ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/26/85)
>> 2) Is there 'progress' in the arts? >>Of course not. Arts are made by people, and people never change. >Are you for real? I haven't heard that type of simple-minded >generalized BS since I quit watching those late 60's teeny-bobber TV... >... You have obviously not had any *good* formal music training. It's difficult to reply politely to such remarks. Razor blades, after all, would only be too kind. (Oops, I flamed! Sorry..) I cannot speak for the original author's intent, but his remarks ring true to these ears. Consider the meaning of `progress'. `Scientific progress', for instance, refers to the perfection of our knowledge of the physical world. But do the arts grow more perfect? Is the music of Olivier Messaien, John Lee Hooker, or Iggy Pop more emotionally moving than that of Josquin Dez Prez or Monteverdi? Are the paintings of Matisse or Piet Mondrian more effective than those of Vermeer? Of course not! The arts, of course, must change in response to the techniques and fashions of the time, as well as to the natural creative drives of artists who feel constrained by the past. And sometimes, when we are lucky, the genius of the past is recreated in a new image. -michael
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/28/85)
> >> 2) Is there 'progress' in the arts? > >>Of course not. Arts are made by people, and people never change. > > >Are you for real? > > Is the music of Olivier Messaien, John Lee Hooker, or Iggy Pop more > emotionally moving than that of Josquin Dez Prez or Monteverdi? Are the > paintings of Matisse or Piet Mondrian more effective than those of > Vermeer? > However, the arts to evolve, progress if you will, in that past conventions are discarded, modified or replaced by new conventions. 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. > The arts, of course, must change in response to the techniques and > fashions of the time, as well as to the natural creative drives of > artists who feel constrained by the past. And sometimes, when we are > lucky, the genius of the past is recreated in a new image. > Genius is never recreated. It is built upon by new genius. > -michael Marcel
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/01/85)
Shall we all take a vote on what "progress" means? Shall we move that discussion to some net.nlang? Shall we ask too many stupid questions, like this one? I agree with michael ellis in this sense: People never change (well, hardly ever). There is nothing intrinsically more moving (which, after all, is what music is all about) in the final moments of "Lulu" than there is in a Gesualdo madrigal, for example. Or vice versa. All that is required is a sympathetic ear in each case. On the other hand, there is progress in the sense that, as time goes on, people's musical imagination expands. On the average, people accept wilder and wilder sounds as part of that set called "music". (Well, some people do, anyway.) One might say that the heart never changes, but the brain learns new techniques, so there is some appearance of progress. Jeff Winslow