Western art/music rules

Cafe Society
121

I disagree. So that “clearly” clearly isn’t a clear at you assume it is.

Look, let’s compare apples to apples – the skill of individual musicians in playing their instruments. In all these musical traditions being a musician is a lifelong job. It might not appear to us that an Indian tabla player is a skilled and talented as a violinist in a symphony orchestra, but that’s just because we don’t have enough experience with the form to tell good playing from bad.

Now, if you judge music purely on how many different types of instruments are playing simultaneous, then, yes, the European orchestra is a unique acheivement. No other musical tradition has produced such a large and varied ensemble. Mozart was given the opportunity to express his enormous talent for complexity because of the accident of the time and place of his birth.

But, I would argue, the arise of the orchestra was largely the result of economic factors rather than aesthetic ones. Supporting 100 full-time musicians is a luxury that’s only possible in a very prosperous society. The rise of the large, varied ensemble that we’re familiar with depended on the existence of a well-off merchant class to collectively fund them.

122

Person A is the best Kazoo player in history. No one even comes close to her on Kazoo.

Person B is an award-winning composer who works with various kinds of musical groups including full orchestras. She is merely adequate on Kazoo.

Which person is more musically talented?

123

You know wrong.

124

You’re actually claiming that Europe has no tradition of training in combat? Seriously? Dude, Europe spent a thousand years engulfed in almost constant warfare. Your average knight trained constantly in fighting techniques from the age of ten onward - with sword, bow, and bare hands. And they put those techniques into regular use, on battlefield across Europe and the Middle East. For centuries, an entire class of people in Europe dedicate their lives to nothing but learning how to fight and kill - and you think they weren’t as “deep into it” because they didn’t wear orange robes and stand around on one leg?

125

Dozens, if not hundreds. C’mon, man, you think there’s only one culture in China? Almost a third of the non-Ocean surface of the Earth is in Asia. It’s three times the size of Europe. You think that any sort of cultural homogenity is even possible in an area that big?

126

Mozart’s orchestra was nothing like as large, anyway - two or three dozen players is more like it, not all that much bigger than a gamelan…so even in this respect, there’s other musical cultures which have similar achievements.

127

Ok, fair point about ‘clearly’, I got carried away.

I chose the number of instruments as an example because I was attempting to quantify something in terms that is obvious and less subjective. I certainly won’t argue over the abilities of the individual muscians and attempt to compare the individual violinist versus the tabla player because I completely agree with you regarding the lack of appreciation of the individual instruments.

In terms of the orchestra, I do agree that Mozart had the luxury of being born into a unique set of circumstances in a historial sense, however does that make his talent any less impressive? Does the fact that Europe had economic and social advantages mean that their cultural achievements are diminished because they had an unfair advantage?

128

Not at all. Mozart was a towering talent.

But it’s important for us to recognize that Mozart’s genius is very accessible to us because we understand the idiom he was working in. In fact, to some extent, because of his influence on later composers, Western music is what it is because of him.

But to the untrained American or European ear it’s much harder to hear genius in non-Western music. We can listen to a talent as towering as Mozart from another culture and completely miss what makes him so special because we don’t understand the “grammar” of his musical style. And because we can’t hear it, it’s easy to imagine that it doesn’t exist.

The point isn’t that European composers should be “graded on a curve” because they have “advantages” that other cultures lack. The point is that we shouldn’t be using the aesthetic standards of one culture to try to judge the value of a work from another.

129

No, of course it doesn’t, but I don’t think it’s terribly relevant.

The 19th century European orchestra may be the largest and most technologically advanced musical ensemble ever put together at the time, but I don’t think that has any bearing on the artistic merit of the works created for it. While a large orchestra will allow a composer to use a broader timbral and dynamic palette, it comes at some cost. You lose almost all spontaneity in performance, for instance. For a person, or culture, that values improvisation, large and cumbersome orchestras can be considered artistically inferior to smaller ensembles.

Great art is very often the product of limitations as it is of opportunities. There are countless examples; one I’m particularly fond of is a Congolese band called Konono No. 1. They were a traditional orchestra centred around the likembe is kind of thumb piano. They had a hard time getting heard over the urban din of Kinshasa, so using parts recycled from junked cars, they built their own amplification system. From a purely acoustic perspective, to say that it sounds like shit would be an understatement. However, because they’re great musicians, they completely embraced the distortion and ended up creating unbelievably rocking music.

Beethoven wrote one of his greatest pieces (the Diabelli Variations) probably because he wanted to show off what he could do with the fairly trite musical theme he was asked to use.

Olivier Messiaen wrote his Quatuor pour la fin du temps for the unusual ensemble of piano, clarinet, violin and cello, because that’s what was available in the POW camp he was being held.

