Wade wrote:
>Yup, and I have his CD's available of this- but- and I say 'but' a lot, I
>know- I, as a listener, have no clue about this structure from listening
>to the music, which is one of the reasons I don't mind that scientists
>might believe in gods, or priests might like to drive fast cars, or that
>musicians might cast yarrow sticks or read war games....
>
>I'm not aware of the rules when I see (or hear) the product.
If you "saw" you would. (With your analytical mind, you couldn't help figuring at least part of the rules out.)
>And I like that.
>
>I do not want to see this artifice. It is merely a part of the craft of
>the product, a tooling, if you will, required, (maybe, maybe not- that's
>what aesthetics is all about...), to 'manufacture' the art. And there are
>all sorts of factories.
Heh, heh... I know you feel this way, but I urge you to get up to date, old man. :-)
The process of manufacture _is_ the art for many modern (post- or otherwise) artists. Read some of Christo's writings. For him, as for so many others, the final product is simply a goal to point the process in an interesting direction. It is the process that is the art. He doesn't really care as much about what building looks like draped in fabric as he does about what permits it took, how community support/opposition unfolds, and what is neccesary to create a large, albeit temporary, statement in our society. That's why he films the making of every one of his projects and funds them through sales of the his sketches, blueprints, and used permits.
>Do we need to see the name of the factory? I don't
You really, really should see COBRA live if you can. I've heard several of the many recordings of it (all completely different, as you would expect--its an improv structure, Wade, IMPROV!) and none of them hold a candle to a live performance. What you're claiming is the final product isn't. You're only recieving a static 2-D image of a moving 3-D event.
-Prof. Tim
BTW, the same is true with 80% of Laurie Anderson's work as well.