rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (02/28/85)
[] Of course there is progress in the arts. If you accept any conventional definition of progress. Arts are made by people using tools and the tools improve. What if Leonardo had available the paints we have today. That doesn't make our painters Leonardos, but given equal talent (almost never happens - or hasn't happened yet) more can be done by the artist with the better tools. What if a Leonardo or a Titian could work in the present audio-visual arts? Furthermore, I assert that the works of Leonardo (practically a modern) are in every way superior to those of "Ugh, the Nut" well known neanderthal artist of the middle period. Of course all of Ugh's works have disappeared while Leonardos have not, but that's progress for you. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry) (02/28/85)
<progress: eating the good stuff and leaving the bull> Given some (esthetic?) standard of what represents the high point in the arts, you can talk of progress towards that goal and decline from it as well. The problem seems to be that the definition of the standard keeps changing in the arts (as in other fields as well). There certainly seems to be devlopment along particular lines of thought (eg, the romantic development from von Weber - or Beethoven - through to Scriabin) where there is nothing more to be done, youve taken that line as far as it can go. In one sense you can call that progress. But what do you call the jump from the height of romanticism to the atonality of Schoenberg, etc. That is really taking a different path. Further, while I am willing to admit that there may be some sense of development from the earlier to the later, that has very little to do with which I prefer. So, it seems to me that one could say that there has not been progress but regress. I'll settle for exploration and development of different musical theories. I am not sure that you can make a case for progress in the underlying theories at all, though there is very much the flavor of constant revaluation of works of art in the light of different esthetic theories. Esthetically yours - Dewayne
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/01/85)
> But what do you call the jump from the height of > romanticism to the atonality of Schoenberg, etc. When I hear the adagio of Mahler's 10th symphony, or Schoenberg's "Book of the Hanging Gardens", I call it a step. Onto a different path, perhaps, but just a step. Or try listening to Schoenberg's "Five pieces for Orchestra" and then Debussy's "Jeux". I did once, by chance. I was struck more by the similarity than the difference. (In fact, being a Debussy-lover from a way back, maybe this was when I began to really appreciate Schoenberg.) You knew I couldn't pass that up, didn't you? Jeff Winslow
rbm@mhuxt.UUCP (marcus) (03/01/85)
> <progress: eating the good stuff and leaving the bull>
"Progress" is different from"change" in that "progress" implies change
toward a goal. "Progress" in medicine, most people would agree, would be a
change in medical knowledge or in the application of medical knowledge that
would lead toward cures. Progress in semiconductor technology can be
considered to be the evolution ("change") toward smaller dimensions,
greater memory storage capacity, etc. "Progress" can be measured.
Although there are changes in techniques of art that occur continuously
(atonality in music, minimalism in music as well as in the graphic arts, etc),
I believe that most people's definition of "art" includes some idea of
aesthetic sense as a main point, and excludes ideas of how this aesthetic
value can be best achieved. (No, I don't think that the Mona Lisa is
better art than a cave man's drawing because oils are "better" than
charcoal or vegatable dyes; rather because Da Vince was a better artist!).
As mentioned above, progress can always be measured. At any time during
progression toward a goal, it should be possible to point an arrow in the
direction toward which further change constitutes "progress". I defy
anyone to define such an arrow, now, for any of the arts!ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (03/04/85)
> The rhythmic drive and unconventional harmony of an Ornette Coleman DOES > represent progress over the unaccented 4/4 of a Louis Armstrong. This does > not demean the colossal genius of Armstrong, but Coleman has clearly > traveled further down the road of musical discovery. If that's not progress, > then I don't know what is. > Marcel No doubt that a limited degree of growth must occur within an artistic subvariety (such as jazz or rock) during its infancy. But such change disguises the essential sameness of artistic expression over the vast spread of history, especially to those whose viewpoints are limited to a very narrow period (less than a hundred years). Not to belittle modern music, but I'd pity the fool who'd attempt to demonstrate that any music written in the past hundred years was more sophisticated than, say, Thomas Tallis's 40 part motet `Spem in Alium', in either technical complexity or emotional subtlety. Going further afield, how about the extreme harmonic and rhythmic complexities of Classical Indian music? Sophistication that easily rivals that found in modern western music has apparently existed for millenia. So how can you speak of progress? One could just as easily argue that degeneration and decay have characterized modern arts -- indeed, such opinions are very commonly heard today. Unlike the sciences, which invented the concept of progress, the arts will not tolerate the unabated increase in formal complexity. Balance is usually maintained by trading a gain in complexity here with a loss in richness there (baroque polyphony vs. classical harmony). Extreme overdevelopment will frequently be countered by a total and magnificent destruction of all complexity (progressive rock's bombast => punk's raw energy). > Arts are made by people using tools and the tools improve. What if Leonardo > had available the paints we have today. ...more can be done by the artist > with the better tools. What if a Leonardo or a Titian could work in the > present audio-visual arts? I must take exception to such sentiments. Are modern tools, precise and efficient though they can be, more expressive than those of the past? Have you not heard our artists, who must frequently work with the inhuman, faceless, plastic artifacts of our machine driven era, lamenting the disappearance of the ancient crafts? Worse yet, such thinking confuses technique with art, which exists in the spiritual, and not the physical, realm. Art lives in the depths of the soul; it is inspired by and it touches human emotions. Only fools and engineers equate technical precision with beauty. Those who seek to perfect art by focusing on what they perceive as physical imperfections have been blinded by its color, shape or sound. Leonardo's art is a natural expression of the spirit and form of his world. The assertion that it might be improved by modern paints is horribly mistaken. > That doesn't make our painters Leonardos, but given equal talent (almost > never happens - or hasn't happened yet ... Furthermore, I assert that the > works of Leonardo ... are in every way superior to those of > {prehistoric cave art}. Perhaps the reason why masterpieces from the past remain unsurpassable is that artistic progress is a bogus concept. And I suggest that you look again, not only at those Mondrians and Matisses, but also at those prehistoric cave paintings. `A pair of monkeys reach for a moon in the water.' -michael
