nightspore
Group: Members
Posts: 4770
Joined: Mar. 2008 |
|
Posted: June 22 2008, 23:47 |
|
Quote (Alan D @ June 22 2008, 15:33) | What I'm claiming, based not on any theory, but simply by observation of the history of art, is that it's impossible at any given time to predict what the next great artist may do, or what means he may use to do it. That's not even an arguable point - it's just an observation about what has been happening during the history of Western art. I see no reason why we would wish to limit what means Mike Oldfield uses to make his music, even if that includes the use of coded messages. After all, once the existence of the coded message has 'leaked out' (presumably not by chance), one's perception of that part of the music will change. In the hands of a great artist, that perception change could be made artistically significant. I'm not saying that it is in the case of Amarok, but that it's at least a matter for debate, and that it would be foolish (and not even necessary) to dismiss the possibility.
I think you think I'm arguing from some theory-based postmodern standpoint here, Daniel, but I'm not. I'm just looking back at the great breakthroughs in the history of art, and observing that in many, many cases, the pre-existing rulebook has been found to be wanting. If we don't learn from that - if we don't at least remain open to the possibility of new modes of expression, then art dies. In fact, in periods when academicism steps in and attempts to define what constitutes 'good art' (think, Royal Academy, 1840s, or the French Salon perhaps a little later), that is indeed when art tends to stagnate and, if not die, at least become enfeebled.
Quote | CS Lewis was a fine theorist, but I see no reason to privilege his views over FR Leavis or Wimsatt and Beardsley or even Derrida. | I'm not putting Lewis forward as some kind of authority. I just regard his idea as an interesting one that actually does seem to work pretty well when one is trying to make sense of this minefield.
Quote | most theorists have backtracked from the extreme relativist view of art, simply because if anything can be art, also anyone can be an art critic |
Lewis's idea is really only faintly related to what one would normally regard as relativism, and in any case I don't think I need to fix a label on it. I just think it's helpful as a tool of thought. But these other views - that anything can be art, and anyone can be a critic - they are not my views, and neither do they follow from anything I said, so I don't know what to say about them (except to agree with you about their absurdity). |
I agree with all this, which leads me to suggest that probably we're using the word 'art' in different ways. When I use the word I'm talking about some aspect that forms an organic part of the work: a theme that gets returned to, or is developed - the way those marvelous motifs are returned to and developed in TB2. The Richard Branson message in Amarok is not in that category: it serves a different purpose (to let the listener know that Mike is annoyed with RB). Others are quite free to use the word 'art' in a freeror different sense, of course. Indeed, the dadaists would probably see Amarok as a perfect work of art, precisely because according to their definition art can have non-organic aspects. You pays your money and you gets your theory. But I think most people incline towards an organic view of art. Sir M, for example, I think criticised "Four Winds" because its pieces didn't talk to one another enough. Kant believed the organic artistic perception process is 'wired into' us, and I think he's right.
|