Date: |
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:42:50 -0700 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Eric Kisch:
>In one part, IIRC, he cites the critic/philosopher Adorno as saying
>that an artist (composer?) is responsible for the uses to which his
>art/music is put, even after his death.
to which Don Satz replies:
>That's one messed up notion. I don't even think that an artist has this
>responsibility while alive. Artists and all others are responsible for
>what they do, not what others do with their creations.
Interesting. I tend to agree with Don's pseudo-existentialist view, above.
When I was a liquor store clerk after college I was appalled by the notion
that I was co-responsible for criminal actions of people to whom I had
sold booze. I mean really. Why not sue Jack Daniels? [I will refrain
from offering a host of Platonic/Socratic arguments to defend this point,
unless prompted of course.]
I'm reading (on & off) a book by Hindemith, "A Composer's World" I think
it's called. (It is very interesting BTW.) He has many interesting
notions and insights. He did, however, seem to think that one of the main
considerations of a composer should be what purpose the music serves. I
have to disagree with him on this point; I am much more of a purist, "L'art
pour l'art" as Wilde would have it.
Bob K.
|
|
|