Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical
Subject: Progress, the Arts, and Razor Blades
Message-ID: <109@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 06:13:17 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.109
Posted: Tue Feb 26 06:13:17 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:26:52 EST
References: <8347@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 30
Xref: utcs net.music:6065 net.music.classical:910

>>	2) Is there 'progress' in the arts? 
>>Of course not.  Arts are made by people, and people never change.

>Are you for real?  I haven't heard that type of simple-minded
>generalized BS since I quit watching those late 60's teeny-bobber TV...
>... You have obviously not had any *good* formal music training.

    It's difficult to reply politely to such remarks. Razor blades, after
    all, would only be too kind. (Oops, I flamed! Sorry..)

    I cannot speak for the original author's intent, but his remarks ring
    true to these ears.

    Consider the meaning of `progress'. `Scientific progress', for instance,
    refers to the perfection of our knowledge of the physical world. But do
    the arts grow more perfect?

    Is the music of Olivier Messaien, John Lee Hooker, or Iggy Pop more
    emotionally moving than that of Josquin Dez Prez or Monteverdi? Are the
    paintings of Matisse or Piet Mondrian more effective than those of
    Vermeer?

    Of course not!

    The arts, of course, must change in response to the techniques and
    fashions of the time, as well as to the natural creative drives of
    artists who feel constrained by the past. And sometimes, when we are
    lucky, the genius of the past is recreated in a new image.

-michael