[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[118]

Hi Carl,
Just some comments to your reply to Dan below.

On 4/6/12, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dan:
>> Well, possibly... but I'm not sure you're taking this part into account:
>>
>> “It’s very important to remember,” Evans says, “that no matter how far
>> I might diverge or find freedom in this format, it only is free
>> insofar as it has reference to the strictness of the original form.
>> And that’s what gives it its strength. In other words, there is no
>> freedom except in reference to something.”
>>
>> He is adamant that there is always a reference base pertaining
>> strictly to the original form. That part is never gone... if it were,
>> the work of art isn't good... in fact it would devolve into nonsense.
>> At least that's how I read this.
>
> I agree with you.  I think he's talking about the expression of the idea,
> rather than the idea though.  In visual art, there are rules about
> composition, etc. (even Piccaso had to stick with the basics; i.e. a nose is
> a nose is a nose, even when it's stuck to a kneecap) and in writing there
> are the basic rules of grammar.  They can be butchered, but if they are, the
> piece descends into the nonsense he's talking about.  In my opinion, the
> difference between the mundane and art is the arrangement of those basics.
> To achieve the level of art, they need to make sense, but in a way that's
> recognizably different than anything previously experienced.  One of my
> favorite definitions of art is, "An object that is done in such a way that
> the viewer is never again able to look at a similar object and not think
> about it."  A friend here did a ceramic cup like that.  I have never looked
> at a cup since then without thinking about the cup she did.  In that
> instance, the cup she did was sq, but it brought a touch of DQ with it,
> IMHO.

There is also a theory that art can precede "sense".  That is, an
artist is able to paint or compose something that is ahead of its
time.  It is when static quality catches up with the artist that sense
is made of the misunderstood artist.  Much of modern painting art does
not subscribe to the painting of "known" objects, but rather is based
around the application of paint to a canvas.  Often poetry does not
make sense in the traditional way.  For this, the left brain must give
way to the right brain in terms of static interpretation.  There are
also many kinds of music which appear "senseless" in their time of
composition.

It is an interesting area, and has bearing on MoQ.  Some would say
that such artists are less encumbered by static quality.  I suppose
one could say there is a scale there with artists and athlete less
encumbered, all the way up to philosophers who are the most encumbered
by SQ.  Breakthroughs in philosophy are much rarer than art or science
because of the restrictive rules.  There is much more freedom in art
and music than in philosophy.  It takes a long time to turn this MoQ
ship.  Full steam ahead!
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>