Sorry for the typo... the second Paul Klee quote should read: "Art should be like a holiday-- something to give a man the opportunity to see things differently and to change his point of view".
|
@estreams:
" Impressionistic art requires a lot of mental work to make sense of. I just don't see it or get it, appreciate it or like it. I also find, as hard as i may try to enjoy improvisational jazz, that i don't get it, appreciate it, or like it. Instead, I love Realism art and instrumental smooth jazz!!"
Nothing wrong with that-- each to his/her own.
I am confused by your choice of Impressionism as "difficult", however. Most Impressionist works are very pretty with easily recognizable subject matter. No doubt these are some of the rerasons why it's probably the most popular style, world-wide. Think Monet, for example.
Perhaps what you mean is Expressionist Art -- especially Abstract Expressionist. Art, such as Pollock, De Kooning, Gorky, etc. ?
Scrawly, chaotic, messy stuff-- the "my kid could do that with fingerpaints" stuff.
As a right-brained person who's made quite a bit of art and who enjoys both abstract and representational approaches, I'd suggest to you that abstract art cannot be "made sense of"-- it's simply not designed to fulfill that function. It is designed to communicate but not in a literal manner. It's not a puzzle to be figured out, logically. If you approach it in this way, it's understandable that it feels like "hard work". Abstract art implies rather than replicates. There is a fampous quote about this by Paul Klee-- "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes visible". What does it make visible? That which is otherwise hidden. Here is another of his quotes: "Art should be like a holiday; something to change his point of view".
Please understand that I'm not saying "This is the truth"-- I'm only attempting to convey to you the spirit of abstraction.
I very much hope this does not sound patronizing or elitist to you because it's not about "High Art" or "Low Art".
We could think of art as a spectrum, with photography that has no aim but to represent optical reality perfectly, at one end and the most abstract painting at the other end.
On the photography end of the spectrum, think of a newspaper photgraph. All you notice is the subject-- let's stick with a bridge across a canyon. There's no mistaking what the subject is and the medium used to convey this information is entirely transparent. It's like an audio system that's so perfectly resolving that it adds no coloration to the music. You see a bridge crossing a canyon and you give little thought to the quality of the medium communicating this image. What you see is what you get.
This is your "black and white" world.
Now, as we move across the sprectrum, we come to a Photorealist artist, such as Chuck Close, known for enormous and enormously life-like, portraits. In fact, you might at first assume they're photographs. At the same time, once you learn they're not photographs, youbegin to pay more attention to the medium or mark-making. You may marvel at the artist's technique, for example. You're no longer wholly focusing upon the subject; you're beginning to also focus upon how the image is being delivered to you and perhaps, how that shapes your expereience of the subject.
Next, moving just a bit futher along our spectrum, we might encounter a drawing of a bridge across a canyon, executed by someone with incredible draughtsmanship. You still recognize the subject -- bridge across a canyon-- with no difficulty but you do notice certain aspects of how the image is presented. You may marvel at aspects of the technique-- a masterful use of shading, perspective or varying line weights, for example. Because it's arguably more difficult to create a "photographic" quality with pencil, you may marvel at how the mark-making creates such a convincingly representational image and thus, you pay more attention to the "how" as opposed to solely focusing upon the ""what". This doesn't detract from you capacity for comprehending the subject -- bridge across a canyon-- but the medium (pencil drawing) and the qualities of mark-making it employs are beginning to take on more weight in your process of perceiving what you are looking at. they are being to exert more of an influence upon your experience of the art-work.
In the middle of the spectrum, we find art in which the subject-- bridge across a canyon-- and awareness of the marks that convey the subject take on equal weight in the experience of perception. You notice the brush-strokes as much as you notice what they're conveying or constructing-- an image of a bridge across a canyon. Furthermore, the mark-making aspect begins to convey more than purely optical information. It begins to provide information on other levels. For example, you may get the sense that the artist has a very comfortable association with the bridge- Maybe he crossed it many times as a child on his way to see his favorite uncle. Or, perhaps the mark-making gives you the sense of danger and foreboding-- it's a bridge you might easily be swept off by the wind toward a rendevous with death on the jagged rocks below.
You get the point, I hope. When we eventually reach the complete other side of the spectrum, there's very little representational reference to a bridge crossing a canyon. The marks simply do not provide any easily recognizable clues to anything we recognize. On that side of the spectrum, we expereince the very opposite of what we saw in the newspaper photograph-- the medium or mark-making utterly dominates and the subject seems to have competely left the building. . . er canvas.
This is where the most Abstract visual art and most abstract music lives.
What you get is what you see/perceive. But the method of perceiving what is being conveyed by the artist is very different from the method that worked on the opposite end of the spectrum. There is black and white but ther are also many shades of gray... and they're not neatly arranged-- they're all jumbled up, together.
The rational mind is of little use, here. It is instead about sensing or "feeling into" what's on the canvas. And I'd argue that such sensing is pretty much impossible if you are, at the same time, trying to "figure it out". You cannot simultaneously engage the left and right sides of the brain! The need to "drive the entropic world we live in towards black and white as much as possible" and "...put order to chaos" falters here. In fact, it is only by surrendering the above drives that one can "get" the art on this end of the spectrum.
Some people prefer hanging out on the "black and white" side of the spectrum; others favor the middle while some prefer the chaos of the other side.
It's a very human drive to praise what pleases us and reject what does not. This extends to embracing those who share our inclinations and demonizing those who do not.
If you feel entirely satisfied by Smooth Jazz and representational art, enjoy your preferences! Don't listen to those who tell you are wrong.
At the same time, we can all feel somewhat dissatisfied at times by exclusively focusing upon that to which we're most naturally attracted.
At such times, it can be enlivening to reach out beyond our habitual
comfort zones and explore something a bit different. But when someone tells us we should be listening to something more sophisticated, hip or whatever, that's not much of an incentive.
I hope this is helpful in some way. |
One more thing... I didn't actually attempt to answer the question you posed: "Is improvisational jazz to impressionism art as smooth jazz is to realism art?"
Realism is not monolithic. Nor is abstraction.
Compare a newspaper photo to a photo by Edward Weston.
They are arguably equally "realistic" yet what they convey varies enormously.
I'd suggest that what's most helpful in the end is what Louis Armstrong said: "There is two kinds of music; the good and the bad".
If we remember this, it can help us avoid getting too hung up on what's most naturally appealing to us and keep us focused instead upon what's being communicated and the skill/invention that's on display, whatever the style.
Needless to say, this is often difficult!
|
@serjio:
"In the Soviet Union, there was a joke-saying:
today you play jazz - and tomorrow you will sell your homeland (everything sounds in rhyme).
Surprisingly, years passed and it was these people who turned out to be traitors ...
Behind abstractionism and improvisation (most often) hides anti-art, chaos, mediocrity, dehumanization - it is easier to realize there for those who do not know how to create a masterpiece, but know how to sell themselves ... a fool - you need to convince that this is cool! - to play on his vanity and pride ... he is not like everyone else! - and for this you have to pay a lot of money))))
When people discuss works of such creativity (for example, Malevich's "black square") ... it seems as if art critics gathered around a puddle of urine in an elevator - and everyone fantasized what it was like, what an artist's inner world ... what he wanted us tell this ...
There are probably exceptions, but there are very few of them, and most likely - the melody turned out to be similar to the classical one"
What a load of reeking garbage you've served up, here. |
@facten:
I'm curious: which John McLaughlin recordings qualify as Smooth Jazz????? |
@marklings:
I studied jazz piano 3 years and came to the conclusion that I just don't like it. I like order and structure and purpose and overall sense of a composition. I don't judge those who dig jazz and I understand those who dig it, I just don't.
I don't know where you studied but they seem to have managed to avoid conveying to you the whole point of Jazz improvisation, which is to SPONTANEOUSLY create something that does display "order and structure and purpose and an overall sense of composition" !
Classical musicians do have lee-way in interpreting the pieces they play, but they are performing someone else's composition. Jazz masters operate on a whole 'nother level.
I'm not saying what you "ought" to like or not like-- I'll leave such behavior to the resident music fascists who've posted on this thread.
But it seems a terrible shame that you've castigated Jazz for purportedly lacking what in fact lies at its very heart.
|
@kijanki:
"Jazz is simply inferior to classical music. Jazz musicians don't know where the right notes are and "hunt" for them by trial and error, while classically trained musicians find them instantly. Just look at Jazz bassist or guitarist - they "walk" all over fretboard until they find right note. Sure, it looks like improvisation, but don't be fooled - it is lack of proper training".
I'm assuming this is a joke.
|
Good one, then!
I wasn't sure, given some of the other posts on this thread. |
@marklings:
I'd go further and assert that what I've said about the nature of Jazz improv holds true for improv in any genre.
Aimless noodling doesn't tend to be very satisfying for players or listeners.
For example, the "theme and variation" approach can be recognized in the playing of Indian classical flautists, Bluegrass banjo pickers, and Chicago Blues harmonica blowers, to name but a few. They all attempt to create "order, structure, purpose and an overall sense of composition".
They may not all succeed every time but this is an exceedingly challenging activity we're talking about.
So, it seems it might be more accurate to suggest you simply don't care for improvisation, period.
|
@yuviarora::
"What if both are completely wrong?"
Can you offer an example of what "both being wrong" might look like?
I find it easier to see how each side could be both partially right and partially wrong than to envision both sides being completely wrong. |
@facten;
Actually, no.
I'd appreciate some examples, if you don't mind.
|
@facten:
We seem to not be communicating very well-- I apologize for whatever responsibility I bear for this.
As it happens, I'm very familiar with John McLaughlin-- I've been listening to him since 1972.
However, I have never heard anything by him that resembles Smooth Jazz in any way or anything midway between Smooth Jazz and Fusion.
In fact, I was hoping you would provide the titles of some of his records that would provide examples of such playing. I hope I have made things clearer! |
@middlemass:
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987"
"We are there."
Yup.
Well, half the population believes in facts while the other half believes in "alternative facts". And each side will claim those on the other side are the ones who believe what's false. |
@yuviarora:
There is no way for me to verify whether what you assert is true or not.
It could be labelled a conspiracy theory but again, I have no way to authoritatively disprove it.
I find there are plenty of challenges in life that are undeniably real -- I don't have any desire to add to my stress by dwelling upon things that might or might not be true and over which I have no control. But that's my choice-- I'm not in any way suggesting I know what's best for anyone else.
|
@facten:
"Classic Jazz" is a term most often used to describe Dixieland, so now I'm really confused.
I'll just say that I've never heard anything by J. M. that has any elements that remotely approach Smooth Jazz. His music is far too harmonically and rhythmically complex for that.
Let's just lay this one to rest.
|
@wolfgarcia:
Took my 65-year-old brain a while to recall the name...
The group was The Cookers.
You've been warned! :o) |
@wolf_garcia:
The last Jazz show I attended was an all-star group that included, among others, Billy Harper and Eddie Henderson-- two giants. Altogether, there were four or five horns and reeds, piano, bass and drums. Everything was mic'd. This was in a small concert hall and it was waaaayyyy too loud. I talked to the sound guy and he said the band insisted on that volume at sound check.. After about half an hour, I couldn't handle it any more and went out into to the lobby, where I remained for the remainder of the performance. I've never done that at any rock show!
There's not a whole lot of Fusion I enjoy but I do like the original Mahavishnu stuff. . . I have a hard time relating to that as background music.
Having said that, I find most Fusion is akin to watching someone lift weights-- it's seems to me to be mostly about testosterone, flash and exotic scales. It doesn't provide anything that engages me, emotionally, so I don't listen to it.
I had to stop playing guitar "too damned loud" as I didn't want to further damage my hearing. What I want to know is-- even with amps that have power-scaling, why do they make them so they only begin to sound good if you turn 'em up? ? ? |
@marlkings:
OK-- sorry for misunderstanding you.
When you said you 1) didn't like improv and 2) that you "like order and structure and purpose and overall sense of a composition", I thought you were saying that you don't enjoy improv BECAUSE IT LACKS "order and structure and purpose and overall sense of a composition", but apparently you meant something else.
My mistake, then,
|
@oregonpapa:
I agree with Garcia's assessment that Rap is a spoken-work form, not music-- simply because it fails to include melody and harmony in addition to rhythm.
As such, it can be powerful but I don't much relate to its content/cultural context and generally experience rhythm absent melody and harmony to be monotonous.
If I want to focus on spoken-word, I'd much rather read or listen to someone recite, poetry!
|
@mijostyn:
I first discovered Extrapolation in the late 70's and it has remained my favorite JM recording for many decades-- both for J. M's composing and playing and Surman's stellar contributions.
|
"We should never make the mistake of holding a specific genre to be sacrosanct and beyond criticism".
Agreed ! |
@rja:
"Questionable analogies"
Indeed-- perhaps that's why the OP posed it as a question. |
@mijostyn:
"It is not an issue to argue about, like art there are an infinite number of ways to interpret it"
Well, I'd disagree just a bit. My BA is in studio art and in school, I became quite used to evaluating artwork in terms of how skillfully it accomplished what the artist set out to do-- both in terms of form and content. This is the "craft" aspect and I'd argue this is not strictly an "interpretive" process.
Taking this approach pre-supposes a capacity for setting aside one's initial, spontaneous response, which can be very challenging but it's like a muscle that gets stronger through practice.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that if an artwork is successful in this "craft" aspect, you or I or any given individual will automatically like it!
However, if we solely go by our personal taste, we may fail to appreciate much in the world of art.
|
