I enjoyed watching it, but I don't, in retrospect, think that added element
worked.
Of course, I always enjoy things more when I don't think about them much.
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 11:02 AM, John Herbert Cunningham <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There seems to me to be a difference. The play in question added a
> dimension
> that worked. In terms of plays, how many are based on Shakespeare (West
> Side Story), or the Greek tragedies and comedies. But this fact alone does
> not make for a bad play. If it did, we probably wouldn't have any good ones
> left.
> John Herbert Cunningham
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Halvard Johnson
> Sent: May-13-09 8:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theoretically ... (corrected, what was I thinking)
>
> 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
> >
>
|