New York, New York, USA
not for nagrom (flowers for astroid and sAMsKi)
Author: Fredo on July 05 2007
Viewed 3256 times. 24 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
--> link
Read Fredo's other blogs.Fredo's Recent Blogs
Comments

1 | 2 | 3
stunning beauty. audio and video. thanks for remeinding that there'S coltrane. havent listened to this in ages
thanks

yeah, liked it a lot too!
very simple and not a cliched choice of music,
bringing this slick animation with that timeless slab of jazz together is a winning combination!

"@ Jetsom "money for nothing.."

well, that's mainly the criticism of modern art and its artists. rather, that's the criticism made by those who would claim to know better, who judge based on superficial criteria, rather than by query, deep study and reflection. it's one of art's many ironies."

Come again? I don't know what I've claimed to know and why that would be significant of what
I'm sure you have a good point in there somewhere, people usually do..

ok, boys, break it up...

huh?! What did I...?

"I'm sure you have a good point in there somewhere, people usually do.."

oh, perhaps that sounds like sarcasm, but it's not!

@ Jetsom

i didn't aim the comment at you, I just posted a thought that your comment triggered. there's no "you" in my statement. i was just airing a general observation. That tune "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits hits the nail right on the head, because rock and roll suffered criticism in the same vein as modern art did and still does. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on the criticism of modern art:

Modern art is sometimes viewed as a degenerate form of art by antimodernists as it may seem to require relativley no skill, thought or research to produce. It may also be considered degenerate because it may portray things at their worst; instead of the inspiring and heroic works of old, modern art often shows the crude vices of mankind in explicit and uncivilised terms. Many would agree that the vast sums of money made by modern artists is plainly unjust for the lack of time and effort it takes to create. Modern art was heavily criticized (some would say misunderstood) while it was being produced. People complained that modern art was indistinguishable from non-art (such as a solid-colored canvas, a pile of assorted objects, random cacophony (in the case of music) or, in the case of performance art, a mentally ill person).

link

@ soundhack

No, I was guessing it was slightly at me but a general observation, either way, i wouldn't take offense

"Modern art is sometimes viewed as a degenerate form of art by antimodernists as it may seem to require relativley no skill, thought or research to produce. It may also be considered degenerate because it may portray things at their worst; instead of the inspiring and heroic works of old, modern art often shows the crude vices of mankind in explicit and uncivilised terms."

I did write a fairly long-winded response to this, but decided against posting. So here's a nutshell summary, which is very general but which also refers to the the above about modern/old art: The mind forms images, ideas, opinions of the past: collecting and storing the past. The mind observes the present through those images (of the past) and compares VS => observation of the present (which is a different thing, & something that we can't possibly do while we are involved in recalling and living in the past). I find this stuff pretty unavoidable. But try and avoid it anyway :-)

nice tune. totally brainy compared to what i just watched: link lol
also, what is with the not for nagrom or nagrom centered blogs lately. i'm cornfuswed.

1 | 2 | 3

Register / login
You must be a member to reply or post. signup or login