[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:07 PM, 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.
>
>Carl:
> I agree with you.  I think he's talking about the expression of the idea,
> rather than the idea though.

Dan:
Isn't art the expression of ideas, 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.

Dan:
See... the rules are the ideas whereas using those rules allows the
artist to express their ideas. I don't think the medium matters so
much as the message the artist attempts to send. I am not a musician
nor do I dabble in the visual arts. I write. But I get the sense all
artists approach their craft in much the same fashion. Those who
succeed perhaps have some natural proclivity but likely as not they've
also worked their asses off learning their craft.

> 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.

Dan:
I tend to think of art as more of an act than an object, I suppose.
And I am sure there are as many definitions of art as there are
artists so I see nothing wrong with your definition above.

Still, the flash of inspiration that appears out of nowhere, something
new and surprising, is the primal response we feel to this experience
we call life, or Dynamic Quality. By carefully honing the skills it
takes to recognize and make use of this response, we come to know
ourselves... the unexamined life not being worth living, and what
not...

I get the feeling many people cover this up by working a regular job,
by watching television, by playing video games, by endlessly surfing
the 'net... by doing anything that covers up that tiny voice crying
out in the wilderness... that creative urge we all feel if only we
allow ourselves a moment of silence.

Ah... but what of that...

Dan


http://www.danglover.com