artist) have gone to great lengths to introduce his work to the mass
populace.
i can see something like harry smith's documentation of rural/folk
music as being called outsider art in that many of the people
appearing on his records did not set out to record or publish music.
they were vehicles for oral history, entertaining friends and family,
etc.
im not sure if this is terribly accurate, but visual art seems to have
more of a tangible quality to it, implying a more significant sense of
ownership perhaps? or maybe that we (i guess i should say
predominantly western european popular culture) have a more
restrictive idea of what is artful in terms of music than in visual
art.
--
v'
----------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/d4cvc
http://www.oblast.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org