Tim Rhodes wrote:
> N CASHE wrote:
> >Also, I don't think Manson is a genius. I think he has good instincts.
> I guess I consider the two synonymous in an artist. (Just this artist's
> viewpoint here, however.)
I think you really have a handle on things. Am I allowed to ask about
your art? I don't know if these two are synonymous. I think a person
with good instincts can perceive, but a genius can translate/create.
I agree all the way up to job description. I think some art can be
powerful without this controversial aspect.
> I'm glad to see that music has taken the evolutionary step that the visual
> arts made 30-40 years ago; Understanding that manipulating the relationships
> between viewer, artwork, and culture is a valid medium for the artist to
> work in and can add an additional level of complexity and to his artwork.
> Scientists may have ethical questions about experimenting (memeticly) on
> human subjects, but for an artist it's part of the job description!
I agree all the way up to job description. I think some art can be powerful without this controversial aspect.And for all the "strides" music might have made in this interaction triangle thing, don't you have a problem at all with the commercial jingle machine that is the record industry? God, I feel like Linus...
Also, nobody commented on Schumacher. Would you, could you, in the rain? On a train, in a tree...?
(hey, look at my new signature below...well, i stole it...borrowed it.)
-- "It may, afterall, be the bad habit of creative talents to invest themselves in pathological extremes that yield remarkable insights but no durable way of life for those who cannot translate their psychic wounds into significant art or thought." Theodore Roszak