Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: The Artistic Temperament

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    91

    Default

    you think so too eh? I'm still not quite convinced, even after trying to interpret that quote.

    it's obviously true that some artists take fundamentalist stances in justifying their work. I guess I can see how taking a fundamentalist stance as a critic/theorist would necessitate that you do things a certain way as an artist. but I just don't think the converse (inverse? reverse?) is true: that making a certain kind of art binds you to thinking that art done in a different way is inherently bad.

    interviewers will often ask what blissblogger might call "weirdy-beardy" type artists what they think about dance music, and why they don't follow its 'rules', if its because dance music is too dumb and unoriginal for them or something. But (well apart from Squarepusher) those artists often won't go that route. they'll often say that they respect dance music, but think it's being done well by plenty of other people, and that what they do is just 'fill in the gaps' between that and other music they're interested in. they can be very reverent of what other people are doing, but want to do something that isn't quite covered by the other music they like.

    I think if you have that attitude you can easily make free improv without hating the beatles.
    Last edited by mvuent; 11-04-2019 at 07:11 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    I think your position and the one Reynolds put forward co-exist, it just varies from person to person.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    91

    Default

    I said that last page, yeah. more thinking about Corpsey's original post and the Butcher quote.
    Last edited by mvuent; 11-04-2019 at 07:34 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by version View Post
    I was going to make a point along those lines last night, that artists tell the world what is and isn't good by what they choose to create themselves and that plenty of art is at least partly a rebuttal to or rejection of something else.
    it's the idea of art /music /etc as "active criticism"

    the whole history of art at least in the 20th Century is motored by this kind of thing - you do one thing, it is fairly explicitly a repudiation of the other thing.

    a lot of extreme rock, noise, thrash / crust / death / black metal, industrial etc is at least partly reactively defined against pop or play-safe middlebrow rock or wimpy indie

    so the artists and the critics who line up to celebrate them are very much singing from the same hymn book

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    736

    Default

    if anything, artists are more fanatical in their stances, cos in most cases they do one thing in exclusion of all others

    whereas a lot of critics are eclectic, they switch their aesthetic criteria, praise one kind of music in one set of terms, then celebrate another in a different set

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •