Forums - Theory / composition / technique
Subject: Vocal samples?
Pages: 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Original Message Date: 14-Jun-00 @ 11:41 PM - Vocal samples?
~n
Message 51/84 19-Jul-00 @ 09:58 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
and yeah, there is a big difference between Durer (one of my favorites, btw) and dead sheep, but by what standards do we label either one "art" and the other "not art"? at the risk of sounding presumptuous, i posit that the point of art is to show you something (and i don't mean "show" in the strictly visual sense). it might be something that you don't see every day, like dead sheep, or something that you see pretty often, like a soup can, or just a well illustrated image. but, having said that, art is very much in the eye of the beholder as much as it is a product of the artist. that's the beauty of it. so, having said THAT, how can anything possibly be regarded as "not art" when there are several billion people on this planet who've all got their own interpretations.
i guess the bottom line is that the word "art" is a pretty loaded term. it's also pretty abstract. an "artist" can be anything: a painter or printmaker like Durer, or a guy who floats dead sheep in vats of fromaldehyde. maybe we should just banish the word "artist" and use more specific terms like "painter," "printmaker," "sheep floater," "sound recontextualizer," or whatever the hell it is that we all do.
peace.
Message 52/84 19-Jul-00 @ 11:43 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
"sheep floating."
;)
Message 53/84 19-Jul-00 @ 12:31 PM - RE: Vocal samples?
Peaceout,
Peter
Message 54/84 20-Jul-00 @ 12:43 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
1:The superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation
2:The creation of beautiful or significant things
3:The products of human creativity; works of art collectively
I tend to believe that number 2 is the main purpose of art.In my culture in the past great store was set by making everyday objects beautiful that was Arts main function because of this idea of Art beautiful illuminated manuscripts were created and fabulously ornate carvings were inscribed in stone along with beautiful metalwork and jewelry being created.Music and the musicians who played it were respected and honoured for their skills and talent.I'm sure the same could be said of many cultures but the difference today is that all it seems to take for anything to be called art is that it draws a reaction however momentary.
Most of this pseudo art requires little or no skill to produce and by it being called art diminishes respect for skilful and truly original artists.As Flipgibbs said there is no difference between plagiarism and recontextualisation then why should these recontextualists be lauded for their blatant theft of others ideas I think people shouldn't be scared to shout that the emperor has no clothes on when he's walking about waving his knob in your face.We may all hold subjective opinions as to what art is good or bad but there is also a common ground we can judge art by called objectivity I think it would be nice if more people would make use of it.Oh and there's a wee perfect fifth on the keyboard(it is a music theory forum isn't it?;)
Message 55/84 20-Jul-00 @ 02:13 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
Message 56/84 20-Jul-00 @ 02:44 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
Peaceout,
Peter
Message 57/84 20-Jul-00 @ 09:55 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
as for plagiarism and recontextualization, maybe i didn't say what i wanted to say originally. what i meant is that plagiarism is a subset of recontextualization. what jj described this guy Koonts doing (framing Nike ads) seems like classic recontextualization to me. like jj said, doing something like that speaks to a lot of issues beyond simply presenting a Nike ad "as art." i'm guessing most people wouldn't call this plagiarism. on the other hand, suppose i were to rip off one of your tunes completely. like, just download your mp3 and put my name on it. certainly that's recontextualization too. but most people would probably agree that it was plagiarism, since the act of recontextualization, in this case, doesn't seem to serve any "artistic" purpose. since, presumably, you're not a well known musician, and i'm certainly not a well known musician, it doesn't really have multiple layers of interpretation to it (although, if hard pressed, i'm sure someone could come up with an "artistic" rationale for it). on the other hand, if i ripped off someone like Moby or something, that may start to be more meaningful in some people's eyes.
as for pseudo art often requiring no skill, i agree one hundred percent. but what i've learned about art, and ANYTHING really, is that "skill" isn't the be all end all of things. when i first went to art school, i was literally shocked by all the "pseudo art" that was going on. my art education up until then was like your definition 2, and i prided myself on being skilled in that department, so it was a surprise to see all this non-skilled stuff floating around. but after time i realized (and maybe it's just me) that it's not so much the "skill" required to create a work of art that sets it apart from other work, but the WILL (or IDEA), for lack of a better word, behind it. for example, i'm sure dumping a couple of sheep in a vat doesn't require too much "skill," (maybe some technical challenges, but whatever), so someone's reaction might be "this took no skill to do, it's bullshit." technically they may be right, but that's not the point. the point is that you've been presented by sheep in a vat, and that evokes some sort of reaction. if art were only allowed to be presented if it passed some "skill threshold," you may never have seen those sheep floating around in there. and then you would have missed out on an "art experience." it wasn't a skillful act that set this guy (the guy who did this thing with the sheep) apart from all other artists in the world, it was the fact that he had the idea (and the will) to present sheep to us in this way. and i think that's pretty meaningful. i also think this idea extends to anything in life. as another personal example, i left art school after a few years to study physics (i won't get into the details of why), and when i talked to people about that (especially my former art school colleages) i always get the response: "Wow, you must be so smart! you must have mad skillz! I could never do that! Blah blah!" which is utter bullshit. believe me, i'm not particularly intelligent or clever, and to be honest with you, the difference between a fourth year art student (or anything else for that matter) and a fourth year physics student isn't as huge as people like to believe. but what sets me apart is that i actually had the will to make that change (although i'm starting to regret it now , even though, in my mind at least, it didn't require the use of any particular "skill" to do. maybe that example is totally irrelevent, but hopefully you see what i'm trying to get at with this whole real art vs. pseudo art thing.
and yes, this starts to reek of "conceptualism," and everyone starts to gag, but i truely believe that there is some substance to that school of thought. of course, like everything else in life, it can become a mockery of itself when taken to the extreme, but maybe that just means it's evolving into a new type of artform
peace!
