Joined: April 2003
||Posted: Oct. 30 2005, 11:18
|My original point, though, was not really about the difficulty of making art, but the difficulty of eliciting the appropriate response. MO pours his heart and soul into making Mt St Michel, let's say: but there are so many things that can intervene between any putative listener and the music that the outcome - in terms of artistic communication between MO and his listener - is always unpredictable.|
That unpredictability is what makes art interesting, though, isn't it? To me, art has a lot to do with interpretation, context, multiplicity. If an artist is making his art with the intent of causing one specific response, then he's kind of spending effort in vain, isn't he? To my knowledge and my experience, you don't make art to provoke a response; you do make art to provoke responses. It's a subtle difference, but it's a difference nonetheless. If you fine-tune your music to one audience, it's not gonna work to the other one, anyway. If you fine-tune your music to your intentions, then it's more likely that the public will catch that. And as a critic, and also as a wannabe-musician, my opinion is that an artist should work on what he thinks is best, not accuse the critics of this and that.
As a final note, I generally don't like it when a piece of music, for example, is produced to induce awe with its difficulty - like listening to that one-hundred-notes-per-second guitar solo and thinking "man, it must be difficult to play like that". It's different from listening to Amarok and thinking, "man, he must have worked really hard to finish that", or also, listening to that synth-like guitar solo in Talking Heads' "Born Under Punches" and thinking, "man, that's awesome!" Yeah, it's just a point of view.
Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds.
Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com