Music Banter - View Single Post - Modernism - is demonstration the end of expressionism?

TockTockTock · 02-20-2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rubato

I'm not, there's every possibility I'm looking at this from the wrong angle, but from what I have heard trying to get into "avant-garde" I get the impression the artist is more concerned with breaking boundaries than using music as a tool of expression.

See, I honestly see this as boiling down to basic assumptions, and I am, admittedly, a bit bemused by them. You said that you often get the impression that avant-garde music is concerned with breaking boundaries. This is usually true. The concept of avant-garde music is meant to break away from tradition and to create something entirely new. I understand what you are saying there, but what I don't understand is that you find that those who compose in the realm of the avant-garde are more concerned with that than artistic expression (you mentioned earlier that it, i.e. unconventional techniques in composition, "crippled the expressive nature of music").

Quote:

Then I'd be made to look a right fool. I have no issues with "avant-garde" or "atonal" music per se as you can see by my signature and I have said earlier that any sound (organised or not) has the ability to conjure up images, hence anything can be used as a tool for composition, as Ska pointed out before my issues lie with the composers approach to music.

There are certainly those who somewhat possess this mentality of approaching composition, such as Luigi Russolo and Iannis Xenakis, but what about those like Edgard Varese or Throbbing Gristle? You surely can't say they are more concerned with innovation than that of artistic expression?

Just because one adheres to a more unconventional way of writing or playing music doesn't mean they are more focused on being original or innovative...

Quote:

That's fine, it would be hopeless for me to even begin to define art.

Then why bring up your view on the goal of art? After all, art can primarily be defined by the goal it is trying to accomplish. I mean, you sort of dismissed abstract art with your previous comment by stating "the point of art is to minimize subjectivity so you can get your point across." Abstract art is known for being ambiguous and subjective as far as personal interpretation goes (as is a lot of art in general).

On another note, I have a question about the following statement you made:

Quote:

instead we force our audience to work towards understanding these new relationships when they aren't even fully understood by those using them.

What do you mean the part in bold, and why have you come to this conclusion?