RoR: Forum

Micheal,
Ha, you caught me! Maybe I did mess up a little between art appreciation and personal favorite.

Of course no all arts are equal and some are definitely better and of higher value than others. Actually, when I was pairing the artists, I was trying to pick the ones that are more or less of the same statues either in my own view and in the general critics'. (Maybe not Kandinsky and Piccaso. But I am particularly partial to Kandinsky.). So between the two in each pair, I can't really say who's works are better, although I do have my own subjective preference.

Hong

Post 101

Monday, October 11, 2004 - 3:35pm

"Maybe I did mess up a little between art appreciation and personal favorite."

I guess that's why the question asks for your estimation of the single greatest achievement. :-)

And note too that it wasn't asking for "the greatest work," instead it asked for "the greatest achievement." :-))

Post 102

Monday, October 11, 2004 - 8:21pm

And note too that it wasn't asking for "the greatest work," instead it asked for "the greatest achievement."

But this is still an impossible poll. There just isn't a set of uniform criteria for judging.

Even at much narrower scopes, such as

Oscar for movies
Pulitzer for writers
Tony for plays
Emmy for TVs
Nobel prizes for Scientists and Economists (now is the Nobel season if anybody noticed...)
...........

I think the consensus would be that most of the winners of these prizes are among the best, but often far from THE best.

Post 103

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 2:52am

"But this is still an impossible poll. There just isn't a set of uniform criteria for judging."

I think there is, Hong. With respect. :-)

The criterion is achievement. When talking about the genius of Louis Armstrong, George Melly suggested that 'genius' was taking your field and by your efforts alone transforming that field completely. That's the sort of standard of which I'm thinking. :-)

[Whoops! Egregious typo fixed: "our" changed to "your."]

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 10/13, 5:05pm)

Post 104

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:28am

OK, I concede that there are certain measures for achievement in a particular field.

Perhaps the impossibility of the poll lays in its scope over eras and genres. In almost every fields, there are usually several "geniuses" who made colossal impact and transformed their field during their time. It's often impossible to single out THE greatest achievement in a particular field, let along in all Western Art.

Post 105

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:23pm

Hi Hong,

Delighted with your responses. I didn't vote on the poll because I thought making a choice was ridiculous, I think like you, but I enjoyed the debate that followed.

Michael

Post 106

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 2:19pm

Why do I start to feel cozy in here?! :-)

Hong

Post 107

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 8:48pm

Because there is a lot of goodwill, passion, and love...and intelligence around here maybe?!

Post 108

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:48am

Ok, I might be jumping into this a bit late, but I absolutely have to come out of the shadows for this one, as I am myself a musician.

My own personal music tastes include:

Wynton Marsalis
Arturo Sandoval
Charlie Parker
Cannonball Adderly
Thelonius Monk
Drum Corps!! (especially the Cavaliers)
symphonic
ochestra
Beethoven
Chopin
Debussy
Rachmaninov
Tchaikovsky
Stravinsky
Khachaturian
Prokofiev
J.S. Bach
Mozart
Radiohead
The Shins
Rilo Kiley
Pink Floyd
The Mars Volta
Coldplay
Led Zeppelin
Rush
Tears for Fears
The Streets
Iron and Wine
Alkaline Trio
The Juliana Theory
Mogwai
Sigur Ros
Godspeed You Black Emperor!
Broken Social Scene
Bjork
Grandaddy
Ani DiFranco
Modest Mouse
Bright Eyes
The Arcade Fire
Queen

And that's just a partial list. As you can see, it covers everything from instrumental, marching, strings, soft rock, mod rock, jazz, classical, baroque, romantic, alternative, punk, and I didn't even mention techno!

Music is extremely versatile, and the reason that I like such a broad range of music is that I am a versatile person. Different artists express different parts of my personality.

