"What happened to all the art philosophers"Well like all the normal plebs,they know fuck all about art,but they know what they like.

Art must be a direct communication between the artist's imagination and that of the looker.For that reason,I avoid so much as possible,busying the lookers eye with too many details in order that his imagination may roam far and wide.As to the physical molds.Otherwise art defeats its purpose.

KAHIL GIBRAN.

Phill,
art has concepts--

'drawing', 'painting', 'imagination', 'looker', 'eye', 'beauty', 'form' ---

and it aesthetics which deals with concepts used to talk about art. They are the ones who write books which interpret what these concepts mean in terms of a tradition of writing about art.

That Sir is nonsence.I interpret what I see or for that matter hear in art.And this is what makes art so special.The message in any art is in its interpretation to the receiver.This is especially so in music,I would rather listen to an angle grinder cutting up a stainless steel sink than listen to Mozart,however as a muso myself I do not need anothers interpretation of his genius.I already know that.Its called taste.I have seen better shit house graffitti than what I have seen in some of the best art galleries in the world.Again it is called taste.What others write about art is nothing but snobbery of the highest order,they can't get into my mind,the rest speaks for it self.Phill
Phill.

Phil,
'taste' is another aesthetic category. You keep on using aesthetic categories in your commentary---note that you 'interpretation' as well as 'knowing' 'message' and 'I'.

There are competing understandings/theories of 'taste'.Why should we accept your subjective interpretation--one that reduces taste to personal preferences/likings etc?

I interpret what I see or for that matter hear in art.And this is what makes art so special.The message in any art is in its interpretation to the receiver.This is especially so in music,I would rather listen to an angle grinder cutting up a stainless steel sink than listen to Mozart,however as a muso myself I do not need anothers interpretation of his genius.I already know that.

Others--conservatives--- employ a community conception of taste. So why is your understanding of 'taste' better?

Note your comment:

I have seen better shit house graffitti than what I have seen in some of the best art galleries in the world.Again it is called taste.

'better' here implies more than taste as your personal 'liking.'It suggests an objective evaluation over and beyond your personal likings. What is menat by better here --'good form'; 'expression of human suffering'; an opposition to a bad society?

So you are using two different conceptions of 'taste'--a subjective one--- 'I interpret what I see or for that matter hear in art' and a nonsubjective one.

Aesthetic categories are important and that is why there is a tradition of writing about them from the eighteenth century onwards.Calling that tradition of writing 'nonsense' is little more than a form of swearing and abuse.

Gary,It is BECAUSE any comment I make to art is by the standard of my own taste.Interpretation of art is not set in stone,how does any one know what was meant to be transmitted in any art form.At the end of the day I do not buy a painting or piece of music on the evalution of others I buy it because yes I like it.I don't argue with people about what is good or bad art this is futile,again taste.There is no thesis been done to my knowledge on taste,I am not speaking for others ,but for myself.Now if you are talking about art critics who want to pontificate over what post modernism,abstract,renaissance,yada yada yada is fine but that changes nothing.Because I don't like Rembrandt,does not make me a philistine or ignoramous,because I can't see some hidden meaning others interprate,doesn't make me shallow.Yes you read it right BETTER AND I apply's to me.Oh by the way I have heared it said by some modern day philosophers that swearing and abuse is an art form, Bollicks being my favourite word.Phill.

Phill
you say:

any comment I make to art is by the standard of my own taste.... [I]do not buy a painting or piece of music on the evalution of others I buy it because yes I like it...I am not speaking for others,but for myself.

That means you cannot say that one piece of music is better than another eg., that the Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers is better than their Steel Wheels. Nor can you say that some songs by trhe Riollign Stones are better than others. All you can say is that I like one better than another.

Nor can you say that there is better shit house graffitti than what I have seen in some of the best art galleries in the world.
All you can say is that 'I like one better than another.'

Nor can you engage in a conversation with others about whether music of The Rolling Stones is more culturally and musically significant than that of the Grateful Dead or Miles Davis. All you can say that is that I like X more than I like Y.

That is the implication of your subjectivist approach, which locates aesthetic quality in the effect a work has on the emotions of a listener.

