It seems that some people here don't like ITM to be referred to as an art-form, I'm wondering why this is? Is it just a case of ignorance of what the words 'art' and 'music' mean.
Here's a few definitions for you
'Music is an art form consisting of sound and silence expressed through time'
'Art refers to a diverse range of human activities and artifacts, and may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms'
(wikipedia, yes I know how dubious wiki can be!)
from the oxford English dictionary
music - • 1 the art of combining vocal or instrumental sounds in a pleasing way. 2 the sound so produced. 3 the written or printed signs representing such sound.
— ORIGIN Old French musique, from Greek mousike tekhne ‘art of the Muses’.
the arts - the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama
From the Cambridge Dictionary
music 1 a pattern of sounds made by musical instruments, singing or computers, or a combination of these, intended to give pleasure to people listening to it:
2 the art or study of music:
art - the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings
So those are the definitions, I know John Cage spoke about any sound and silence being music but that's not really relevant to my point.
If you look at all the definitions above you'll see that the words 'art' and 'music' are pretty much inseparable.
So what's wrong with calling ITM an art-form? Why are people against the concept? It took years for ITM to be given recognition by the Irish State and the Arts Council as a valid form of art so why do people give out when some of us try to have serious discussions about ITM as an art-form?
To me it's almost a colonial attitude to it, those who tried to take away our language and music certainly didn't see ITM as art, rather they considered it unsophisticated peasant noise. By subscribing to the view that ITM is not art, are we therefore not pandering to this colonial view?
(disclaimer, any of you for whom this discussion seems pretentious, long-winded or the like are excused from contributing, you may continue reading The Sun, watching Eastenders, drinking lager and beating your bodhrán with your head......)
Interesting subject Frisbee. I don't fell as though I have enough expereince to answer your question well, but I've always thought of it as an art form.
My old man believed something is only Art if you can get paid for it - others believe that something as simple solitary person out in the woods banging sticks together is making true "Art." It is all subjective - and for me completely unrelated to me having a few tunes and pints with my friends.
However, if the French demand Pantomine be recognized as an art form, I can't imagine why anyone would make a fuss about calling Irish Trad music art...
I guess Jusa Nutter Eejit sums up one viewpoint, ITM for him is mainly about 'having a few tunes and pints with my friends', which is fair enough, it's a nice hobby for you and there's nothing wrong with that.
However there are a lot of people for whom the music is much more important than that. We still enjoy a few tunes and pints and friends down the local, but the music has a much deeper meaning to us than that and that's possibly why we consider it art.
Art or Craft? or.... Where does the dividing line lye ? if at all.
jake ... maybe not you but some people do care.
Frisbee, some people will give out at just about anything that does not fit their preconceived ideas. Do they actually have a reason? Probably not.
So if its not art, what is it?
As an aside i just wanted to thank you frisbee for your intelligent and interesting discussions, I allways look out for your stuff. good man yourself.
Of course its art!
Your point reminds me of the comments i read about the Bodhran not being used historically in ITM, it being consigned to '' noise maker''! surely all music is nothing but noise?
As they say, history is written by the winners!
Jusa, it's not being uppity, I don't go around talking about 'my art' and all that and god knows I can't stand the Late Review type shows which take 'art' discussion to the highest levels of pretentiousness.
Still for those of us for whom the music is more than a mere hobby I do think it's important to discuss it seriously, but in previous dsicussions when some of us have been talking seriously about the music there have been a few people making snide comments about us treating it as 'art'.
I've no problem with people treating ITM as a simple hobby and I'm sure many people on this site treat it as such, however when such people start giving out to others for treating it as more than a hobby, then I see a problem and that's what this discussion is for. Trying to see whether there is a genuine reason why people don't like to discuss it as an art-form or even mock the idea that it is an art-form.
So Jusa I understand the idea that you just want to play the music and have a bit of fun with your mates and I don't in any way look down on you or anyone else who thinks this way. However I don't like it when people say it's 'uppity' or ;pretentious to discuss ITM just like classical music or jazz or painting or sculpture are discussed.
oops, think I misinterpreted you there Jusa sorry, I thought you were saying that people who called it art were being uppity, but now re-reading your post it seems you were saying you didn't understand why people would complain about it being called art, but as my last post explains there are such people.
A lot of people. In the Republic of Ireland "artists" do not pay tax, as well as rich people and horse racing owners. And there are a lot of people in Ireland making a few bob and promoting ITM as it is presented as an "art" by the arts council.
And to answer the question, all music is an "art".
You've got it sorted there Frisbee - I've listened to your clips on the myspace link and there is no doubt you are making art in its highest form. For me I think I am just trying to keep a healthy balance between the two schools of thought - sort of a constant balancing act of "tighten up" vs. "lighten up" when playing and enjoying this music.
At the end of the day - Bliss's comments are the truth of it.
bliss, it is simplifying it to say 'artists' do not pay tax. Musicians have to pay tax on CD Sales, concert fees/takings, live performance royalites and many other things. The only things musicians get tax exemption from are broadcast royalties and money gained from people paying them to create new works of art, i.e. commission fees for compositions.
There is a lot of misinformation about the tax free status of musicians and other artists, this is down to the media, most paricularly lowest common denominator publications like The Sun who appeal to the average tax paying citizen by creating an outrage at the fact that rich musicians aren't paying tax. Now artists who earns over €250,000 on 'exempt' income have to pay tax on that too.
So this kind of misinformation is really damaging to artists who don't make a lot of money and only make a decent living by virtue of the tax exemption.
Some people dislike any attempt at gentrifying traditional music because that feels at odds with such a "music of the people." Some of this goes back to the distinction, in the day, between ceol na rince and the classical and show music being imported into Irish cities from the UK and the Continent. You have to remember there was a time when trad music was disparaged as vulgar and non-Irish music held up as enlightened and noble. Guess which one was banned, and which was taught in schools?
So some people still have a sense of backlash against anything artsy. And some people worry that formalizing this music (by offering university degrees in it, for example, as art music) may rob it of its spontaneaity, rough edges, generosity, and sense of humor.
Me, I think trad music is strong enough to carry on no matter what labels are pinned onto it.....
Yes of course Irish and other traditional musical forms are forms of art. Nothing pretentious about that. Nor is it any great revelation for us to affirm this. And it's news to me that other members here show reticence in thus describing traditional music. If so, perhaps it's something like false modesty for which the Irish in particular are famous, like "ach I'm only after playing a few ould tunes, bjeesus, how can ye call that art?" And anyway why can't "unsophisticated"..."peasant" people make art? They are, or were, human beings, capable, given time to indulge, of creativity, are/were they not?
Also there's no real need to accuse non-serious participants of your discussions as being Sun-worshippers, unless you feel perpetually aggrieved by dissent, but what care I for you may continue to wallow in the fragility of your own ego as becomes you.
There will allways be people who mock what they dont understand. Thats life.Even if you bend over backwards to involve them in positive conversation... no they just mock.
Im sure as teenagers we were as bad.
BB but when is music a craft?
What differentiates a load of old rubbish and art? the viewer?
I have friends who are thatchers, and basket makers.These are traditional crafts.They can be, at there best, also art.
I prefer to view what i do as a musician as a craft, as in weaving. I am an artist and a craftsperson.That is what i have trained to do. I act as a proffesional. I study my craft, I polish my work.
I respect everyones right to approach this field in their own manner, and would hope for the same respect in return.
I think it's art. I've invested too much of myself in it to wish to believe otherwise.
It is a repository of talent, experience, discoveries, and emotions in the form of what is unassailably music, as defined in the West anyway, whatever the rougher edges of it may have sounded like to unsympathetic ears in the distant past.
Before colonial times Irish music was one of the most important things to the Irish people, the harpers music was certainly considered high-art. With colonialism when the Gaels no longer ruled the music went 'underground' but that doesn't mean that the people who played it didn't take it very seriously indeed.
I'm sure if you asked Michael Coleman if he considered himself an artist he'd say yes. It may have become the 'music for the people' in colonial times but to suggest that 'the people' didn't discuss it in artistic terms is to suggest that 'the people' were indeed peasants like the colonists said they were. If you relate it to today, I know many musicians with no formal music training who discuss the music with as much seriousness if not more so than those with university degrees.
They may have reservations about it being taught in a formalised way, but that doesn't mean they don't consider it art. I know many sean nós singers in particular see the music they sing as a very complex art form.
Pop music is 'music of the people' in the 20th/21st Century, jazz is 'music of the people', particularly African-Americans, both Pop and Jazz get treated as art-forms and there are serious discussions and university degrees and so on about them.
The only way the spontaneity goes out of any of this music is when the people discussing it are complete academics, i.e. they don't play the music or play it very little and instead spend way too much time writing about it. However the reverse idea isn't healthy for the music either, if people never discussed it seriously it would probably be in an awful state. No one would have any references to say what is good ITM and what is bad ITM.
Regarding universities, a good course in ITM will emphasise how important 'spontaneity, rough edges, generosity and sense of humour' are to the music. Whether such a course exists is open to debate.
Perhaps this discussion would have more weight if somebody with an opposing viewpoint chimed in - so far everyone agrees music is art and ITM is art. Where's the beef?
key manaic lad, my little comment at the end of my original post was satirical, I was taking the p*ss out of people who instead of contributing to a discussion make remarks that aren't relevant or funny. I appreciate a good smart comment but a lot of times the short retort style comments are just idiotic (jakes comment for example).
If someone doesn't want to contribute seriously to this discussion that's their own business and good luck to them, however comments like jakes are to me just pointless and idiotic. He probably thought it was funny and perhaps it is funny to a 16 year old so for that I'll forgive him as all of this is probably a load of pretentious nonsense to him. When I was 16 I probably would have done something similar, but I'm not 16 anymore and to be honest I'm delighted about that!
As for your comments about my 'ego' I think you're the one with the ego problem if you took my comment about 'Sun-worshippers' seriously!
I don't disagree, frisbee. But you asked why some people might thumb their noses at talking about this music as "art," and I tried to articulate the arguments I've heard others make. Doesn't mean that they're water-tight arguments, but you're not likely to dissuade people from sticking to them.
And it's not as though the anti-art crowd is in the majority here.....
How can anyone argue the point?
Personally, all and every positive direction of attention towards this particular art form are welcome. Particularly patrons!
frisbee, that comment came from a thread you started for the sole purpose of singling out Michael (llig) for his stance on sheet music. People are reacting to *you,* not so much to all this "art" talk.
In short, *insisting* that we all adopt your attitudes about sheet music, music theory, and artistic parameters for this music isn't likely to (1) persuade anyone and (2) win any friends here (even among those who--on the gist of these things--agree with you).
anyone who studied musical art for years is a musical artist
anyone who studied visual art for years is a visual artist
anyone who studied martial art for years is a martial artist
Frisbee, im not so sure.... studying an art form and being an artist are not the same things. Once you have an understanding and internalisation of the technical aspects of your 'path' then perhaps, with continued perseverance, an artist you may become. No amount of intellectual effort will enable one to understand a feeling. Only by experience will that become clear.
anything that needs time,passion,feeling and emotion . Is an art to me but when a person calls themselves an artist that gets up my goat...............
RE sheet music. Ive figured out why this anti-sheet music stance bugs me; Surely only if you have a direct unbroken lineage passed down aurally through the generations can you maintain this position.
You may learn your tunes by ear but the likelyhood is you learnt them from someone who learnt them from the dots!
We have no recordings pre 1920's. We have only the dots. As in the Hadith perhaps we could quote who we learnt the tune from and who they learnt it from etc etc!
My 2c: an irresolvable question, but not so much because of our unclear understanding of what ITM is (though god knows, we aren't clear on that) but because the meaning of the word "art" is so fluid it is almost useless as a word. Unless, of course, you choose to make your own, clear and unambiguous definition of the word, but who knows if anyone else will accept it?
Saint, when a plumber calls him/herself a plumber, does that annoy you?or a doctor a doctor? so why should an artist calling themselves an artist wind you up?
My goodness jig - can you imagine the reaction if the fiddle player sitting next you, good as they may be, suddenly said - "yes, I truly am an artist" after playing a set at your session?
the whole craft-versus-art thing, or folk-art versus fine-art thing, masks all kinds of wormy subtext about power, class, status, earning power, not to mention, sometimes, issues of gender, ethnicity, race, etc.
but when the light comes through the windows of chartres......who cares whether glasswork is an art or a craft?????
This music may be full of artistry, and played with artistry, but we're at a site called theSESSION.org.
For me, when a session gets too full of itself, looses its sense of humor, and tried to put too fine a shine on the music--that's when all the art drains straight out of it.
Ok nutter but id react the same if the plumber said, as he rises from beneath the sink ''yes, I truly am a plumber" But if my friend john introduced himself as an artist i wouldn't blink an eye.He is. He's also an engineer. We are what we are.Im not talking about pretence but demonstrable skill.
A plumber has severed his/her time and a doctor has quaified . When does someone become an artist? Does an artist just decide themselves that they are an artist ? Can I be an artist in the morning as soon as I start any art .............I just think the word artist is a title that carries alot of prestiege and Its should be a compliment given by others .I also beleive that perfection is what an artist spends his/her life trying to achieve and never stops learning. So in my eyes a true artist will never claim to be one................
Jig - the plumber bit was funny - I'll give you that. However, if your friend John is a trad musician but introduced himself as an "artist" it seems like that would carry a bit of an air of pretence - yes?
There is a saying in Cork (maybe everwhere ) but its very good It happens when a person is watching someone else doing something anything and they are not very impressed and think its easy..................the comment is"where s the art in that" .
Art has to have a certain skill that others can appreciate ...............for eg take the worst bodhran player you ever heard and then look how ringo and others have turn in to a work of art................anything can be an art form if developed.............
chesire puddy tat....i'm not 'insisting' anything, I'm arguing my case, I sometimes challenge other people who 'insist' other things. There wasn't really 'a sole purpose' in that thread about Michael, but If there was a 'sole purpose' it certainly wasn't to single Michael out, the main reason I posted it was to prompt further discussion on an issue he was most vocal on.
Sure I made strong reference to him but he was asking for it really by continually abusing people who mentioned the words 'sheet-music.' I don't think Michael was too offended by anything I said about him, I think he's well able to take it and if he's not then he shouldn't be ripping on people like he does.
Just from reading a lot of opinions here I get the sense that some people tend to make outlandish comments without really looking into what they are saying and Michael came across that way to me but thanks to the thread I posted Michael actually refined his beliefs on the matter to something I think a lot of people would agree with.
I know there are people out there who won't agree with me on the things I say and I'm not here to win friends to be honest. This is a discussion board, a place to express opinions about ITM. I base my opinions on facts when I can, I get these facts from studying the music (I've studied ITM directly from musicians and almost entirely out of the academic system by the way).
Anyway back to my original point I think it's clear that the majority of us see it as art but some people don't like the associations 'high-art' has with the upper classes. I just wonder is this association with the upper-classes a bit misguided. Why can't 'the people' enjoy all music as equal art and please let us get rid of this notion of 'high-art', 'the people' tend to enjoy music of all types, it is only the snobby elitists who see one form of music (e.g. classical) as being higher than another (e.g. ITM) unfortunately this results in a form of inverted snobbery as in it being pretentious for a top fiddler to consider themselves an artist.
I'd say most trad musicians who take the music seriously consider themselves artists but I don't know many who'd go around introducing themselves as 'artists' to peopple! They introduce themselves as musicians and they consider the music they play to be art, there's nothing pretentious about that....is there?
I don't really understand this one. I don't understand the motive.
That daft disclaimer: "any of you for whom this discussion seems pretentious, long-winded or the like are excused from contributing, you may continue reading The Sun ..." etc. I read that and thought, yeah well, I'm excused and it will run its course and we can forget about it. But on it goes and it's beginning to irritate me.
It's just not a discussion. The whole thing is set up as, "IT IS ART, anyone who thinks it isn't can feck off".
Where is the motive in posting a "discussion" like that?
Ok nutter, fair enough, but do you know any one who does?
Saint. I could call my self a plumber,I can open PTFE tape.
I could buy a piece of paper that says im a doctor.. But it would be bull.. im not.
I think that the word/label artist is no more than a job description.like hairdresser.Its no big deal. Im not an artist. What I do could be called art, but it could be called noise. I am a noisemaker.... Doesnt have quite the same ring about it does it?
In any field you have pretenders and contenders, sure we could leave it to other people to judge but at what point is it legit for an artist to call them self that?
Anyhow i could take a fine art and make a right bodge of it. Its still a fine art but im no artist!
jg...... that point I made about people who study art for years being artists was perhaps phrased badly, I was just refering to Saint wondering if he should be considered an 'artist' because he studied martial art. Perhaps I should have said anyone who 'masters' matial art is a martial artist just like anyone who masters musical art is a musical artist or anyone who masters visual art is a visual artist and so on.
Anyway we are not talking about whether a particular traditional musician is an artist here we are asking whether ITM is art, to me this can be a session, in fact three or four of my best musical experiences ever were spontanteous music sessions, the music that was created by the musicians present was amongst the highest standard of music making I've ever heard, is it wrong to call that art?
I think Llig may be right about this thread, however, keeping a long-winded tail-chasing argument going into perpetuity is a bit of an "art" itself. I think I'll rename myself "The Artist Formally Known as JNE"
And frisbee, Though I have changed my mind a lot here, on that other music thread ... never once did I change my mind or even refine my position from anything I've said here a thousand times. You just don't listen
"It's just not a discussion. The whole thing is set up as, "IT IS ART, anyone who thinks it isn't can feck off".
Where is the motive in posting a "discussion" like that?"
Llig I ask you to read on where I say
"key manaic lad, my little comment at the end of my original post was satirical, I was taking the p*ss out of people who instead of contributing to a discussion make remarks that aren't relevant or funny. I appreciate a good smart comment but a lot of times the short retort style comments are just idiotic (jakes comment for example)."
I'm surprised at you Michael, it's not like you to make a comment about a discussion without following the thread through
i think in a nutshell, my devised in a second opinion is that: music which is intentional is good music, art which is unintentional is good art. they don't always exist at the same time...
my first clause of the opinion is means that when one sets out to play consciously then one creates good music because you're trying to hit all the right notes and hopefully will! but then that's not art, it's a mere technical perfection.. i think then that when the first clause is left out of the equation, you can really let the soul speak... i've made my most artistic endeavors when in that real hyped up mental state where my logical mind is just blank and it's only feelings which are coming across.. i'm normally grinning like mad and speaking in a very high pitched voice when this is going on! other times when i compose and play the best is after a hard night on the town when my mind is just not working in its usual way.. (not to say its not working full stop!)
i'm not saying that this is the only way but there does seem to me to be a link between different states of mind and ability to create good art... i know that i just couldn't sit down and write anything of great quality... unless of course one could induce this state of mind.. i have spoken to a few people who write great music and what struck me is that they don't create the good stuff while in a concentrated, 'i'm going to write a hit' mental state...
we all have different ways of inducing this mental state... with me, it happens by accident.. i can't really control it yet.. for someone like dave though, i'm sure he has that ability...
ok! i've boared ye enough; rant over! i'll prob have a diff opinion on this in the morning! brace yourselves!
Llig you clarified your position, is perhaps what I should say, your anti-sheet music comments often come across as all-encompassing, in other words that the sheet-music has absolutely no place in the music. In our discussion you clarified that you actually agree that it can be helpful in some situations (i.e. an experienced player can learn the bones of the tune from the dots and then turn it into genuine ITM, but that it shouldn't be used by beginners to 'learn' the music....or did I get that wrong?
Its a bit like the dots here isnt it? we are 'talking' and 'listening' but really its just dots on a computer screen.How can we really comunicate without being face to face?.
How can you accurately transmit music through dots on paper?
Actually i dont think its such a big deal,the dots tell me roughly how a tune goes like these dots tell me roughly what some people think.
I have been called a p*ss artist...............................If you cerate a work of art the your an artist but here lies the question What is art its seen differently to everone ........bliss being the best at what you do would you call your self an artist.........................do artist perform?
My motive for this question is to see why some people who obviously like ITM don't want to treat it as an art-form. I am interested in peoples opinions but still I'll argue against anyone who tries to belittle ITM as an art-form. I give it equal status to any form of music or art and I really don't understand why anyone who loves the music doesn't see it like that.
Whilst I think traditional irish music is an art form, not all pracitioners of traditional irish music can be considered artists.
Only those who invest time into mastering it can be considered artists, but those that do this don't go around calling themselves artists, they call themselves musicians.
They consider the music to be an art-form and so they get called 'artists' by other people! I agree it'd be pretentious for a musician to call themselves 'an artist'.
I call myself a musician but I consider all music to be a form of art so in theory it shouldn't really be that pretentious for me to call myself an artist, but due to the associations the word 'artist' has I won't call myself an artist because musicians who call themselves 'artists' tend to be very pretentious.
Is that clear enough for you now Michael?!! (hey it's a complex issue)
Still its all labels at the end of the day, Some people treat art as a hobby, maybe might sell the odd painting, but wouldnt call themselves an artist.Some people may play some tunes once a week but not call themselves a musician.The subject matter is the same just the level of attention different
Why would we need to call ourselves anything?For social status? Work opportunity?Self validation?Or just to answer that question;What do you do then?
I m with ya frisbee , that last post was a work of art your wasting your time with certain people becauce "you can't educate wood" Any bouzouki tips frisbee would be appreciated progression etc.
yes they're all labels and there are different definitions of what 'art' is but perhaps my main point here is that people shouldn't be afraid of calling ITM 'art', it's not pretentious to do so, in fact it can be liberating to think of it is art because it will make you think of the music in a different way, instead of thinking it's just a nice hobby for a bit of craic you might start thinking it's a great vehicle for personal creative expression.
If you are creative with the music then you are a musical artist. You don't have to be a complete virtuoso or even a professional to be a musical artist, if you play the Kesh Jig and put your own stamp on it then you are being creative with music and hey presto you are a musical artist!
Michael didn't "refine" his ideas on sheet music in that other thread, frisbee, you just haven't followed his reasoning, which has spanned many threads over time here.
And yiou say you want to understand why people think a certain way, yet you sound more like you just want to argue until they accept your assertions. Which are hard to square: "I call myself a musician but I consider all music to be a form of art so in theory it shouldn't really be that pretentious for me to call myself an artist, but due to the associations the word 'artist' has I won't call myself an artist because musicians who call themselves 'artists' tend to be very pretentious."
In short, "It shouldn't be pretentious but it is, so I won't, but I resent that."
Well we'll all have a big sigh together, give us a hug, and here's a mug of tea. Pat, pat.
Dave, that last post of yours above is sooooo much more positive than the way you started this thread. Why not take that approach in the first place? I think it's one far more people would agree with.
sometimes you have to go through the negatives to get to the positives. It's like playing a couple of dark D Dorian tunes and then following them with a bright A Major tune!
Just to be clear: I personally do think of this music as art. For me, the good melodies are as strong or stronger than the many of the motifs that make up the canon of "serious" western music. They just haven't been extrapolated into concertos, etc.
All I was doing in my earliest posts on this thread was trying to answer frisbee's question: why do some people dislike calling it art? Doesn't mean I agree with them.
Thing is I much prefer Dorian type tunes to A Major ones. To me most of the best ITM tunes have a bit of a dark edge to them, there are some great 'happy' tunes but if you're going to use that analogy I'll take sour over sweet cos sour often has an edge while sweet often becomes saccharine
Historically, most "artists" - such as composers, sculptors, writers, painters, performing musicians - had to produce "art" in order to feed themselves and their families.
People like Stradivari used their craftmanship to earn a living making extremely complex - and even today little understood - musical instruments which are now works of high art in their own right.
The bottom line only too often is that art arises out of the need to earn money.
But there have been many - the amateurs in the real sense of the word - who have produced great works of art for the sheer joy of creating, without any monetary concerns. I give you Paddy Fahey as just one example among many.
Of course, this sheer joy of creating also exists in those who need to create art in order to live - Mozart, for example.
So, why do some people who obviously like ITM don't want to treat it as an art-form?
That's easy. "Art" has been "bourgeoisified" for long, so that's why many plain folks hate their music called "art." I used to specialize in social history of art for years, and hate the word. I don't think I'm particularly Marxist though.
A very personal definition.Art for me is something that I can't do.I can do anything that the modern conceptual 'artists can do,like sawing sheep in half or writing names on a tent.Of course if I turned up at the Tate with some toilet rolls glued together they'd show me the door,but if Damien Hurst did it they couldn't get the cheque book out fast enough.I could never paint like Turner or Rubens and I'll never play the fiddle like Tommy Potts.,so for me that's art.
geez.... i don't want to be labelled a marxist either.... however, i have to say that i agree with ceemonster's class based view of art (also what frisbee seems to have been hinting at with his contrasting of the patronage of irish harping tradition with the peasant music of ireland).
it seems to me that "art" is a concept which is not so much dependent on expressing emotions or even technical precision, as much as it is based upon class. for example, one day when i was in university and taking an aboriginal studies class, i can remember some guy raising his hand and saying something about native people not having had art. only crafts.
i guess this was like lazyhound's definition of art as being tied to commerce. (however, this guy was clearly mistaken, because native people have a history of trading/earning from their art too... making their works just as much art as any imperial works in that sense. in this case the diference between art and craft would be more like what frisbee was saying in his first post.... a colonizing culture placing value on their own works while denying the works of the colony the same value, dismissing them as "crafts" -- what poor and "ignorant" people make instead of art).
just to be clear, i'm not trying to say that because art is a class based concept which is not based on expression or technical precision, that these two things are not involved in art. i'm just trying to say that these things are present in what is known as "craft" just as much as they are present in what is known as "art". while each creative work relies on technical precision and creativity, emotional expression, all that... unequal socities have claimed a difference that can run along class, sex, and race lines. in this case, "art" is creative, modern, chic.... the artist may even be accorded a mysitcal or political or subversive function. on the other hand, "craft" is thoughtless, traditional, simple. intelligent city people make art; rural ignoramuses make crafts... that sort of thing. it is to break down this sort of though that many feminists have been displaying in galleries art works that have been traditionally considered craft works (a good example is the quilting of the women of gees bend alabama), or have been using mediums such as knitting or what-have-you to may works of "high art".
so for that i guess, irish music has been traditionally considered a craft. there are economic and colonial reasons to thank for this definition. nowadays, all considered, it makes sense that people are giving irish music a more artisitc definition. this is not because the music has changed.... it has not become more expressive, it does not require more of players now.... however, many of the people who play the music are in a different social circumstance.
i think that the reluctance to call irish music art is a result of this dichotomy being so well ingrained in us. for this reason, i think it makes sense to assert that irish music is art.
Screetch made an excellent observation about how something does not have to be pretentious to be art. In my observations so far, this also applies to the "artists" who practice it.
The individuals I have met who really have aquired some mastery of what they do frequently are a bit more relaxed about it. It is like breathing to them, they do it all the time. So why get agitated about it? Just do it.
I also agree with the above entry from Jake, echoed by others: Who cares, and, I will add, why? Unless the intention is to discuss the discussion, of course.
I think the "craft" verses "art" argument is pretty lame. The traditional view is to take "craft" as the creation of something useful. And "art" as the creation of something useless.
Taking the wifey's quilts for example: a quilt keeps you warm in bed. There is the craft of quilt making. But while you're at it, you might as well make an arty quilt.
And applying the same to music: A lot of it is there to entertain. Entertainment is a craft. But does playing with the deliberate notion to eschew an audience elevate it to uselessness and there for art? Who bloody cares.
And how many times have you heard the phrase "there's a real art to it", with reference to something like plastering? The object of plastering is to make a smooth functional surface, no more. Then the decorator pastes patterned paper to it to make it look nice. Who is the artist? The plasterer is the more skilled. Does that matter? What about the person who designed the wall paper? Is that art?.
All these arguments were brought to a head when Marcel Duchamp exhibited his "fountain" 90 years ago.
Art is something everyone can do. In some ways, it doesn't matter what you create, if you say it's art then art it is. Ability itself has nothing to do with creating great art. Technique helps but it's not an essential requirement for an artist to be schooled for years or be knowlegeable to the nth degree about the history of his chosen medium.
As llig says, Duchamp demonstrated this last century, and whilst artists like Hirst seem hell bent on endlessly repeating the joke to the point the art itself seems pointless, there are plenty of people who make great art, and that includes musicians.
Sorry, frisbee, but I think this thread isn't a discussion, it is a statement of opinion, with the intent of shouting down anyone who disagrees with you by branding them as dismissive of the importance of traditional music.
My question is, why does ALL traditional music have to be art? Certainly, I do play in situations where I (or the group I am involved in) am taking tunes of 32 or 48 bars of melody, and, through arranging them, converting them into an art form of 5 minutes worth of music that aims to affect the listener. In this sense, I would be hurt if someone suggested what I was doing wasn't artistic. And then considering how to order these arrangements to best complement each other.
Nontheless, I do make music that I don't class as art. When I play for dancers, the purpose of the music isn't to inspire any sort of emotion in the dancers, I'm trying to get help them dance by providing a strong rhythm in the right places and making sure I reflect the steps. To this end, I would class this music as functional, not artistic. However, if you were simply listening to us play, it would get very boring very quickly.
To indulge in the usual brand of slightly off point metaphores (I liked the one about the plumber, btw!), allow me to compare two photographs. The first is shot from the top of High Spy in the lake district. There's a nice cairn lurking in the centre-right foreground, I've carefully placed the path so it leads the eye towards Gable and Scafell (at frame right), it's a beautifully clear day, and a bit of Borrowdale, all arranged as to to inspire the viewer to appreciate a sense of space, achieved by juxtaposing the foreground with the subject. I can tell you it was shot using a Minolta SLR at f/16, at 1/60th of a second, on Fuji ISO75 monochrome film using a polarising filter plus a faint yellow to enhance the contrast of the greenery of the side Dale Head. This photograph is art. There's also on of me and my mother (whom I was walking with that day) which I achieved by resting a digital camera on a rock. I'm wearing Dale Head as a rather fetching formal hat & gown. This photograph is functional.
Could, just possibly, music be capable of a similar distinction?
I think all music is art. I think session music is folk art. It does not hew to the standards or rigor of "high art" but it does not work against those standards either. Instead, it is what it is, music that people make because they enjoy it.
Being a music that is made for the joy of it, it has a simplicity and a strength to it that can be used by someone who is pursuing "high art," just like classical composers have drawn upon folk music for many years. And many times, their work is better for it--for example, I think Aaron Copeland's best works were the ones where he used folk tunes as his themes, and brought them to another level. It wasn't folk music any more, but I feel he fused the best of both folk art and high art in works like Appalachian Spring.
I think there is always a bit of tension between people who practice a folk art, and those who pursue high arts, and sometimes the folk artists do lash back against those who try to impose some sort of rigor or standards to what they are doing.
"Ability has nothing to do with creating great art" -
sugarfoot jack, I would take issue with you on that one. Whether it's an architect, a skilled painter doing the main figure in a large panorama, or a solo violinist in a classical concerto, there's generally (at least) one person involved in the creation/performance of a great art work whose ability makes the whole thing work, and whose ineptitude can ruin all or much of it. Given success, a great work generally inspires awe even in those who don't like it or what it stands for, while a large public work (painting, musical performance, whatever) that does not have an input of ability at its core is soon derided as inept and bombastic.
ART i've been at some sessions and you could n't call it music never mind ART.
For feck sake art is a bit like that perfomance issue.It comes down to words and how they are used and theres infinite possibilities.
The art of getting a good seat at a session ............And that stripper is a work of art.......................................
I don't know if its art or not but trad. is great stuff.....................but this I can use better english than you to prove your wrong is not art its.......................................................................crap.
I think the query relates more to our approach to discourse on this subject than to whether trad is art. Some people wish to discuss the music and culture in a manner some might term 'intellectual', others find this annoying. Perhaps those who find the 'high brow' approach aggravating might simply decline to comment? Look else where ?
However it does seem that certain people take a delight in condescending and superfluous comments and that is one of the hazards of an open session. We could liken that to someone insisting on playing ''the kesh'' at a sesh when the level of tunes is more like ''Lord Gordons.''?
Yes, I'll take my delight in condescending and superfluous comments when the discussion is not really a discussion but a rant. Especially when it was all solved 90 bloody years ago.
(by the way, the Kesh jig is just as good a tune as Lord Gordon's. What are you trying to say? That Lord Gordon's has more cultural and intellectual rigour)
"Whether it's an architect, a skilled painter doing the main figure in a large panorama, or a solo violinist in a classical concerto, there's generally (at least) one person involved in the creation/performance of a great art work whose ability makes the whole thing work, and whose ineptitude can ruin all or much of it."
That's an argument that the only real art is good art - I disagree. Of course it takes a highly skilled artist to show us the heights the various arts can climb to, but these people are rare and there are many below trying to achieve the same goal - they are all creating art. Kids, mentally ill people can all create profound, moving art but they would never be classed amongst the world's great artists.
Art is about being human; it guides and challenges, entertains and teaches. It reflects the very essence of what being human is about, and so any human being can make it - from Mary Bergin, to Rothko, my four-year-old nephew, you and I.
in response your comment above (where you say my arguments are lame...): i am, of course, not asking you to agree with my comment..... but seeing as you chose to respond to it, it would have been nice for you to have, at least, read it properly.
furthermore, marcel duchamp's art seems to me really besides the point as far as my argument's concerned. maybe you can enlighten me on that........ if you want......
anyway, all said, in the future i'll be sure to use bad english, in order to not offend saint. but, on second thought, as i'm not really sure how to prevent my comments (my part of what *i* believed to be a discussion) from being percieved as rants, it is probably better to stay quiet, eh? any nail that sticks up should be hammered down an' all that....
disregard all that.... i don't mean to come off as sore. it's really a shame that everyone gets their back up so quickly on this board lately, and i really don't want any part of it.
p.s. *do* check out the art of some of those quilters and the like.... it's a far cry from hanging up a urinal in a gallery, i think. it's not a matter of declaring everything and anything art.... just not being bound by poltics in deciding what is and what isn't art.
(And the point about Duchamp, is that those quilters wouldn't have been allowed to hang their art in a gallery if it wasn't for him. The whole point is that art is a meaningless label. A urinal is a urinal. Hang it in a gallery and it's art? The whole point is to show the meaninglessness of art. So stop arguing about it.
Llig, my point about the kesh vs lord gordons was not related to the intrinsic worth of a tune. That is relative. Just that when some people want to discuss thing or play tunes at a 'higher' level it can be a drag when someone insists on playing ''the kesh'' again! Or turning serious discussions into petty slanging matches.
Im sure you can relate to say; someone insisting on dominating your session with ''baa baa blacksheep'', or ''pop goes the weasel!'' or persistantly playing blues!
You go to your session to play trad tunes,have fun.likewise some people come hear to learn and educate.We wish to discuss points of interest amongst our peers, not indulge in games of one up man ship.
''but is it art?'' begs the question; what is art?This must surely be a personal, subjective choice. One mans art is anothers pile of old rubbish!
However Crafts have specific guidlines, and criteria to judge them by.They serve specific functions.A craft like anything taken to its full potential can be an art.
"Great art" seems to imply art establishment approved art.
Logically, all art must be art. It's an absolute term, not a relative one. The greatness or otherwise of the artwork in question is best judged by the listener.
Firstly jig If you want to have a discussion on 'intellectuals' or Intelligence I'm your man and maybe you might be out of your depth .If you want to discuss the different theories of intelligence maybe Gardiners theory of musicial intelligence etc. I'd love it some time .In my opinion an 'intellectual' has the ability to keep and explain things in the most simple of ways(just my opinion).If someone does not understand what you say thats you fault not thiers...............So statement like
'Perhaps those who find the 'high brow' approach aggravating might simply decline to comment?' might be a little facetious.
As for the Kesh and Lord Gordans comment all I can say is blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaa. The Kesh is a wonderfull tune with great lift and energy and with a name like jig you of all should appreceiate it.
Gretchen "in the future i'll be sure to use bad english, in order to not offend saint" all I can say to this is Thanks..........
And gill
Jayus I think we agree thats a bit strange.
Llig, if we we, or anyone ,wish to argue about art or anything else that takes our fancy that is our business, not yours.Who are you to tell us to stop arguing? If you dont wish to argue or dont wish to see us do so then the solution is obvious.
Art is meaningless? is that a fact?!
Saint. I have no problem with the kesh. My point was that sessions arn't accessible to all. You must know the tunes. sure we could play the kesh over and over all night, but i personally prefer to play sessions where the level is higher.If the sesh wants to play dows list, i have no problem with that but i also sometimes prefer sessions which dont.
My comment re 'the high brow'' was not meant to be facetious. Although i do tend to Irony
I like to be ''out of my depth'' it forces me to swim,I like a challenge, i like to learn. I would be delighted to hear about Gardiner's theory.
I find De Bono always an interesting read. He manages to explain things so even i can understand.
They have to. Have you ever seen a port-a-potty for bears?
I'd wager it's short for Arthur, but I'm out on a limb here, I don't actually know the fellow personally.
* "...Art refers to a diverse range of human activities and artifacts, and may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms..."
There's a terrific Warhol exhibition on in Edinburgh at the moment. A guy I know transformed the pillars of the entrance to the Gallery into stacks of 8 feet tall Campbell soup tins, brilliant.
Walking round the exhibition I was reminded of diddley tunes. Warhol's repetitions of iconic images with their subtle differences in colour and shading put me in mind of what can be done with these iconic diddley tunes ours. Respect and worship them. repeat them. Colour them. Rejoice in their mundane simplicity. Show them off. And all with very little technical ability. Brilliant stuff.
I really am surprised at many of you. "Art" is pretentious, "Performing" is pretentious, according to many of you. But those same people are so pretentious to sneer at tunes like "Kesh Jig" or "Drowsy Maggie" as common, and over played, and will sneer at "Riverdance" (Davy Spillane et al) or indeed anyone who earns some money from the music. Pretentious, and hypocritical, me thinks.
Please stop having such inferiority, old fashioned working class values. The arts are for all, not merely the privileged or middle classes. Saint said it all, but denying being a Marxist was a black mark.
As for whoever posted "I don't want to be labeled a Marxist" why ever not? Something to be ashamed off, caring for others, wanting a more equal society?
So, is it art? Yes, just like jazz, classical, blues, whatever.
And lest we forget, what about "The ARTIST formerly known as Prince". Very good flute player.
But I still don't get Duchamp. Doing something as soul-shrivellingly uncreative as exhibiting a urinal, provoking into the bargain the disapproval and gentle distress of viewers, and doing it under no pressure of emergency or ideological conviction as far as I know, strikes me as an insane and perverse caprice.
(I could perhaps understand it if he went about it thinking, "Gotta do this - but then I'll put a bit of time into that painting of the woman walking downstairs...")
I've never understood that point of yours, Michael, about this stuff requiring "very little technical ability". Must be an old point, so sorry to bring it up again ... but, personally, I find it's actually quite hard to play. It often takes all my concentration to listen to other people , to play nicely myself, in tune and in time and with good tone, to play in a way that fits in, not just OK, but, hopefully, genuinely musically ... etc etc ...
This means that, as Martin said at some point, in this or some other thread, that when I get in that groove when suddenly there is *no* concentration at all, but everything just *fits* ... well then, it's just magical. But I don't think that would happen if it wasn't hard to do in the first place.
I'm wondering if this is a words thing, and I'm just misinterpreting your insistence that it doesn't require "technical ability"?
I'm wickedly pretentious. Who said I wasn't? Want proof?
Every time I put bow to fiddle to play Ireland's tunes I am preserving and continuing a wonderful musical and spiritual tradition which crosses vast spans of time to remind of us our highest and best qualities and the true, magical and wondrous nature of humanity. Like the ancient shamans we use our tribe’s musical forms to touch what is good, true and pure in existence.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find that bear's port-a-potty. We had burritos for lunch. Plus, all that nonsense I just spewed left me sort of queasy. Got to go have a smoke.
''very little technical ability'' !.......speak for yourself!
''mundane simplicity'' ...........In relation to what?
>>Can you make music without it being art?<<
What is art? When is noise music? Once again subjective?
>>Logically, all art must be art. It's an absolute term, not a relative one.<<
How can this be true? This is circular logic, a dog is a dog.....
Art is subjective, based on personal belief or feelings, not based on fact.Otherwise how could people argue over what 'art' is?
look lets just leave art to the artists and let us super heros get on with our own job................................when was the last time you saw an artist save the world............
benhall1 I'm not talking about saving this world I'm talking about saving the little world in my head a much more diffcult task even for superman...............so Im off to save another session with my bodhran.
good luck
jig, art is not subjective, based on personal belief or feelings, art is art. It simply is. (the appreciation of it is a different matter.) So you cannot argue over what 'art' is. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stop
When, then is art not art?A turd on the pavement is not art, but in the gallery it is? What defines art? Who defines art?How any one can state that something as subjective as art, is objective is beyond me! By its very nature art is subjective. Other wise everything and any thing can be art. if everything is art that surely renders the word meaningless? If I state something is art therefore it is? Art will allways be a simple matter of opinion. Can you suggest an example to 'prove' your statements?
Art is a matter of opinion.
But, Mr Llig has always said how easy it is to play ITM, just up and down the scales most of it, the bodhran being the only instrument not in this category, making it the hardest to master. And I agree with him.
To continue the "pretentious" theme, I could have said that perhaps we have a lot of intellectual snobs on board, and thereby decry art to pretend they are not.
As for all this talk of turds? Have youse nothing better to do?
Thank you Cheshire P.T. -
For stating that ITM often contains motifs which are stronger than what is offered through Classical Music.
It explains to me why so many of us appreciate & love J.S. Bach - true master of astounding melody lines.
As far as the Art question - don't know much about it, just know what I like. Isn't a beautiful sunset also art? (no arguments about the c(C)reator of such, please!)
Yeah - in my post that was eaten, I went on to say that, if you're a Christian, it's still not 'art' because you don't ascribe 'art' to the Creator, as this would be a demeaning concept - the Creation simply *is*. It's enough.
ok art is an opinion, but can I introduce myself as an artist this is what I have a problem with How?who? and when? can someone call themselves or introduce themselves as an artist.
I would say that to introduce yourself as an artist would be pretentious unless you ; exhibited, sold your work, were, in fact .... an artist! But really there are no hard and fast rules. If, in your opinion, you are an artist well then, why not?
morningstar, note that I said trad melodies are stronger than *many* classical motifs. Of course there are exceptions, and Bach supplies more than his share of those. Beethoven too, in my book.
A lot of old church music also has gorgeous melodies.
All I'm saying is that Irish trad is no slouch in this department--its melodies hold their ground against any genre.
Well Ok - you used the word *many*, and I used the word *often*.
I'm frankly tired of classical being held up by so many as the best of the best - when there's so much of it that just isn't. Historically speaking, it's actually been the most elite of the elitists. ($$$).
That's not to say that I don't love Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy and some of the others.
I don't think you can compare "classical" (or Western Art) music to trad tunes. In classical, the composer has produced not only the melody, but has arranged it for the rest of the orchestra, and built motifs and dynamics into the piece, and has carefully and conciously thought about how each passage in the piece affects the overall "shape" of the piece.
Somewhat conincidentally, me and a friend (who does a bit of classical-style composition) went out to dinner a couple of nights ago and ended up discussing the difference in trad composition and classical composition. Ultimately, we agreed that composing trad tunes was to compose cyclic music (so was melodically interesting), and to compose classical music was to compose linear music (and was harmonically interesting).
"But I still don't get Duchamp. Doing something as soul-shrivellingly uncreative as exhibiting a urinal, provoking into the bargain the disapproval and gentle distress of viewers, and doing it under no pressure of emergency or ideological conviction as far as I know, strikes me as an insane and perverse caprice."
"we agreed that composing trad tunes was to compose cyclic music (so was melodically interesting), and to compose classical music was to compose linear music (and was harmonically interesting)" says Andy V.
Sorry to be pedantic but in classical music there is cyclical music particularly 'minimalism' and it is not necessarily melodically interesting, it's more rhythmically interesting, some Baroque and Early music is cyclical also.
I also find trad to be very harmonically interesting, many of the melodies imply unusual harmonic progressions and the harmonic accompaniment of the UIlleann Pipes though simple enough is very interesting and quite different to any classical approach to harmony.
Well, actually, frisbee, classical refers to a period of music - the correct term for the genre you describe is "Western Art Music." Hence, minimalism cannot be a subset of classicalism, as the two occupy two different periods of time.
My point (which I reckon you probably understood, but were determined to argue) was that composing traditional-style tunes is an entirely different skill to composing classical music. Effectively, to compse tunes is to compse extended motifs. This is, self-evidently, a different skill to arranging this motif into movement or arrangement of a trad group.
If you get the opportunity, examine the score of Tallis' "Spem in Alium" - and, frankly, any tune you like - hopefully a difference will strike you. Trad tunes in their abstract form are monophonic. "Classical" music is (execpting plainchant and a couple of other repetories) usually not. An implied harmony is not a harmony.
I would say that to introduce yourself as an artist would be pretentious unless you ; exhibited, sold your work, were, in fact ....
an artist.....posted by Jig.
That rules Van Gogh out then. I could have sworn he drew pictures, you know, an artist. Never sold anything however.
"classical refers to a period of music - the correct term for the genre you describe is "Western Art Music.".
.........the general term 'classical music' refers to everything from European Renaissance music to contemporary composers like the minimalists, I've never been to a concert described as a "Western Art Music" concert, I've been to plenty of classical music concerts though and they've featured music from Bach to Ligeti. 'Classical' musicians do not only play music from the 'classical period', nor are they refered to as "Western Art Musicians!".
The 'classical period' you are refering to is a particular phase in the history of 'classical music' it is dominated by Haydn and Mozart as I'm sure you know. If you were refering to that period only then I you are right in what you say, however next time you want to generalise about 'classical music' please be specific that you mean this period and not the all-encompassing genre you like to call 'Western Art Music".(I personally hate that term)
Regarding motivitic composition, a huge amount of Baroque music (including J.S.Bach) is motivitic and similar in basic structure to many trad tunes, look at Bach's violin partita's, a lot of them are single line monodic pieces, some are even Jigs (Gigues)! Of course they use a different tonal/modal language but they are constructed in a very similar manner.
Anyway I'm bored with all this analysis, I'm off!!!.
Haha, frisbee, the "classical" music thing is a classic example of is-Jack-a-name? syndrome. The correct answer is: "no, Jack originally was an alternative of John." However, many people don't know this, so hence, does Jack become a name in its own right?
Or, to put it another way, Newton's third law is not "each action has an equal and opposite reaction," it is actually something a great deal longer involving the conservation of momentum and energy. Nontheless, should the abridged version in the common vernacular become the accepted truth (even though it is only a simplification) or should people correct the popular misconception? The ignorance of a population does not create truth.
I 'll try to sort it for ye ,Everthing is art from sh*ting in the corner to painting the mona lisa..................can it be more simple..................................art is all .........................................................................plesae don't pass this post unless you dissagree.........................
When a rock guitarist smashes his guitar on stage is that conceptual art or is it just his reaction to his performance?
And has an Irish trad musician ever been known to do similar?
Llig, you give the impression that you have got it '' now you're getting it'' Does it ever occur to you that you might not 'get it'? that you are not an all knowing fountain of wisdom?....... just curious.
As we can see from the above link, there is still controversy over what 'art' is......Once again, ...sigh... art is a matter of opinion, subjective, not objective. your concept of art is different to mine.
FWIW I have a degree in Fine Arts, I've dabbled in the gallery scene, had an agent, sold abstract expressionist paintings that I imagine hang over sofas in well-to-do living rooms (one lady actually gave me cloth swatches to match), I've got work in the permanent collection of MOMA (heh, not that it's actually on display, but it's in their collection) but I'm not sure as to what "art" is. There's a sufi conundrum about whether sharpness exists without the knife - are concepts real, do they exist independently of perception - and I think that while it's really interesting to contemplate, it's unanswerable. Doesn't make it meaningless, just unresoveable. At some point, I say #@%! it -- anybody want to have a go at Paddy Canny's setting of Rakes of Clonmel in that flat key?
Lazy hound... i might try that for the craic one day! maybe set the fiddle allight or something! Should be good for a laugh..... When i got some money to burn that is.....
I can just picture playing a viola as it is burning.....though i know thats not what you meant! Now that would be a stage show! playing a burning instrument!! Bit hot for my liking....
Whoah.....Eejit mentions French pantomime in a negative
comparison scenario and that day Marcel Marceau dies !!!
(theme from Twilight Zone in background)
.....but is it art?
.....but is it art?
It seems that some people here don't like ITM to be referred to as an art-form, I'm wondering why this is? Is it just a case of ignorance of what the words 'art' and 'music' mean.
Here's a few definitions for you
'Music is an art form consisting of sound and silence expressed through time'
'Art refers to a diverse range of human activities and artifacts, and may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms'
(wikipedia, yes I know how dubious wiki can be!)
from the oxford English dictionary
music - • 1 the art of combining vocal or instrumental sounds in a pleasing way. 2 the sound so produced. 3 the written or printed signs representing such sound.
— ORIGIN Old French musique, from Greek mousike tekhne ‘art of the Muses’.
the arts - the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama
From the Cambridge Dictionary
music 1 a pattern of sounds made by musical instruments, singing or computers, or a combination of these, intended to give pleasure to people listening to it:
2 the art or study of music:
art - the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings
So those are the definitions, I know John Cage spoke about any sound and silence being music but that's not really relevant to my point.
If you look at all the definitions above you'll see that the words 'art' and 'music' are pretty much inseparable.
So what's wrong with calling ITM an art-form? Why are people against the concept? It took years for ITM to be given recognition by the Irish State and the Arts Council as a valid form of art so why do people give out when some of us try to have serious discussions about ITM as an art-form?
To me it's almost a colonial attitude to it, those who tried to take away our language and music certainly didn't see ITM as art, rather they considered it unsophisticated peasant noise. By subscribing to the view that ITM is not art, are we therefore not pandering to this colonial view?
(disclaimer, any of you for whom this discussion seems pretentious, long-winded or the like are excused from contributing, you may continue reading The Sun, watching Eastenders, drinking lager and beating your bodhrán with your head......)
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
who cares??
jake
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by sloth
Re: .....but is it art?
Interesting subject Frisbee. I don't fell as though I have enough expereince to answer your question well, but I've always thought of it as an art form.
Sara
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Celtic Lass
Re: .....but is it art?
My old man believed something is only Art if you can get paid for it - others believe that something as simple solitary person out in the woods banging sticks together is making true "Art." It is all subjective - and for me completely unrelated to me having a few tunes and pints with my friends.
However, if the French demand Pantomine be recognized as an art form, I can't imagine why anyone would make a fuss about calling Irish Trad music art...
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
So what's in The Sun today Jake?
I guess Jusa Nutter Eejit sums up one viewpoint, ITM for him is mainly about 'having a few tunes and pints with my friends', which is fair enough, it's a nice hobby for you and there's nothing wrong with that.
However there are a lot of people for whom the music is much more important than that. We still enjoy a few tunes and pints and friends down the local, but the music has a much deeper meaning to us than that and that's possibly why we consider it art.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
As I said - I can't imagine why anyone would get uppity about calling Irish Trad music art - of course it's an art form - just not when I play it.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
Art or Craft? or.... Where does the dividing line lye ? if at all.
jake ... maybe not you but some people do care.
Frisbee, some people will give out at just about anything that does not fit their preconceived ideas. Do they actually have a reason? Probably not.
So if its not art, what is it?
As an aside i just wanted to thank you frisbee for your intelligent and interesting discussions, I allways look out for your stuff. good man yourself.
Of course its art!
Your point reminds me of the comments i read about the Bodhran not being used historically in ITM, it being consigned to '' noise maker''! surely all music is nothing but noise?
As they say, history is written by the winners!
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Jusa, it's not being uppity, I don't go around talking about 'my art' and all that and god knows I can't stand the Late Review type shows which take 'art' discussion to the highest levels of pretentiousness.
Still for those of us for whom the music is more than a mere hobby I do think it's important to discuss it seriously, but in previous dsicussions when some of us have been talking seriously about the music there have been a few people making snide comments about us treating it as 'art'.
I've no problem with people treating ITM as a simple hobby and I'm sure many people on this site treat it as such, however when such people start giving out to others for treating it as more than a hobby, then I see a problem and that's what this discussion is for. Trying to see whether there is a genuine reason why people don't like to discuss it as an art-form or even mock the idea that it is an art-form.
So Jusa I understand the idea that you just want to play the music and have a bit of fun with your mates and I don't in any way look down on you or anyone else who thinks this way. However I don't like it when people say it's 'uppity' or ;pretentious to discuss ITM just like classical music or jazz or painting or sculpture are discussed.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
oops, think I misinterpreted you there Jusa sorry, I thought you were saying that people who called it art were being uppity, but now re-reading your post it seems you were saying you didn't understand why people would complain about it being called art, but as my last post explains there are such people.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
who cares??
jake
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by sloth
A lot of people. In the Republic of Ireland "artists" do not pay tax, as well as rich people and horse racing owners. And there are a lot of people in Ireland making a few bob and promoting ITM as it is presented as an "art" by the arts council.
And to answer the question, all music is an "art".
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
You've got it sorted there Frisbee - I've listened to your clips on the myspace link and there is no doubt you are making art in its highest form. For me I think I am just trying to keep a healthy balance between the two schools of thought - sort of a constant balancing act of "tighten up" vs. "lighten up" when playing and enjoying this music.
At the end of the day - Bliss's comments are the truth of it.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
bliss, it is simplifying it to say 'artists' do not pay tax. Musicians have to pay tax on CD Sales, concert fees/takings, live performance royalites and many other things. The only things musicians get tax exemption from are broadcast royalties and money gained from people paying them to create new works of art, i.e. commission fees for compositions.
There is a lot of misinformation about the tax free status of musicians and other artists, this is down to the media, most paricularly lowest common denominator publications like The Sun who appeal to the average tax paying citizen by creating an outrage at the fact that rich musicians aren't paying tax. Now artists who earns over €250,000 on 'exempt' income have to pay tax on that too.
So this kind of misinformation is really damaging to artists who don't make a lot of money and only make a decent living by virtue of the tax exemption.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
So, to answer frisbee's query:
Some people dislike any attempt at gentrifying traditional music because that feels at odds with such a "music of the people." Some of this goes back to the distinction, in the day, between ceol na rince and the classical and show music being imported into Irish cities from the UK and the Continent. You have to remember there was a time when trad music was disparaged as vulgar and non-Irish music held up as enlightened and noble. Guess which one was banned, and which was taught in schools?
So some people still have a sense of backlash against anything artsy. And some people worry that formalizing this music (by offering university degrees in it, for example, as art music) may rob it of its spontaneaity, rough edges, generosity, and sense of humor.
Me, I think trad music is strong enough to carry on no matter what labels are pinned onto it.....
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Yes of course Irish and other traditional musical forms are forms of art. Nothing pretentious about that. Nor is it any great revelation for us to affirm this. And it's news to me that other members here show reticence in thus describing traditional music. If so, perhaps it's something like false modesty for which the Irish in particular are famous, like "ach I'm only after playing a few ould tunes, bjeesus, how can ye call that art?" And anyway why can't "unsophisticated"..."peasant" people make art? They are, or were, human beings, capable, given time to indulge, of creativity, are/were they not?
Also there's no real need to accuse non-serious participants of your discussions as being Sun-worshippers, unless you feel perpetually aggrieved by dissent, but what care I for you may continue to wallow in the fragility of your own ego as becomes you.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: .....but is it art?
There will allways be people who mock what they dont understand. Thats life.Even if you bend over backwards to involve them in positive conversation... no they just mock.
Im sure as teenagers we were as bad.
BB but when is music a craft?
What differentiates a load of old rubbish and art? the viewer?
I have friends who are thatchers, and basket makers.These are traditional crafts.They can be, at there best, also art.
I prefer to view what i do as a musician as a craft, as in weaving. I am an artist and a craftsperson.That is what i have trained to do. I act as a proffesional. I study my craft, I polish my work.
I respect everyones right to approach this field in their own manner, and would hope for the same respect in return.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
The difference between a craftsperson and an artist? An artist never makes mistakes, and a craftsperson knows how to hide his/her mistakes....
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
I think it's art. I've invested too much of myself in it to wish to believe otherwise.
It is a repository of talent, experience, discoveries, and emotions in the form of what is unassailably music, as defined in the West anyway, whatever the rougher edges of it may have sounded like to unsympathetic ears in the distant past.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
Before colonial times Irish music was one of the most important things to the Irish people, the harpers music was certainly considered high-art. With colonialism when the Gaels no longer ruled the music went 'underground' but that doesn't mean that the people who played it didn't take it very seriously indeed.
I'm sure if you asked Michael Coleman if he considered himself an artist he'd say yes. It may have become the 'music for the people' in colonial times but to suggest that 'the people' didn't discuss it in artistic terms is to suggest that 'the people' were indeed peasants like the colonists said they were. If you relate it to today, I know many musicians with no formal music training who discuss the music with as much seriousness if not more so than those with university degrees.
They may have reservations about it being taught in a formalised way, but that doesn't mean they don't consider it art. I know many sean nós singers in particular see the music they sing as a very complex art form.
Pop music is 'music of the people' in the 20th/21st Century, jazz is 'music of the people', particularly African-Americans, both Pop and Jazz get treated as art-forms and there are serious discussions and university degrees and so on about them.
The only way the spontaneity goes out of any of this music is when the people discussing it are complete academics, i.e. they don't play the music or play it very little and instead spend way too much time writing about it. However the reverse idea isn't healthy for the music either, if people never discussed it seriously it would probably be in an awful state. No one would have any references to say what is good ITM and what is bad ITM.
Regarding universities, a good course in ITM will emphasise how important 'spontaneity, rough edges, generosity and sense of humour' are to the music. Whether such a course exists is open to debate.
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Nonetheless it is still just noise making!
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Perhaps this discussion would have more weight if somebody with an opposing viewpoint chimed in - so far everyone agrees music is art and ITM is art. Where's the beef?
# Posted on September 17th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
key manaic lad, my little comment at the end of my original post was satirical, I was taking the p*ss out of people who instead of contributing to a discussion make remarks that aren't relevant or funny. I appreciate a good smart comment but a lot of times the short retort style comments are just idiotic (jakes comment for example).
If someone doesn't want to contribute seriously to this discussion that's their own business and good luck to them, however comments like jakes are to me just pointless and idiotic. He probably thought it was funny and perhaps it is funny to a 16 year old so for that I'll forgive him as all of this is probably a load of pretentious nonsense to him. When I was 16 I probably would have done something similar, but I'm not 16 anymore and to be honest I'm delighted about that!
As for your comments about my 'ego' I think you're the one with the ego problem if you took my comment about 'Sun-worshippers' seriously!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I don't disagree, frisbee. But you asked why some people might thumb their noses at talking about this music as "art," and I tried to articulate the arguments I've heard others make. Doesn't mean that they're water-tight arguments, but you're not likely to dissuade people from sticking to them.
And it's not as though the anti-art crowd is in the majority here.....
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
here's the comment that prompted this discussion
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/15097/comments#comment311766
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I for one am happy to play a few tunes without getting within an asses roar of "art"......................
Backer
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I studied martial art for years so does that I'm an artist........hmmmm
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
How can anyone argue the point?
Personally, all and every positive direction of attention towards this particular art form are welcome. Particularly patrons!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
yes you're a martial artist
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
frisbee, that comment came from a thread you started for the sole purpose of singling out Michael (llig) for his stance on sheet music. People are reacting to *you,* not so much to all this "art" talk.
In short, *insisting* that we all adopt your attitudes about sheet music, music theory, and artistic parameters for this music isn't likely to (1) persuade anyone and (2) win any friends here (even among those who--on the gist of these things--agree with you).
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
anyone who studied musical art for years is a musical artist
anyone who studied visual art for years is a visual artist
anyone who studied martial art for years is a martial artist
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
No.
On the other hand, yes.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
Frisbee, im not so sure.... studying an art form and being an artist are not the same things. Once you have an understanding and internalisation of the technical aspects of your 'path' then perhaps, with continued perseverance, an artist you may become. No amount of intellectual effort will enable one to understand a feeling. Only by experience will that become clear.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
anything that needs time,passion,feeling and emotion . Is an art to me but when a person calls themselves an artist that gets up my goat...............
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
RE sheet music. Ive figured out why this anti-sheet music stance bugs me; Surely only if you have a direct unbroken lineage passed down aurally through the generations can you maintain this position.
You may learn your tunes by ear but the likelyhood is you learnt them from someone who learnt them from the dots!
We have no recordings pre 1920's. We have only the dots. As in the Hadith perhaps we could quote who we learnt the tune from and who they learnt it from etc etc!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
My 2c: an irresolvable question, but not so much because of our unclear understanding of what ITM is (though god knows, we aren't clear on that) but because the meaning of the word "art" is so fluid it is almost useless as a word. Unless, of course, you choose to make your own, clear and unambiguous definition of the word, but who knows if anyone else will accept it?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Alex Wilding
Re: .....but is it art?
Saint, when a plumber calls him/herself a plumber, does that annoy you?or a doctor a doctor? so why should an artist calling themselves an artist wind you up?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
My goodness jig - can you imagine the reaction if the fiddle player sitting next you, good as they may be, suddenly said - "yes, I truly am an artist" after playing a set at your session?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
(wonder what Eddie did to deserve the sobriquet "saint"?)
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
the whole craft-versus-art thing, or folk-art versus fine-art thing, masks all kinds of wormy subtext about power, class, status, earning power, not to mention, sometimes, issues of gender, ethnicity, race, etc.
but when the light comes through the windows of chartres......who cares whether glasswork is an art or a craft?????
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ceemonster
Re: .....but is it art?
This music may be full of artistry, and played with artistry, but we're at a site called theSESSION.org.
For me, when a session gets too full of itself, looses its sense of humor, and tried to put too fine a shine on the music--that's when all the art drains straight out of it.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Ok nutter but id react the same if the plumber said, as he rises from beneath the sink ''yes, I truly am a plumber" But if my friend john introduced himself as an artist i wouldn't blink an eye.He is. He's also an engineer. We are what we are.Im not talking about pretence but demonstrable skill.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
A plumber has severed his/her time and a doctor has quaified . When does someone become an artist? Does an artist just decide themselves that they are an artist ? Can I be an artist in the morning as soon as I start any art .............I just think the word artist is a title that carries alot of prestiege and Its should be a compliment given by others .I also beleive that perfection is what an artist spends his/her life trying to achieve and never stops learning. So in my eyes a true artist will never claim to be one................
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
Jig - the plumber bit was funny - I'll give you that. However, if your friend John is a trad musician but introduced himself as an "artist" it seems like that would carry a bit of an air of pretence - yes?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
You can't be reel calling yourself a jig............
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
There is a saying in Cork (maybe everwhere ) but its very good It happens when a person is watching someone else doing something anything and they are not very impressed and think its easy..................the comment is"where s the art in that" .
Art has to have a certain skill that others can appreciate ...............for eg take the worst bodhran player you ever heard and then look how ringo and others have turn in to a work of art................anything can be an art form if developed.............
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
chesire puddy tat....i'm not 'insisting' anything, I'm arguing my case, I sometimes challenge other people who 'insist' other things. There wasn't really 'a sole purpose' in that thread about Michael, but If there was a 'sole purpose' it certainly wasn't to single Michael out, the main reason I posted it was to prompt further discussion on an issue he was most vocal on.
Sure I made strong reference to him but he was asking for it really by continually abusing people who mentioned the words 'sheet-music.' I don't think Michael was too offended by anything I said about him, I think he's well able to take it and if he's not then he shouldn't be ripping on people like he does.
Just from reading a lot of opinions here I get the sense that some people tend to make outlandish comments without really looking into what they are saying and Michael came across that way to me but thanks to the thread I posted Michael actually refined his beliefs on the matter to something I think a lot of people would agree with.
I know there are people out there who won't agree with me on the things I say and I'm not here to win friends to be honest. This is a discussion board, a place to express opinions about ITM. I base my opinions on facts when I can, I get these facts from studying the music (I've studied ITM directly from musicians and almost entirely out of the academic system by the way).
Anyway back to my original point I think it's clear that the majority of us see it as art but some people don't like the associations 'high-art' has with the upper classes. I just wonder is this association with the upper-classes a bit misguided. Why can't 'the people' enjoy all music as equal art and please let us get rid of this notion of 'high-art', 'the people' tend to enjoy music of all types, it is only the snobby elitists who see one form of music (e.g. classical) as being higher than another (e.g. ITM) unfortunately this results in a form of inverted snobbery as in it being pretentious for a top fiddler to consider themselves an artist.
I'd say most trad musicians who take the music seriously consider themselves artists but I don't know many who'd go around introducing themselves as 'artists' to peopple! They introduce themselves as musicians and they consider the music they play to be art, there's nothing pretentious about that....is there?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I don't really understand this one. I don't understand the motive.
That daft disclaimer: "any of you for whom this discussion seems pretentious, long-winded or the like are excused from contributing, you may continue reading The Sun ..." etc. I read that and thought, yeah well, I'm excused and it will run its course and we can forget about it. But on it goes and it's beginning to irritate me.
It's just not a discussion. The whole thing is set up as, "IT IS ART, anyone who thinks it isn't can feck off".
Where is the motive in posting a "discussion" like that?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
Ok nutter, fair enough, but do you know any one who does?
Saint. I could call my self a plumber,I can open PTFE tape.
I could buy a piece of paper that says im a doctor.. But it would be bull.. im not.
I think that the word/label artist is no more than a job description.like hairdresser.Its no big deal. Im not an artist. What I do could be called art, but it could be called noise. I am a noisemaker.... Doesnt have quite the same ring about it does it?
In any field you have pretenders and contenders, sure we could leave it to other people to judge but at what point is it legit for an artist to call them self that?
Anyhow i could take a fine art and make a right bodge of it. Its still a fine art but im no artist!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
A lot of ITM in N.Ireland, not a tax haven, is funded by the Arts Council, who fund ART.
And I am raking it in. If you need a loan Frisbee........
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
jg...... that point I made about people who study art for years being artists was perhaps phrased badly, I was just refering to Saint wondering if he should be considered an 'artist' because he studied martial art. Perhaps I should have said anyone who 'masters' matial art is a martial artist just like anyone who masters musical art is a musical artist or anyone who masters visual art is a visual artist and so on.
Anyway we are not talking about whether a particular traditional musician is an artist here we are asking whether ITM is art, to me this can be a session, in fact three or four of my best musical experiences ever were spontanteous music sessions, the music that was created by the musicians present was amongst the highest standard of music making I've ever heard, is it wrong to call that art?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I think Llig may be right about this thread, however, keeping a long-winded tail-chasing argument going into perpetuity is a bit of an "art" itself. I think I'll rename myself "The Artist Formally Known as JNE"
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Jusa Nutter Eejit
Re: .....but is it art?
And frisbee, Though I have changed my mind a lot here, on that other music thread ... never once did I change my mind or even refine my position from anything I've said here a thousand times. You just don't listen
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
Llig says of that my disclaimer means,
"It's just not a discussion. The whole thing is set up as, "IT IS ART, anyone who thinks it isn't can feck off".
Where is the motive in posting a "discussion" like that?"
Llig I ask you to read on where I say
"key manaic lad, my little comment at the end of my original post was satirical, I was taking the p*ss out of people who instead of contributing to a discussion make remarks that aren't relevant or funny. I appreciate a good smart comment but a lot of times the short retort style comments are just idiotic (jakes comment for example)."
I'm surprised at you Michael, it's not like you to make a comment about a discussion without following the thread through
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
great topic again David...
i think in a nutshell, my devised in a second opinion is that: music which is intentional is good music, art which is unintentional is good art. they don't always exist at the same time...
my first clause of the opinion is means that when one sets out to play consciously then one creates good music because you're trying to hit all the right notes and hopefully will! but then that's not art, it's a mere technical perfection.. i think then that when the first clause is left out of the equation, you can really let the soul speak... i've made my most artistic endeavors when in that real hyped up mental state where my logical mind is just blank and it's only feelings which are coming across.. i'm normally grinning like mad and speaking in a very high pitched voice when this is going on! other times when i compose and play the best is after a hard night on the town when my mind is just not working in its usual way.. (not to say its not working full stop!)
i'm not saying that this is the only way but there does seem to me to be a link between different states of mind and ability to create good art... i know that i just couldn't sit down and write anything of great quality... unless of course one could induce this state of mind.. i have spoken to a few people who write great music and what struck me is that they don't create the good stuff while in a concentrated, 'i'm going to write a hit' mental state...
we all have different ways of inducing this mental state... with me, it happens by accident.. i can't really control it yet.. for someone like dave though, i'm sure he has that ability...
ok! i've boared ye enough; rant over! i'll prob have a diff opinion on this in the morning! brace yourselves!
martin.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by martin t
Re: .....but is it art?
Come on now, You say that traditional Irish music is an art, but you are not concerned whether the practitioner is an artist?
What is your motive?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
Jake's answer was the best yet. Who cares? It's a question. What is your motive?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
Llig you clarified your position, is perhaps what I should say, your anti-sheet music comments often come across as all-encompassing, in other words that the sheet-music has absolutely no place in the music. In our discussion you clarified that you actually agree that it can be helpful in some situations (i.e. an experienced player can learn the bones of the tune from the dots and then turn it into genuine ITM, but that it shouldn't be used by beginners to 'learn' the music....or did I get that wrong?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Its a bit like the dots here isnt it? we are 'talking' and 'listening' but really its just dots on a computer screen.How can we really comunicate without being face to face?.
How can you accurately transmit music through dots on paper?
Actually i dont think its such a big deal,the dots tell me roughly how a tune goes like these dots tell me roughly what some people think.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Just been asked to play at the Arts festival next week. Loads of money.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
I have been called a p*ss artist...............................If you cerate a work of art the your an artist but here lies the question What is art its seen differently to everone ........bliss being the best at what you do would you call your self an artist.........................do artist perform?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
Great, good for you.May all your gigs be high paying ones! But is it art?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
My motive for this question is to see why some people who obviously like ITM don't want to treat it as an art-form. I am interested in peoples opinions but still I'll argue against anyone who tries to belittle ITM as an art-form. I give it equal status to any form of music or art and I really don't understand why anyone who loves the music doesn't see it like that.
Whilst I think traditional irish music is an art form, not all pracitioners of traditional irish music can be considered artists.
Only those who invest time into mastering it can be considered artists, but those that do this don't go around calling themselves artists, they call themselves musicians.
They consider the music to be an art-form and so they get called 'artists' by other people! I agree it'd be pretentious for a musician to call themselves 'an artist'.
I call myself a musician but I consider all music to be a form of art so in theory it shouldn't really be that pretentious for me to call myself an artist, but due to the associations the word 'artist' has I won't call myself an artist because musicians who call themselves 'artists' tend to be very pretentious.
Is that clear enough for you now Michael?!! (hey it's a complex issue)
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Still its all labels at the end of the day, Some people treat art as a hobby, maybe might sell the odd painting, but wouldnt call themselves an artist.Some people may play some tunes once a week but not call themselves a musician.The subject matter is the same just the level of attention different
Why would we need to call ourselves anything?For social status? Work opportunity?Self validation?Or just to answer that question;What do you do then?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
I m with ya frisbee , that last post was a work of art your wasting your time with certain people becauce "you can't educate wood" Any bouzouki tips frisbee would be appreciated progression etc.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
You cant educate wood but you can whittle it down with sharp wit and patience.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
yes they're all labels and there are different definitions of what 'art' is but perhaps my main point here is that people shouldn't be afraid of calling ITM 'art', it's not pretentious to do so, in fact it can be liberating to think of it is art because it will make you think of the music in a different way, instead of thinking it's just a nice hobby for a bit of craic you might start thinking it's a great vehicle for personal creative expression.
If you are creative with the music then you are a musical artist. You don't have to be a complete virtuoso or even a professional to be a musical artist, if you play the Kesh Jig and put your own stamp on it then you are being creative with music and hey presto you are a musical artist!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
This is silly.
Michael didn't "refine" his ideas on sheet music in that other thread, frisbee, you just haven't followed his reasoning, which has spanned many threads over time here.
And yiou say you want to understand why people think a certain way, yet you sound more like you just want to argue until they accept your assertions. Which are hard to square: "I call myself a musician but I consider all music to be a form of art so in theory it shouldn't really be that pretentious for me to call myself an artist, but due to the associations the word 'artist' has I won't call myself an artist because musicians who call themselves 'artists' tend to be very pretentious."
In short, "It shouldn't be pretentious but it is, so I won't, but I resent that."
Well we'll all have a big sigh together, give us a hug, and here's a mug of tea. Pat, pat.
Me, I'd rather get on with playing the music....
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Oooh, we cross posted and now I feel bad.
Dave, that last post of yours above is sooooo much more positive than the way you started this thread. Why not take that approach in the first place? I think it's one far more people would agree with.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
sometimes you have to go through the negatives to get to the positives. It's like playing a couple of dark D Dorian tunes and then following them with a bright A Major tune!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Just to be clear: I personally do think of this music as art. For me, the good melodies are as strong or stronger than the many of the motifs that make up the canon of "serious" western music. They just haven't been extrapolated into concertos, etc.
All I was doing in my earliest posts on this thread was trying to answer frisbee's question: why do some people dislike calling it art? Doesn't mean I agree with them.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Give me sweet over sour any time.
Besides, there are enough dark threads on the board already. Let yours be the A major ones.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Thing is I much prefer Dorian type tunes to A Major ones. To me most of the best ITM tunes have a bit of a dark edge to them, there are some great 'happy' tunes but if you're going to use that analogy I'll take sour over sweet cos sour often has an edge while sweet often becomes saccharine
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Historically, most "artists" - such as composers, sculptors, writers, painters, performing musicians - had to produce "art" in order to feed themselves and their families.
People like Stradivari used their craftmanship to earn a living making extremely complex - and even today little understood - musical instruments which are now works of high art in their own right.
The bottom line only too often is that art arises out of the need to earn money.
But there have been many - the amateurs in the real sense of the word - who have produced great works of art for the sheer joy of creating, without any monetary concerns. I give you Paddy Fahey as just one example among many.
Of course, this sheer joy of creating also exists in those who need to create art in order to live - Mozart, for example.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: .....but is it art?
All music is art.
ITM is music.
Therefore, ITM is art.
Don't think that something has to be pretentious to be art, just because pretentious people like to use the word.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Marklar
Re: .....but is it art?
Oh, and if the likes of Brittany Spears can be called an artist...not such a lofty word after all is it.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Marklar
Re: .....but is it art?
So, why do some people who obviously like ITM don't want to treat it as an art-form?
That's easy. "Art" has been "bourgeoisified" for long, so that's why many plain folks hate their music called "art." I used to specialize in social history of art for years, and hate the word. I don't think I'm particularly Marxist though.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by slainte
Re: .....but is it art?
A very personal definition.Art for me is something that I can't do.I can do anything that the modern conceptual 'artists can do,like sawing sheep in half or writing names on a tent.Of course if I turned up at the Tate with some toilet rolls glued together they'd show me the door,but if Damien Hurst did it they couldn't get the cheque book out fast enough.I could never paint like Turner or Rubens and I'll never play the fiddle like Tommy Potts.,so for me that's art.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by dafydd
Re: .....but is it art?
As for your comments about my 'ego' I think you're the one with the ego problem
response as predicted. carry on with this extremely important discussion. i'll off and play a few tunes.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: .....but is it art?
geez.... i don't want to be labelled a marxist either.... however, i have to say that i agree with ceemonster's class based view of art (also what frisbee seems to have been hinting at with his contrasting of the patronage of irish harping tradition with the peasant music of ireland).
it seems to me that "art" is a concept which is not so much dependent on expressing emotions or even technical precision, as much as it is based upon class. for example, one day when i was in university and taking an aboriginal studies class, i can remember some guy raising his hand and saying something about native people not having had art. only crafts.
i guess this was like lazyhound's definition of art as being tied to commerce. (however, this guy was clearly mistaken, because native people have a history of trading/earning from their art too... making their works just as much art as any imperial works in that sense. in this case the diference between art and craft would be more like what frisbee was saying in his first post.... a colonizing culture placing value on their own works while denying the works of the colony the same value, dismissing them as "crafts" -- what poor and "ignorant" people make instead of art).
just to be clear, i'm not trying to say that because art is a class based concept which is not based on expression or technical precision, that these two things are not involved in art. i'm just trying to say that these things are present in what is known as "craft" just as much as they are present in what is known as "art". while each creative work relies on technical precision and creativity, emotional expression, all that... unequal socities have claimed a difference that can run along class, sex, and race lines. in this case, "art" is creative, modern, chic.... the artist may even be accorded a mysitcal or political or subversive function. on the other hand, "craft" is thoughtless, traditional, simple. intelligent city people make art; rural ignoramuses make crafts... that sort of thing. it is to break down this sort of though that many feminists have been displaying in galleries art works that have been traditionally considered craft works (a good example is the quilting of the women of gees bend alabama), or have been using mediums such as knitting or what-have-you to may works of "high art".
so for that i guess, irish music has been traditionally considered a craft. there are economic and colonial reasons to thank for this definition. nowadays, all considered, it makes sense that people are giving irish music a more artisitc definition. this is not because the music has changed.... it has not become more expressive, it does not require more of players now.... however, many of the people who play the music are in a different social circumstance.
i think that the reluctance to call irish music art is a result of this dichotomy being so well ingrained in us. for this reason, i think it makes sense to assert that irish music is art.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by gretchen
Re: .....but is it art?
Screetch made an excellent observation about how something does not have to be pretentious to be art. In my observations so far, this also applies to the "artists" who practice it.
The individuals I have met who really have aquired some mastery of what they do frequently are a bit more relaxed about it. It is like breathing to them, they do it all the time. So why get agitated about it? Just do it.
I also agree with the above entry from Jake, echoed by others: Who cares, and, I will add, why? Unless the intention is to discuss the discussion, of course.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Piece
Re: .....but is it art?
I think the "craft" verses "art" argument is pretty lame. The traditional view is to take "craft" as the creation of something useful. And "art" as the creation of something useless.
Taking the wifey's quilts for example: a quilt keeps you warm in bed. There is the craft of quilt making. But while you're at it, you might as well make an arty quilt.
And applying the same to music: A lot of it is there to entertain. Entertainment is a craft. But does playing with the deliberate notion to eschew an audience elevate it to uselessness and there for art? Who bloody cares.
And how many times have you heard the phrase "there's a real art to it", with reference to something like plastering? The object of plastering is to make a smooth functional surface, no more. Then the decorator pastes patterned paper to it to make it look nice. Who is the artist? The plasterer is the more skilled. Does that matter? What about the person who designed the wall paper? Is that art?.
All these arguments were brought to a head when Marcel Duchamp exhibited his "fountain" 90 years ago.
That's 90 years ago chaps. Get over it.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
"Art for me is something that I can't do"
Art is something everyone can do. In some ways, it doesn't matter what you create, if you say it's art then art it is. Ability itself has nothing to do with creating great art. Technique helps but it's not an essential requirement for an artist to be schooled for years or be knowlegeable to the nth degree about the history of his chosen medium.
As llig says, Duchamp demonstrated this last century, and whilst artists like Hirst seem hell bent on endlessly repeating the joke to the point the art itself seems pointless, there are plenty of people who make great art, and that includes musicians.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: .....but is it art?
skill in playing a musical instrument might be called a craft
but applying that craft in performance (to however small an audience) is art.
whether it's good art or not is entirely down to the opinion of the audience and/or the player.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by millionyears_bc
Re: .....but is it art?
Sorry, frisbee, but I think this thread isn't a discussion, it is a statement of opinion, with the intent of shouting down anyone who disagrees with you by branding them as dismissive of the importance of traditional music.
My question is, why does ALL traditional music have to be art? Certainly, I do play in situations where I (or the group I am involved in) am taking tunes of 32 or 48 bars of melody, and, through arranging them, converting them into an art form of 5 minutes worth of music that aims to affect the listener. In this sense, I would be hurt if someone suggested what I was doing wasn't artistic. And then considering how to order these arrangements to best complement each other.
Nontheless, I do make music that I don't class as art. When I play for dancers, the purpose of the music isn't to inspire any sort of emotion in the dancers, I'm trying to get help them dance by providing a strong rhythm in the right places and making sure I reflect the steps. To this end, I would class this music as functional, not artistic. However, if you were simply listening to us play, it would get very boring very quickly.
To indulge in the usual brand of slightly off point metaphores (I liked the one about the plumber, btw!), allow me to compare two photographs. The first is shot from the top of High Spy in the lake district. There's a nice cairn lurking in the centre-right foreground, I've carefully placed the path so it leads the eye towards Gable and Scafell (at frame right), it's a beautifully clear day, and a bit of Borrowdale, all arranged as to to inspire the viewer to appreciate a sense of space, achieved by juxtaposing the foreground with the subject. I can tell you it was shot using a Minolta SLR at f/16, at 1/60th of a second, on Fuji ISO75 monochrome film using a polarising filter plus a faint yellow to enhance the contrast of the greenery of the side Dale Head. This photograph is art. There's also on of me and my mother (whom I was walking with that day) which I achieved by resting a digital camera on a rock. I'm wearing Dale Head as a rather fetching formal hat & gown. This photograph is functional.
Could, just possibly, music be capable of a similar distinction?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Andy V
Re: .....but is it art?
I think all music is art. I think session music is folk art. It does not hew to the standards or rigor of "high art" but it does not work against those standards either. Instead, it is what it is, music that people make because they enjoy it.
Being a music that is made for the joy of it, it has a simplicity and a strength to it that can be used by someone who is pursuing "high art," just like classical composers have drawn upon folk music for many years. And many times, their work is better for it--for example, I think Aaron Copeland's best works were the ones where he used folk tunes as his themes, and brought them to another level. It wasn't folk music any more, but I feel he fused the best of both folk art and high art in works like Appalachian Spring.
I think there is always a bit of tension between people who practice a folk art, and those who pursue high arts, and sometimes the folk artists do lash back against those who try to impose some sort of rigor or standards to what they are doing.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: .....but is it art?
"Ability has nothing to do with creating great art" -
sugarfoot jack, I would take issue with you on that one. Whether it's an architect, a skilled painter doing the main figure in a large panorama, or a solo violinist in a classical concerto, there's generally (at least) one person involved in the creation/performance of a great art work whose ability makes the whole thing work, and whose ineptitude can ruin all or much of it. Given success, a great work generally inspires awe even in those who don't like it or what it stands for, while a large public work (painting, musical performance, whatever) that does not have an input of ability at its core is soon derided as inept and bombastic.
My two cents, anyway!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
ART i've been at some sessions and you could n't call it music never mind ART.
For feck sake art is a bit like that perfomance issue.It comes down to words and how they are used and theres infinite possibilities.
The art of getting a good seat at a session ............And that stripper is a work of art.......................................
I don't know if its art or not but trad. is great stuff.....................but this I can use better english than you to prove your wrong is not art its.......................................................................crap.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
correct
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
failing to
undestand
current
knowledge
after
reading
this
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
I think the query relates more to our approach to discourse on this subject than to whether trad is art. Some people wish to discuss the music and culture in a manner some might term 'intellectual', others find this annoying. Perhaps those who find the 'high brow' approach aggravating might simply decline to comment? Look else where ?
However it does seem that certain people take a delight in condescending and superfluous comments and that is one of the hazards of an open session. We could liken that to someone insisting on playing ''the kesh'' at a sesh when the level of tunes is more like ''Lord Gordons.''?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Yes, I'll take my delight in condescending and superfluous comments when the discussion is not really a discussion but a rant. Especially when it was all solved 90 bloody years ago.
(by the way, the Kesh jig is just as good a tune as Lord Gordon's. What are you trying to say? That Lord Gordon's has more cultural and intellectual rigour)
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
"Whether it's an architect, a skilled painter doing the main figure in a large panorama, or a solo violinist in a classical concerto, there's generally (at least) one person involved in the creation/performance of a great art work whose ability makes the whole thing work, and whose ineptitude can ruin all or much of it."
That's an argument that the only real art is good art - I disagree. Of course it takes a highly skilled artist to show us the heights the various arts can climb to, but these people are rare and there are many below trying to achieve the same goal - they are all creating art. Kids, mentally ill people can all create profound, moving art but they would never be classed amongst the world's great artists.
Art is about being human; it guides and challenges, entertains and teaches. It reflects the very essence of what being human is about, and so any human being can make it - from Mary Bergin, to Rothko, my four-year-old nephew, you and I.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: .....but is it art?
mr. llig,
in response your comment above (where you say my arguments are lame...): i am, of course, not asking you to agree with my comment..... but seeing as you chose to respond to it, it would have been nice for you to have, at least, read it properly.
furthermore, marcel duchamp's art seems to me really besides the point as far as my argument's concerned. maybe you can enlighten me on that........ if you want......
anyway, all said, in the future i'll be sure to use bad english, in order to not offend saint. but, on second thought, as i'm not really sure how to prevent my comments (my part of what *i* believed to be a discussion) from being percieved as rants, it is probably better to stay quiet, eh? any nail that sticks up should be hammered down an' all that....
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by gretchen
Re: .....but is it art?
actually,
disregard all that.... i don't mean to come off as sore. it's really a shame that everyone gets their back up so quickly on this board lately, and i really don't want any part of it.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by gretchen
Re: .....but is it art?
p.s. *do* check out the art of some of those quilters and the like.... it's a far cry from hanging up a urinal in a gallery, i think. it's not a matter of declaring everything and anything art.... just not being bound by poltics in deciding what is and what isn't art.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by gretchen
Re: .....but is it art?
failing to
understand
current
knowledge
michael
is
clearly
here to
annoy
everyone
listen
gill
i
lament your
lecturing
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I was arguing that great art requires ability - not that great art is the only art worthy of the name. I certainly don't believe that.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
nice one frisbee, you're catching on.
(And the point about Duchamp, is that those quilters wouldn't have been allowed to hang their art in a gallery if it wasn't for him. The whole point is that art is a meaningless label. A urinal is a urinal. Hang it in a gallery and it's art? The whole point is to show the meaninglessness of art. So stop arguing about it.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
Llig, my point about the kesh vs lord gordons was not related to the intrinsic worth of a tune. That is relative. Just that when some people want to discuss thing or play tunes at a 'higher' level it can be a drag when someone insists on playing ''the kesh'' again! Or turning serious discussions into petty slanging matches.
Im sure you can relate to say; someone insisting on dominating your session with ''baa baa blacksheep'', or ''pop goes the weasel!'' or persistantly playing blues!
You go to your session to play trad tunes,have fun.likewise some people come hear to learn and educate.We wish to discuss points of interest amongst our peers, not indulge in games of one up man ship.
''but is it art?'' begs the question; what is art?This must surely be a personal, subjective choice. One mans art is anothers pile of old rubbish!
However Crafts have specific guidlines, and criteria to judge them by.They serve specific functions.A craft like anything taken to its full potential can be an art.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
"Great art" seems to imply art establishment approved art.
Logically, all art must be art. It's an absolute term, not a relative one. The greatness or otherwise of the artwork in question is best judged by the listener.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by millionyears_bc
Re: .....but is it art?
Firstly jig If you want to have a discussion on 'intellectuals' or Intelligence I'm your man and maybe you might be out of your depth .If you want to discuss the different theories of intelligence maybe Gardiners theory of musicial intelligence etc. I'd love it some time .In my opinion an 'intellectual' has the ability to keep and explain things in the most simple of ways(just my opinion).If someone does not understand what you say thats you fault not thiers...............So statement like
'Perhaps those who find the 'high brow' approach aggravating might simply decline to comment?' might be a little facetious.
As for the Kesh and Lord Gordans comment all I can say is blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaa. The Kesh is a wonderfull tune with great lift and energy and with a name like jig you of all should appreceiate it.
Gretchen "in the future i'll be sure to use bad english, in order to not offend saint" all I can say to this is Thanks..........
And gill
Jayus I think we agree thats a bit strange.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
Llig, if we we, or anyone ,wish to argue about art or anything else that takes our fancy that is our business, not yours.Who are you to tell us to stop arguing? If you dont wish to argue or dont wish to see us do so then the solution is obvious.
Art is meaningless? is that a fact?!
Saint. I have no problem with the kesh. My point was that sessions arn't accessible to all. You must know the tunes. sure we could play the kesh over and over all night, but i personally prefer to play sessions where the level is higher.If the sesh wants to play dows list, i have no problem with that but i also sometimes prefer sessions which dont.
My comment re 'the high brow'' was not meant to be facetious. Although i do tend to Irony
I like to be ''out of my depth'' it forces me to swim,I like a challenge, i like to learn. I would be delighted to hear about Gardiner's theory.
I find De Bono always an interesting read. He manages to explain things so even i can understand.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
"failing to understand current knowledge ..."
I think there's an "undoubtedly" missing at that point ...
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
I had a totally wonderful acrostic all mapped out there. But it was insulting, pointless and childish ...
... so I refrained.
God, I'm refained!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
Is Irish Music art?
Does a bear defecate in the woods?
P.S. Who is this "Art" guy anyway?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: .....but is it art?
Wow! I want to know the answers to all three of those questions, SWFL.
Apart from anything else, I live in the woods.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
jig give us a profile at least..................
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
I think I need to say it again :-
I for one am happy to play a few tunes without getting within an asses roar of "art"......................
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Backer
Re: .....but is it art?
I love Llig's poetic use of language. In contrast, frisbee's response is indeed insulting, pointless, childish, and unimaginative.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by slainte
Re: .....but is it art?
OK, here goes:
Yes.*
They have to. Have you ever seen a port-a-potty for bears?
I'd wager it's short for Arthur, but I'm out on a limb here, I don't actually know the fellow personally.
* "...Art refers to a diverse range of human activities and artifacts, and may be used to cover all or any of the arts, including music, literature and other forms..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Thank you Cleveland, rock on, good night! Woo hoo!
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: .....but is it art?
Here's the better question:
Can you make music without it being art?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: .....but is it art?
There's a terrific Warhol exhibition on in Edinburgh at the moment. A guy I know transformed the pillars of the entrance to the Gallery into stacks of 8 feet tall Campbell soup tins, brilliant.
Walking round the exhibition I was reminded of diddley tunes. Warhol's repetitions of iconic images with their subtle differences in colour and shading put me in mind of what can be done with these iconic diddley tunes ours. Respect and worship them. repeat them. Colour them. Rejoice in their mundane simplicity. Show them off. And all with very little technical ability. Brilliant stuff.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
I really am surprised at many of you. "Art" is pretentious, "Performing" is pretentious, according to many of you. But those same people are so pretentious to sneer at tunes like "Kesh Jig" or "Drowsy Maggie" as common, and over played, and will sneer at "Riverdance" (Davy Spillane et al) or indeed anyone who earns some money from the music. Pretentious, and hypocritical, me thinks.
Please stop having such inferiority, old fashioned working class values. The arts are for all, not merely the privileged or middle classes. Saint said it all, but denying being a Marxist was a black mark.
As for whoever posted "I don't want to be labeled a Marxist" why ever not? Something to be ashamed off, caring for others, wanting a more equal society?
So, is it art? Yes, just like jazz, classical, blues, whatever.
And lest we forget, what about "The ARTIST formerly known as Prince". Very good flute player.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
Well put, llig.
But I still don't get Duchamp. Doing something as soul-shrivellingly uncreative as exhibiting a urinal, provoking into the bargain the disapproval and gentle distress of viewers, and doing it under no pressure of emergency or ideological conviction as far as I know, strikes me as an insane and perverse caprice.
(I could perhaps understand it if he went about it thinking, "Gotta do this - but then I'll put a bit of time into that painting of the woman walking downstairs...")
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
I've never understood that point of yours, Michael, about this stuff requiring "very little technical ability". Must be an old point, so sorry to bring it up again ... but, personally, I find it's actually quite hard to play. It often takes all my concentration to listen to other people , to play nicely myself, in tune and in time and with good tone, to play in a way that fits in, not just OK, but, hopefully, genuinely musically ... etc etc ...
This means that, as Martin said at some point, in this or some other thread, that when I get in that groove when suddenly there is *no* concentration at all, but everything just *fits* ... well then, it's just magical. But I don't think that would happen if it wasn't hard to do in the first place.
I'm wondering if this is a words thing, and I'm just misinterpreting your insistence that it doesn't require "technical ability"?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
Ah, nicholas, that urinal is a work of genius. It was, as they say, seminal ...
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
I'm wickedly pretentious. Who said I wasn't? Want proof?
Every time I put bow to fiddle to play Ireland's tunes I am preserving and continuing a wonderful musical and spiritual tradition which crosses vast spans of time to remind of us our highest and best qualities and the true, magical and wondrous nature of humanity. Like the ancient shamans we use our tribe’s musical forms to touch what is good, true and pure in existence.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find that bear's port-a-potty. We had burritos for lunch. Plus, all that nonsense I just spewed left me sort of queasy. Got to go have a smoke.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: .....but is it art?
''very little technical ability'' !.......speak for yourself!
''mundane simplicity'' ...........In relation to what?
>>Can you make music without it being art?<<
What is art? When is noise music? Once again subjective?
>>Logically, all art must be art. It's an absolute term, not a relative one.<<
How can this be true? This is circular logic, a dog is a dog.....
Art is subjective, based on personal belief or feelings, not based on fact.Otherwise how could people argue over what 'art' is?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
look lets just leave art to the artists and let us super heros get on with our own job................................when was the last time you saw an artist save the world............
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: Offensive Remarx...
...' but denying being a Marxist was a black mark.
As for whoever posted "I don't want to be labeled a Marxist" why ever not? '
i will resemble those remarks,Bliss.
there's been a too much of a cavalier attitude in some of the posts re the old codger from Trier.
and...
don't you know that it's 'talk like a pirate day' tomorrow?
so i'm told.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by biggus dave
Re: .....but is it art?
You obviously haven't been watching Heroes then, Eddie?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
benhall1 I'm not talking about saving this world I'm talking about saving the little world in my head a much more diffcult task even for superman...............so Im off to save another session with my bodhran.
good luck
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
jig, art is not subjective, based on personal belief or feelings, art is art. It simply is. (the appreciation of it is a different matter.) So you cannot argue over what 'art' is. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Stop
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
The art is art, whether it's sh*te or not.
Amen, L squared, amen.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: .....but is it art?
When, then is art not art?A turd on the pavement is not art, but in the gallery it is? What defines art? Who defines art?How any one can state that something as subjective as art, is objective is beyond me! By its very nature art is subjective. Other wise everything and any thing can be art. if everything is art that surely renders the word meaningless? If I state something is art therefore it is? Art will allways be a simple matter of opinion. Can you suggest an example to 'prove' your statements?
Art is a matter of opinion.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Art is art.
But, Mr Llig has always said how easy it is to play ITM, just up and down the scales most of it, the bodhran being the only instrument not in this category, making it the hardest to master. And I agree with him.
To continue the "pretentious" theme, I could have said that perhaps we have a lot of intellectual snobs on board, and thereby decry art to pretend they are not.
As for all this talk of turds? Have youse nothing better to do?
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
''Art is Art'' once again , circular logic, meaningless really.What is art?What is your working definition of art?
Beauty is a relative concept, subjective. As is art.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
You see what happens when you think too much? ART is art. You know, the Mona Lisa and all that crap.
Life is really easy, if you let it, just like playing ITM on easy instruments like fiddle or flute. Or them oul pipes.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
discussion roars on
a mighty fervor nothing
will slow or can stop
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by AlBrown
Re: .....but is it art?
Nice!
Savage grey cells spar
Dawn breaks for the open minds
Closed minds plod onward.
Or:
Semantic dead-end
jesters and minstrels rage on.
Blood on the keyboards.
Cheers.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Piece
Re: .....but is it art?
"Blood on the tracks", it is, by the recording ARTIST, Bob Dylan.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
Argue semantics
Endless mustard board fun, but
Nothing is resolved
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by Reverend
Re: .....but is it art?
Haikus, above?
There's scope for a competition, here - if someone could say what the ground rules are.
# Posted on September 18th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
Thank you Cheshire P.T. -
For stating that ITM often contains motifs which are stronger than what is offered through Classical Music.
It explains to me why so many of us appreciate & love J.S. Bach - true master of astounding melody lines.
As far as the Art question - don't know much about it, just know what I like. Isn't a beautiful sunset also art? (no arguments about the c(C)reator of such, please!)
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by morning star
Re: .....but is it art?
Board ate my reply to this, too ...
Sunsets are specifically *not* 'art', since they are not 'made'.
There. That was the gist ...
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
Ha! That's a matter of opinion too!
Sorry I said it, however.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by morning star
Re: .....but is it art?
Yeah - in my post that was eaten, I went on to say that, if you're a Christian, it's still not 'art' because you don't ascribe 'art' to the Creator, as this would be a demeaning concept - the Creation simply *is*. It's enough.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
ok art is an opinion, but can I introduce myself as an artist this is what I have a problem with How?who? and when? can someone call themselves or introduce themselves as an artist.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
I would say that to introduce yourself as an artist would be pretentious unless you ; exhibited, sold your work, were, in fact .... an artist! But really there are no hard and fast rules. If, in your opinion, you are an artist well then, why not?
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
na jig I think I'll stick to my name is eddie
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
morningstar, note that I said trad melodies are stronger than *many* classical motifs. Of course there are exceptions, and Bach supplies more than his share of those. Beethoven too, in my book.
A lot of old church music also has gorgeous melodies.
All I'm saying is that Irish trad is no slouch in this department--its melodies hold their ground against any genre.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Will Harmon
Re: .....but is it art?
Well Ok - you used the word *many*, and I used the word *often*.
I'm frankly tired of classical being held up by so many as the best of the best - when there's so much of it that just isn't. Historically speaking, it's actually been the most elite of the elitists. ($$$).
That's not to say that I don't love Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy and some of the others.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by morning star
Re: .....but is it art?
No way am I getting into this one..
However Michael you are mellowing out...
How well put above. Lovely.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Hugo Chavez
Re: .....but is it art?
me neither. Fraught with lack of proper definitions. Here we go round in circles again...wheeeeee!!
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Rudall the time
Re: .....but is it art?
I don't think you can compare "classical" (or Western Art) music to trad tunes. In classical, the composer has produced not only the melody, but has arranged it for the rest of the orchestra, and built motifs and dynamics into the piece, and has carefully and conciously thought about how each passage in the piece affects the overall "shape" of the piece.
Somewhat conincidentally, me and a friend (who does a bit of classical-style composition) went out to dinner a couple of nights ago and ended up discussing the difference in trad composition and classical composition. Ultimately, we agreed that composing trad tunes was to compose cyclic music (so was melodically interesting), and to compose classical music was to compose linear music (and was harmonically interesting).
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Andy V
Re: .....but is it art?
"But I still don't get Duchamp. Doing something as soul-shrivellingly uncreative as exhibiting a urinal, provoking into the bargain the disapproval and gentle distress of viewers, and doing it under no pressure of emergency or ideological conviction as far as I know, strikes me as an insane and perverse caprice."
Sounds like a result for Duchamp to me.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Sugarfoot Jack
Re: .....but is it art?
"Haikus, above? There's scope for a competition, here - if someone could say what the ground rules are."
Nicholas, we had a haiku contest here about four years ago http://www.thesession.org/discussions/display/2540.
The ground rules are in the opening post.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: .....but is it art?
"we agreed that composing trad tunes was to compose cyclic music (so was melodically interesting), and to compose classical music was to compose linear music (and was harmonically interesting)" says Andy V.
Sorry to be pedantic but in classical music there is cyclical music particularly 'minimalism' and it is not necessarily melodically interesting, it's more rhythmically interesting, some Baroque and Early music is cyclical also.
I also find trad to be very harmonically interesting, many of the melodies imply unusual harmonic progressions and the harmonic accompaniment of the UIlleann Pipes though simple enough is very interesting and quite different to any classical approach to harmony.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
I remember once hearing that a haiku has to hint at past, present and furture:
"I've had how many?
No wonder I can't play well:
Can I make the gents?"
But I gather references to cherry blossom are not compulsory.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by nicholas
Re: .....but is it art?
Well, actually, frisbee, classical refers to a period of music - the correct term for the genre you describe is "Western Art Music." Hence, minimalism cannot be a subset of classicalism, as the two occupy two different periods of time.
My point (which I reckon you probably understood, but were determined to argue) was that composing traditional-style tunes is an entirely different skill to composing classical music. Effectively, to compse tunes is to compse extended motifs. This is, self-evidently, a different skill to arranging this motif into movement or arrangement of a trad group.
If you get the opportunity, examine the score of Tallis' "Spem in Alium" - and, frankly, any tune you like - hopefully a difference will strike you. Trad tunes in their abstract form are monophonic. "Classical" music is (execpting plainchant and a couple of other repetories) usually not. An implied harmony is not a harmony.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Andy V
Re: .....but is it art?
I would say that to introduce yourself as an artist would be pretentious unless you ; exhibited, sold your work, were, in fact ....
an artist.....posted by Jig.
That rules Van Gogh out then. I could have sworn he drew pictures, you know, an artist. Never sold anything however.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by bodhran bliss
Re: .....but is it art?
''were, in fact ....
an artist''
Did old vinnie introduce himself as an artist i wonder?
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Andy V says
"classical refers to a period of music - the correct term for the genre you describe is "Western Art Music.".
.........the general term 'classical music' refers to everything from European Renaissance music to contemporary composers like the minimalists, I've never been to a concert described as a "Western Art Music" concert, I've been to plenty of classical music concerts though and they've featured music from Bach to Ligeti. 'Classical' musicians do not only play music from the 'classical period', nor are they refered to as "Western Art Musicians!".
The 'classical period' you are refering to is a particular phase in the history of 'classical music' it is dominated by Haydn and Mozart as I'm sure you know. If you were refering to that period only then I you are right in what you say, however next time you want to generalise about 'classical music' please be specific that you mean this period and not the all-encompassing genre you like to call 'Western Art Music".(I personally hate that term)
Regarding motivitic composition, a huge amount of Baroque music (including J.S.Bach) is motivitic and similar in basic structure to many trad tunes, look at Bach's violin partita's, a lot of them are single line monodic pieces, some are even Jigs (Gigues)! Of course they use a different tonal/modal language but they are constructed in a very similar manner.
Anyway I'm bored with all this analysis, I'm off!!!.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by The Tune Composer
Re: .....but is it art?
Haha, frisbee, the "classical" music thing is a classic example of is-Jack-a-name? syndrome. The correct answer is: "no, Jack originally was an alternative of John." However, many people don't know this, so hence, does Jack become a name in its own right?
Or, to put it another way, Newton's third law is not "each action has an equal and opposite reaction," it is actually something a great deal longer involving the conservation of momentum and energy. Nontheless, should the abridged version in the common vernacular become the accepted truth (even though it is only a simplification) or should people correct the popular misconception? The ignorance of a population does not create truth.
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by Andy V
Re: .....but is it art?
What the hell is "motivitic"?
# Posted on September 19th 2007 by ethical blend
Re: .....but is it art?
I 'll try to sort it for ye ,Everthing is art from sh*ting in the corner to painting the mona lisa..................can it be more simple..................................art is all .........................................................................plesae don't pass this post unless you dissagree.........................
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by Saint
Re: .....but is it art?
Art is a figment of the imagination. It only exists in the mind.all is art and nothing is art.
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
Now you're getting it.
So have you had done with your meaningless arguments now?
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by ...
Re: .....but is it art?
I always wondered if Duchamp's fountain was plumbed in or not.
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by Andy V
Re: .....but is it art?
No it wasn' plumbed in - but here's the man who decided to 'use' it: http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.3.PINOCELLI.htm
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by pavlf
Re: .....but is it art?
When a rock guitarist smashes his guitar on stage is that conceptual art or is it just his reaction to his performance?
And has an Irish trad musician ever been known to do similar?
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by Trevor Jennings
Re: .....but is it art?
Llig, you give the impression that you have got it '' now you're getting it'' Does it ever occur to you that you might not 'get it'? that you are not an all knowing fountain of wisdom?....... just curious.
As we can see from the above link, there is still controversy over what 'art' is......Once again, ...sigh... art is a matter of opinion, subjective, not objective. your concept of art is different to mine.
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
FWIW I have a degree in Fine Arts, I've dabbled in the gallery scene, had an agent, sold abstract expressionist paintings that I imagine hang over sofas in well-to-do living rooms (one lady actually gave me cloth swatches to match), I've got work in the permanent collection of MOMA (heh, not that it's actually on display, but it's in their collection) but I'm not sure as to what "art" is. There's a sufi conundrum about whether sharpness exists without the knife - are concepts real, do they exist independently of perception - and I think that while it's really interesting to contemplate, it's unanswerable. Doesn't make it meaningless, just unresoveable. At some point, I say #@%! it -- anybody want to have a go at Paddy Canny's setting of Rakes of Clonmel in that flat key?
# Posted on September 20th 2007 by fidkid
Re: .....but is it art?
simple - if is played well it is.
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by doggone
Re: .....but is it art?
Lazy hound... i might try that for the craic one day! maybe set the fiddle allight or something! Should be good for a laugh..... When i got some money to burn that is.....
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....fuelling banjos...
well i did set fire to a banjo a few years ago.
does that count?
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by biggus dave
Re: .....but is it art?
Was it on stage? or heavan forbid at a session?
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
no,it was at a christening party.
i did play a cheeky lament on the viola as it was consumed by the cleansing flames though...
well worth the box of firelighters imo...
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by biggus dave
Re: .....but is it art?
I can just picture playing a viola as it is burning.....though i know thats not what you meant! Now that would be a stage show! playing a burning instrument!! Bit hot for my liking....
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by piobagusfidil
Re: .....but is it art?
all animals breathe
all men breathe
therefore all men are animals (?)
all art is beautiful
all music is beautiful
therefore ITM is art (?)
neither conclusion is logical
I believe that art is whatever I think it is
I belive that ITM performances are art
therefore ITM performances are art
that's logical
what a great topic
# Posted on September 21st 2007 by millionyears_bc
Re: .....but is it art?
Whoah.....Eejit mentions French pantomime in a negative
comparison scenario and that day Marcel Marceau dies !!!
(theme from Twilight Zone in background)
# Posted on September 24th 2007 by hauke