Good point. But I also have the right to view that art, and have an opinion
that it means nothing. That it is senseless.
This all comes down to what you believe art IS. And each person has their
own definition. You have broadened your definition so that Art can be
anything. So, for you, this synth is vlaid because there is a person who
sat down and sais "I want to make some music." I have a more particular
view, I think. Art has to be something that only the person that creates it
could have created...all art should be a first...
Just difference of ideals.
At 12:43 PM 8/20/97 -0700, Random Junk wrote:
quoted 24 lines Tim Gill writes:>Tim Gill writes:
>> Ok, my whole point is that it took no musical talent really to create
>> something sounded pretty good. Brian Eno's tape loops took musical talent
>> to create something different and interesting.
>
>see, you're still caught up in archaic notions of what it means to be
>a composer, or a musician. if some simple farting around on rebirth
>sounded pretty good (and you say it did, so i have no reason to doubt
>you), then that was musical talent in action! whether or not that
>talent consisted of hitting "randomize" on rebirth a few times or
>making tape loops is irrelevant. as zappa said (and as i'm so fond of
>quoting): art is what you put the frame around. if i stick an AM
>radio next to my computer, and announce that the sounds picked up
>while i play quake are my next album, then that is a sound composition
>(aka "music") for the duration that i declare it to be happening. as
>soon as i say "the performance is over" that is that, even if the
>radio keeps making noise. it is now no longer art, it is merely sound
>that happens to be falling out of a radio speaker.
>
>--
>Jon Drukman jsd@gamespot.com SpotMedia Communications
> ...I was an infinitely hot and dense dot...
>
>