i love math

[Rubbs]

i'm just saying that emotions (like passions) are socially shaped - so the emotions we experience and the emotions we recognize in others are dependent on how we learn these concepts. and not everyone learns the same thing - there are six only agreed-upon universal emotions (fear, anger, sadness, happiness, suprise, and disgust) and everything else is contingent on biological, familial, cultural, social, etc factors.

and no, i never got the spree's 'passion' - it always seemed contrived and cliché to me.... too much of an act

No doubt bringing your own experiences and bias to the table...


Dalya,

Glynnis' dad and lil' bro are professional musicians that play cover music 2-3 times a week. I have grown to understand that for them their passion lies in their ability to play the music perfectly. I didn't recognize that passion for a long time because I didn't like the music. Some musicians are just as much mathematicians (pun intended) as they are artists. We secretly want them all to hate their daddy (like we all do), but in reality they are just good at playing guitar.

Never really given a chance to the whole 97, DRD, I Love Math scene...I just wasn't vibing it yo.




On a side note I was disspointed with El Gato's new record...but I have been listening to 'Scorpians in your shoes' and 'bad hips' once a day for a couple of months.



"I woke up in the bird bath, playing love songs to spiders, who were kind enough to listen."--John Vineyard

-Rubbs (officially out for the summer as of 4:00 PM)

[Rubbs]

Dallas is always creative.....
















in my bedroom.










bada bing

[Dalya]

maybe dancing is a better example. a lot of dancers have great technique, but there is something else that makes them an incredible dancer. it is intangible. all dance companies/critics/teachers recognize this. margot fonteyn is one of the greatest ballet dancers of all time even though she wasn't the "ideal" dancer, in physique OR technique. she had a passion that other dancers didn't have, and it was recognized by the people who saw her perform.

putting the work in in the studio only pays off if you can express that passion to your audience without being in your head, counting beats or worrying about what you look like or if its going perfectly. i dont care either way if someone is incredibly skilled because you can be skilled at something you're not passionate about. but there are also the jimi hendrixes and motzarts who are, like, prodigies and seem to live for their music (i'm foolishly basing this opinion on amadeus, but you know the kind of person i mean).

eeeeh. i clearly can't convey what i mean properly. i'll just retire to the nerdery with my calculator.

[katie]

maybe dancing is a better example. a lot of dancers have great technique, but there is something else that makes them an incredible dancer. it is intangible. all dance companies/critics/teachers recognize this. margot fonteyn is one of the greatest ballet dancers of all time even though she wasn't the "ideal" dancer, in physique OR technique. she had a passion that other dancers didn't have, and it was recognized by the people who saw her perform.

putting the work in in the studio only pays off if you can express that passion to your audience without being in your head, counting beats or worrying about what you look like or if its going perfectly. i dont care either way if someone is incredibly skilled because you can be skilled at something you're not passionate about. but there are also the jimi hendrixes and motzarts who are, like, prodigies and seem to live for their music (i'm foolishly basing this opinion on amadeus, but you know the kind of person i mean).

eeeeh. i clearly can't convey what i mean properly. i'll just retire to the nerdery with my calculator.

but this does not mean the person doesn't HAVE passion for something, it means that you aren't able to see their passion. just because someone can't communicate something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. like this conversation - you know what you want to say, but you're having a hard time getting across exactly what that is. that doesn't mean you don't feel it and understand it and think it in your head, it means you're having problems communicating it, or that your audience is having a hard time understanding it. passion isn't always going to be visible on a person's face.

and for some dancers, they feel passionate ABOUT the technique, not about the storytelling. it seems you tend to relate to the storytelling aspect of art, whereas some people find passion in the execution of a thing. like what rubbs said about some musicians find joy in being able to play the music perfectly, rather than the performance. you do not spend twelve hours a day in a dance studio perfecting your technique unless you have some sort of passion for it.

[Dalya]

Right, but if you're not coveying your passion, what makes it art? I know its a passe discussion, but i think the audience is more important to the art than the artist is. And technique-based art doesn't really fit into the world anymore. There is so much technology that can out-perform humans that the meaning and method are what's more important now, at least in what will be popularly defined as good art.

I don't want to get into a long debate about found-object art or whatever, but I'm just saying... the audience matters, not just the technique. even mathematicians have something bigger in mind when they're working out new theorems. They don't endlessly focus on their basic algebra skills, honing their mental addition speed. They have a larger goal/message they want to get to. what is the point in working out the details of something if the big picture is pointless? i.e. learning how to perfectly play a song that has no message.

I'm not saying definitively that's not art, I'm saying it's art I can't appreciate and don't really see any place for. I don't know about you, but I've never gotten worked up over a painting for its amazing technique. Whenever you see a painting like that, the most it can produce is "oh, wow. it looks almost like a photograph" and then you move on to more interesting works. *shrug*

I see what you guys are saying, but I still think we're talking about something different.

[katie]

Right, but if you're not coveying your passion, what makes it art? I know its a passe discussion, but i think the audience is more important to the art than the artist is. And technique-based art doesn't really fit into the world anymore. There is so much technology that can out-perform humans that the meaning and method are what's more important now, at least in what will be popularly defined as good art.

HEAD EXPLOSION.

so artists should just gear their art into what the audience wants? the result of THAT is "artists" like britney spears or that guy who peed on a statue of jesus. any art that is done for a reaction, in my opinion, is TOTALLY masturbatory and fake. the artist and the art are one and the same. a piece of art someone creates with passion and love is just like a little chunk of the artist. i feel you deposit pieces of yourself in each work of art you create, they're like benchmarks in your life. you look back on old works and you see where you were at that time, feeling that emotion. if an audience doesn't get that, it doesn't make the work any less valuable. there are plenty amazing artists who don't have two pennies to rub together or fame or recognition that are sustained by their work and keep putting it out there.

and SERIOUSLY? technique-based art has no place in the world today? are you kidding me? you'd listen to a band if they couldn't play their instruments? or look at pictures from a photographer with no eye for composition? i would concede that an artist doesn't need perfect technique or classic technique to have an audience find a connection with it, but an artist needs some level of expertise or familiarity in their medium.

They have a larger goal/message they want to get to. what is the point in working out the details of something if the big picture is pointless? i.e. learning how to perfectly play a song that has no message.

it's the journey, not the destination. i don't think every piece of art needs a big, lofty goal or moral statement. and who gets to decide what "big pictures" are pointless and valid? what i'm trying to say is that this is YOUR view on things and you have to understand sometimes other people's views are valid, but not necessarily for you. we can argue all day about "what makes it art?" but we'll never come to a general consensus. because we're all different, have been raised differently, have different life experience, and different dna. you are unique, yay! [/hippie]

I'm not saying definitively that's not art, I'm saying it's art I can't appreciate and don't really see any place for. I don't know about you, but I've never gotten worked up over a painting for its amazing technique. Whenever you see a painting like that, the most it can produce is "oh, wow. it looks almost like a photograph" and then you move on to more interesting works. *shrug*

so what makes a work of art interesting for you? what do you look for in a painting? if it's just something you look at and are struck by, then you are not a connoisseur of that particular medium. anyone can go to a dance show and see moves they like, recognize a storyline, and be moved by it. people who have an idea of the technique of the art appreciate the details, they have a greater understanding of WHY they liked something. they see a grand jete higher than any they've seen before. they see the most phenomenal parterning. they see lines and extension. anyone can have an immediate reaction, but the more you know technique, the more you understand the work. and if you've worked in the particular art before, you have an even GREATER understanding, because you know how difficult it can be to produce a result like the one you are seeing. there's a difference between liking something and appreciating it.

technique is not always the most important thing, but it IS a factor, and an important one. i agree that an artist's "passion" is important to me in choosing works of art i enjoy, but i also concede that passion is a subjective thing, and i won't be able to appreciate or even see everyone's passion for a thing.

ka"sunday ramblings"tie

[Dalya]

no, I'm saying once the artist puts their "art" out there, its for the audience to decide whether it is art or not. I'm thinking along the lines of the gates in central park by christo. Everyone starts talking about what it means and if it's art. Or Bob Dylan, people who argue it's bad art because he has a bad voice. Etc. Or On The Road being too raw, needs to be edited, etc. I'm not saying the artist should think about the audience, but I'm saying the audience has the power to care or not care. Just because someone has great technique doesn't mean the audience will give a shit. If they live in a world where everything is perfectly regulated by machines, they might want something more raw and human than that.


