RoR: Forum

I feel compelled to make one comment, as an musician myself. The idea floating around about making suggestions as to how to make a work of art "better" is a very dangerous one. It's always easy in hindsight to say what the artist could have done "better." And, sure, an artist can learn from constructive criticism, and should be open to it. But, as we saw in the "Desiderata" thread, there's the danger of imposing (and again, this is not an attack on Ed, but the danger of such an imposition.) True, a work of art may be flawed, but they are the artist's flaws. Or, they may be the intention of the artist, right or wrong. It's a good thing to see the flaws, but if you try to tell the artist to "change them," then it's not his art anymore, his vision, it's yours. The best thing is to build upon that artist's virtue, as you see it, and create your own. But an artist has to be free to make those choices.

I bring this up because of the nature of the web 2.0. and the idea of social networking being "interactive." I've seen suggestions that the "future" of music is not the work of a auteur, but of a democratic process, where fans can "remix" a song, change the beat to suit their tastes, etc.. Part of me likes this, I like remixes, but the other part of me is annoyed by the suggestions that art is a public commodity, and the artist's original intention is not as important. While I disagree with Michael N. on his stance towards movie score composers and integrity, I do think his point is more relevant in this regard.

Post 21

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 2:24pm

Mindy: "Big thanks to Theresa and Michael Newberry for the compliments."

Mindy,

I wasn't giving you a compliment! But you knew that...right?

Michael

Post 22

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 2:38pm

Great post Joe. I agree with main body of it. Though raised my eyebrow at your aside. :)

Michael

Post 23

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 2:43pm

Thanks, Michael. Not trying to bring up old issues, just thought that your argument from that issue has validity here, so used it as shorthand.

Post 24

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 3:55pm

No, Michael. I couldn't solidify my suspicions around a theme. I gave you the benefit of past doubt. You'll have to stoop to explaining yourself. ;-)

Post 25

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 4:01pm

Joe,
I also agree, except I think music is a big exception here. With the inherent division of authorship and performance, a cooperative effect is unavoidable. A sophisticated audience knows this, and evaluates accordingly.
Additionally, the fact is that many songs, and some classical themes have, IMHO, been greatly improved in subsequent-to-the-original treatments.

Post 26

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 4:27pm

Hi Mindy,

Oh gosh, now I will stoop, quite low in fact. You recall you said this: "... compare how the bird sits on her finger and how tenuously her youth and beauty are possessed by her?"

I looked up "tenuously" to be clear of the possible meanings:

1. thin or slender in form, as a thread.
2. lacking a sound basis, as reasoning; unsubstantiated; weak: a tenuous argument.
3. thin in consistency; rare or rarefied.
4. of slight importance or significance; unsubstantial: He holds a rather tenuous position in history.
5. lacking in clarity; vague: He gave a rather tenuous account of his past life.

Connecting those adjectives to the concept of youth and beauty is quite a negative view.

(It's out of the scope of the discussion, but painting uses visual clues to communicate, and to communicate such things as robust health, or the joy of feeling like "a kid again" a subject in the prime of life is one of the greatest tools an artist has.)

My sister has a parrot and when she reads a news item she doesn't like, she rips it out of the paper, and lines the bird cage's floor with it.

If one did see the beauty of Courbet's woman as tenuous, anticipating the parrot shitting on her is not a stretch. :)

Michael

Post 27

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 4:32pm

And this relates to Oscar Wilde...?

Post 28

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 5:03pm

Sure. He has some outstandingly petty moments (as well as brilliant ones). "De Profundis" for example.

Post 29

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 5:17pm

Michael,

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

What about the comment itself? Unworthy of your attention? What about the spread wings and the spread hair? Too obvious an observation for a real artist? What about the tentative perch of the bird on her finger? Do you disagree that youth and its radiance are short-lived? Your thoughts run, however, to the bird might shit on her lovely breast? Well, you're "the" artist, right? ;-)

Mindy

Post 30

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 5:56pm

"Doesn't make a lick of sense to me."

Okay.

"What about the comment itself?"

I was addressing a possible meaning, "tenuously" threw me off, can you understand that?

"Unworthy of your attention?"

Huh? I am giving your thought attention and addressing you.

"What about the spread wings and the spread hair?"

An echo of freedom?

"Too obvious an observation for a real artist?"

Be nice.

"What about the tentative perch of the bird on her finger? Do you disagree that youth and its radiance are short-lived?"

Great point, now that you make it.

"Your thoughts run, however, to the bird might shit on her lovely breast?"

It's cool if that is not what you meant.

"Well, you're "the" artist, right?"

There is something to be said for that, no?

Michael

Post 31

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 6:00pm

Michael,
There should be, yes.
Mindy

Post 32

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 8:29pm

Here's a question. If an extraordinary entrepreneur creates a unique business, is it wrong for others to let their mind's wander and to think of other businesses that might be made using this new model? If a scientist makes a significant break-through in his area, does that mean that no one is allowed to think about that work in any way that involves mentally substituting or modifying aspects of his discovery?

There is often a holier than thou attitude that goes with art that I don't buy into. Respecting property rights is an absolute requirement. Respecting ability is a mark of intelligence and honesty. But treating an object as beyond thinking about in certain ways is silly. When a person makes an observation about how a piece of music or a painting would be experienced had it been done differently should NOT be sacrilegious. It is obvious that it is that person's opinion - something society tolerates on every other subject (except for religion). I don't get this sensitivity... this idea that to say anything about an artist's work is to take away his creation, to impose upon him, or to deny his integrity, or whatever... it just makes no sense. I've always had suggestions made about my work and I treated the suggestions with the respect they deserved. Some were ignored, some resented, some appreciated, but I've never even considered that people should not even think about what they see! Or, not share what they think, in an appropriate forum.

We don't see this sensitivity in other fields. The products of engineers are measured and tested and critiqued. Scientists are subjected to peer review and expected to perform repeatable experiments to justify their theories. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, business people, politicians, plumbers, psychologists, carpenters, jurists.... All expect to have their work product examined - including seeing others make suggestions for how it could be improved. But, there is a side to being an artist that is often made into a mystical, beyond reason, beyond judgment kind of activity. I don't buy it. I don't think it is good for the artist, the audience or the future of art.

Post 33

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 8:47pm

Steve, perhaps that's because of the predominantly personal and spiritual nature of art versus plumbing.

A work of art should not be "editable" by just anyone, a la Wikipedia.

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 3/14, 8:58pm)

Post 34

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:33pm

That was well stated in The Fountainhead... eg, the trial speech...

Post 35

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 9:40pm

Steve,

Again, thanks for posting your thoughts.

It is clear that you don't understand that art is fundamentally different in two ways from the sciences and occupations you mentioned: it is not utilitarian; and it is an end itself - its only purpose is contemplation.

I don't see what is particularly arrogant or sensitive about understanding art in this way.

But I do think that approaching art this way is tremendously rewarding to one's well being. Try the approach sometime and you might enjoy it.

Michael

Post 36

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 11:42pm

Joe,

I was clear about property rights - I was not suggesting editing someone else's work. I was only talking about what I would have preferred over what is.
--------

Robert,

Just to be sure, I reread Roark's speech. Nothing I read contradicts what I've said. Again, I'm not talking about changing his work. I suggested a composition that I'd prefer.
---------

Michael said, "It is clear that you don't understand that art is fundamentally different in two ways from the sciences and occupations you mentioned: it is not utilitarian; and it is an end itself - its only purpose is contemplation." As a psychologist I consider art to be critically important to us - that means art isn't an end in itself, it is a utility. It's purpose (to the consumer) is what it's contemplation does for us. The purpose of medicine is what its practice does for us. The purpose of the growing and distributing of food is what the nutrition does for us. The purpose of science is what the acquired knowledge gives us.
-------

There are quite extraordinary levels of creativity involved in many different areas, but only art builds this culture of religiosity. Lots of areas are deeply spiritual as well, but again, only art makes itself sensitive in this way.
-------

I agree with Michael's comment about the reward of approaching art: "...look at the work from an analytic perspective and ask what am I being shown, what did the artist intend, how did he achieve this or that effect?" I enjoyed my classes in art appreciation, art history, drawing, and the painting I've done. I just don't think artists get some kind of spiritual free ride with their work treated as sacred. The act of creation is sacred. The right of ownership of the product is sacred. But that's as far as it goes, the rest is religious mysticism.

Post 37

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 5:48am

Actually, Steve, I agree with you - to some extent... in the WetCanvas forums I visit, there are some works which I see as steps to another work down the line, which that artist did not so see, nor wish to see [with one exception, where she invited me to go with my vision of the end result, and she may do one like it, where it involved a reflection seen in a rose-colored glasses laying on barren surface, thus each or our views would be different and personal]... but there, they invite criticism on a working piece, seeking how to improve it from what then presently is - not, I think, quite what you had in mind...

Post 38

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:12am

Robert,

"...they invite criticism on a working piece, seeking how to improve it from what then presently is - not, I think, quite what you had in mind..."

In Roark's speech he talks about progress being a gift from the creators. And his speech makes it clear that there is a progression where one creator builds upon the work of those who went before.

The process of improvement is key to the evolution of human activity. We take the individual's participation as the primary purpose, the moral end for all that we do. But within that stricture, we value the progression. So we want progress, we want improvement, we want to see a future filled with better processes, better art, better inventions - but never at the expense of destroying the creator or his rights. That is the context out which property rights and building on what came before, join together.

If I copied a painting, I am stealing. Any changes I make to my copy are irrelevant because they ride on a theft. But if I look at a painting and see an idea for a composition that draws on that painting but my implementation is my own, that is progress (if I actually created new value). If I point out what would be an improvement, and the artist hears and agrees, then he could choose to create the improvement. The more open a person is to hearing new ideas, yet without letting go of his unique way of 'seeing' the faster he can move forward on his personal path of artistic growth. My brother is a professional musician and he is always listening to the works of others, until he starts writing a new piece, then he avoids listening to others so that his own voice is easier to hear.

Post 39

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:27am