Music Banter - View Single Post

Daktari · 03-24-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

"I disagree. DuChamps was trying to make the point that nothing is ANYTHING until it is given CONTEXT".

I remember taking part in a long, long discussion about this very subject. What had sparked that off was a visit to the Tate Gallery in London to see the famous pile of bricks which the artist had sold to the gallery for about 60,000.00 pounds I think at the time. The artist's angle that he quoted at the time was that he was trying to bring attention to the beauty that surrounds us in everyday life. He was saying that art is all around us and we should not have to go into a gallery to see it.

Others thought that the actual 'art' involved was the fact that he had persuaded the gallery to part with all that dosh for a pile of building bricks. A pile of bricks on a building site ,maybe worth $10.00. A similar pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery, thousands of dollars.

I think Duchamp was trying to make folks notice that 'art' was not only in galleries but all around us if we were just prepared to open our eyes and minds to it and it was not necessary to be an artist to produce art.

I believe that everything is something by the way. Whether we attach labels to it or not......

Anyway, more back to the subject: My own belief is that there are two categories here.

1) The musical instrument which is something designed specifically to play musical sounds.
2) The potential musical instrument which could be anything that is capable of producing musical sounds but not specifically designed to do so.

Where the computer falls is up to you I guess.

All the best, Gordon.

03-24-2010, 01:45 PM	#18 (permalink)
Daktari Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Originally from Lancashire, England, lived near Largs, Scotland and now live in Rocky Face, Georgia Posts: 154	Quote: "I disagree. DuChamps was trying to make the point that nothing is ANYTHING until it is given CONTEXT". I remember taking part in a long, long discussion about this very subject. What had sparked that off was a visit to the Tate Gallery in London to see the famous pile of bricks which the artist had sold to the gallery for about 60,000.00 pounds I think at the time. The artist's angle that he quoted at the time was that he was trying to bring attention to the beauty that surrounds us in everyday life. He was saying that art is all around us and we should not have to go into a gallery to see it. Others thought that the actual 'art' involved was the fact that he had persuaded the gallery to part with all that dosh for a pile of building bricks. A pile of bricks on a building site ,maybe worth $10.00. A similar pile of bricks in the Tate Gallery, thousands of dollars. I think Duchamp was trying to make folks notice that 'art' was not only in galleries but all around us if we were just prepared to open our eyes and minds to it and it was not necessary to be an artist to produce art. I believe that everything is something by the way. Whether we attach labels to it or not...... Anyway, more back to the subject: My own belief is that there are two categories here. 1) The musical instrument which is something designed specifically to play musical sounds. 2) The potential musical instrument which could be anything that is capable of producing musical sounds but not specifically designed to do so. Where the computer falls is up to you I guess. All the best, Gordon.