Respond to the rest in a second, gotta eat.

[Dalya]

I get what you are saying and I agree you need some sort of technique, but it doesn't need to be perfect. This applies to music and art way more than dance, obviously. (Although modern dance is a response to the same kind of thing... I HATE modern dance, but whatever). Photography is also different... and film. Because they rely on machines.

As for sculpture/painting and music... I enjoy technique when it's used for a purpose, not when it attempts to just stand alone. Take Courbet's paintings:

obviously this has incredible technique, but the painting is also OF something interesting. It's not a fucking still life boring renaissance pile of shit. The most recent art movements are about forgoing technique in favor of something more important. Expressionism, surrealism, cubism.

I agree with you above reaction-based art being horrible. That's why I can't stand Dada. Yet, even that has it's place, just not necessarily in the art world. (I would argue that Britney Spears aligns more with Dada than anything else... creates a sensation and is then easily forgettable.)

I also understand what you are saying about being able to appreciate the technique, etc... except I totally disagree. If you have to have a college degree to appreciate it, I don't think it's "good" art. I find that kind of shit so pretentious and it sort of makes me understand Dadaism. Because, when everyone is studying art in a classroom and having debates about the composition of whatever, how can you respond except with absurdity?

I don't think art has to be a technique-less, primal entity, but I think it needs to have something primal about it. i.e. something EVERYONE can appreciate. Like the look in the guy's eyes in the Courbet painting. You don't need a background in art history to find it interesting. It just is. Not everyone will be as extreme as Picasso or Kurt Cobain or e. e. cummings, but for people to look at something and see it as art, they have to connect to it. And those primal emotions and passion are the thing we all have in common.

I think it says a lot that many artists this century started out formally trained and slowly evolved (or devolved) into a much more primal mode. See: Sylvia Plath, Robert Lowell, Alan Ginsberg, e. e. cummings, Jasper Johns, etc. They have the technique but eventually opt not to use it, like it inhibits a more natural form of expression. That's how I see it anyway.

I don't know if this

[katie]

most of this i've already addressed in previous posts, so i just have a few things to say.

obviously this has incredible technique, but the painting is also OF something interesting. It's not a fucking still life boring renaissance pile of shit. The most recent art movements are about forgoing technique in favor of something more important. Expressionism, surrealism, cubism.

it's of something interesting TO YOU. renaissance still lifes are boring TO YOU. it's really narrow minded to believe your point of view is the only one and that everyone will be moved by that painting. my art history teacher in school would get so excited over the classics the way you get excited over the courbet painting.

I also understand what you are saying about being able to appreciate the technique, etc... except I totally disagree. If you have to have a college degree to appreciate it, I don't think it's "good" art. I find that kind of shit so pretentious and it sort of makes me understand Dadaism. Because, when everyone is studying art in a classroom and having debates about the composition of whatever, how can you respond except with absurdity?

nope, not saying you need a degree to appreciate something, not at all. part of what i want to do with my life is bring art to a group of people who aren't usually the "artsy fartsy" demographic. to the common person and all that junk. i'm saying when you DO have an education (and not necessarily a classroom one, per se), you have a deeper level of understanding and appreciation besides just an instinctual reaction when you view something. i'm not saying that makes the art any better or worse, i just mean when someone has studied something, they can analyze and understand it better (most of the time) than someone just having an immediate reaction and moving on. it's like when you go to an art museum and there's that one guy standing in front of a painting for half a hour, and you wonder what the hell he could be looking at for that long. he's looking at the details that most people skim over and just miss.

I don't think art has to be a technique-less, primal entity, but I think it needs to have something primal about it. i.e. something EVERYONE can appreciate. Like the look in the guy's eyes in the Courbet painting. You don't need a background in art history to find it interesting. It just is. Not everyone will be as extreme as Picasso or Kurt Cobain or e. e. cummings, but for people to look at something and see it as art, they have to connect to it. And those primal emotions and passion are the thing we all have in common.

to you. it's interesting to you. and there are plenty of people who would argue with you on any of those people truly being an artist. i happen to love kurt cobain, but i know plenty of people who would argue his status as an artist. this is not an argument that can ever end. we won't ever be able to pinpoint what makes art art. you can definitely pinpoint what makes it art to YOU, but don't assume what other people connect and relate to just because it moves you.

[Phyllis]

hoshit









how did i miss this huge 4 page thread?

[Dalya]

ok, fine. fine art may have been a bad example to explain myself because with fine art you can study it and stand in front of it and think about it. like a book. you can keep going back to it and finding new things. (and p.s. i'm not in love with courbet, it was just a good example of the bridge between technique and subject matter.)

ok so a guitarist who has studied/practiced for years and has great technique... that is great on an album. then you can listen over and over and appreciate what it sounds like and listen to the different layers, etc. but at a show, what does that guitarist have to offer if he's not enjoying performing and interacting with the crowd. why not all get together and just play the album? why is the band there if not to interact with the crowd?

a concert, which is what this started over, is 4-dimensional. it is a series of moments and a series of reactions. you can't pause and contemplate what's happening because it continues to happen. (and yes obviously some journalists will stand there and analyze it, but whatever. I'm talking about your normal concert-goer who is there just to be there.) the point of a concert is the Dionysian--being part of the group and being swept up in the shared experience. if it's not about the communal experience, then why go to a concert? (and to clarify, i am talking about rock concerts, not people sitting in chairs at the symphony).

also, i'm not saying renaissance paintings aren't art. but i (and many others) find them irrelevant now. that is why people who study art (art historians and art teachers) are the ones who consistently love these artists. because its interesting to study the same way any historical object can be interesting. i mean, honestly, i'm open to hearing an explanation of how a painting of a vase or whatever is important/relevant/interesting. i'd like to understand what people see in it besides technique etc (the things you learn to appreciate in school). could an uneducated person possibly look at those paintings and have a really strong reaction just based on the painting (not knowing where, when, who, why)?

i'm not saying technique is good or bad either, i'm just saying there has to be something in ADDITION to technique (and that it's not mandatory); technique alone is not art. i'm sorry... i know that's my opinion, but to me it's fact. if the simple fact that a human made a given object/sound is enough to make it art, then my toilet (as duchamp suggested) is also art. and what is inside it, for that matter. and the nokia ringtone. and hoover dam.

(i know this is a never-ending debate, but i'm finding it interesting and it's making me think. so i hope you're not over there blowing your brains out or wanting to punch me. i suspect that you might want to, though. sorry.)

[James]

ok so a guitarist who has studied/practiced for years and has great technique... that is great on an album. then you can listen over and over and appreciate what it sounds like and listen to the different layers, etc. but at a show, what does that guitarist have to offer if he's not enjoying performing and interacting with the crowd. why not all get together and just play the album? why is the band there if not to interact with the crowd?

a concert, which is what this started over, is 4-dimensional. it is a series of moments and a series of reactions. you can't pause and contemplate what's happening because it continues to happen. (and yes obviously some journalists will stand there and analyze it, but whatever. I'm talking about your normal concert-goer who is there just to be there.) the point of a concert is the Dionysian--being part of the group and being swept up in the shared experience. if it's not about the communal experience, then why go to a concert? (and to clarify, i am talking about rock concerts, not people sitting in chairs at the symphony).

also, i'm not saying renaissance paintings aren't art. but i (and many others) find them irrelevant now. that is why people who study art (art historians and art teachers) are the ones who consistently love these artists. because its interesting to study the same way any historical object can be interesting. i mean, honestly, i'm open to hearing an explanation of how a painting of a vase or whatever is important/relevant/interesting. i'd like to understand what people see in it besides technique etc (the things you learn to appreciate in school). could an uneducated person possibly look at those paintings and have a really strong reaction just based on the painting (not knowing where, when, who, why)?

i'm not saying technique is good or bad either, i'm just saying there has to be something in ADDITION to technique (and that it's not mandatory); technique alone is not art. i'm sorry... i know that's my opinion, but to me it's fact. if the simple fact that a human made a given object/sound is enough to make it art, then my toilet (as duchamp suggested) is also art. and what is inside it, for that matter. and the nokia ringtone. and hoover dam.

(i know this is a never-ending debate, but i'm finding it interesting and it's making me think. so i hope you're not over there blowing your brains out or wanting to punch me. i suspect that you might want to, though. sorry.)

I don't know if you can quantify being a normal concert-goer unless you define what that is. I can tell you that you, nor I, nor anyone else on here, is that. How often do you find yourself annoyed at people who just continuously chatter through the set? I once thought it happened particularly in Dallas but after seeing some shows in London it's much worse here. But I say these people are the normal concert goer to an extent. They are people that just go to hang out with friends and the music is supposed to be like the radio in the background. For everyone I know that is really into music, I know four that only care if it has a decent beat to drive to. These people go to concerts too, mostly to socialize. Yet they pay the same price, so who's right?

The point is, your facts are only facts to you, and maybe a couple of others if you're lucky. At some point you have to say "live and let live".


Oh, and I'm one of those perfectionist musicians, not an artist per se. I care more about sound than emotion, which is why I was good for the spree because they had plenty that were interested in the artistic aspect but had no clue about the physics and perfectionist technique that are necessary to be good. Neither is wrong or right, but both have to happen else it's just a waste of time.

[Tracy]

These people go to concerts too, mostly to socialize. Yet they pay the same price, so who's right?

Me. I don't want them ruining my concert experience. People have entirely too much disposable income. When we spend money on concert tickets, I would like to hear AND see it. I'm short. I don't want to stand up the whole show because then I have absolutely no chance of seeing.

You can go back to fussing at Dalya, now.

[James]

These people go to concerts too, mostly to socialize. Yet they pay the same price, so who's right?

Me. I don't want them ruining my concert experience. People have entirely too much disposable income. When we spend money on concert tickets, I would like to hear AND see it. I'm short. I don't want to stand up the whole show because then I have absolutely no chance of seeing.

You can go back to fussing at Dalya, now.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you from one point of view, but if you're paying the same price for tickets? I think the issue is that a lot of people's "concert experience" has changed completely from what it once was.

How can people have too much disposable income? Shouldn't it all be going in your gas tanks? That's another argument.

[Tracy]

Me. I don't want them ruining my concert experience. People have entirely too much disposable income. When we spend money on concert tickets, I would like to hear AND see it. I'm short. I don't want to stand up the whole show because then I have absolutely no chance of seeing.

You can go back to fussing at Dalya, now.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you from one point of view, but if you're paying the same price for tickets? I think the issue is that a lot of people's "concert experience" has changed completely from what it once was.

How can people have too much disposable income? Shouldn't it all be going in your gas tanks? That's another argument.

I know I'm from another generation. A concert was an event. Something to look forward to with great anticipation. (Is that redundant?) People went and had a good time but for the most part they were there for the show not socializing, other than passing a joint, except between sets or bands. What I mean by too much disposable income is that if they can afford what I consider mostly overpriced tickets (after you add service and handling charges) to just go and talk and carry on like they could in any one of their living rooms they have too much money. It becomes commonplace and I just don't think it should be that way, that's all.

My children have been taught "performance etiquette" and while that does not apply exactly the same to a show at the Granada, I hope that they are considerate of others around them and that my son who's a foot taller than me would not just move in front of someone my size without making sure they could still see.

And I don't think it should matter if you pay more, less, or the same for your ticket.