As has been previously mentioned the exquisite style of Japanese ukiyoe, which were one of the greatest influences on 19th century European art, was in large part the result of artists coping with the limitations of their medium.

The limitations aren’t always external, for instance, J-S Bach’s Ciaccona – a fifteen minute musical orgasm – is great because it’s just violin. An orchestral setting would miss something very important, in my view.

On the other hand, computer graphics are one of the most technically advanced artistic media created. However, how many times do the words “CGI crapfest” come up in Café Society?

My point here is that there is no meaningful relationship between technical advancement and artistic worth.

130

But it’s not obvious at all. Let’s pick a western composer who wrote both pieces for a symphonic orchestra and pieces for quatuors. Are his quatuors by definitions inferior? Why did he wrote pieces for a limited number of instruments when he could use his time to write for a full orchestra? Do music lovers only listen to pieces written for orchestras when they have the choice? Obviously not. Obviously, neither composers nor listeners think that a quatuor is less worthy of their time or inferior to an orchestra.

Now, let’s pick an a non-European composer or musician living in a culture where he doesn’t have access to a large orchestra (not enough resources, or not traditional). So, he composes a piece for four weird local instruments. If western quatuors aren’t inferior by definition, neither are his “weird local instruments quatuors” (WLIQs). If his WLIQs are as good as a famous western quatuor, he’s as talented a composer. If you can point at a western quatuor and state “the composer was a genius”, then so is the WLIQs’ author.

Now, you run into the problem mentioned : the instruments are just weird, his way of composing music is just weird. You’re unlikely to appreciate the music if you aren’t deep into these things and haven’t trained your ears. So, you’re going to listen to the WLIQ masterpiece, find it unappealing, and decide that the author is obviously less talented than some third rate western composer, despite the real problem being that you are unable to appreciate his work, like a teenager stating that Mozart is just crap.

In any case, if you’re unwilling to “quantify [the value of western music] in terms that are obvious and less subjective” by stating that a piece written for a limited number of instrument is obviously and objectively inferior to a piece written for an orchestra, then you can’t do that when comparing western and non-western music, either.

131

Ohhhkay, that’s just ridiculous. Japanese art is strongly influenced by Chinese art. For a long time, that was all Japan did. Chinese art in turn has been at various times heavily influenced by Indian art, Tibetan art, and middle Eastern art–and those have been influenced by the Chinese. Korean sculptors and pottery makers were also influential, Japanese emperors sometimes kidnapping them to come work in Japan. The Silk Road cut through Asia bringing all kinds of traditions from Europe to Japan, with plenty of stop offs along the way. Once Japan had contact with the outside world, things immediately started to change. For example, many ukiyo-e artists western influenced by western perspective and theries about art. To say that Japanese art has no outside influences is ignorance, pure and simple. I don’t mean to say that you are stupid but if are a typical American or Westerner, you probably have never really had to learn about these artists in school. But before you start deciding western art is superior, you should probably learn just a little about the art you are criticizing. I’m sure someone will call me patronizing; I call it fighting ignorance.

If you really need more evidence, I’ll be glad to provide links, but I think Miller said it just as succinctly so I will leave it there.

132

I oversimplified things, yes. I used Japanese art as one example out of many Eastern traditions; most of what you listed are also Eastern traditions. At first you may think, “ah, a Westerner who thinks that anything in the general area of Asia Minor is interchangable,” but I don’t think that anymore than I think that the various forms of European art are interchangable. I simply mean that I do not see the level of variety combined with quality in Eastern art that I see in Western art. Granted, much of this opinion is highly subjective. (As an aside, some people have tried to convince me that manga and anime are quite full of diverse styles and creativity…and I acknowledge that there are indeed some very distinct artistic styles used in those media) I’m not suggesting that there is NO creativity or greatness at all. But I just do not see as much of a variety of great art in comparison to the West.

And I took several art history courses on my way to a BFA at the Columbus College of Art and Design. I’m sure that my Western upbringing has much to do with my opinions about art, and art history was not my major, but it’s not like I’m totally unfamiliar with art history.

133

Sorry–the thread dropped out of sight for a while & I forgot its origin. You knew enough to start it here, where no cites are needed!

That doesn’t make your OP correct–no matter where you posted it. But you’ve found a good mechanism to avoid answering any of the points I made.

134

Of course they are mostly Eastern traditions. How much of an East Asian influence did da Vinci have? During the time that most the works I posted were created, the East and West barely knew each other existed, except through trade. There was certainly not much respect for the others artistic traditions. But that is entirely different than saying that these works did not synthesize very different artistic traditions.

