quote:

“Schenker penetrated to the heart of what makes music enduring and inspiring,” said Professor Wen, who teaches at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. “He was no angel and so what? His ideology is problematic but his insights are massive.”

Replace Schenker with Wagner and ..."

It is difficult for me to understand how we can understand anything if we can't talk about it. Are we all to be sentenced to go around in silent rage?

Big Al

quote:

Originally posted by big al:
It is difficult for me to understand how we can understand anything if we can't talk about it. Are we all to be sentenced to go around in silent rage?

Big Al

This is my issue with triggering. The people who feel triggered and want to avoid the conversation ... those are EXACTLY the people we need to hear from, in order to understand how they feel. If they avoid the issue whenever it comes up, we are left with guesswork about it.

It's the same paradox with victims testifying in court. They want to avoid the trauma of reliving the incident ... but, if they don't testify, the victimizer goes free. (And the solution cannot be to sacrifice the defendant's right to due process and a fair trial.)

Ewell comes across as a whack job who is weaponizing his blackness. And I happen to think you can't classify a Jew in pre-war Austria as a beneficiary of "white privilege." The treatment of Jackson sounds like an extreme overreaction. Though his notion of "black-on-Jew" racism sounds as equally crazed as his opponent's idea of a Jew in pre-war Austria being the recipient of white privilege.

I finally quit reading because the entire disagreement is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

“Schenker penetrated to the heart of what makes music enduring and inspiring,” said Professor Wen, who teaches at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. “He was no angel and so what? His ideology is problematic but his insights are massive.”

Replace Schenker with Wagner and ..."

Woody Allen

I'm not going to examine every artist's moral standing before I enjoy their genius. Condemn their personal life if that floats your boat. The work they produce has nothing to do with that.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:

I finally quit reading because the entire disagreement is ridiculous.

Funny I kept reading to the end just to see how ridiculous it gets.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

“Schenker penetrated to the heart of what makes music enduring and inspiring,” said Professor Wen, who teaches at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. “He was no angel and so what? His ideology is problematic but his insights are massive.”

Replace Schenker with Wagner and ..."

Woody Allen

I'm not going to examine every artist's moral standing before I enjoy their genius. Condemn their personal life if that floats your boat. The work they produce has nothing to do with that.

I feel the same way about weaponizing his race. I'm black so you CAN'T disagree with me.

A couple other things are wrong here. First, once again judging actions of the past by today's standards. A fool's errand. And secondly, by trying to say racism was behind western music developing primarily around itself and not embracing other cultures' music is absurd. Being able to hear and appreciate that music is a very new development. It really was not a part of the environment for most anyone then. In that respect I would say American music has been very enlightened as black music has shaped popular music for over a century now, and has spread to Europe as well.

The thing is, the work NEVER stands alone. You don't know what was in the artist's mind when they were creating it.

And, even if the accomplishments were objective, not subjective, the legacy is still tainted. Pete Rose isn't in the Baseball Hall of Fame because his body of work (more hits than anyone who has ever played the game, to this day, and there's nobody currently playing who is within 1000 hits of him) doesn't stand apart from his gambling scandal. Neither is Curt Schilling, because his nutjobbery affects people's perception of his athletic accomplishments.

Athletes are not artists or creators, so that is a different topic. Pete Rose is no Beethoven. If it were revealed that Beethoven was a pedophile, would you stop listening to the moonlight sonata?

As for "what was in their minds" during the process of creation," not only is that irrelevant but it is no mystery--their minds were immersed in the creative process. It isn't philosophy, it's art.

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:
Athletes are not artists or creators, so that is a different topic.

All that says is that you only appreciate the kind of artistry that you are willing to call artistry. Anyone can see that Michael Jordan was an artist. I'm struggling to find inoffensive words to characterize that unwillingness to accept forms of artistry that are not familiar to you.

quote:

Pete Rose is no Beethoven. If it were revealed that Beethoven was a pedophile, would you stop listening to the moonlight sonata?

Absolutely. Not to go all Godwin, but would you listen to the Moonlight Sonata if you learned that Hitler wrote it?

quote:

As for "what was in their minds" during the process of creation," not only is that irrelevant but it is no mystery--their minds were immersed in the creative process. It isn't philosophy, it's art.

That's precisely the point. You don't know what informed their creative process. If it was something highly objectionable, you wouldn't appreciate it any more.

Example: some of the Confederate statues were undoubtedly artistic. They came down, and should have come down, anyway. I don't care how good the sculpture is, it stands for the wrong thing.

Commenting generally on artistic expressions that may come with subjectively objectionable sentiments and/or from artists/creators with socially objectionable personal flaws ...

It depends on how much of the objectionable sentiments is obvious in the art, probably more so than the artist/creator’s personal flaws.

Adolf Hitler writes an abstract string quartet — listening to that is probably OK.

Mother Theresa writes an opera glorifying the gassing of Jews — you probably don’t want to watch that.

Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” album — OK.

Michael Jackson (hypothetically) writes a song with lyrics glorifying child molestation — heck NO!

Then there are exceptions that **** all this up ...

Gangster Rap lyrics explicitly objectify the fairer sex and glorify the shooting of law enforcement personnel — those are sort of the bedrock themes of the art form and objecting too loudly against it makes you look like a prude.

Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kempf” came from a mass murdering racist with racist messages — you read it anyway for its historical significance.

No lack of well intentioned second rate art created by personally virtuous second rate artists with decidedly virtuous messages — very few of them may get their proverbial 15 minutes of social media fame but by and large we ignore them regardless of how virtuous their creators or their messages are.

Thank you, Ax. I agree with you.

Michael Jordan didn't create anything. He's an athlete. I can appreciate the rare beauty of his athleticism and sheer talent without calling it something it isnt.

The athlete as artist thing--I'm not on board, either. Part of the problem I have with it is that an athlete doesn't create anything tangible. There's nothing left after the fact for us to view. An artist leaves behind a thing: composition, painting, sculpture, building, etc. An athlete's performance is ephemeral. You can say that an athletic feat is beautiful (and I won't disagree with you), but what's left of that feat is perhaps a video showing its exceptionality. In that case, the video itself is tangible, and I could argue that the videographer or filmmaker is the artist. But the athlete? Not so much.

But what about performance art? Again, more or less ephemeral, in the same way that a beautiful rendition of, say, Beethoven's 9th is also ephemeral. Is the performance "art"? Or is the composition the art, and the performance ephemeral? I tend to think the latter. Note that I'm not saying the performance isn't amazing, beautiful, emotional, and compelling. It's certainly not "lesser." But I don't think a performance of Beethoven's 9th is in the same category (as in grouping, not tier) as the composition itself.

OK, leaving now to don my flak jacket....