DominO123 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 I guess Orteda is an idiot. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't have a clue either of what that quote means, I guess it is the product of an eccentric mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 What it means is simple. I just disgree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 What it means is simple. I just disgree. style_images/master/snapback.png Oh really? Explain me that part then. "style involves dehumanization. And vice versa, there is no other means of stylizing except by dehumanizing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Nairi, from your definition, nothing can be abstract art. In painting, abstract art is not a figurative art, and in music, you can not have a figurative music. You are using the medium to claim that music is not abstract. It is obvious that there has to be a material medium to share the "art," but what IS represented is all there is to be here. style_images/master/snapback.png First of all, I think it was implicitly established that figurative music DOES exist. Secondly, Abstract Art is not the same as art being abstract. The fact that we can see and hold a painting in our hands (or in the case of music, hear it), means that it is concrete. And therefore music, as a sequence of sounds, is not abstract. Abstract Art is merely a genre in Art (and in this I include Music) with subgenres. Maybe I just have trouble articulating what I mean. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 (edited) Oh really? Explain me that part then. "style involves dehumanization. And vice versa, there is no other means of stylizing except by dehumanizing." style_images/master/snapback.png It basically means that distorting something in an artistic representation is unnatural and contrived. That is not true. Painting is most often a very personal and natural experience regardless of how the painter executes his work, even if his work does not seek to accurately represent a subject or whether it is abstract. The painting is a personal interpretation of what someone considers beautiful. His view also seems to deny validity to abstraction and I cannot agree with that either. Edited February 4, 2005 by dusken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 First of all, I think it was implicitly established that figurative music DOES exist. Secondly, Abstract Art is not the same as art being abstract. The fact that we can see and hold a painting in our hands (or in the case of music, hear it), means that it is concrete. And therefore music, as a sequence of sounds, is not abstract. Abstract Art is merely a genre in Art (and in this I include Music) with subgenres. Maybe I just have trouble articulating what I mean. Sorry. style_images/master/snapback.png Nairi, my claim of figurative music existing was about new age works, mixing bird singing, sea sounds etc. Take the reason why an abstract painting is called abstract, and see if it applies to music. Why do you think abstract painting is called abstract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 It basically means that distorting something in an artistic representation is unnatural and contrived. That is not true. Painting is most often a very personal and natural experience regardless of how the painter executes his work, even if his work does not seek to accurately represent a subject or whether it is abstract. The painting is a personal interpretation of what someone considers beautiful. His view also seems to deny validity to abstraction and I cannot agree with that either. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't know where in the quote I presented you you see that, but I still am trying to understand what the word "dehumanizing" means in this sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted February 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 I don't know where in the quote I presented you you see that, but I still am trying to understand what the word "dehumanizing" means in this sentence. style_images/master/snapback.png Distorting something in an artistic representation is unnatural and contrived. Unless I am missing something, that is what he is saying. I do not understand why you cannot see the connection between his statement and my explanation. If you are trying to achieve something that is unnatural for a human to do then you are "dehumanizing" yourself to do it. He says dehumanize to be dramatic. You are not quotable unless you are dramatic. Now, reading that out of context could have mislead me but that is what I get out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Distorting something in an artistic representation is unnatural and contrived. Unless I am missing something, that is what he is saying. I do not understand why you cannot see the connection between his statement and my explanation. If you are trying to achieve something that is unnatural for a human to do then you are "dehumanizing" yourself to do it. He says dehumanize to be dramatic. You are not quotable unless you are dramatic. Now, reading that out of context could have mislead me but that is what I get out of it. style_images/master/snapback.png Why would it be more unatural for a human to paint abstract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Why do you think abstract painting is called abstract? style_images/master/snapback.png It doesn't matter, because it still doesn't take away the fact that the material it's painting on, the paint itself and the frame are not abstract. The same applies to music, in my opinion (still). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 You are using the medium to claim that music is not abstract. It is obvious that there has to be a material medium to share the "art," but what IS represented is all there is to be here.style_images/master/snapback.png Sorry, let me get back to this. Yes, and I agree. On both counts for music and other art forms. The medium is not abstract. What it represents is. In other words, music and art (as in painting, drawing) are the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghos Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 I have just finished reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 . I recommend it to those that are interested in the histroy of the end of the XIX century - beginning of the XXth from a less usual perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Sorry, let me get back to this. Yes, and I agree. On both counts for music and other art forms. The medium is not abstract. What it represents is. In other words, music and art (as in painting, drawing) are the same. style_images/master/snapback.png So what you are saying is that the tree represented in a painting is as abstract as a melody in a music. Think about that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 So what you are saying is that the tree represented in a painting is as abstract as a melody in a music.style_images/master/snapback.png Yes. I don't see and hear how one can be more abstract than the other. I'm not even sure if one can say "more abstract". It's like being a little pregnant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 So what you are saying is that the tree represented in a painting is as abstract as a melody in a music. Think about that one. style_images/master/snapback.png Domino, I think the problem with you is that you like your eyes more than your ears. Actually, I would not call it a problem. That's typical for us men. Also, we like our hands more than our eyes ... right? The analysis of other sense receptors would ... better not go there ... So, I guess when woman goes "You like what you see?", you answer "I would prefer to touch" That's the right way of phylosophical cognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Domino, I think the problem with you is that you like your eyes more than your ears. Actually, I would not call it a problem. That's typical for us men. Also, we like our hands more than our eyes ... right? The analysis of other sense receptors would ... better not go there ... So, I guess when woman goes "You like what you see?", you answer "I would prefer to touch" That's the right way of phylosophical cognition. style_images/master/snapback.png I disagree, I am more auditory than visual, and place much more importance to ears than the general population. Nairi fail to understand the reason why abstract painting is called abstract painting. Abstract painting is called abstract, because it is not figurative, there are no tree, no objects, the painting doesn`t have any representation in reality. This is what abstract painting is. I am not inventing this. Now someone can debate about the painting being an object, of course it is. But the whole point here is what the painting represent. Does the painting represent a tree, sea, someone, a figure, a house, or something that can not be represented in reality. If it can not, it is called abstract painting. The whole debate here is caused by the fact that Nairi is using the medium to make her judgement, when it is what it is represented that counts. The whole point is that a pieces of melody has no figurative representation. Beside that, if I were to do what you claim, I would consider poetry, and writing as much abstract as music... they are not because those words have a representation with reality. A verb represent an action etc. flower has a representation in reality. But a melody is not a word, it is not green, not circle, not a tree, and ocean, not a birds singing... no, it is entirly an invention that has no figurative representation. Of course now you can say it is the results of wave forms, but all those are about the medium, not the representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 (edited) Yes. I don't see and hear how one can be more abstract than the other. I'm not even sure if one can say "more abstract". It's like being a little pregnant... style_images/master/snapback.png Here is where I disagree, I think there are different level of abstraction, and there always is a level of abstraction in art. Edited February 6, 2005 by QueBeceR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 (edited) The whole point is that a pieces of melody has no figurative representation. style_images/master/snapback.png You're basically saying that something that does not have a clear form is abstract. Music has both form and content. It has beginning and end, it can be long or short, fast or slow, it has very many different forms. We can both agree that music can be Happy (Major) and Sad (Minor). Isen't this very clear representation to you? How come certain notes produce sadness and the others happiness? Also, if not melody, than rythm is something that has more form and content. Edited February 6, 2005 by Armen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 You're basically saying that something that does not have a clear form is abstract. Music has both form and content. It has beginning and end, it can be long or short, fast or slow, it has very many different forms. We can both agree that music can be Happy (Major) and Sad (Minor). Isen't this very clear representation to you? How come certain notes produce sadness and the others happiness? Also, if not melody, than rythm is something that has more form and content. style_images/master/snapback.png Long, short, beggining, ends etc. are like shapes, forms, but still it is not a representation in reality. Major is not always happy, and minor sad... like a tree is a tree. What I am basically saying is that if applying the same reason why we consider an abstract painting abstract, in music, music would be the most abstract of all arts. Because it`s not figurative, as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Long, short, beggining, ends etc. are like shapes, forms, but still it is not a representation in reality. Major is not always happy, and minor sad... like a tree is a tree. What I am basically saying is that if applying the same reason why we consider an abstract painting abstract, in music, music would be the most abstract of all arts. Because it`s not figurative, as simple as that. style_images/master/snapback.png Reality is not only space, Domino. Surely if something has a clear representation in space and time it is more tangiable. Domino, although music is not represented figuratively, everyone can hear it but the deaf. However, the reason why an abstract painting is "beautiful" is not clear to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Reality is not only space, Domino. Surely if something has a clear representation in space and time it is more tangiable. Domino, although music is not represented figuratively, everyone can hear it but the deaf. However, the reason why an abstract painting is "beautiful" is not clear to everyone. style_images/master/snapback.png We're turning in circle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I wrestled with the ideas of “new” “new movements” etc. all my life and still do.I find truthfully that great works are not necessarily “new” but have strong resonance, content which expresses artist’s emotions ideas best. There are artists who work with neon lights, choc, human shit just a few all new but as an art work most of them fail miserably. Generally there are always artists who fall outside of any movements and still produce outstanding and quality art. Movements should not be taken like a bible. Who gives a crap about Dadaism, futurism or minimalism now? Their influence and lifespan lasted ten fifth teen years. I am more concern about quality. I am not saying that Art should be figurative far from it but it also should not be defined by contemporary fads. Look at this work. It is new, modern and yet does not really fit in any movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 By the way all music that has no words,vocals is abstract.This is obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 By the way all music that has no words, vocals is abstract. This is obvious. style_images/master/snapback.png Why is it obvious? It can be more or less abstract. But in no way it is completely abstract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Why is it obvious? It can be more or less abstract. But in no way it is completely abstract. style_images/master/snapback.png Armen there is no need to get technical. Listen to any classical music even modern music and each person takes away something subjective meaning even though composer may have felt an inspiration from a fly there is no way that he can convey that in concrete terms in music. Music is sound! Human made instrumental sound is abstract by default.For example Nairi mentioned sabre dance. If you did not know the title and the composer personal heritage, background etc and played this to bunch of Latin Americans, I can assure you they may feel not a single sword or anything close to original music’s inspiration. It is all subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.