Message 58/84 20-Jul-00 @ 11:30 AM - RE: Vocal samples?
As for validity of artistic creations and expressions, the martial arts explanation is great, and the almighty drunken pinky-flick is great if it connects, but most folks don't master the drunken pinky-flick until they have the flying round kick, the iron dragon punch, and the spinning triple Buddha finger down in their sleep.
Unless I'm way off, (in which case I'm definately on the wrong planet) the purpose of art, and what really defines a piece of work as art, and not just a collection of materials in one place is the ability to invoke some sort of feeling, whatever that feeling may be. The feeling itself is always up to the individual, be it awe, revulsion, etc.. The fact that it inspires feeling at all makes it art. Are we in agreeance? The quality of a piece may be defined by who strong the feeling is that it invokes, if any. Do we agree on this point? So the question is: Is a piece of work judged by how strong the feeling that it invokes in one individual is, or by how many people it affects at all?
Anybody can walk into a room and shit on the floor make most of the other people in the room will feel something, typically an urge to leave, and puzzlement at the shitter's motivations, but is that art? Not in my book. It may be a protest against whatever is going on in the room, or maybe it's some sort of perverse turn-on for some, but art it ain't. Maybe if he's writing chinese characters, and creating brilliant poems, maybe I could see it a little differently, but even then that's some grey territory.
Come on people. What the fuck is up with this super liberal politically correct bullshit? A framed nike poster with a business card on it? Fuck that. The Cistene Chapel frescoes are more like it. Call me closed minded, archaic in my thinking, whatever. I don't care. I'm not going to sit here all day and argue these silly somantics. Recontextualization? It's weak. If you've stooped to just recontextuallizing something to create your attempt, it seems to me like you're lacking in individual ideas from within. That to me is weak, any way you slice it. Where do you draw the line? If you've got to ask, then maybe you need to work on more of your OWN source material before you go grabbing stuff from others. So if that makes me an asshole, or closedminded, then I'm guilty as charged, but you know what? I've actually gone and seen a lot of these pieces you're talking about as arguments. I gave it a chance, and the shit just doesn't work as art for me as art. I tried. I didn't go to school for it. I just went and saw it. The way I figure it, if you have to go to school to get it out of you, maybe it wasn't in you in the first place, and you should explore yourself further, rather than just following some trend.
You think I haven't made my share of dance floor rockers? My latest release sold out in a under two weeks from the day it hit the shelves. If you go to any mainstream clubs, chances are you'll hear it, if you haven't already. I'm not gonna go touting names, but just be aware that I'm not so full of shit, and unaware as some of you may paint me out to be. I've formed my opinions from my own experience, not from books of others stuff. You can argue about conceptualization all you want, but at the end of the day the folks that have put in their time, and honed their skills are going take one look at it and go 'yeah, cute. Ho-hum.' because it's just an excuse for not coming up with better. Any master of the drunken pinky-flick will be able to tell you that it only works in very specific circumstances, and you'll never land it on any but the most ignorant, unsuspecting or weak of opponents or those actually wanting to get hit. That may be the majority of the population, in this case, but so what? Can't you come up with better?
Admittedly, Koons did a fair amount of research into theory and technique, and sought out some serious artisans to do his work for him, but does that make him a great artist? I think it's more like DJing in the visual realm. So are DJ's musicians? You tell me.
Ape
Message 59/84 20-Jul-00 @ 07:27 PM - RE: Vocal samples?
I've a five year old cousin, and I cracked open a critique of pure reason for him, he didn't get it so its bullshit, skilless rambling. Right?
Picasso "discovered" his style, he "forged" it. It was masterful vision!, the highest artistic mind in western art. Oh wait, he ripped off african religious sculpture. Classic recontextualizer. You all gotta wake up and drop that artist as hero myth. I mean we've gotten alot of milage out of it, and it might still work on john q public, but amongst fellow artists, come on!
I mean all you squabling over Djs being superstars, instead of producers, shit man, the problem is not Djs, but superstarism itself. Do you think it makes much difference if the producer is superstar, or the dj? There's still a superstar. And if you like superstarism, you're a fascist, and jesus won't like you, wait, jesus was a superstar, get it?
Message 60/84 20-Jul-00 @ 10:32 PM - RE: Vocal samples?
p.s. much as I enjoy discourse your arrogance irks me.
Pages: 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
There are 84 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum