-
Originally Posted by Marinero
I’d start by looking at paintings by Rothko, Newman, Motherwell, Stella and Pollock for examples. There doesn’t seem to be a visual style that puts them in the same bag. At least not in the way there is for the French Impressionists. What you can say is that they were not engaged in representational painting, and that they seemed to be trying to express something, rather than portray something.
What ties them together is that they were all working in NYC during the 50’s and 60’s.
For me, most jazz is Abstract Expressionism for the same reasons. The music and the painting just belong together as two parts of the same cultural era.
Pollock and Bird. Rothko and Miles. Klein and Rollins. And so on.
So Abstract Expressionist Music is more of a personal feeling for me. It just feels like a good description of jazz after about 1950. It’s Abstract and it’s Expressive.
-
04-02-2021 12:56 PM
-
Schoenberg’s middle period (post-tonal pre-twelve tone) is often called expressionist, usually I think because of his own interest in painting and his close friendship with Vassily Kandinsky, and also because of its foregrounding of extreme emotional states and imagery (Erwarting, Pierrot Lunaire etc.)
One can think of expressionism as a logical endpoint of late Romanticism. So a little earlier you got the great early Richard Strauss operas Elektra and Salome which were deliberately shocking both musically and in subject matter.
Expressionism was ultimately I think a bit of a cul de sac. In music Strauss eventually retreats to post-romantic work like Rosenkavelier (very conventionally beautiful and not really modernist in any way) while Schoenberg gets tired of no rules and invents new ones.Last edited by christianm77; 04-02-2021 at 01:41 PM.
-
Also Bergs music; his operas in particular. Berg was still very ‘expressionist’ and not a little romantic even when he embraced 12 tone writing (in contrast Schoenberg becomes more classical, ‘wrong note Brahms’ as one wag had it, can’t remember who. Probably Lebrecht.)
Jim Hall was a big Berg fan btw. He mentions the Lyric Suite in his book IIRC.
Abstract expressionist music (the equivalent of Pollock etc) is probably found more in Boulez’s early work and of course Webern although Webern was a miniaturist and don’t think Pollock could ever be accused of that.
Bit I always think of abstract expressionism as a rather American thing (so the comparisons with jazz are inevitable). Apparently this is no accident as the CIA actively worked to raise the profile of US Abstract Expressionist painters during the Cold War, as an example of capitalism’s cultural success and US soft power vs communism during the Cold War. No, really.
(they would have had more luck with rock and roll, jazz and blues)
Morton Feldman was directly inspired by and knew socially painters like Pollock, Rothko etcLast edited by christianm77; 04-02-2021 at 01:43 PM.
-
jim hall- PREPARED GUITAR: Jim Hall Interview 1996
I was at the Cleveland Institute of Music and I was working on a Masters in Composition. I'd already got a degree in Music Theory
What music do you listen to today? Are there modern players who interest you and why?
I rarely listen to jazz in my off time. For instance, at the moment on our CD player, we have Vaughan William's "Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis". I've always loved Vaughan Williams since l was in music school. Next Mondqy night, Gil Goldstein and I are going to hear Andre Previn conduct that piece along with some others. Jane and I listen to classical music a lot, Rachmaninov, Bartok and Mozart - we've rediscovered Mozart.
from jh conversation/interview with bill frisell- Extended Lesson: Bill Frisell Interviews Jim Hall | Fretboard Journal
JH: I had a couple of really good experiences with people who were encouraging. Just the fact that I was able to get into that terrific school coming from hillbilly Ohio. The only classical music I knew… I guess I liked [Paul] Hindemith because it probably reminded me of Stan Kenton, and [hearing] Igor Stravinsky, I always thought of Woody Herman’s band. And in five years, Mozart got so much better.
cheers
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Here's a fine pairing: a Pollock from '54 on the gatefold of a record by Ornette 7 years later. I think the time lag comes from the greater tolerance for avante-garde in visual arts. Many bebop albums used cubist or abstract flavoured artwork, which evolved 30 to 40 years earlier.
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
cheers
-
ny eye and ear control..
New York Eye and Ear Control - Wikipedia
cheers
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
A philistine conspiracy theory has developed, which says abstract paintings (which a child could do) only became popular because of the CIA. Many have fallen for it, including my former housemate, who touts himself as a leading expert on the philosophy of conspiracy theories. I did the research he should have done, and found the theory was first advanced in, of all places, Artforum, the leading progressive art magazine. It appeared during the darkest days of the Vietnam War, and after Watergate, when the CIA were being blamed for everything.
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
-
Originally Posted by ccroft
I am reluctant to make direct associations between art movements and musical trends, but similarities can be found between Abstract Expressionism and free improvisation. The commitment of conventional jazz, even bebop, to formal structures and precedents, makes it very different in both intent and outcome.
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
* I am not an Art Critic. I used to make the stuff.
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
I mention the Saunders book again b/c some people don't have the time to read entire threads.
-
Originally Posted by ccroft
Hi, C,
Thanks for the honest reply. First, abstract is defined as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." I would agree with that statement. So, when we look at "Abstract Art," we see non-pictorial, non-representational Art in the artists you've mentioned. I don't think "expressionism" needs to be described in this usage since for me, it defines the physical act of artistic creation. So, "Abstract Expressionism" is the opposite of pictorial/representational art where if a painting is called "The Tree," it looks like a diuretic explosion of the lower intestine . . . not a tree. And, when we see one of these abominations parading as "Art"-- say, in a Jackson Pollack painting, we have no idea what the painting is about or what the "artist" is trying to say even when we read the title. It's your imagination that defines the experience.
So, where I do have a problem with your idea is when you say "So Abstract Expressionist Music is more of a personal feeling for me. It just feels like a good description of jazz after about 1950. It’s Abstract and it’s Expressive." ccroft. This is where we disagree. Yes, Jazz is a personal feeling. Yes, it is expressive. But, no . . . it is not Abstract, as described above, in the majority of music/musicians after 1950 since we have a melody and a harmonic structure that is "recognizable" to both musicians and listeners alike--the antithesis of "abstract." Of course, there is SunRa, Archie Shepp, who would certainly fill that niche, but not the majority of Jazz Artists since 1950 to today. I think herein lies the confusion of terms.
Play live . . . Marinero
-
That’s cool M. I’d just like to say that abstract has a few definitions. I have a hard time with written discussions of art and music on this level, so I’ll just list a couple of synonyms that run closer to what I had in mind:
conceptual, metaphysical, notional, theoretical
I do understand that jazz has form and structure. So does Abstract Expressionist painting. Rothko’s ‘doors & windows' for example. A form he developed and worked with for years. Newman’s stripes or ‘zips’. I see structure in Pollock.
I’m no scholar. In fact I’m a high school drop-out. Silly me! I quit to play jazz! I lived and hung with many painters. I’ve been married to one for 45 years. My first comment in the thread is more of a visceral thing. Maybe even a flip comment :-)
And thanks to our art historian for jumping in! I’ve spent decades talking to painters about how their efforts are similar or different to mine. It’s a fun pastime, but in the end I find words inadequate to explain what I see, hear and feel.
-
from the great sculptor david smith-
song of the landscape- 1950
cheers
-
Something that is never mentioned when people talk of impressionism is the influence of Wagner on these great artists. He absolutely was in vogue during this period.
Just like impressionists, his endless harmonies stretch out without resolving and then unexpectedly do with beauty. The Ring Cycle is over 14 hours long and you can't create something like that with traditional harmony!
He didn't use the pretty scales that impressionists did but usually just kept key changing instead of quickly resolving a motif. These are two examples of this genius which inspired them.
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
Hi, N,
Interesting topic and one of the reasons JGF is so interesting--discussions of not only music but the universality of the Arts. So, for the sake of defining aesthetics, when you describe David Smith as a great sculptor-- can you explain those elements of greatness you find in the "Song of the Landscape"? What is it for you that makes it great? Secondly, if someone views this sculpture five hundred years from now, will they appreciate the universality of this piece as one does when viewing the "The Last Supper" by DaVinci or Rembrandt's "Sacrifice of Isaac"--classic examples of representational Art? And, could they connect its meaning to the artwork if they didn't know the title or artist? This, for me, is my problem with "Abstract Art" in that it has no definition/meaning other than what someone thinks when they view it or suggested in the title by the artist. So, for example, when we view Rodin's famous representational sculpture "The Thinker," its appeal/message is universal. It really doesn't need a title to be appreciated since it represents a universal human condition-man in serious thought. Will D. Smith's sculpture have the same effect/meaning on the viewer now or in the future? Just some thoughts about Abstract Art. What do you think?
Play live . . . Marinero
-
Yes, I thought the OP was referring to Impressionist painters, too. It is very obvious to me that Impressionist composers were using music to mimic the tonality and aesthetics of Impressionist paintings (though I understand Debussy didn't care for being characterized as an Impressionist). IMO, Abstract Expressionist painting better correlates to Jazz music because of the improvisational nature of both. And really, aren't the visual arts and music just different mediums saying the same things.
-
Just for the record: expressionism in painting started around 1905, about 40 years before the abstract expressionism (action painting, color field painting, etc.) of the New York School came into being.
Most artists, at least in Europe, still relate the term "expressionism" much more to something you could call expressionist realism (the original thing of the early original expressionist painters), or neo-expressionism.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
he created his works to balance with nature and his open museum in bolton landing is a sanctuary for many
smith with some of his creations
btw, i have had my nose up against many a rodin, and they don't fascinate me the way a smith work does...i like for my mind to meet the work in joyous communion, rather than the work dictate to my mind what it's meant to represent...i guess you either feel/get it or you don't
cheers
ps- i think that people already relate to symbolic (jungian archetypal?) art better than representational art...davinci's last supper (tho a masterwork) comes with a lot of historical/cultural baggage, that many don't/can't/won't relate to...never mind 500 years from nowLast edited by neatomic; 04-06-2021 at 11:39 PM. Reason: clarity-
-
Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
Taste in Art is personal.
And, preference for what you describe as symbolic vs. representational Art is highly personal. I don't know of any statistics that show that people relate to "symbolic Art" greater than what you describe as "Representational Art" since all good art is symbolic regardless of genre. And, the assumption that "Representational Art" comes with "a lot of historical/cultural baggage" is your personal belief since great Art is never judged by its historical/cultural context but rather if it communicates a "timeless" sentiment of Mankind. So, although one could view "The Last Supper" as what you term representational art, it is far more than a mere pictorial representation of an event. It is the announcement by a man(Jesus) of deception of a trusted friend(Judas) to his disciples, the psychological complexity of the disciples/men visual/psychological reactions, the spilled salt representing bad luck(metaphor), and the implicit impending doom. However, even without this historical context/title, the painting is a masterpiece of human emotion which creates a psychological interplay among an obvious leader seated in the center and the others in the room who create a mystery and study of varying human emotion. So, in essence, it can stand alone without its historical context and this is why it is a great and has withstood the test of time. I suggest those interested in this diversion revisit this great painting and spend a few minutes in contemplation. Play live . . . Marinero
-
Originally Posted by Litterick
Yes! And also important to note, Impressionists by and large never used black...as painters of light, black was the absence of all light...and that's surprisingly uncommon if you really look around you. True black is a rarity in nature.
-
Marinero, I might argue that one of the relevant interests in art is context, since a work is reflective of, or a reaction to, a cultural or historical aesthetic, and being that, it becomes part of the aesthetic. I would agree that a work must have validity on its own, regardless of other non-relevant factors, like who the artist is, but to say that context is irrelevant is, in my opinion, not correct.
Last edited by zigzag; 04-07-2021 at 02:22 PM.
Please Delete.
Today, 06:37 AM in The Players