linuxaudio.org

Ken Restivo wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 12:04:20PM +0400, Louigi Verona wrote:

>> I will comment on this Romantic idea how I relate to it.

>>

>>

>>

>>> Some other parts of what I see in the Romantic idea:

>>>

>>> * The artist has no control over their art or themselves, and has no

>>> obligation to control their art or themselves.

>>>

>>

>> Depending on what it means. An artist should have the responsibility of what

>> he is doing. This is one of the reasons why he puts his name on the work.

>>

>>

>> * The artist does art for his or her own needs, not those of others.

>> This is a tough statement. If an artist does work for the glory of God, then

>> he is doing it for his own needs and needs of others at the same time. Taken

>> literally, I do not agree that an artist does art for his own needs - this

>> is very inaccurate to me.

>>

>>

>>

>>> * The artist is supposed to shock and offend others, and if others react

>>> with shock and offense, the others are wrong and the artist is right.

>>>

>> This is ridiculous.

>>

>>

>>

>>> * Others owe the artist support simply because he's an artist. If others

>>> don't support the artist the way the artist wants to be supported, the

>>> others are wrong/evil/the enemy/inferior.

>>>

>> Even more ridiculous, although today copyright law assumes just that.

>>

>>

>>

>>> * The artist is exempt from the laws that apply to others simply because

>>> they're artists.

>>>

>> Same as above. Basically you are repeating the same idea, these are just

>> conclusions - that an artist stands above the public. I oppose that idea

>> greatly.

>>

>>

>>

>>> Some artists - particularly the French Romantic poets such as Rimbaud -

>>> would be quite reasonably considered as severely traumatized and insane

>>> today. Also, chronic alcoholics and drug abusers.

>>>

>>>

>> Art at the expense of ones mental health is not something I would support.

>> If a person cannot do art and keep himself in balance, perhaps he is not up

>> for art.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>> I think way too many artists are simply wrapped up in their own egos. The

>>> modern popular music industry is partly to blame for that, as is the modern

>>> media industry (that meaningless frothing of spray blown about by the wind

>>> over the waves!) that has turned players of games into exorbitantly overpaid

>>> "stars". Much of it seems to be the behavior of a spoiled child demanding

>>> attention: "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT WHAT I DID! AREN'T I GREAT?"

>>>

>>>

>> This happens thanks to the music industry who make it all about personality.

>> I argue that in times of Bach personality of a composer meant many levels

>> less.

>>

>>

>> This is why I was sad for someone to label my views "art for art's sake". My

>> views have nothing in common with this Romantic idea, if you are sure we did

>> not make this up here.

>>

>

> Craft is craft. It seems, from accounts I've read of the era, Bach was regarded back then in much the same way that people in the software world today might regard David Knuth. Not a rock star, by any means, but a brilliant master of his craft, somone who anyone who followed the field would be awed to meet.

I understand that Bach was considered the great organist of his time,

but one of a number of great composers of the time.
Or something like that.
--

David

gnome@hawaii.rr.com

authenticity, honesty, community

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user