Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[Alex K]

[Thumpalumpacus]

They are mine.

When I paint I see two ways at once: a simplified whole and lots of abstract little pieces---the simplicity, and, as you say, the blob.

Beautiful work, Jen. Beautiful.

[Alex K]

They are mine.

When I paint I see two ways at once: a simplified whole and lots of abstract little pieces---the simplicity, and, as you say, the blob.

Beautiful work, Jen. Beautiful.

I particularly like the first one

[Thumpalumpacus]

But aren't there some absolute standards that allow us to say that say, a Bach fugue is a more intricate and complex creation than a more or less harmonically primitive I-IV-V-I pop song? It's not like all music is created equal.

More complex technically is not the same as more artistic. The Beatle's "Tomorrow Never Knows" is one C Major all the way through, but goddamn if it doesn't touch something very deep inside me with the way those marvelous lyrics are married to that hypnotic groove.

As a musician of 30+ years, formally educated in classical and jazz guitar, one of the big issues I have with music and musicians is the urge to be overly complex for no good reason. Sometimes, florid complexity is exactly what is needed to convey the emotion at hand; at other times, simplicity is the key.

They're both equally artistic, insofar as they move the listener, in my view. And in music in particular, a fetishism for technicality can often interfere with the appreciation of the listener. I've taught a couple of kids the basics of improvisational music and theory, and the point I try to make is one made first, I think, by Carlos Santana: The goal is not for you to play music; the goal is to let the music play you. What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

[Alex K]

What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

That's one of the peeves I and many have with many technical death metal bands (I assume that's not your cup of tea though).

[Nope]

Those are beautiful Jenny. I love to paint but my artwork is meh. LOL When I see someone else with actual talent, it always blows me away.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Stephen King is considered pulp mostly because of his writing style. He's good at weaving a story and great at developing characters, however, his delivery is fairly pedestrian.

In writing, plot and character are everything -- and sketching out a character with words is an art unto itself. I disagree that his delivery is pedestrian, as well -- there are moments when his writing is perfectly electric with energy.

I think he's considered pulp because he writes two or three books a year, and sells them by the boatload.

[Alex K]

Let's talk about Dan Brown. I love reading Dan Brown, each book gives me months of joy in which I can go on and on about how things about it piss me off.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[abaris]

Let's talk about Dan Brown. I love reading Dan Brown, each book gives me months of joy in which I can go on and on about how things about it piss me off.

Not a big fan of Dan Brown. In my opinion, he basically writes the same book over and over again. I stopped buying his books after Deception point. My brother had another one which I borrowed at some time, the Lost Symbol. It utterly failed to convince me.