From: Guru George (gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 15 1997 - 00:58:43 MST
Queen Muse wrote:-
>In a message dated 97-01-13 15:39:58 EST, you write:
>
><< But that's all I was saying, really. I was responding to what looked to
> me like a dissing of techno based on ignorance of those 'roots'. Nobody
> needs to take drugs for anything, but if you want to really understand
> techno, you have to have 'been there' at least once; then the 'gestalt' of
> the music is unlocked to you, and you can listen to it straight quite
> happily and still get it. Without that experience, a critique of techno
> is like somebody colour blind critiquing Van Gogh: they'll understand
> the form, light, and line, but not the colour.
> >>
>
>Now come on, george, that is such a total denial of other people's reality, i
>am saddened to hear it - chemicals don't eqaute to the sense of sight, and
>Van Gogh
>Painted drunk on absinth, you better say "without absynth" you cant judge his
>work...
>
Did he really? How fascinating! Well, then I'd say that to really
understand what van Gogh was on about, you'd have to have drunk absinthe
at least once.
You see, I'm not denying that anyone can legitimately make a judgement
about anything. Of course you can voice whatever reaction you've got to
a thing on the spot, and that's fine. I am saying that one's judgement
won't be 'complete' (or definitive, speaking loosely) until one has *also*
made an effort to get into a sympathetic frame of mind.
So then you have a sort of 'triangulation', see? You have your ordinary,
everyday judgement that you would have made anyway, and you have the
judgement you made when you were trying to 'verstehen' the thing. And
between them you have a pretty good idea of a) what the artist was on
about, and b) what the work says in itself, just standing there. Neither
of these judgements is what the work 'really' means, for there is no
'really means' in art. It's just that you have done the artist and the
work the courtesy of trying to understand their side of it, so your
judgement is more rounded.
BTW I'm surprised to hear someone on the Extropian mailing list saying
chemicals don't equate to the sense of sight! Isn't the sense of sight a
chemico-optical process? Aren't we allowed to alter and possibly enhance
our sense of sight by chemical means, if we will; or are we only allowed
to do that after the FDA has approved the chemical? ;-)
Guru George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:00 MST