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (03/05/85)
> ... Arts are made by people > using tools and the tools improve. What if Leonardo had available > the paints we have today. That doesn't make our painters Leonardos, > but given equal talent (almost never happens - or hasn't happened yet) > more can be done by the artist with the better tools. What exactly does this mean? Do you mean that today's paints would have made DaVinci a 'better' artist, a more prolific artist, or what? Does this mean Shakespeare, Pope, Shelley, Wordsworth, Pound, Eliot, etc. would have been 'better' writers if they'd had word processors? > What if a Leonardo or a Titian could work in the present audio-visual arts? Then we'd have a Leonardo or a Titian working in the present audio-visual arts. So? > Furthermore, I assert that the works of Leonardo (practically a > modern) are in every way superior to those of "Ugh, the Nut" well > known neanderthal artist of the middle period... Why? Because 'Ugh' used charcoal and clays, and Leonardo had the benefit of advanced tools? Check out the accomplishments of the Neolithic artists at Lascaux (sp?) if you want to see what can be accomplished with 'primitive' tools. Art is a product of the human *brain* (or 'mind', if you will); if a great artist has only unshaped rocks to work with, s/he'll produce great art with unshaped rocks. W. F. Ingogly University of North Carolina
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/10/85)
> > No doubt that a limited degree of growth must occur within an artistic > subvariety (such as jazz or rock) during its infancy. But such change > disguises the essential sameness of artistic expression over the vast > spread of history, especially to those whose viewpoints are limited to a > very narrow period (less than a hundred years). > Look, you are entitled to your opinion, but that atrikes me as meaningless. When is an art form past "infancy"? Does that objection not always apply? I could make a similar argument shooting down the baroque music you seem to love as compared to tribal Indian classical music. They are both "art" They are both "progress" over their ancestors. If you take art in general as the expression of human emotion in some interesting way, then art is subjective by definition!!! There are some relatively technical standards by which academics and snobs judge art. Progress (or advances) occur when someone comes along and challenges these standards and proves that the standard is not essential to interesting work. In fact all those we hold as geniuses are so because they so successfully challenged the accepted standards of their time and looked further, toward *interesting* expression of their emotions. This argument does not purport to show that "people change". In fact, you are probably right in that the range of human emotions has changed very little since consciousness evolved. It is the expression of those emotions that has changed. WHether such changes are beneficial or not is a subjective matter. I am of the opinion that they do constitute progress, because they are the manifestation of restlessness, dissatisfaction with the way things were done before... All characteristics of the process of creation. Marcel Simon
jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) (03/14/85)
Art is meant to be a reflection of human awareness, a sort of
mirror in which we can see ourselves in ways not possible in
the normal light of day. Musical tastes come and go because people
need to see different things at different times. Some people
need to be reminded of order and gentle beauty; they'll listen
to Bach. Others need to be startled from a quagmire of humdrum
triviality; they'll listen to Husker-Du. Others need to see
progress in the arts; they'll listen to Phillip Glass or whatever.
But the thing heard is not something on a scale, and it only
relates to "art" if someone chooses to point out its "artfullness"
as they see it. The music is just there, someone's hearing it.
What the listener hears is what it is. The same frequencies
have been available to the human ear for X jillion hours, and
they've probably all been heard, but I haven't heard them
all yet, and either have you, and that's the only important
thing.
Jim McCrae / Sytek / Mtn. View CA / {decvax,hplabs}!sytek!jtm
- the opimions expressed are my mom's, but she doesn't know it yte.greg@oliven.UUCP (Greg Paley) (03/18/85)
> I must take exception to such sentiments. Are modern tools, precise and > efficient though they can be, more expressive than those of the past? > Have you not heard our artists, who must frequently work with the > inhuman, faceless, plastic artifacts of our machine driven era, lamenting > the disappearance of the ancient crafts? > Worse yet, such thinking confuses technique with art, which exists in > the spiritual, and not the physical, realm. Art lives in the depths of > the soul; it is inspired by and it touches human emotions. Only fools > and engineers equate technical precision with beauty. > Those who seek to perfect art by focusing on what they perceive as > physical imperfections have been blinded by its color, shape or sound. > Leonardo's art is a natural expression of the spirit and form of his > world. The assertion that it might be improved by modern paints is > horribly mistaken. I would have added a posting to this subject myself if Mike Ellis hadn't said what I would have and as well as I could have possibly done. Greg Paley
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/19/85)
Arts change, but progression is only the progression of a "fairy ring"
(mushrooms or some such fungi spread out from a starting centre point,
not re-entering to central area because it has been depleted of nourishment).
Each generation knows well what the previous generation fought to
invent, and so must invent something a little (or a lot) different.
If there is no memory (scores or recordings) to study, random variation
could return to an old form; in practice, the lessons of the very old
are still embodied in the practices of the not so old, and therefore
are shunned by seekers of the new. *For each generation* the music
is as subtle and complex and beautiful, but the last generation's
music seems simpler because we know how it was done. When we look
at a historical sequence from the earliest notated music until the
present, we see variants on rules continually forming new rules. The
music is more indeterminate, but not more complex within the rule
systems used at the time of composition. Within modern rule systems,
new music is more complex. But it's not progress *toward a goal of
perfection*, it's just continuing change in which all of the old forms
the pattern away from which the change must happen.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt