I don't understand why anyone would waste discussion topic like "Hogan legdrop sends 14 to hospital" and then have it be about something this inane.

I think talking about music and/or art in depth with either great friends, random people, or total strangers is in no way wrong, elitist, or any other adjective. I love art, because I create it. I love to see my ideas come across on paper. I also love to see what others produce. I play music as well, and I listen to a great bit too. Since these things are basically my life, of course I'm going to talk about them as much as possible. People who see waxing on about such things as silly or wastefull, obviously have a passive relationship to it.

Angry_Dragon wrote:I don't understand why anyone would waste discussion topic like "Hogan legdrop sends 14 to hospital" and then have it be about something this inane.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I was going to ask if there is a new shellac album coming out soon (I have some inanimate albums that need to be smacked up/punched out) But that's stupid, so I decided to try out my "Lets make something pointless into an intellectual conversation" skills. No dice again.

steve wrote:And writing these thoughts down can be part of the process of appreciating the thing itself. When I listen to music, I seldom do it passively, letting it fall on me. I almost always engage in thought about it beyond "ugh, good!" or "ugh, bad!"

Am I silly?

Obviously not.

The root of my point is merely this; If one is to attempt to establish a set of rules to justify ones 'liking' or not of bands A, B, C and D then in reality one almost always immediately is made to look foolish.

We like The Stooges.

We Like Reich.

We hate The Mooger-Foogers (invented Stooges copyists).

We love The Boogers (another invented Stooges-influenced band).

Clearly this is a realistic set of random likes and dislikes, but how can we rationalise our liking of the one Stooges rip-off band as opposed to the other apart from accepting that we merely 'like one' and 'don't like the other'.

We can argue a case for the Stooges easily.

We can argue a case for Reich.

We can argue that The Mooger Foogers are hopeless and anachronistic or pathetic in their lack of original vision.

But then we must not allow ourselves to like The Boogers.



Oh crap!

But The Boogers are GREAT!!



I dunno. I'm deeply suspicious of it all; reminds me of people rubbishing 'a pile of bricks' in an art gallery because it is a pile of bricks, whereas taken as a purely abstract construction these things are often deeply effective...

I'm probably just talking nonsense though.

Champion Rabbit wrote:Clearly this is a realistic set of random likes and dislikes, but how can we rationalise our liking of the one Stooges rip-off band as opposed to the other apart from accepting that we merely 'like one' and 'don't like the other'....

By calling the distinction "random," you have misrepresented the conclusions everyone draws. If it were random, then we would be making capricious decisions that might change like the wind, yet most people have genuine tastes that allow them to distinguish what they like from what they don't. Not by rule or rote, but from listening and reacting to things. i don't believe this is random. I believe people respond to things in genuine ways (sometimes in ways unique to them), and can sometimes even explain and articulate the reaction to others. Trying to is not silly.

You respond differently to your mother (or even the image of your mother) than to another woman who looks a lot like her. Why? This is not random.

I dunno. I'm deeply suspicious of it all; reminds me of people rubbishing 'a pile of bricks' in an art gallery because it is a pile of bricks, whereas taken as a purely abstract construction these things are often deeply effective...

I understand your skepticism, but even you must agree that sometimes a pile of bricks paraded around as art really is just a pile of bricks, as some artists aren't up to the task of making it into more.

There was an earlier discussion about painters here that illustrated some of this line of thinking. My favorite painter is Mark Rothko. His work is often described "objectively" as "color fields." Hell, any fool with a sprayer can make a color field. I have never seen anyone else's work in this idiom that is as good as Rothko's, even though some paintings look similar to his. The difference is in the intent, the content and the inspiration to do it, all of which are discernable (if not actually visible) in some way (albeit a way I can't describe).

I believe music is the same as visual art in this respect: phony work shows its ass if you pay attention to it, while great work rewards your attention.

Have you ever noticed that, when you go to an art gallery, a lot people spend more time reading the titles of the work than looking at the artwork itself. This used make me quite angry but I've softened in opinion on this.

I guess a lot work, initially, is strange or difficult and people rely on words to provide context.

Painters like Rothko sought to move into realm beyond words. What you could call the 'sublime', but is really a kind of unnamable thing that words aren't sufficent to quantify or classify.

It's like talking about the Ramonenessness of the Ramones that makes the Ramones the Ramones. Their essence lies a kind of synaptic space in your brain beyond meaning. And, whilst you can with words skirt around the edges of what makes them good, it is very difficult to pin down the heart of the mystery and qualitatively say what makes them so great.

German painter Sigmar Polke used to joke that he was commanded by 'higher powers' to paint. Great art/music transcends itself as cultural artefact.

steve wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:Clearly this is a realistic set of random likes and dislikes, but how can we rationalise our liking of the one Stooges rip-off band as opposed to the other apart from accepting that we merely 'like one' and 'don't like the other'....

By calling the distinction "random," you have misrepresented the conclusions everyone draws. If it were random, then we would be making capricious decisions that might change like the wind, yet most people have genuine tastes that allow them to distinguish what they like from what they don't. Not by rule or rote, but from listening and reacting to things. i don't believe this is random. I believe people respond to things in genuine ways (sometimes in ways unique to them), and can sometimes even explain and articulate the reaction to others. Trying to is not silly.

You respond differently to your mother (or even the image of your mother) than to another woman who looks a lot like her. Why? This is not random.

I dunno. I'm deeply suspicious of it all; reminds me of people rubbishing 'a pile of bricks' in an art gallery because it is a pile of bricks, whereas taken as a purely abstract construction these things are often deeply effective...

I understand your skepticism, but even you must agree that sometimes a pile of bricks paraded around as art really is just a pile of bricks, as some artists aren't up to the task of making it into more.

There was an earlier discussion about painters here that illustrated some of this line of thinking. My favorite painter is Mark Rothko. His work is often described "objectively" as "color fields." Hell, any fool with a sprayer can make a color field. I have never seen anyone else's work in this idiom that is as good as Rothko's, even though some paintings look similar to his. The difference is in the intent, the content and the inspiration to do it, all of which are discernable (if not actually visible) in some way (albeit a way I can't describe).

I believe music is the same as visual art in this respect: phony work shows its ass if you pay attention to it, while great work rewards your attention.

I think you misunderstood my point; probably my fault.

I meant that my example was a random example that might represent a random person's likes and dislikes rather than the REASONS for the likes and dislikes being random.

Obviously (as you said) the reasons for likes and dislikes are far from random.

I probably didn't phrase my point well, sorry.

Cranius wrote:Have you ever noticed that, when you go to an art gallery, a lot people spend more time reading the titles of the work than looking at the artwork itself. This used make me quite angry but I've softened in opinion on this.

I guess a lot work, initially, is strange or difficult and people rely on words to provide context.

Painters like Rothko sought to move into realm beyond words. What you could call the 'sublime', but is really a kind of unnamable thing that words aren't sufficent to quantify or classify.

It's like talking about the Ramonenessness of the Ramones that makes the Ramones the Ramones. Their essence lies a kind of synaptic space in your brain beyond meaning. And, whilst you can with words skirt around the edges of what makes them good, it is very difficult to pin down the heart of the mystery and qualitatively say what makes them so great.

German painter Sigmar Polke used to joke that he was commanded by 'higher powers' to paint. Great art/music transcends itself as cultural artefact.

That was very eloquent, if you don't mind me saying so.

Cranius wrote:
Have you ever noticed that, when you go to an art gallery, a lot people spend more time reading the titles of the work than looking at the artwork itself. This used make me quite angry but I've softened in opinion on this.

I guess a lot work, initially, is strange or difficult and people rely on words to provide context.

Painters like Rothko sought to move into realm beyond words. What you could call the 'sublime', but is really a kind of unnamable thing that words aren't sufficent to quantify or classify.

The Rothko room in the Tate Modern is an excellent example of text adding to the context. Whilst you (or at least I) would feel the same visceral response standing in there without it, the knowledge that he was referencing the oppressive atmosphere of a superficially completely different work (a Michelangelo library, if memory serves) does add to the experience. And you do feel justified in feeling that you could start slamming your head against the wall in sheer trapped terror. On a bad day.
[/quote]

Cranius wrote:Have you ever noticed that, when you go to an art gallery, a lot people spend more time reading the titles of the work than looking at the artwork itself.

That's why at my last art show, I named everyone of my pieces something ridiculous and totally irrelevant to the work. Then they were forced to stare at the work wondering how a piece called "I've sat on a million faces and rocked them all" had anything to do with robots and breasts.