estebanana -> RE: Do the Classics Suppress Contemporary, Creative Works of Music? Literature? Art? (Aug. 29 2015 15:50:09)
|
quote:
Now, Stephen, before I turn in, I don't think you are being entirely fair playing the earnest, meritocratic student of art history. It seemed clear to me that you were lording _your_ credentials over runner (and perhaps the forum) and out of the other side of your mouth, summarily dismissing those of Meyer. Okay, to be cont. No, I don't think was I lording anything over anyone. Not from my perspective. Quite the opposite, I was pissed off at the dismissive attitude of Runner, after having gone to the trouble of reading his book. Let's look at at it this way, if someone were to say to Richard Jernigan, for example, I have a book that explains the way that radar technology effected politics during the Cold War. Richard reads the book, disagrees with central idea of the author and the person who recommended the book tells Richard, Ok you don't understand the book read it again. Richard says well I'm a radar professional. I am educated and have worked in that field for many years, I think I know my subject. The person insists he reread the book because he does not understand it. That scenario would likely not happen, and if it did I would probably make popcorn and gleefully read as Richard deconstructs the book. The reason is that the sciences and subjects based in empirical thought don't suffer the lack of respect that the subjective disciplines have to put up with. Art, literature, poetry, music, dance, etc. and specialists and creators of arts in general serve at the favor of the public and are subject to a publics value system. The public views the arts from an outside position, and because the cultivation of a knowledge and love for the arts is part of viewership, readership, listenership, many in the art loving public can lose sight of the fact that artists have likes and dislikes and spend the better part of their lives cultivating who they are as creators. A person who cultivates a knowledge of arts is qualified to pass value judgements on the arts they seek out. However it's always important to bear in mind that artists, musicians, writers are not just performers seen on a stage or that have been published. Creatives are people who's every day life and existence is steeped it the art they practice. When I want to understand something about flamenco dance I go to one of my dancer friends, and I say teach me something, or I have a question. I respect the lives they live and go to them as sources, experts on the subject. Often times I see viewers treat performers as one dimensional beings, they may not understand that a dancer has a whole history of dance in their mind, and a depth of knowledge, much of which is non verbal, which far surpasses that of a viewer. I see artists being disrespected occasionally, it's part of the job to take it and deal with it yourself. But when I, we, as artists spend our lives, our student loan money, our dance lesson money, guitar lesson money, travel to museums, spend long solitary hours writing, when we do these things we should be valued for the experience and knowledge we gain from solitary time spend reading and practicing our arts. Am I lording this over anyone, no. Am I pissed off that I got the brush off after having made an effort to read someones book. Yes, somewhat pissed off. Why? Because why should I take that? Why should any artist take that crap after we spend our lives training hard to do what we do? Breaking a few viewers, or readers, or pissing people off is an occupational hazard when you are an artist. If you get pushed, usually you absorb it and move on, but sometimes it's better to push back and not put up with disrespect.
|
|
|
|