Tweet
Islandman, your discussion here is a very good one, and I would hate to see it get lost, buried way down in that other thread. As such, I sincerely hope you don’t mind me taking your very convincing argument to a new thread where it can become more visible. 
Well stated, boss, and much better and clearer than I could have put it . In fact, I agree 100 percent with everything you’ve said here, with one single exception: the very last sentence you wrote.
In your analogy of modern photography vs. fine art, yes we are indeed better off, although certain creative aspects have suffered immensely! For example, it’s hard for a photographer to adequately capture the exaggerated emotional appeal of a still life oil painting by, say, Paul Cezanne or Vincent Van Gogh, or a light vs shadow study by a master like Rembrandt, or an emotion-drenched landscape painting by John Constable or William Turner. Styles such as, for example, impressionism have been based on the interpretation of subjects that often divert from the plain reality.
In the final analysis, however, photography has allowed the common man to bring realism into his life and home (his environment, so to speak). This is indeed wonderful.
In the case of music, though, can technology replace raw human creativity and vision in the same way? Remember now, while fine arts (painting, drawing, etc.) are focused on capturing reality on to canvas, paper, etc., music is about communicating ones inner creativity. It is not so much realism as much as emotionalism.
For example, who is going to replace, say Ernie Ranglin’s guitar playing or Oscar Peterson’s piano playing or Charles Mingus’ awesome bass interpretations using technology? Yes, what has gone on before can be re-created with synthesizers, but can the music engineer and producer and other big-wigs create new visionary, creative products such as talented, truly gifted masters like a Dave Bruebeck of Art Tatum could?
The new technological approach (computers, drum machines) work best with simplistic music like rap, hip-hop, reggae and dancehall. This is why I’ve always agued that, with reference to serious music, we will be worse off.
Originally posted by Islandman
Originally posted by Islandman
. In fact, I agree 100 percent with everything you’ve said here, with one single exception: the very last sentence you wrote.In your analogy of modern photography vs. fine art, yes we are indeed better off, although certain creative aspects have suffered immensely! For example, it’s hard for a photographer to adequately capture the exaggerated emotional appeal of a still life oil painting by, say, Paul Cezanne or Vincent Van Gogh, or a light vs shadow study by a master like Rembrandt, or an emotion-drenched landscape painting by John Constable or William Turner. Styles such as, for example, impressionism have been based on the interpretation of subjects that often divert from the plain reality.
In the final analysis, however, photography has allowed the common man to bring realism into his life and home (his environment, so to speak). This is indeed wonderful.
In the case of music, though, can technology replace raw human creativity and vision in the same way? Remember now, while fine arts (painting, drawing, etc.) are focused on capturing reality on to canvas, paper, etc., music is about communicating ones inner creativity. It is not so much realism as much as emotionalism.
For example, who is going to replace, say Ernie Ranglin’s guitar playing or Oscar Peterson’s piano playing or Charles Mingus’ awesome bass interpretations using technology? Yes, what has gone on before can be re-created with synthesizers, but can the music engineer and producer and other big-wigs create new visionary, creative products such as talented, truly gifted masters like a Dave Bruebeck of Art Tatum could?
The new technological approach (computers, drum machines) work best with simplistic music like rap, hip-hop, reggae and dancehall. This is why I’ve always agued that, with reference to serious music, we will be worse off.
Comment