Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Pages: (9) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Tracklisting Released at mikeoldfield.de< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
raven4x4x Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1535
Joined: Jan. 2002
Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 20:28

Quote (tamas @ Sep. 04 2005, 00:19)
Although I admit, that it is difficult to measure a good piece of art, there should be some objective parameters,like  complexity, depth, originality, musical virtuosity, variatons of themes, the replay value of the music.


I don't think you've quite understood what I meant to say, either that or I didn't say it the way I wanted to. I don't mean to say that it is impossable to judge art in those ways, or that those parameters mean nothing. What I am saying is that those parameters do not necessarily make a piece of art better, because 'better' is up to the individual listener.

Here's a personal example. Take two albums: Ommadawn, and Cat Stevens' Tea for the Tillerman. Using tamas' parameters, I can say that Ommadawn is a far more complex album than Tea for the Tillerman, that there is obviously more depth, variation, virtuosity and probably more originality in Mike's work. But does that mean that I prefer Ommadawn to Tea for the Tillerman. Not at all. I find Tea for the Tillerman to me more emotive, more fun and more memorable than Ommadawn, regardless of those factors I mentioned above.

So I'm not saying there aren't ways of objectively judging art. I'm saying they don't really mean anything when compared to personal preference, emotional response and the like.


--------------
Thank-you for helping us help you help us all.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Alan D Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004
Posted: Sep. 12 2005, 14:55

Quote (raven4x4x @ Sep. 04 2005, 01:28)
So I'm not saying there aren't ways of objectively judging art. I'm saying they don't really mean anything when compared to personal preference, emotional response and the like.

I mostly agree with Alex, though once, years ago, I'd have had more faith in the idea of objective values in the arts.

The trouble is that the 'objective' criteria in any kind of art criticism are established by a preconceived notion of what has been found good so far. And as long as merely competent but derivative work is concerned, they're probably helpful. But the moment a great artist does something truly new, the old values are useless. The Impressionists were seriously thought to be incompetent when they exhibited in the 1870s, because the so-called 'objective criteria' were applied to their work. Now - well, everyone loves them. Bob Dylan 'obviously' couldn't sing, according to those who thought the objective criteria for good singing meant singing like Caruso. But Dylan was perfectly serious when he said he could sing as well as Caruso: because he'd found a new way of singing that defined a whole new set of criteria about what constituted good singing.

So-called objective criticism is really just a means by which we second-rate and third-rate critics try to keep up with the work of first-rate artists, and it often blinds us to real greatness. The truth is that there are no objective criteria to explain why (say) Van Gogh's Sunflowers are great art. We know they're great art primarily because countless people who've approached them openly and receptively have been deeply moved by them.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: Sep. 13 2005, 11:59

Spot on, Alan.
Back to top
Profile PM 
162 replies since Aug. 10 2005, 17:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (9) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] >






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net