Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 14:03:55 EST


Quoting Eliot Handelman <eliot@generation.net>:

>
> The issue seems to be this. Some aspect of ea is non-music. If it's not
> music then it should at least be art. Or this is how I'm reading this.

> In my view calling EA "art" doesn't help or change anything. The
> missing component is the tactical force
> -- the feeling of what will happen if I listen to this music. Will it
> cheer me up, expose my chaos, or
> illuminate something in the universe of man in the way that Bruckner or
> Nielsen seem to?

I am attempting to distinguish EA from music, but in the above paragraph you
categorize EA as a type of music. In my previous E-mail in this thread, I argue
that music is a type of EA. I pose the question "what came first" and I can't
immagine how music could come first... That both music and EA are forms of art,
I agree, should be common sense.

>
> If you can manage to suggest this, as do Rjoji Ikeda or Merzbow, then
> the art problem
> is moot.
>
> I doin't think I'm much moved by your "EA preceded music" argument --
> h.s. mother #1 probably
> sang to her infant just as all mothers today do.

I don't believe there was a "mother #1" : Eve. or Noah's wife?
You choose to assume that song existed for as long as "man" existed. But did
not "man" create song? (this calls for a definition for "song": sung music)

If yes, then what were the ingredients for such a recipe? EA perhaps... A
corrolation between the comforting sounds of nature and the mother's ability to

replicate these sounds with her mouth. Plus, the invention of music by "man"
suggests a gap of time between "mother #1" and the first singing mother.

The interesting question is, If we could hear the sounds that mother #8 made to
her baby children while comforting them, would they sound more EA-like or
music-like. I would think that it evolved from EA-like towards music-like over
the generations, the music still bearing degrees of EA-ness in various levels.

> At any rate the thrust
> of most current thinking
> in the matter is mother-based, eg circulatory rhythms in the womb
> creating the "enclosure" that music
> provides us with.

Although a heartbeat and respiratory sounds could be percieved by us as
musical, let us not forget that such sounds are classic, if not cliche, EA
sounds, and therefore not necessarily musical. Here is another example of EA
giving birth to music.

 
> Also, the picture of people "understanding" music via cultural
> acquistion of codes sounds more
> like the entertainment indistry than like the art industry. But
> obviously the lines aren't firm.
>
>
> -- eliot
>
How else could it be?

nick

-- 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST