On Mon, 14 May 2001, leafcutter wrote:
quoted 9 lines as valid 'art' forms it is only a relatively recent phenomenon. Most rock> as valid 'art' forms it is only a relatively recent phenomenon. Most rock
> and pop artists of the 60's and early 70's would have been offended if their
> work was spoken of as art. It is mainly due to the efforts of the
> prog-rockers that some people began applying artistic ideas to popular
> music. The 70's saw an explosion in conceptual art, which crudely speaking
> was supposed to be totally ideas based i.e.. you could not buy and sell
> works like paintings or sculptures. In the 70's you also see an emergence of
> 'sound artists' and relatively high profile collaborations between artists
> and musicians which helped to unify sound and art in the consosness. It is
Yeah, I guess overall I am in agreement, though I'd quibble with the
details (the rock auteur was already present in the 60s, c.f. Bob Dylan;
what we know today as prog rock was not so much about the application of
general artistic ideas as much as specifically (and worn out) Classical
ones- though you could locate an excellent example of what you're
referencing in the Velvet Underground; what we now know as sound
art/conceptual art had its origins in the Fluxus movement- also the
sixties). Basically, popular culture has never really gotten past that
most infamous of decades, but on the other hand its legacy has been
kicking around so long that most people have taken it as granted and
forgotten that it was ever different. (You could also say the same thing
about high art as well).
quoted 4 lines also worth noting that many of these developments in artistic thinking and> also worth noting that many of these developments in artistic thinking and
> endeavour are not recognised or 'understood' until many years after the
> event (art historian's like to think about things for at least 10 years so
> they can construct 'art history').
Right, that's the "history" bit. The future legitimizes the present and
thus transforms it into the past, but we don't know what that is until we
get there.
quoted 2 lines Personally I think it's a waste of time to categorise societies output> Personally I think it's a waste of time to categorise societies output
> into art and non art objects - as for
I agree that this is not an essential activity (unless you're a stamp
collector, thank you Ernest Rutherford), but I think it's important to be
able to recognize the distinction lest we forget what the point of it all
is. Equally important is the ability to distinguish good art from the bad
(or rather, the successful from the unsuccessful- I keep forgetting there
is no good and bad anymore).
-rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org