Do you have to be legit before you can break the rules?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I think they said this, and say this, for jazz. Orwell would probably say it about writing. (Would all languages carry this admonition i.e. know how to be clear above all else and then you can start fucking around however you want? I know that some cultures depend on what we would find excessive courtesies and signposting around what we would consider to be the unvarnished nugget of information (we = English speakers))

Distilled in the famous "use other facts please" par excellence: "You know Picasso actually knew how to paint very realistically"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 19 April 2004 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the stupidity of that Picasso reasoning points at the problem here. I think knowing the craft stuff is often valuable, and sometimes essential, depending on the kind of thing you want to do, but I do think people can produce great work without it. I've no idea how much craft and technical skill and knowledge of traditions or rules some of my favourite artists had.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 19 April 2004 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I think "being legit" for awhile would make aNatheMa's fantasy writing better than it would make it worse; s/he could try it on like somebody else's outfit for awhile and get new ideas.

But beyond that, what kind of work is it possible to excel in that doesn't require lots of training and discipline?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Duh, modelling.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey it took me a long time to learn how to get my ass to swing like that.

― Famous Internet Typist (tracerhand), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, as far as Orwell goes, he did have rule six: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous." But maybe that still implies that you've got to be pretty familiar with the other rules . . .

― the krza (krza), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the word "barbarous" kind of qualifies as the thing that he meant by "barbarous." What a pretentious word!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Speaking as a jazz musician, actually, I've never come up with a comfortable answer to this. My instinct is that, yes, a piece of avante garde/rule-breaking art is often more nuanced and enjoyable when it's informed by knowledge and skill from the "tradition".

On the other hand, there are plently of people who clearly have the talent and sensitivity to be doing whatever they want to be doing, and simply have no interest in working in, with, or even against the tradition. These people still usually have a lot of training and experience though in doing what they do.

I do think artists that are completely untrained have the potential to produce something great, but the main thing training and experience give you is control over what you do, and control gives you consistency, which leads to a much higher possibility of producing more quality work imo.

― Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

in jazz, it's good to remember that historically those saying someone doesn't have the skills and/or chops is usually just meant as a putdown, and doesn't always have any basis in fact. People used to say that about Ayler, not knowing that back in Cleveland he was known as "Little Bird."

― hstencil, Monday, 19 April 2004 23:29 (twenty-two years ago)

But of course there are some really horrible free jazz musicians out there who scoff at actually learning some "traditional" musicianship, and due to the nature of the music they can usually fool a lot more people than a bad musician playing straight-ahead (as is true in writing and art, I think).

― Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

name them, then. And prove to me that this "you can't break the rules without knowing them" thing is more than a stupid ideology usually employed by those who've already been passed by.

― hstencil, Monday, 19 April 2004 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the term "outsider art" is demeaning.
Definition required: What is Outsider Music?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Whoah, there...that's kind of the point, I'm not going to say Peter Brotzmann or Ken Vandermark or something, because those people know what they're doing. I'm just talking about the kind of local cats that are in every city, not people on record labels.

― Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the word "barbarous" kind of qualifies as the thing that he meant by "barbarous." What a pretentious word!

I think it makes sense wrt his political point (bureaucratic language glossing over brutalities, and suchlike), but without that context, I agree, it's pretty terrible.

xpost

― the krza (krza), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Might it not have more to do with consumer than the artist? It's not that someone who doesn't have the "legit" knowledge can't be thrilling and exciting, but maybe more than the knowledge that /they're/ not "faking" it legitimises the appreciation in the mind of someone who cares about this? As maybe nesscesitated by identification with the artist, or something?

(I feel happier saying DFW's main style is great and brilliant and fab because when I imagine that view challenged, I know I /can/ point out that he can do great traditional ('Forever Overhead') or abstract ('Church Not Made With Hands') short story prose, ie. it's a conscious choice to write that way)

― Gregory Henry (Gregory Henry), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:59 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.