Re: [Leica] Good Pitchurs

[Jeff Moore <jbm@instinet.com>]

At 11 Apr 1998 12:09:22 -0400, Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net> wrot=
e:

> I am troubled you your view of
> the uninitiated. This assertion: "generally, 95% of the population woul=
dn't
> know a really good photograph if it were an alligator and bit them on t=
he
> ass." Demonstrates exactly the pompous attitudes of academics[...]

So you dispute his contention?  If we were to throw a net over a random =

sample of the folk walking around in this great world of ours and show th=
em =

two photographs -- say, a black-and-white example of Salgado's work which=
 =

exhibits the good composition and caring for which he is known but happen=
s to =

depict something not-so-pleasant, and an unremarkable but crisp snapshot =
in =

living color of a happy kitty-cat playing with a ball of string -- which =
do =

*you* think most of them would pick?  And it *wouldn't* be because they a=
ll =

thought the pussycat was a sardonic comment on kitsch!

Maybe (gasp!) there really *are* such a things as bad taste and good tast=
e, =

and maybe there's more of the former than the latter.

> As a neophyte I love Bach's Concerto in A & D for the way it moves me. =

> Another might identify it's mastery for the technical achievement, or =

> deconstruct it to find it's place in history, but I am closer to the =

> music.

You're closer to the music for understanding it less completely?  Do you =

contend that an appreciation of the nuances of a piece's internal constru=
ction =

can necessarily never add to the pleasure of a listener?

There's a problem here:  I'd contend that you appreciate these pieces as =
you =

do because you carry within you things you learned (whether formally or =

through simple exposure and induction) about the conventions of Western m=
usic =

within which these pieces operate.  Such pieces don't exist in a vacuum; =
 part =

of the ease with which we hear them derives from the ways they follow exp=
ected =

conventions, and part of the information they convey is not just the =

`absolute' information in the notes, but the `difference' information der=
ived =

from the way those notes compare with the expectations within their conte=
xt.  =

So you're saying...  things can only truly be appreciated when you know j=
ust =

enough but not too much about their field of endeavor?  That makes me rea=
lly =

uneasy.

> history
> values beauty, not things that need to be explained and defended.

Depends on who defines `beauty', doesn't it.

Sentimental Victoriana;  Picasso.  H'mm.
 =

 -Jeff Moore <jbm@instinet.com>