When taking note of the video posted on the DKJ phlog, I had originally claimed (silly..ly) that pianistic perfection would have to be that of the Well Tempered Clavier, basing my argument on the concept that the piano would not exist as we know it today without the it.
However, I have since the moment I posted the Well Tempered Clavier comment been thinking about what exactly would fulfill the actually graspable concept of "Pianistic Perfection", and thus far this is what I've got:
:: From the musical standpoint of a flute player, whom has dabbled here and there amongst various categories and mediums of music, I think that the strongest argument for someone who claim's to have perfection on a musical front only has to truly be able to do only one thing, which inevitably has two results. Ironically, this one thing is that you must be able to respond to any given aesthetic desire possible when it is necessary to display that aesthetic to whatever audience it may be that you are attempting to come in contact with.
:: The fascinating thing about this single requirement being that the reason we as musicians typically lean towards a genre at all is that the aesthetics that become inherent with sed genre are the ones that appeal to us most in one way or another. Thus the second result becomes obvious, in that perfection not only display's that you readily understand and can translate any of the aesthetics, but also that you have discovered and display the one that aesthetically represents thyself whenever necessary.
What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
In Response to DKJ's Definition of Art
Amidst the conversation about Professor Johnson's definition of art, found here: http://critojazz.blogspot.com/2011/03/ap-my-latest-attempt-to-define-art.html, I had the following input to be added:
I would certainly agree that Art is all a matter of levels and degrees. It is a complicated path that you have to follow to end with the conclusion of defining art though; for the two most distracting factors are certainly always muddling with our judgment of the final result. These two factors of course being: 1. if it is indeed art and 2. whether your perception of it is based on your recognition in its quality
Definitively, I would say that all of the requirements are undeniably fulfilled in the personal original experience of witnessing 4'33, (being careful to note the original reveal of the surprise is at least a small piece of the overall aesthetic derived from the artistic display to any audience member). Thus, though many people were disappointed by the piece's result, it was at least to some degree fulfilling all of the original requirements and remains as art to me.
As for the conversation of degree's in respect to the definition; I certainly feel that it is important to consider any and all forms of already created, and yet to be created art on scales of continuum's, using the afore mentioned necessities in defining art against the scale of time. For in my opinion, these necessities are in continuous influx based on their time of creation in comparison to what has been created. The primary reason for the continuum factor being that a piece of work may seem significantly less like art to us in this moment than it did to anyone else in their moment; especially to the degree that a requirement may have failed over time (thus resulting in a piece no longer fulfilling at least one of the requirements of art). With this being said, the definition would allow for our hermit in a closet creating art to be a correct statement, in that he himself did experience the art he made in that moment to which we can no longer partake.
I would certainly agree that Art is all a matter of levels and degrees. It is a complicated path that you have to follow to end with the conclusion of defining art though; for the two most distracting factors are certainly always muddling with our judgment of the final result. These two factors of course being: 1. if it is indeed art and 2. whether your perception of it is based on your recognition in its quality
Definitively, I would say that all of the requirements are undeniably fulfilled in the personal original experience of witnessing 4'33, (being careful to note the original reveal of the surprise is at least a small piece of the overall aesthetic derived from the artistic display to any audience member). Thus, though many people were disappointed by the piece's result, it was at least to some degree fulfilling all of the original requirements and remains as art to me.
As for the conversation of degree's in respect to the definition; I certainly feel that it is important to consider any and all forms of already created, and yet to be created art on scales of continuum's, using the afore mentioned necessities in defining art against the scale of time. For in my opinion, these necessities are in continuous influx based on their time of creation in comparison to what has been created. The primary reason for the continuum factor being that a piece of work may seem significantly less like art to us in this moment than it did to anyone else in their moment; especially to the degree that a requirement may have failed over time (thus resulting in a piece no longer fulfilling at least one of the requirements of art). With this being said, the definition would allow for our hermit in a closet creating art to be a correct statement, in that he himself did experience the art he made in that moment to which we can no longer partake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
