Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: John Nowak (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 03:36:39 EDT
On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:
> Well, I agree with you about noise music and Pollock -- to some extent.
> Something original was going to happen in the USA after WWII and the
> War. But it could certainly have been something quite different from
> did happen.
Exactly. I'm not saying culture has no effect as Mr. Mouat may have you
believe I am. WWII certainly gave romanticism a good slap in the face.
However, I think it more shifted what was the popular art of the
period. I suspect many of the artists would've produced the same sorts
of works anyway. Art is just as much responsible for forming culture as
it is a product of it. However art, especially "experimental" art, is
not mostly a product of culture, just like it is not what mostly
contributes to culture.
Perhaps the fact that I really only deal with the "fringe" elements of
art (ugh, I hate describing art as fringe) affects my view on this. For
things such as popular music, I'd say the influence of culture is much
greater. In fact, I'd be in agreement with Mr. Moaut in that case that
culture is the greatest influencing factor. The next country music star
just plain isn't coming from Iceland. That's a fact.
Perhaps my obsession with "new" art is getting the better of me. I
think I might categorize anything which draws too heavily on culture as
"bad" art. And I also think that most of you would think that's a bad
thing to think. I don't think that matters much though... I suppose.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST