Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [podcasters] Re: regarding aesthetics

Expand Messages
  • mr strauss
    I dunno. Meed? Don t know anything about it. But I ll say... Yes. Yes there is.
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 22, 2005
      I dunno. Meed? Don't know anything about it.

      But I'll say... Yes. Yes there is.

      King Monkey wrote:

      >is there such a thing as the golden meed
      >--- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, mr strauss <mrstrauss@p...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >>my point, precisely, is that quality is not relative.
      >>
      >>We may not be able to determine who is right about what constitutes
      >>quality, but in a disagreement about art, someone is right, and someone
      >>is wrong.
      >>
      >>If you are really curious regarding my reasoning on this, you can find
      >>the full explanation at the following link:
      >>
      >>www.popgoeslethal.com/text
      >>
      >>It's in 6 parts and runs about 60 pages, so I can't blame you at all if
      >>you aren't that curious.
      >>
      >>
      >>eric
      >>
      >>
      >>Bobbo wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>>Exactly why most conversations of "quality" in
      >>>art become quickly bogged down. Agreed that
      >>>standards are not an advantageous way to examine
      >>>art, although there are standards applicable,
      >>>within a given culture. Examples include
      >>>composition, contrast, movement through the image
      >>>(or the play, or the musical selection, or...).
      >>>There are other instructional, more technical
      >>>points of "quality," such as lost-found edges,
      >>>consonance vs. dissonance, tension vs. release.
      >>>These are applicable, again, often culturally
      >>>biased. Listening to a two-hour Indian raga is
      >>>not the same kind of artistic experience as
      >>>listening to a western classical composition. The
      >>>assumptions are different. One can assess craft,
      >>>which is more a measure of techical achievement,
      >>>but any sort of definition of art remains elusive.
      >>>
      >>>This brings me back to your original assertions
      >>>concerning a relativistic view of aesthetics.
      >>>Culture is also an inner phenomenon. Each of us
      >>>has an internal "culture," the combination of
      >>>neurology and experience, whereby to experience
      >>>art. Quality, apart from craft, is relative. So
      >>>is the perception of genius, which you invoked as
      >>>a standard. The point made in the thread was that
      >>>one man's trash, etc. I thought your point was to
      >>>object to relativism, which could be read to
      >>>include judging each work on its own merits, as
      >>>you seem to be suggesting below.
      >>>
      >>>Podcasting is, by definition, allied to the
      >>>airwave-oriented term "narrowcasting." Presenting
      >>>for a small audience, by comparison to broadcast
      >>>entities at least, is a relatively new frontier.
      >>>I've heard numerous podcasts that are of
      >>>something akin to "broadcast quality," if not in
      >>>their frequency response, then in their adherence
      >>>to radio-like standards: announcer style voice,
      >>>musical bumpers, produced intro/outro. In this
      >>>respect, quality might be defined as Mr. Crosby's
      >>>"standards," like clear vocal delivery,
      >>>compressed audio with limited dynamic range (an
      >>>obsolete consideration once imposed by tape hiss
      >>>vs. distortion and the limits of AM
      >>>broadcasting), and the overall impression of
      >>>listening to a radio station.
      >>>
      >>>But podcasting is something new, ironically akin
      >>>to something very old: the soapbox. I would be
      >>>most interested in hearing your view of how this
      >>>will emerge as an art form, how genius (or
      >>>successful art in this medium) might be
      >>>recognized, and what it would mean to the
      >>>podcaster to "reject aesthetic relativism.
      >>>pursue genius in your art, and be dissatisfied by anything less."
      >>>
      >>>B
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>the point of interest to me, in your response, is this one:
      >>>>
      >>>>"
      >>>>
      >>>>A serious
      >>>>discussion of aesthetics, be they relative or
      >>>>absolute, requires definition of standards.
      >>>>
      >>>>"
      >>>>
      >>>>I disagree.
      >>>>
      >>>>The reason is this. It is relatively easy
      >>>>diagnose what is wrong with a given piece of
      >>>>media that falls short. And so one might very
      >>>>well catalogue "pitfalls to avoid."
      >>>>
      >>>>However, it is possible only to describe
      >>>>elements that work within a given piece of media
      >>>>that succeeds. And while one may learn lessons
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>from studying successful art, it is not possible
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>to establish "standards" from that work. This
      >>>>is so because in art, each successful work is
      >>>>successful in its own way, and to attempt to
      >>>>copy that success is to doom oneself to failure.
      >>>>
      >>>>(It's sort of the opposite of Tolstoy's famous
      >>>>comments regarding happy/unhappy families.)
      >>>>
      >>>>It should further be stated that each successful work is greater than
      >>>>the sum of its successful parts. After all, the truths that good art
      >>>>manifest are ineffable.
      >>>>
      >>>>So while an assessment about art is either true or false (though there
      >>>>is no way to decisively prove said assessment as either), every
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >attempt
      >
      >
      >>>>to create static standards regarding art will fail.
      >>>>
      >>>>eric
      >>>>pop goes lethal podcast
      >>>>www.popgoeslethal.com/podcast
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>Bobbo wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>At the risk of soaring further into abstraction,
      >>>>>I'd point out that this conversation seems to
      >>>>>have veered less toward discussions of quality
      >>>>>than of appropriateness to an audience. "What is
      >>>>>good?" is a different question than "What is
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>appropriate for an audience," and reflects the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>endless discussions on the difference between
      >>>>>commercial art and fine art, and who is equipped
      >>>>>to judge the latter.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>Nearly thirty years in recording, and another
      >>>>>career before that in theatre, have left me
      >>>>>believing that standards of quality remain
      >>>>>personal choices. I've seen people whose entire
      >>>>>relationship to their art was spoiled by the
      >>>>>search for "genius and nothing less." A serious
      >>>>>discussion of aesthetics, be they relative or
      >>>>>absolute, requires definition of standards.
      >>>>>Quality maven Philip Crosby defined quality as
      >>>>>"conformance to standards." To me, this rather
      >>>>>begs the question, since established standards
      >>>>>can be low, and the acceptable level of quality
      >>>>>in that circumstances would be likewise. But
      >>>>>genius? To me, that's an unforgiving standard,
      >>>>>and flawed by the fact that genius is difficult
      >>>>>to judge in oneself, being more the province of
      >>>>>history and, alas, non-geniuses.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>Wendy Carlos, composer and performer of
      >>>>>electronic music from back in the day, is a
      >>>>>genius by any definition. She brought evocative,
      >>>>>highly musical performance out of the Moog
      >>>>>synthesizers of the day. Yet other, to me lesser
      >>>>>luminaries, complained about the Moog's
      >>>>>limitation: difficulty of varying the sound over
      >>>>>time, limited polyphony, a so-called sameness
      >>>>>about many of the sounds. To me, they were
      >>>>>hypercritical, and missed the joy of the
      >>>>>instrument, which today is enjoying a renaissance
      >>>>>in several forms, including Arturia's software
      >>>>>plugin version.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>I know a flute player who, to me, is a genius.
      >>>>>I've yet to hear her express satisfaction with a
      >>>>>performance. It's sad.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>I'm not advocating sloppiness, though for some
      >>>>>it's a signature. I certainly encourage the
      >>>>>highest level of craft one finds both appropriate
      >>>>>and desirable. But the fact is that quality is a
      >>>>>relative term, aesthetics is more vague still, as
      >>>>>witness the thousands of pages written on the
      >>>>>subject. De Kooning escapes me, yet I know and
      >>>>>respect those who love his work. It's not a
      >>>>>matter of egalitarianism, but more a discussion
      >>>>>of appropriate means to accomplish an end. The
      >>>>>depth of those means will always be a personal
      >>>>>decision, and the results are there to be judged.
      >>>>>Sturgeon's quote on crud was a value judgment and
      >>>>>a good one. I agree with him, and
      >>>>>parenthetically, count him as one of my favorite
      >>>>>authors. That some things are better than others
      >>>>>is unquestionable. More open to question is what
      >>>>>some of those things might be.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>Bobbo
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>all of this aesthetic relativism, I must confess, rubs me the
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >wrong way.
      >
      >
      >>>>>>Whilst there will never be consensus about what qualifies as
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >good art,
      >
      >
      >>>>>>and what does not, quality in art unqeustionably does exist. Some
      >>>>>>things are better than others, and no amount of egalitarian
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >rigamarol
      >
      >
      >>>>>>(sp?) is going to change that, in my opinion.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>reject aesthetic relativism.
      >>>>>>pursue genius in your art, and be dissatisfied by anything less.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>eric
      >>>>>>pop goes lethal podcast
      >>>>>>www.popgoeslethal.com/podcast
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>Dennis De Jarnette wrote:
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>>Chris Kalaboukis wrote:
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>There are still a lot of people out there who say 80% of
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >podcasting is
      >
      >
      >>>>>>>>crap,
      >>>>>>>>or even 90% of podcasting is crap - but they are looking at it
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >all the
      >
      >
      >>>>>>>>wrong
      >>>>>>>>way - the head way.
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>I suppose, However 80% of everything is crap. Why should
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >podcasts be
      >
      >
      >>>>>>>immune to this.
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>Positive Dennis
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>>
      >>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.