You mentioned Duchamp, Sargent, Picasso, Velasquez, Hopper, Bierstadt, Schiele, Mondrian, Monet, van Gogh, Erte, Tarkay–all artists that date from the 19th century or later, when the East started opening up to the West and vice versa. This is exactly the time when ukiyo-e and its innovative new techniques started really getting in the groove–the time of the great masters like Hiroshige and Hokusai, and innovation in both crafts and art. So saying that we can’t count more recent Eastern art–when it was influenced by the West! is kind of ridiculous. Especially since quite a few of those artists were influenced by the East and indeed Africa as well. You do know that van Gogh used to make copies of ukiyo-e prints, right? That Piccasso was for a time obsessed with African artifacts?

It is, of course, a matter of opinion. And if your opinion basically comes down to “I know what I like and I like what I know,” fine. There is not really any way to argue with that. There is no denying that Eastern art has followed a very different trajectory than Western art. It cares about different things and many Eastern societies have very different ideas about what makes great art and what makes a great artist than the West does. But I find the idea that Eastern art has less variation than Western just baffling. And claiming that everyone who likes Eastern art is just being politically correct is just being insulting. You like what you like and I will take my Night Snow at Kambara and snuggle it to my bosom. :smiley:

135

No, the same guy. It’s been years. I don’t have the tapes or DVD’s–nor the book. But this summaryexplains the context:

When he got to this point, he held up an example of Irish sculpture; a bit earlier than the examples on this bookcover. Now, I understand that he was revealing his (highly educated) vision of Western Art. It’s fairly obvious that Early Medieval Irish artists weren’t very “good” at depicting people. But he wasn’t blaming a lack of ability; their artistic emphasis was, simply, elsewhere. Clark was telling a story about Western art history–how that emphasis changed (or changed back); the Irish bibelot was a starting point. He was not saying “Western art Rulz / Everything else Sux.” (Although that is an interesting image.)

Guess I’ll have to dig up some DVD’s & hear, once again, what the old guy had to say. Although I reserve the right to disagree about details.

136

Yes, I know that many Western artists were heavily influenced by Eastern art. There is nothing about that fact that contradicts my opinion on the subject, as part of my view is that Western art has done a “better job” (for lack of a better term) of taking in and embracing a wider range of cultural influences.

Where did I ever say that everyone who likes Eastern art is just being politically correct?? There is a tremendous amount of great Eastern art as well as Western art. I’m primarily going by sheer variety of greatness than anything else.

137

Re: Variety,

Western classical music all sounds the same to me. The illusion of its same-soundingness is not something I can dispel by listenting to a verbal explication of a couple of works. Rather, the only way the illusion can be dispelled is by developing more than a passing familiarity with a variety of Western classical works.

Knowing some dates and history would help as well.

-FrL-

138

Of course, someone who was very much into classical music would likely cite many very different pieces and composers, and they would be right, in the same sense that, say, anime lovers could cite creators with varied styles, and both would be correct. But I’m not just talking about classical music here; classical music is one out of many varieties of music. If we’re talking about variety we aren’t just talking about variety within one genre, we’re talking about how many genres as well.

139

I’m confused by this response.

My point was just that there is often great variety to be found in a class of works that those unfamiliar with the class might miss. You seemed to me to be saying that there is no such variety in Eastern art. I was cautioning you that you are probably simply not familiar enough with the art to make this kind of judgment.

I don’t know what your comments about genre are supposed to do in response to this point.

Are you saying that variety is marked by differentiation between genres, and that you don’t think there are a great variety of genres in the arts in the East? (Surely not?!)

The concept of “genre” is problematic anyway but I don’t want to hijack the discussion in that direction.

-FrL-

140

You mentioned classical western works specifically, and noted that they sound the same to you, and that likely the only way to really appreciate the variety within the whole of classical music is to develop “more than a passing familiarity” with the works. I agree with that, in the same sense that I agree with the idea that my feeling that anime, by and large, seems very much formulaic, with some notable exceptions, but that someone with more than a passing familiarity with anime would likely be better able to cite profound differences in styles in anime. My point, however, was that I’m not judging Western versus Eastern art on the basis of whether or not anime has a lot of variety or classical music has a lot of variety. Anime is one variety of a lot of different varieties of Eastern art, and classical music is one variety of a lot of different varieties of Western art. To judge either the Western or Eastern tradition by looking only at anime or only at classical music would be very narrow-minded. Maybe I’m missing the point of why you mentioned classical music specifically, but part of my point is to look at all of the different styles of music, not so much even the variety within styles; you have classical, jazz, rock, rap, emo, shoegazer, hair metal, speed metal, black metal, grindcore, punk, psychobilly, blues, electronica, reggae, mariachi, polka, etc., including several varieties of music I’m not sure how to even categorize.