[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Carl Thames]

Carl:
>> 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.

Mark:
> 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.

Carl:
My first reaction to your first sentence was thta art does precede sense, in 
that we get an "AHHHH" before we get the idea of it.  I wrote a haiku once 
that covers it:

breathtaking beauty
beheld in a passing glance
once captured is lost

This is what I'm talking about in regards to art that leaps out at us.  Once 
our logical mind catches up, applies labels, etc. we lose that AHA! of the 
artwork.  I think this is the reason we can take a picture of a beautiful 
sunset and later, when we look at the picture, it's a nice picture, but we 
didn't capture the essense of the scene.  That moment when the scene came 
together with our perception is gone, never to return, unless we see another 
beautiful sunset.  Even then it's different.  I wonder if the subsequent 
sunsets aren't diminished by our previous experience?  The idea of art 
that's "before its time" is more a matter of fad or fashion than art, imho. 
It's not the aesthetic that catches up, its the culture.  It become "okay" 
to like it, even though years ago it was considered nonesense.

Mark:
> 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!

Carl:
Yeah.  Someone wrote a poem once that contained the line, "those move 
easiest who have learned to dance" and that pretty much sums it up.  To be 
an effective artist, one must learn how to use a brush, chisle <sp?> or 
whatever.  A writer must learn the rules of grammer.  A photographer must 
learn his or her equipment.  After they learn the basics, then they can 
learn to get the effect they want to get.  Even the so-called 'self-taught' 
artists spend years doing it before they hit their niche.  I don't know 
about philosophy.  I've never taken a class, and other than what I've seen 
on the web and read on my own, it would appear that every step forward is 
much more dependent on those who came before.  With art, someone can pick up 
an entirely new medium and run with it, but not philosophy.  I don't think 
it's impossible, but I think it would be extremely difficult for someone to 
get something published that was way out of the mainstream.

Just my opinion,

Carl