Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1991-26 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Re: writing up that hill....

From: decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!rickt@uunet.uu.net (Rick Thompson)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 20:18:37 -0800
Subject: Re: writing up that hill....
To: rec-music-gaffa@apple.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
References: <9107202140.AA03004@epas.utoronto.ca> <4411@csccat.cs.com>


In some randomly numbered article, larry@csccat.cs.COM (Larry Spence) writes:

>In article <9107202140.AA03004@epas.utoronto.ca> gravende@epas.utoronto.ca 
>(David Gravender) writes:
>>R.L. McMillin writes,
>>
>>"...but remember, art should also be judged on its aims, as well. New
>>Kids don't make transplendant (sic) promises with their works, or at
>>least, none are expected of them. Without being presumptious (sic)
>>with regard to Ms. Bush's intent, I suspect that she has loftier goals
>>than thos set by the managemant of the New Kids."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
>I detest NKOTB too, but do you guys realize how elitist the above sounds?

Well, it _does_ sound sort of elitist, but isn't it also true, nonetheless?
Should we shy away from truth because of the way it sounds? If for no other
reason, I think it's true because NKOTB are such an easy target. I think 
G'n'R has loftier goals than NKOTB, if it comes to that. G'n'R at least wants
to make kickass rock and roll, and NKOTB just wants money without much caring
what they do to get it. It isn't hard to find people with loftier goals than 
that. Good motivations don't guarantee good work, but they make a good start.
Kate cares about making something worthwhile, and there's no reason not to 
say so.

>>To put it another way, i think 'high aims' in art are necessary but
>>not sufficient conditions for great art--             ^^^^^^^^^!

>This is just my opinion, but.... _no fucking way_!  That sounds like a
>sure-fire recipe for artistic pretention to me.  Hey, just MHO. %)

Would you at least agree that _reasonable_ aims are necessary? Not
necessarily "create high art," but merely "paint a good picture," or 
"tell a good story," or "sing a good song," as opposed to "crank out
the product?"

>>Art IS an experience, true enough, and not a
>>proposition to be debated--but like any experience it needs to be
>>interpreted, and interpreted rightly or else be wasted. 

>I'm sorry, I disagree strongly.  Pure unmitigated, uninterpreted
>experience can sometimes be the best of all, IMHO.  Your posting is a 

I just had to quote _something_ where I agreed with you. :-) Especially 
wrong here, IMO, is this notion of a "right" interpretation. And especially
when one remembers that it's possible to construct art with deliberate 
ambiguities. 

   =================================================================
   | rickt@well.sf.ca.us         | "And I don't know when          |
   | J. R. Thompson (Rick)       |  But just saying it could       |
   | Upstate NY                  |         even make it happen..." |