 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 537 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is probably going to sound very pretentious, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to art, any form of it, how do you view this in relation to it being free? I mean, of course, if you make something, you're (usually) going to make what you want, but it's not that kind of freedom I'm talking about, not your own personal freedom to make what you want, but the freedom of each form of art in relation to other cultural things. For instance, a poem can, in a way, be said to be less free than a piece of instrumental music. Like, if someone (monoid) was to make a poem that glorified raping children, there would be ethical issues that would be hard not to consider, even if only considered from everyone else's eyes: "what will 'they' think or do?" However, with a piece of music, you may only face other, more objective issues, like the structure of the piece or "what is music?" vs "what is noise?" or "what isn't music?" Of course, if you have some sort of special intention with the piece, you will consider the ethical issues surrounding it, but there's no way in hell anyone would be able to tell that "this is a piece about raping children" without you telling them either directly in some sort of lyrics or more indirectly through some sort of statement about the piece. What I'm trying to get at is that music, as free art, seems to have less of a connection with everything else, and it isn't subject to the same considerations as a book or a painting (unless the painting is such that no particular motive can be found in it, if it is abstract). What do you think? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think therre's nothing much to talk about when you think about what you'rre actually asking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then you're wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
two points: i'm a fan of danish cartoonists listen to zappa's testimony at the PMRC. you can get it easily on youtube. i agree with pretty much 100% of what he says. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not talking about censorship (as such), plus this is about lyrics.. lyrics are poetry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I also forgot to mention how it seems like most other forms than music has a sort of "requirement" that they should always be meaningful in some way... Of course, some people claim this of music as well, but this is a rarer thing than in other arts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you haven't expressed yourself very clearly, but maybe that's what you prefer (do you like listening to yourself type?), I don't know... I don't know |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You mean "free" as in open to interpretation? The meaning is subjective? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You could also say that abstract art is restricted in that it can't comment on our environment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The structure of music is like the structure of language: there is no freedom involved to my way of seeing it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I saw a show this weekend with 6 guys in white jumpsuits being idiots infront of a large group of people let's call them the "white man group" someone in the crowd referred to the white man group's shenanigans as "pure uninhibited art" I suppose you could say it was "free art", but it certainly wasn't art |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think it all boils down to 'artist intention' vs 'reciever appreciation/interpretation'. The artist is free to express himself in any way they see fit, and the reciever is free to base their interpretation any way they see fit. It's the societal controls that force the boundaries of that freedom. ...and the mechanical aspect (sound/imagery/prose/etc) that control the degree of flexibilty. ...or maybe I'm just full of shit. ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do agree with your point that a main attraCtion to musiC is its abstraCtness, whiCh is why I hate CritiCs(but I think I've said this before.) I don't realize what you mean by "free" as opposed to simply Calling it "abstraCt." It seems like they mean the same thing in your post, you are just using a new word for "abstraCt". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just about every type of art relies on some sort of base element, in music, you have the audible sound frequency, we set rules in music all the time, and most people don't like when you go too far out of these rules, as it ends up being noise. spoken word uses the vocals as the base element, restricted by language and context, but you could break these rules and just start making up gibbereish but most people wouldn't like it. messageboard posting uses text as it's base element, and is restricted by words and internet etiquite forget free jazz and free art... FREE TEXT!!!!!!!! ASDL:FSDGXCYOGTCVNBxcvucbxcbtufUICVUBzYhcxj klkmrhywrtkljszldfjklztoxcvyzxicayukscfercr4jkl3kljo;n i90-y9uup9&^%^E%&EB$XC$#E*RYOIWRHGO(*SDN )FSD%&$FDSFSDFKLBSDKJLFEGUIOPA@#$^9(BNUIN )*&%^SD%^BF(P$(Y**(R&^(SEFM(B$%WKGJDROPY M<>B:POEUIR*O#@RPIwhL:HKLJDSVNJFXC$#GBJXC%L SET *lights a smoke* I feel liberated as a poster. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That wasn't free though, was it - you had to use the restrictions of the keyboard... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The information the medium can hold and the information the piece in that medium holds what others think and if you care what others think. This is just about the information holding ability of language vs. abstract forms/things without agreed meaning like language. A surreal clay sculpture vs writing 'monoid rapes children' in the clay. Gangsta rap has lyrics. Or visuals without language can hold information; a bloody massacre vs. disneys fantasia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think it's a matter of sublation or Aufhebung |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's why music is very often called "the mother of arts" in fact - music isn't able to define a lot of things as you told it with that rape thingie. i think that's because of some natural/evolutionary/scientific reason. i mean thanks to god, the evolution, whoever our ears are, unlike other animals, rather an addition to our perception than a real sense. in fact compared to other animals it's rather bad i guess. eyes have always been the most prefered sense of god/evolution and they can gather most of the information. so somehow, we as humans worked out a way we can describe feelings through visuals. or maybe it's just because music as an art was actually quite lately founded - so maybe we just have to wait a few years and they will find the brown note and others? so - summing up i'm comming slowly to the conclusion that actually discussing music in any other way than just "it's good" or "it's bad" might have no sense at all. speaking about if it's random or not, glitchy, trancy or something else. i guess that, if we listen to a track and we don't like it it's purely because our perception combines it with a bad feeling. every other interpretation might be obsolete. like e.g. that this track is very trancy and you hate trance music. that's why i guess that talking about music like talking about a picture or movie is quite dumb. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
