i agree with your argument against my statement ... let me restate myself
differently so i don't sound so general ...
given: an artistic endeavour -- be it theatre, music or visual art -- that
is sufficiently outside the boundaries of current mainstream tastes as to
elicit negative responses from those not pre-disposed to give such
artworks the benefit of the doubt.
given: an artist, usually bestowed with some merit from previous examples
of their work that either fall within the boundaries of common taste or
have influenced other works that fall into these boundaries.
given: critics of the sort listed above, putting forth such negative
responses.
the negative review alone certainly doesn't justify the artwork. god no.
the missing ingredient from my previous statement is the second given.
the artist's reputation is key in deducing that what others may be
interpreting as trash, noise, tunelessness, smut, etc., is actually a work
of art that is exceeding the limits of what is NOW culturally acceptible,
but is in fact expanding frontiers that can later be filled in by artists
of a less ambitious bent. so really it's a combination of factors ...
the negative reviews, usually containing some sort of undertone of "I
don't get it", serve as more of a symptom or clue pointing to a cultural
upheaval of some magnitude.
this has been proven many times throughout history: the impressionists,
igor stravinsky, ornette coleman, the beatles, pablo picasso, jackson
pollock, aphex twin, autechre, jeff koons, etc.
anyway i hope this clears up my point a little... negative reviews alone
don't justify an artist ... they are a symptom that goes along with TRUE
artistic achievement
--
String Theory : Digital Music for Humans
http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Adam Piontek wrote:
quoted 48 lines On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:
> >the fact that people object to
> >seomthing so vehemently means there must be something to it.
>
> This is just the sort of thing people say when they can't really
> justify something. That statement is so incorrect
>
> Certainly, it's good to not go along with the crowd. If everyone
> suddenly started eating their own feces and saying it was good, and
> doctors approved and said I wasn't going to die from eating my own
> feces, I *might* give it a shot.
>
> So suddenly kid-606 is the new thing, a few reviews said it was good,
> and I tried it out. It was like tasting my own shit. Horrible
> experience and a big waste of time.
>
> Just because people object to something vehemently does *NOT* mean
> there *MUST* be something to it. It might mean that there might be
> something to it, and it might be worth trying. Open-mindedness is a
> Good Thing. But let's not lapse into new-world-order catch phrases
> from the flower-child generation.
>
> >reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is
> >entirely subjective and you can't base your own opinions on either
> >critical praise or slag.
>
> Exactly. I, for one, like recent Warp releases. But rather than
> virtually saying that "because you don't like it must mean it's
> good," you might point out that many of the artists she cited (Plone,
> Autechre, Squarepusher, Boards Of Canada) are radically different
> from each other. BOC is hardly "bloop bloop bleep."
>
> Anyway, her kind of closed-minded review doesn't deserve a response.
> -Adam
>
> --
> Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/]
> ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net]
> ... Understanding my arguments and agreeing with them are not,
> I suspect, the same thing. -- Carl Sagan
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org