Zee

Zee

Modern Art = I could do that + Yeah, but you didn’t

Follow me on Twitter, Buzz and Facebook.

from My Posterous

The Buzz So Far: 2 trackbacks/pingbacks

  1. Pingback: modern art « projâ‹…ect on October 12, 2009
  2. Pingback: learn by doing | Irish Internet Entrepreneur - Smemon on October 18, 2009

6 Comments So Far:

John

April 14th 2009 - 11:21pm

Should be Modern Art = I could do that + but I’m not a shitty artist.

Rob

June 11th 2009 - 8:52am

Modern Art = I could do that + Yeah, but you didn’t – Ah, but I wouldn’t

Chris

June 11th 2009 - 5:20pm

Ha! That’s so true. I remember saying exactly that once when I took a trip to an art gallery when I was in high school.

The guide had us all stand in front of a painting we liked and asked us why we picked it. I said “Because it’s something I could do myself.”
She scowled and said “yes, but you didn’t, did you?”

She probably convinced herself that she got the better of me, but I disagree.

shukov

June 13th 2009 - 3:04pm

Modern art and modern jazz have a lot in common, they both seek to elavate technique to a high and sophisticated plane, however the end result is crappy art and music. Beauty and truth are the guiding lights of art and music. When art and music serves these ends then it achieves its highest form, when art and music merely seek sophistication it becomes a bit silly.

Rufita

July 23rd 2009 - 12:28am

Case and point: Scott Walker. “The space between harmony and disharmony”,”The grunts and chirps of the avant garde” = totally unlistenable, nauseating garbage.

matdryhurst

February 12th 2010 - 9:53pm

Zee, what a surprise! I was looking to see if someone had started an art prize incentive for those who believe they ‘could do that’ and this was the first result that came up.

I hope all is well :)

Re: Rufita – that which is ‘listenable’ is temporally bound, i.e that you are unable to stomach Scott Walker (who is a far more palatable example than most) says more about your particular fluency in music than it does about the musicians themselves. The ‘avant garde’ you speak of is getting on a bit, as people were exploring those subjects almost a century ago now, and have come a great deal further.

I ask you, what is more listenable? Sounds in their myriad manifestations or music limited to scale and harmony? Were we not born with the ability to perceive more, and thus justified in pursuing alternative patterns and pitches?

Please do elucidate your belief in the proper borders that should encase music, or return to your cave.

Twitter/Facebook Username:

If you're looking for something specific then give the search form below a try: