> Ken is right though that the situation with modern
>muisc (and modern art for that matter) is considerably different from
>that which prevails in poetry. The difference surely is that the first
>two are more passive experiences for the great mass of the public than
>the latter. Where personal input is required (the effort of reading), a
>more visceral response is often obtained. All of us on this list know
>that the other two art forms need similar input but the great public at
>large treats them as background or a momentary experience.
I don't get this. The 'great public' is surely as indifferent, where not
openly hostile, to 'innovative' visual art & music as it is to
equivalent literature. Atonal musak has yet to take off. The imbalance
comes in popular coverage of the arts: the relative adventurousness and
knowledgeableness of e.g. the Guardian's reviewing of visual arts in
comparison with the conservatism & I'd say downright ignorance of its
poetry reviewing. This is a question of editorial policy - where does
the 'great public' come in? - only a very few of its members would
glance at those pages in any case.
AH
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|