Week one
posts
Art of discomfort –The Music of Scott Walker .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYWGQMqC74 This is a link to the
documentary 30 Century Man.
I knew of Scott Walker as a pop music heartthrob in the Carnaby scene inEngland
The music is not always comfortable to listen to with its silences and dissonances. A comment was made that in a particular guitar passage you couldn’t tell if the instrument was in tune or out of tune. It seemed to be both at the same time. One piece evokes Scott’s memory of seeing the hanging bodies of Mussolini and his cohorts in newsreels when he was too young to know what he was seeing. The music is emotional. He demands of his musicians that they share in the emotion. They all must live the feeling. This is not comfortable stuff. He is compared to Francis Bacon. I get it. He has been an influence to people like David Bowie, Radiohead, and many others. I don’t know why he wants to write music like that but, with my growing understanding of my own artistic impulses, I appreciate that he does it.
I knew of Scott Walker as a pop music heartthrob in the Carnaby scene in
The music is not always comfortable to listen to with its silences and dissonances. A comment was made that in a particular guitar passage you couldn’t tell if the instrument was in tune or out of tune. It seemed to be both at the same time. One piece evokes Scott’s memory of seeing the hanging bodies of Mussolini and his cohorts in newsreels when he was too young to know what he was seeing. The music is emotional. He demands of his musicians that they share in the emotion. They all must live the feeling. This is not comfortable stuff. He is compared to Francis Bacon. I get it. He has been an influence to people like David Bowie, Radiohead, and many others. I don’t know why he wants to write music like that but, with my growing understanding of my own artistic impulses, I appreciate that he does it.
What is art?
http://www.aristos.org/aris-04/lansing1.htm
Re Kenneth Lansing’s discussion of the need for a definition of art, I concur that if we want to talk about art we need to know what it is. His definition is open-ended enough to include just about all that we might want to talk about; my only quibble is that he says that the work of art, be it beautiful or ugly, must be “inoffensive to perception.” Does this mean that it should not physically hurt to look at it? This is imprecise use of language. But I do agree that art must be defined if we are to be able to discuss it. There are many definitions of what art is and isn’t and it doesn’t matter which one we use as long as it is clear in the discussion. I have no problem with multiple definitions of art. I see art in abandoned buildings, though the creator of the buildings had no intention that they be anything of the sort. I see art in black walnut hull pieces left by squirrels on my deck railing. I see art in the Mona Lisa. I do not claim that all three are art by the same definition. By the end of the semester I hope have a clearer personal definition of art.
http://www.aristos.org/aris-04/lansing1.htm
Re Kenneth Lansing’s discussion of the need for a definition of art, I concur that if we want to talk about art we need to know what it is. His definition is open-ended enough to include just about all that we might want to talk about; my only quibble is that he says that the work of art, be it beautiful or ugly, must be “inoffensive to perception.” Does this mean that it should not physically hurt to look at it? This is imprecise use of language. But I do agree that art must be defined if we are to be able to discuss it. There are many definitions of what art is and isn’t and it doesn’t matter which one we use as long as it is clear in the discussion. I have no problem with multiple definitions of art. I see art in abandoned buildings, though the creator of the buildings had no intention that they be anything of the sort. I see art in black walnut hull pieces left by squirrels on my deck railing. I see art in the Mona Lisa. I do not claim that all three are art by the same definition. By the end of the semester I hope have a clearer personal definition of art.
All the
news fits in the 24 hour news age
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/cast-as-romneys-victim-gaffney-sc-says-huh.html?ref=politics
What is newsworthy? Merriam Webster dictionary definition is “interesting enough to the general public to warrant reporting.” What is news? According to the same source, it is a report of recent events, previously unknown information, something having a specified effect (as in, “The rain is good news for gardeners.”), material reported in a news venue, or matter that is newsworthy. Are these endless discussions of the GOP debates and primaries really news? Yes, as they are recent events. Are they really newsworthy? To some extent, but not to the extent that people belabor them. Because of 24 hour news, pundits proliferate and use any excuse to run their mouths. For a news show, having talking heads is less expensive than actually sending people out to report the news. If I had any hope that we could learn about candidates from these debates, that would be one thing. But they seem to be nothing but lies, misrepresentations of the truth, personal attacks, and promises with no ideas to back them up, not to mention fear mongering. Speaking of which, isIran ’s potential nuclear capability news? (See
Daily Show link) I would love to hear news that matters, that may actually have
an effect on me or at least that has an effect on someone and is not just an
excuse for pundits and candidates to spout off. Words are cheap.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/cast-as-romneys-victim-gaffney-sc-says-huh.html?ref=politics
What is newsworthy? Merriam Webster dictionary definition is “interesting enough to the general public to warrant reporting.” What is news? According to the same source, it is a report of recent events, previously unknown information, something having a specified effect (as in, “The rain is good news for gardeners.”), material reported in a news venue, or matter that is newsworthy. Are these endless discussions of the GOP debates and primaries really news? Yes, as they are recent events. Are they really newsworthy? To some extent, but not to the extent that people belabor them. Because of 24 hour news, pundits proliferate and use any excuse to run their mouths. For a news show, having talking heads is less expensive than actually sending people out to report the news. If I had any hope that we could learn about candidates from these debates, that would be one thing. But they seem to be nothing but lies, misrepresentations of the truth, personal attacks, and promises with no ideas to back them up, not to mention fear mongering. Speaking of which, is
No comments:
Post a Comment