lol
Quote:
|
and thirdly that the sole purpose of good art is to reveal emotion.
|
Who are you to a) distinguish between "good" and "bad" art, and then say with great confidence that the
sole purpose of art is to reveal emotion? How do paintings during the industrial age reveal emotion? How does a work by Feldman, a work by Cage, a work by Stockhausen reveal emotion? Even so, if I told maelstrom that some pieces by Schoenberg and Webern are highly emotional, he wouldn't like them. Even if I told him they are more emotional than a Bach piece or a Beethoven piece.
And you can't really call Feldman, Cage, Stockhausen, Schoenberg or Webern "non artists".
Quote:
|
emotion is easier to contrive with more instruments and more chords
|
Again, says who? Do you think a symphony by Haydn has more to offer than an improvisation by Keith Jarrett? Why should it? Just because it's pre-thought, with 50 times the instruments than the Keith Jarret improvisation? I think "emotion" (in music in which emotion exists anyway - I don't think Bach wrote with "emotion" in mind either) is unrelated to the amount of chords (what about music that is not about chords? what about music that is not about notes/pitches, even? Can't music like that be "emotional" or even "artistic"?) and the amount of instruments used. In contrary, I could argue largely that it is, in fact,
easier to convey emotion with as less instruments as possible, since you don't have to overburden yourself and your mind with sooo many writing details for all the instruments, so you can concentrate on the "emotion" itself.