Art and Artist

[kmik]

Can there be, in art, something more, or maybe even entirely different, than what the artist intended? Does he know his work better than anyone else? Of course, sometimes artist express in their art something which they cannot say in words (or, perhaps, something that can't be said at all), but is it possible that there are elements in their work they are not even aware of? If so, then what is the difference between art and other forms of expression?

(This question is especially interesting when we discuss music: technical skill aside, is a composer the best performer of his own work?)

 

[hibernal_dream]

This is a very interesting topic. When I listen to some forms of music I almost cringe at the way the musicians, especially the singers, try to affect the music as if they are imbibing it with their own emotions. I firmly believe the only expression in music should come from the music itself - the performer should not (and cannot) add anything to that. Anything added is external to the music and doesn't form part of it. This means if another musician can perform the composer's work with enough skill, it doesn't matter who is performing it. This is a lot harder today, where musicians don't put their music down on paper but it still holds.

 

[JoeVice]

"This is a very interesting topic. When I listen to some forms of music I almost cringe at the way the musicians, especially the singers, try to affect the music"
as if they are imbibing it with their own emotions.

like dynamics?

I firmly believe the only expression in music should come from the music itself - the performer should not (and cannot) add anything to that.

someone has to perform it.

Anything added is external to the music and doesn't form part of it.

yes it does.

This means if another musician can perform the composer's work with enough skill, it doesn't matter who is performing it. This is a lot harder today, where musicians don't put their music down on paper but it still holds.

sometimes i get the sense that musicians try too hard to add to the music, instead of letting it flow naturally, and in the moment. its like the musician has more to say than can be expressed through the medium of their choice. glenn gould and keith jerret squeal and speak in tongues to counter.

 

[MURAI]

This is a very interesting topic. When I listen to some forms of music I almost cringe at the way the musicians, especially the singers, try to affect the music as if they are imbibing it with their own emotions. I firmly believe the only expression in music should come from the music itself - the performer should not (and cannot) add anything to that. Anything added is external to the music and doesn't form part of it. This means if another musician can perform the composer's work with enough skill, it doesn't matter who is performing it. This is a lot harder today, where musicians don't put their music down on paper but it still holds.

So you believe some vocalists get too theatrical? Just curious, can you extend that point further?

 

[speed]

Can there be, in art, something more, or maybe even entirely different, than what the artist intended? Does he know his work better than anyone else? Of course, sometimes artist express in their art something which they cannot say in words (or, perhaps, something that can't be said at all), but is it possible that there are elements in their work they are not even aware of? If so, then what is the difference between art and other forms of expression?

(This question is especially interesting when we discuss music: technical skill aside, is a composer the best performer of his own work?)

Interesting thread. Indeed, most of Freudian psychology was based on analyzing these slips, or unintended revelations of ones soul or psychology in each artists (or even common persons) work. Ive even written something on this.

But I do think the subconscious does work in mysterious ways, and this is perhaps one of them (the artist being unaware).

 

[kmik]

Interesting thread. Indeed, most of Freudian psychology was based on analyzing these slips, or unintended revelations of ones soul or psychology in each artists (or even common persons) work. Ive even written something on this.

But I do think the subconscious does work in mysterious ways, and this is perhaps one of them (the artist being unaware).

No, Freudianism is something completely different, it has nothing to do with art specifically, just with sub-conscious thoughts we have which we can mistakenly express. The question is whether the artist has some sort of an "artistic" sub-conscious, or if the creation of art is an intellectual process.