But the point I really wanted to make is that while some of you guys denounce modern rock music (and I use that term inclusively, even though it's not inclusive of all the bands that I listed) as being too based in emotion. But the ironic thing is that many of the world's greatest composers wrote strictly out of emotion. Beethoven, Chopin, and the rest. In fact, almost every composer has some sort of sordid emotional past that is expressed through their music. The conventions that they used to write their music at the time gave the expression the structure which you praise it for, but they did not write for that structure in-and-of-itself. The structure was only the means to expressing the emotion. In fact, many of the world's greatest artistic achievments, and scientific as well, were brought about through extreme emotion. In effect, you're denouncing the very thing that brought you the music in the first place.

And in no way is classical music superior to "modern rock." Of course, there are modern bands that are simply a waste of time, and I've heard plenty of them, but there are also a lot of bands worth listening to. Many are actually very creative. Two, for example, would be Radiohead and Godspeed off of my list. I won't divulge into Radiohead because they are popular enough that I can assume you know about them. But Godspeed is also spectacular. They are a 8-9 person instrumental group that plays 15-30 minute long songs that are truly symphonic in scope. Broken Social Scene is another one of my favorites, playing soft, ambient rock that is both delicate yet moving, and lyrics to match.

All that long-windedness just goes to say: be careful that when you denounce emotion in modern music, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Post 109

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:42pm

Nix-o-matic concluded with"All that long-windedness just goes to say: be careful that when you denounce emotion in modern music, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." He began with "I might be jumping into this a bit late..."

Nix, you sure are. Your beginning comment explains the error in your concluding one. :-)

Nix, I at least, was very far from denouncing emotions. Might I perhaps recommend my article 'Something Better than Rage, Pain, Anger and Hurt' for the details.

Cheers,
PC

Post 110

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 2:34pm

Ah, I see. Methinks that I am likened to the kid who arrives at the party after everyone has left, to find only empty pizza boxes and deflated balloons.

Post 111

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:15pm

"Because there is a lot of goodwill, passion, and love...and intelligence around here maybe?!"

But what about the "artistic temperament" I so expect from artists?

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 10/14, 9:08pm)

Post 112

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 3:58am

I don't want to start this whole pissfest going again, but I've had a chance to brush up on The Romantic Maneifesto and wish to publicly accept that the views I attributed to Ayn Rand (particularly in post 86) were indeed incorrect, as Michael indicated. My apologies to the forum. I do stand by my own views as expressed in this thread.

MH

Post 113

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 9:11pm

Joe

I just wanted to let you know you have a lot of good things to say. It is good to see that some people still have their head on straight.

Post 114

Saturday, December 4, 2004 - 1:56am

Tom, hello, and assuming you're referring to me (I apologize if you're not), thank you. It helps to have forums like SOLO, where ideas can be exchanged, thoughts challenged, reality checked, and errors corrected, to keep one's head on straight (that is, if it doesn't blow up first from the heated exchanges!). I certainly have to give some credit to the people here for that. This particular thread may have been scorching, and I told myself I was walking away...but what I took away was worth more than I spent, ultimately, and certainly more worthwile than the yelling at thanksgiving dinner back home!

I originally came to this forum with a chip on my shoulder, blaming some personal problems on my embracing Objectivism. Whether or not that is true, or if the problem is not the philosophy but the interpretation (I am fond of Chris Sciabarra's maxum "We are all Randians now"), I still have to admit that Rand's work turned me around, and probably did more to prevent doing any more damage in my life that it caused. And to my surprise, Solo has helpful in reminding me about the better aspects of a way of life that I was ready to abandon.

One more thing to be thankful for.

Post 115

Saturday, December 4, 2004 - 9:41am

Joe-

Let me admire your honestly above, and second it in spirit if not in letter.

I too came here with a chip on my shoulder based on my experience with the philosophy in the past tried walking away in anger and returning in veangeful fire and slaughter. And I did have to fight some battles of self-defense at first, and for the blood resulting I give not the coldest apology. But the kindness, the openness, and the zest for life of now at least the working plurality of the people of SOLO here have changed my heart, or at least, they have moved it.

I myself am too far gone to ever come back as family to Objectivism, but this forum has made it possible to keep my own convictions and passions and regard Randianism as potentially a good friend, even if I shall go to the my own island on the Shallowing Sea.

For me to have a place to speak my mind is worth everything.

my regards,         v
                            *
Jeanine Ring   )( )(

Post 116

Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:24am