As for treatise on taste there are I. Kant's Critique of Judgement from the 19th century and and Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method from the 20th century. Both endeavour to salvage objectivity.

Gary,O/K Ill concede a point sure I can argue if one artists work represents a subject matter better than another,or if Eric Clapton plays more complex guitar riffs than Keith Richards,however it is still subjective and taste.Blues music played by Gary Moore can make me cry, Claptons blues is crap.

There you are Ive said it so where do we go from here?.(For the purpose of the exercise Ill assume you love Eric Clapton)So where in my statement am I wrong? Please proceed with your argument why you think Eric Clapton is a better guitarist than Keith Richards...You see there aint one we are both right.Taste.

You can try and use your arguement for every facet of life.I don't drink V.B. beer because to me it tastes like goats piss,and yet connoisseurs have written through out the ages it is the ambrosia of the gods.I hate John Howard and can read him like a book,however more people obviously read his character better than I do,maybe I should throw myself at his feet and apologize for all those nasty thoughts.Maybe I should jump off a cliff because philospers have judged it's good for my bunions.Hey Gaz lighten up I don't take life that serious.

Phill.

Phill,
it is not a case of right and wrong with respect to Clapton or Garcia being a better blues guitarist than Richards--it is a case of there being objective criteria for saying so---technique, expression, innovation, melodic, spontaneity etc. We may disagree about the objective criteria use to make these aesthetic judgements.

What I was arguing is that, even in rock aesthetics,it is not just a case of it being my opinion and your opinion and nothing more can be said.

Gary,.The objective criteria is how you hear something.O/K Keith Richards as an e.g. in my opinion is an average guitarist,I have heared as I am sure you have better guitarists in pubs who will no doubt stay in pubs however the end product is what counts.Richards may well say who the fuck are you and I to make any opinion on his work anyway.You may not buy or listen to his work and this is your choice,but to say his work is crap for e.g. when millions of people buy his work is drawing a long bow.Again taste.As I said before Mozarts work to my ear is nothing but irritating noise,and that is all I can say about the music,but it is obviously not crap. we will have to agree to dis-agree on the issue of art.Phill.

Phill,
you make a judgement about Keith Richards as a guitarist:

an average guitarist,I have heard ....better guitarists in pubs who will no doubt stay in pubs

But you give no reasons for your judgement. Why is he average? Poor technique? Poor craft? Not much of a songwriter?

It is not a question of you and me disagreeing--it is an unwillingness on your part to give reasons for your aesthetic judgement.

Eg Jerry Garcia is a good guitarist because he was creative, had good technique, was able to play different styles of music, wrote good songs and was able to work with other musicians in a jam, and make the music in a jam interesting.

These are the reasions why Garcia should be recognized and celebrated as an important rock musician who made a good contribution to American popular music.

Gary,it is all about taste.Some music sends me on a high that even sex could never achieve ,for me any way.I played my son some Gratefull dead he is 20yrs old.I said what do you think of that?He said Gerry Garcia should be a cleaner.I said why?His reply and to the point, it was shit house.What could I tell him?When I asked him did he feel anything in the music?Dad piss off Im going to bed,your taste in music is so old.Um the young what can I say.I do not analyse Garcia I go to where yes I BELIEVE he intended to take me to, nirvana,like all the other music I get off on.And I do get off on it.Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd has a riff in it near the end when played, an atom bomb could go off in my lounge room and I would be oblivious to it.If you know it, it took me about an hour to get down pat. simplicity in its entirety.I would sell my soul to have been the composer.I know how music is made up but the words that describe the process are, exactly just that words.Like other art it is in the feeling,there is no good and bad just art.At the end of the day if it pleases me it has done its job,what other people think of my taste in music or other art is of no consequence.Phill.

Phill
so according to your son we should only listen to what is 'now. 'He implies that 'contemporary' is good and what is past is bad. Therefore we should not listen to Robert Johnson, Mississipi John Hurt, or Hank Williams, Elvis Presley or Miles Davis? How do we define 'now', since the 'now' quickly becomes the past and part of the rock tradition.

Why should we follow your son on this. He sounds like someone who has little understanding of how the 'now' of popular music is shaped and informed by the old. Why should we dismiss knowledge and understanding of music and just retain personal feeling of the effect of the music on the listener. Isn't cultural education and cultural capital of some value to the reception and understanding of the music of Dylan?

As for your son's judgment re Garcia being 'shithouse' isn't that countered by the taste of the diverse professional musicans who worked with him and used the tradition of music they worked within (rock, bluegrass or jazz) to create new kinds of music together.

Doesn't that indicate that taste is more than personal opinion? Doesn't that indicate we should keep oneself open to what is other -- to other, different points of view of a musical work--recording or performance?

Gary,you are again going into the realms of personal taste.Dylan!I can't stand Dylan he is not a musician he is a poet.What he has done is put words to three chord tricks.Now is he a good poet? again taste.(I love the Hurricane)I feel Bango Paterson therefore I like him.Dylan can be interpreted a million ways and he has on occassions admitted that fact.Like John Lennon said"Its just music nothing hidden.You mention Miles Davis,if anything would make me ill it would be Miles Davis,of course he is a genius so what?I don't care what you think of him I can't stand his music end of story.My son has no need to understand how popular music is formed,it pleases him,so again it has done its job.(Oh by the way he was the dux of his school in last year high so he is no dummy)To argue musical differances on other so called objective points other than taste and feeling, and emotion is nonsence and Im having none of it.If any thing the only objective criteria modern music especially can be measured on, is record sales and popularity.Clasical music with out the intervention of government subsidy would go the way of the do do bird.I will concede there will always be an exception to the rule,the three ternors comes to mind Boccielli.Other than that it is dead R.I.P.and it hasn't come soon enough,good movies are ruined by it.
Phill.

Phill,
and so 'prejudice' is introduced.

Both Bob Dylan and Miles Davis reworked the musical tradition they were a part of (ie.,folk and jazz respectively), and they both transgressed the respective musical traditions by bringing them into contact with rock music.

That is why both are commonly accepted to be significant musical figures. Thus we have taste as a sensus communis or a "sense shared by many" based on judgement. According to Kant, our judgment of taste is subjective and nevertheless involves at the same time a claim to being valid for everyone. Our judgment of taste is subjective and at the same time universal.It is more than the consensus of personal taste, as it is a shared sense more than the intellectual one, because sensus means above all that what is sensed or felt as an aesthetic experience.

When a group of persons listens to a piece of reggae music or the music of Ali Tarka Toure, sees a painting by Cezanne, or enters a Japanese garden they sometimes share the same feeling. How is such an agreement possible, even if it is awakened by artefacts stemming from another culture? How is such an agreement possible, even among members belonging to different cultures? Isn't such a possible agreement important given that many hold that our aesthetic experiences are subjective--personal opinion based on prejudice.

Gary,I am not saying prejudices do not influence musical taste because they do.Take a certain member of the Beatles,the man is by any yard stick a musical genius,however his personality is abhorent to me,Ill run that by you again to me.Therefore I will not buy anymore of his music.To deny prejudice exists is to deny being human.Why certain people feel the way they do when they look at a peice of art or hear music is and will always be a mystery.But one things for sure it cannot be explained in books.

Many years ago I remember watching this women in the art museum in Nth Terrace Adelaide.If my memory serves me well she was an American who played the chello with a couple of black and white t.v's on her boobs.(I kid you not)I glanced at her with the look of I know what your up to, and she acknowledged me with a wink and smile.The jig was up.She was playing it up to the elites and art snobs and she was laughing all the way to the bank.

For good or bad it was art,well thats what the flyer I received on entrance said.
phill.

Phill
the artist behind the work was Nam June Paik whilst the woman cellist was his creative partner, Charlotte Moorman.He has been very influential in exploring music, the moving image and the viewers' relationship to the television medium.

Gary,thanks for the info on the cello player.I see the women passed away in 1991 of cancer.You know its funny I saw her but once a life time ago and she had a huge impression on me.I grieve for some one I didn't know.But then art can do that.Phill.