Quote:
Originally Posted by jujimufu
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?
|
I think this was also a product of speed-reading. I later retracted that statement:
Quote:
|
And the part about emotion being solely what composers write for... again, I was slightly wrong in saying that. There usually is a meaning and purpose behind the music and that's what I meant.
|
All that you people are doing really is taking bits and pieces of what I said out of context and blowing them out of proportion. But what should I expect from you people
And who are you to say that the sole purpose of good art is not to convey emotion? When you look at it, "good art" is a matter of opinion and nothing else. Now, you'll probably parse this to mean something else... but what can I do. All I can ask of you is to read this carefully. Now as I was saying, you have as much right to call my opinion wrong as I have to call your opinion wrong too. If my opinion was to say that sitting on a toilet is artistic and you do not believe so, that is fine and you can call it wrong. The same goes if your opinion is that Schoenberg and Webern infuse meaning into their works; I can call that wrong too. In the end, who is right? Neither of us; in this scenario, there is no such thing as right or wrong. It is opinion.
And Zetetic, I think we are ALL in agreement. Its just that some people like to quote fragments of original posts and then make a huge ruckus: "oh emotion emotion emotion emotion". If you were to read my later posts, you would see that I actually was referring to a certain level of meaning.