Welcome aboard, John.
Your account reminds me of recently seeing a play (God of Carnage) here in
NYC and suddenly "realizing" I was "only" watching Who's Afraid of Virginia
Woolf? through a veil of farce. Fortunately that realization came to me
after
I'd seen the play, so my enjoyment of the play itself and four fine
performances
(yes, by movie and TV folks, as Broadway seems to require nowadays to stay
afloat) was not much disturbed.
Hal
"My experience is what I agree to attend to."
--William James
Halvard Johnson
================
[log in to unmask]
http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
http://www.hamiltonstone.org
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:15 AM, John Herbert Cunningham <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello. I'm new to the group. I've been finding this discussion quite
> fascinating. I'd just like to respond to both Judy and Jon by asking this:
> If the application of theory to a work of art debases the viewing of that
> work of art, is this a fault of theory or is it that our first perception
> was innocent and without knowledge so that we saw the shiny surface of the
> work without seeing beneath whereas, through being informed by theory, we
> could see deeper and found it wanting? At this past Winnipeg New Music
> Festival, the audience in which I sat watched the Scrap Music Ensemble. We
> were mesmerized by all these bright lights shining on metallic surfaces and
> all the frenzy taking place on stage as the musicians ran out from the wings
> pushing brighter and shinier pieces of equipment onto the stage at times
> dancing with it in pirouettes. Half way through the performance, I realized
> that all I was watching was taiko drumming with a little more glitz and
> glitter. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with taiko drumming and I can
> quite enjoy it given the right context. But a festival that was supposedly
> dedicated to the best of the new in classical music? My theoretical
> knowledge of taiko drumming and classical music permitted me to see through
> the veneer of the surface and question the appropriateness of this
> performance in this context giving me, in essence, a much greater
> appreciation of what constitutes new classical music.
> John Herbert Cunningham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Judy Prince
> Sent: May-12-09 7:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theoretically ... (corrected, what was I thinking)
>
> When Jon says 'Can we read poetry without theory?' he means 'Does "theory"
> help or hinder us in appreciating art?', implying that either we can better
> *appreciate* art 'with theory' or we can better appreciate it without
> theory, or both, at different times and in different circumstances. In
> other words, does 'theory' help or hinder us in appreciating art?
> 'With theory' means two things: 1) having read/heard/seen explanations
> and
> analyses of various components of art; and 2) having experienced those
> arts. We often mean both, of course, because theorists frequently give
> examples of the art in their analyses, though some, unfortunately, do not.
>
>
> If theory shows us the various things the artist is doing in creating, it
> helps us understand what other artists are doing. Crucially, then, the
> question becomes "Do we better appreciate an artist's work when we know
> more
> about what she has done to create it?" Yes, we better appreciate what it
> takes for the artist to create the work; and this better appreciation may
> lead us to like or to dislike the work [ie, more highly value or devalue
> the
> work].
>
> Now to what Jon *probably* was proposing: "We can sometimes [or always]
> LIKE an artwork better if we have NOT first engaged with 'theory'."
>
> Damned if I know.
>
> Best,
>
> Judy the Libran
>
|