Thanks for the information Dart. Who was the original writer?
Can anyone enlighten me regarding the poems of Emily Dickinson? I know that most of them were published after her death and I wonder whether these would qualify as not having previously been 'shared' or had 'an audience'.
Re: Emily Dickinson & Hairballs
Fluttersby. This morning I'm trying to reform, having been chastised (and enlightened) by Mimesis after overreacting! Rather than hide behind the full moon or withdrawing to the land of lurkers where my age and anonymity safeguard the space that I reqauire for a degree of creativity (and several degrees of dowsing), I will stick my head out and try to further this thread. I really like your prose, Fluttersby. Sometimes incisive and cutting -- sometimes witty -- sometimes doleful. And your good humour and occasional "lightness" are alluring. But I'm not sure your "critical comment" re Emily Dickinson and unpublished writers/posthumous literature is "enlightened"" or "enlightening." Granted ED delivers an overdose of "death" and "morbidity" (IMHO), she is an acknowledged "master"/"mistress" of prosody and has long since taken her place in the "canon" of American "greats." But perhaps her most remarkable achievement was to cultivate her creativity without Prozac, rather than vegetating. I wish I could recall the theme song from "Gilligan's Island." Don't know that I ever heard it! Perhaps this allusion, were I able to appreciate it, would help me to understand better your "dismissive" response to SimplSimon's post. With this, though, I will agree: the corpus of ED's work ("collected") is a bit "spotty." Now, lest I've stuck my foot in my mouth again: nearly every day, I scan for your "posts" with real appreciation. Sorry I haven't been more responsive, but I really am struggling to overcome the technical challenges of "posting," not to mention years of withdrawal from all public forums. Incidentally, I think I earned
the privilege of privacy (if there is such a thing). So I'm still quite guarded and defensive. Hence, "overreaction" to you and Keld. My sincere apologies. The two of you, in fact, are an inspiration to me. And I mean that.
Thank you for your kind words regarding my work. I'm confused though.
My comment here was simply in reference to Emily Dickinson and my simple and total hatred for the vast majority of her work. I didn't mean to dismiss SimplSimon (and if I did SS I'm very sorry! No hard feelings?).
I realize ED is recognized as one of the greats, but I think her work is boring and the same - has little variety or interest, showed no concern for anything larger than herself and her own neuroses. Her technical skill I find incredibly lacking. This is what I meant with my comment regarding the Gilligan's Island theme song - that her meter is almost unvaried - it is all so similar and basic as to be able to be set to a very simple tune. You don't have to know the song to see my point, but I'm sorry I was unclear.
Now I'm unclear about your "overreaction" - what did I miss? Reaction to what?
As far as your techinical ability on the forums, you're doing just fine. Please feel free to email or ask in the forums if you have any questions, we're all glad to help.
I hope you're here for the long haul, I really enjoy reading what you have to say.
Re: The 'Audience' is necessary .
Welcome mrmind123!
It seems you have a more anglicized version of my username and a similiar taste in art critics.
As usual, Hickey is beautifully to the point...but I think Smplesimon's question is more along the lines of: does an audience lurk behind the drive to make. Would one still desire to work if there were never any possibility of being seen, heard, read, etc.
Add to that, if one follows Hickey's quote down the garden path, what then does that make work which has never been exposed or shown to anyone?
Wanderer Registered User
Posts: 5
(11/2/01 5:53 pm) Reply
Re: Is An Audience Necessary?
My short answer: yes. If there is nobody to observe the art, then it is not art. Even when creating alone, we observe the act of creation.
I'm a musician. I dream of performing in front of an audience. When I was younger and studying classical piano, I would imagine I was playing in front of a huge audience even when I was practicing alone. I don't do that anymore (which may have something to do with my change of interests from classical to improvisational fusion), but I still have a vague idea of "audience expectations" going around in my head. Sometimes that idea is a helpful guide, a focusing point; other times, it is a nuisance.
Even when I have wildly experimental jams--musical moments during which I am not trying to conform to any concrete or tangible musical "idea"--I leave the experience wondering, "what audience would pay to listen to that?"
I don't think having a conscious awareness of your audience is necessary. I would even say that the ways in which audience expectations (even when they are in our own heads) effect our creative processes remain mostly unconscious.
Intervention and Flow
Posts: 17
(11/6/01 2:41 pm) Reply
Re: Erm, jazz?
It's a difficult question for me. I'm still coming into my own, so to speak. Perhaps the best word to describe my music is "multidirectional," or maybe "shape-shifting."
I like "fusion" because it conjurs the idea of jazz, though my music doesn't quite fit in with traditional associations many people have with jazz. I try to incorporate elements of classical, jazz, funk, rock and techno. (Edited: ya know, ever since I used the word "techno" there it's been bugging me. To clarify: I like a lot of the rhythmic elements of some techno, especially "jungle," as well as the textures of trance and ambient music. I also like the use of electronic sounds in music--sounds that normally aren't considered "musical.")
My training has been predominantly with classical music. Only in the last few years have I decided to teach myself how to improvise. My classical training only taught me how to read music and move my hands around the keyboard--I was never taught to create my own musical ideas. I've had a sort of love-hate relationship with classical music. I want to break it open and turn it into something else.
My music is also limited by my means of production. Most of my music comes out on an acoustic piano, even though different instruments would be necessary to make it sound like it does in my head. Eventually I would like to use more electronic instruments, but I can't afford them at the moment. Perhaps I should think about getting a better job. Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/7/01 1:32:51 pm
It always amazes me how much a lack of funding interferes with one's ability to form something the way one envisions it...it shouldn't be but it invariably is.
I love your description. If you ever get the bells and whistles, please add in whatever is needed to make mpegs. I think Dart is still working on this for his songs. It would be wonderful to post examples here.
I listen to a lot of acid jazz...a sort of cross between techno and jazz which doesn't sit easily in either camp. I like techno as well but at a certain point, most of it becomes too repeatative. It's definitely time someone tweeked classical the way jazz is being played with. The closest thing I can think of there is Arvo Part and that is still firmly in the classical department.
Let's see if these links will work. I'm pulling snippets of acid jazz off amazon:
Edit to add: crappola...the links take you to the actual site...I was hoping I could just link to the audio file...oh well. Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 11/7/01 1:56:18 pm
Intervention and Flow
Posts: 25
(11/7/01 1:16 pm) Reply
Re: Erm, jazz?
The money-expression relationship is frustrating. Fortunately, I am still enthralled by the seemingly limitless horizon of possibilities presented by the acoustic piano. I do have an electric piano, so I'm not totally in the stone age.
Thanks for putting up those links, but for some reason I can't listen to sound bytes from Amazon.com. I haven't heard of Red Snapper or Amon Tobin, though I do like acid jazz. I was just listening to a Wes Montgomery CD I picked up last night--"talkin' verve: Roots of Acid Jazz." I'm a big fan of heavy grooves.
Edited to add: I haven't heard of Arvo Part, either. Lately I've been feeling a strong need for different musical experiences. It sounds like you're familiar with a lot of what I'm looking for. I'll definitely check out the artists you've mentioned. I'd also be interested in hearing about other artists you like. I guess the music room would be a more appropriate place to continue this conversation.
Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/7/01 3:09:43 pm
Re: getting music together & s'more
I decided to take the lazy way out of the difficulties: I ordered a new computer from Gateway with everything needed already installed (I HATE - and I cannot make that big enough - tweaking configurations). The new computer should be here by the middle of the month and I will send an MP3 to you.
There were other configuration problems on my desktop at home preventing extra hardware functionality and finally even access to the internet (blasted firewall configs; can't remove functionality of the firewall even by removing the software).
Getting back to the audience (I'm late)
Hi, I'm new here. This is my first thread and I just had some thoughts. Forgive me for any redundancies ahead of time, as that is often a tendency I have.
I guess I'll just start addressing SimplSimon.  Interestingly, while reading the thread I found that you interjected with many of the same questions I found myself asking throughout the discussion. I enjoyed the differentiation of the process of the art, and the motivation for the art. Further, you included a poet (that until your mention had eluded my completely) as a wonderful and somewhat complex example of the relationship between the artist, the audience and the art.
"Can anyone enlighten me regarding the poems of Emily Dickinson? I know that most of them were published after her death and I wonder whether these would qualify as not having previously been 'shared' or had 'an audience'."
What I know of Emily Dickinson is that she shared her poetry with only a select group of highly intellectual peers. She was known to operate in only a small circle of family and friends that could be tagged, "elite" (I'm using the word elite in its truest form, without judgement characterizations). They were indeed rich and among the "upper" social classes, but beyond that they were superior intellects and artists themselves.
I'm not sure of exactly how much of her poetry was disclosed, however a significant enough portion of it was, as she was often promoted to continue her efforts in that arena. So while her art wasn't exposed to the audience it's accustomed to currently, it was certainly previewed by what many would deem a spectacular audience. A valuable one at that!
I've come to feel, as of late, that while an audience is necessary, more specifically a THINKING audience is imperative. It's my belief, and it's apparent that some of you descend with good reason, but I still hold that an artist couldn't ever accumulate their best work, or reach their full potential without the motivation of not only an audience but as said before, a "spectacular" audience. Further, to assume that the artist alone is satisfactory as an audience because of their personality versatility, seems to dismiss the vastness of universality.
In accounting for our own reflection and interpretation as "enough" to motivate we are disregarding the need for constant manipulation to extend our work to, "the other". While it's argued that all of the "other" can be contained in the artist alone, I'd gather from personal experience that I would always fail to embody the spectrum of perspective of "the audience". I am required, therefore, when writing to continually extend my prose to reach a more "universal" place, and in doing that I reach a higher art each time, as it is applicable to more than just the array of my positions.
It seems I'm plagued not with the question of whether or not an audience is a requirement for art, but rather, if the kind of audience gained from the art helps, or hinders the artist and art itself. In the case of Emily Dickinson it seems that the absence of a versatile audience (while works were in progress) created what fluttersby stated best, "boring and the same - has little variety or interest, showed no concern for anything larger than herself and her own neuroses. Her technical skill I find incredibly lacking."
To me it's obvious that she was a brilliant mind but her own isolation from more than select brilliance, seems to have hindered a lot of the universality that I personally look for in poetry. It is my contention that private readings to geniuses at least helped her continue her writing, as she gained what many artists seek, understanding (or the function of an audience)
I've found that at times, even if there is an audience, if no one "gets it" the ability to produce at a higher level is impaired and we kill the art before its possible greatest summit. See Van Gough (Although he did have Gogan sp?) Is it enough to have a reader, a listener, or is that not what makes an audience at all? Is the audience's ability to interpret art what qualifies them as such?
So, I'll just conclude with a question how does the dichotomy of the audience, and their ability to interpret art effect the artist and the art? Is it a valid or real audience if they don't understand that their third grader could NOT replicate a Jackson Pollock?
Sorry if I have babbled for far too long, it's never my intention, but always my outcome.
Smiles,
Briee
PS- I think if you're creating alone, and only for yourself, it's not a "hobby" but rather, "therapy".
Re: Getting back to the audience (I'm late) ShruggingAtlas
Welcome to the board!
Do I detect an Ayn reference?
That was one mighty post and I'm afraid I won't do it credit at this hour of the evening but I may return for further forays. For the moment, I'll bite into the idea of the quality (or lack thereof) of an audience.
Perusing the racks of art and literary publications, one finds a broad selection running the gamut: ArtForum to Art in America to American Painting, Granta to The New Yorker to Reader's Digest.
Oftentimes work, if pushed out far enough into the public sphere, attracts the audience custom made for it. This establishes certain realms...which I have never quite known what to make of...high art, low art, outsider art, ???
The intelligence of Buster Keaton earns him a cult following of artist intelligensia 80 years after his films were made.
The people who think Jackson Pollock's paintings could have been made by their three year old don't attend the museum exhibits in which he is the center attraction...(although those who claim to believe this but still have a sneaking suspicion that this is not so, might).
The great fear of many is that the audience one feels one would like for the work will be other than the audience which attends.
Or, on the flip side, that presenting the work in a realm in which it does not feel at home will automatically alienate the audience.
Something akin to Whistler burning his paintings when he found himself at the center of America's attention...or Norman Rockwell's frustration at not being seen as a "serious painter". Sargent ran into a similiar problem.
I think things find their own level.
One sees this especially with publishers. One is a little edgier than another, this one is pure pablum, yet another is dead serious, another enjoys the sardonic. Just the right flavor of novel placed into the hands of the right publisher's assistant at the right time makes it through. The novel and the (in this case singular) audience find one another.
No art upon the stage?
Are you saying that there is no art in performance Harmonic? Or are you simply stating that thge performer is the only artist who needs an audiance?
Which ever one you meant, I'd love to read anything you have to say backing it up!
Re: Is an 'audience' necessary to an Artist? ShruggingAtlas
Your informative posting is much appreciated. You have put into words my own thoughts regarding the benefits of an audience. To my mind, just knowing there will be an audience is encouraging in itself, and one is more inclined to try to perceive how one’s work will be seen/heard/received by other people. Until posting in U & D, I have written only for friends and family – the sort of ‘audience’ that is reluctant to proffer constructive criticism – and I am much aware that lack of feed back hinders the process of creative evolution.
With regard to Emily Dickinson, I have often thought I’d like to know more about her background but as I enjoy the speculation of the ‘for whom’, ‘about whom’, and ‘for what reason’ and as the facts might not live up to my imagination I have decided to remain intrigued. I do wonder how she might have written if exposed to the media of today. A challenge, perhaps, for Fluttersby to rewrite the piece that begins 'So bashful when I spied her,'.
Dart
A belated thank you for the info on ‘Cats’ and the link.
Harmonic
And what of the playwright? Does he/she not need the response of an audience?
Harmonic Registered User
Posts: 4
(1/17/02 8:56 pm) Reply
Re: Is an 'audience' necessary to an Artist?
very nice, answers questioned. i make no attempt at all to define any difference between the two, only to answer the question. my answer needed questioning didnt it? well... for more answers, all i can say is that my former post was an answer born of my own experience. i dont retract it though... i consider the artist one who creates and the performer one who recreates. while i understand that one can be both, i feel the artist needs no audience or external influence to create. a performer? well, if your performng for noone, are you really performing? as for the playwright, i can see the man alone smiling to himself enjoying his story, even though his work might never be seen. the playwrite is an artist, and just like me, he goes where his heart leads him, whether or not theres an audience.
Edited by: Harmonic at: 1/17/02 9:01:44 pm
Edited by: 
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies