ATTN: LMNO PEE: I IZ TOO STOOPID TO "GET" AUTECHRE

[East Coast Hustle]

Like I said, all I can do is agree to disagree. I don't want to have to work to enjoy a piece of art. I certainly don't expect (or want) everyone to agree with me, just giving my take on it. I'll take a Bob Ross painting of happy little trees on my living room wall over some Jackson Pollock splatter art any day. It's the same reason I think that Motorhead kicks 1000x more ass than Dream Theater.

I'm totally OK with the fact that this probably makes me a philistine.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Art is different things for different people, and that's OK.

I like some art that is a puzzle that needs to be unlocked, and some art that is exactly what it seems to be.

[East Coast Hustle]

I should mention that Motorhead kicks SO MUCH ASS that what I actually have on my wall is Lemmy's crazy leer staring down at anyone who happens to be sitting on my couch.

Motorhead kicks so much ass that they make for better visual art than actual visual art.

[Eater of Clowns]

I should mention that Motorhead kicks SO MUCH ASS that what I actually have on my wall is Lemmy's crazy leer staring down at anyone who happens to be sitting on my couch.

Motorhead kicks so much ass that they make for better visual art than actual visual art.

"Who would win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?
"Lemmy, no...God?"
"Wrong, dickhead, trick question.  Lemmy IS God."

[Epimetheus]

I'm somewhere in between you two, trip and ech. My primary criteria for art is, does it appeal to me (aesthetically / for what it creates within me). That's simply instinctual for me, and an experience somewhat separate from the study of art history - that is, knowing "wow, that's beautiful" and knowing "wow, I really like the message the artist was trying to put into this piece" are two separate ways to appreciate art. And I don't really see anything as pretentious - poop smeared on a canvas can be just as obvious to one person as a super realistic landscape is to another - can hit them just as hard.

[Phox]

Like I said, all I can do is agree to disagree. I don't want to have to work to enjoy a piece of art. I certainly don't expect (or want) everyone to agree with me, just giving my take on it. I'll take a Bob Ross painting of happy little trees on my living room wall over some Jackson Pollock splatter art any day. It's the same reason I think that Motorhead kicks 1000x more ass than Dream Theater.

I'm totally OK with the fact that this probably makes me a philistine.

I agree on both accounts, but I can understand, to an extent, the appeal of Jackson Pollock and Dream Theater, and so would not object to the idea that some people consider them to be good art.

This is perhaps because I am not so sure that there is objectively good art. But even so, I can respect the notion that I should not have to work to enjoy art, and completely agree with that as well. That is one reason I am not a fan of most gimmicky art. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I should probably clarify that though I do believe there is objectively good art, I don't think that MY tastes and preferences are what dictates what is or isn't good.

[Cain]

I think Pollack and Autechre are crap and I like abstract, pretentious art.

[Eater of Clowns]

Pollack didn't make sense to me until I saw it in person.  Photos of the work didn't do it justice, but when you're standing in front of this enormous canvas you get a sense of the kinetic movement, the energy needed to accomplish it.  I liked it a lot better after that.  In fact, the best experiences I've had with any art, be it music or canvas, is when I'm experiencing it first hand.

[East Coast Hustle]

I like how this thread has gone from "what's the deal with Autechre?" to a discussion about the nature of artistic value itself and LMNO hasn't even had a chance to answer the OP yet.

[navkat]

Pollack didn't make sense to me until I saw it in person.  Photos of the work didn't do it justice, but when you're standing in front of this enormous canvas you get a sense of the kinetic movement, the energy needed to accomplish it.  I liked it a lot better after that.  In fact, the best experiences I've had with any art, be it music or canvas, is when I'm experiencing it first hand.

Yes, yes, yes.

Greyed Rainbow. Chicago 1998. Changed my life.

[navkat]

I like how this thread has gone from "what's the deal with Autechre?" to a discussion about the nature of artistic value itself and LMNO hasn't even had a chance to answer the OP yet.

I have grown to fucking love you people.

[navkat]

Okay, so from this conversation, I've been able to deduce that Autechre is art to some people and I'm kool with that. I understand this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGUnrIiOoI a little better than Ganz Graf (which is supposedly such a fucking revolutionary track) and I comprehend the draw to Boards of Canada with no problem even though Downtempo and Chill aren't my bag.

I suspect there's a valid draw to the sounds of pieces like Ganz Graf...and I also suspect that I'm right about there being a very big "The Emperor isn't wearing anything" aspect to this as well: no one wants to be the first of the Hipster Wavers to declare "This is crap!" throw that PBR in the trash and walk down the street to the Blues club for a shitty Miller Lite and better music.

I have had a friend who's damned-near a musical prodigy. He hears music and breaks everything down in his head into a mathematical formula. Remember that scene in The Matrix where Cypher was like "All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead?" Yeah, that's him...in reverse. He doesn't like to listen to music anymore. At all. But he likes Autechre. I suspect it has more to do with the mathematical aspect of his mind than anything else. I may never ever know now.

I don't believe all these people "grooving out" to this stuff are having a similar experience. I believe there is a level to this "music" the rest of us don't get but not because we're plebians, but rather, because our minds are composed of more chaotic, organic substrates rather than the product of a very specific, mechanically-oriented mathematically sound process, metaphorically speaking. I believe the "Cypher- effect" is a rarity...an exception to the rule and the rest of them are kind of faking a little bit.

What defines music as opposed to a series of aesthetically pleasing sounds? Or are they the same? Pollock's Yellow Island might be art, but is it a picture? Did we forget such a word has a valid application in the art world? Or did we silently agree somewhere along the line that "picture" is too simplistic and sophomoric?

I seriously doubt the lot of us will ever look at a bunch of moving green text composed japanese-style and see Blonde, Brunette, Redhead. Taking the time for a few moments to decipher and appreciate is a fun novelty but most of us will need to log on to www.youporn.com to finish getting off.

And that doesn't make us stupid.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Navkat, you are totally correct here. LMNO probably only enjoys Autechre for the very reason that it makes other people confused and a little upset when they don't "get it". That should probably not be interpreted to mean that there are actually people who DO "get it".

tl:dr version: Autechre is just noisy crap.

Sonic equivalent of GG Allin pelting the audience with feces, with the sole difference being that GG was listenable?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I should probably clarify that though I do believe there is objectively good art, I don't think that MY tastes and preferences are what dictates what is or isn't good.

I have seen art which was skillfully executed, yet lacked feeling. I've also seen (and heard) art the was unrefined, yet had something in it... passion, or a conveyance of emotion... that made it better than the execution alone.

Art really is so multi-faceted that it is impossible to pin down.

However, I was at a gallery opening last night that almost everyone I spoke to agreed (in hushed tones) "Did nothing for them", which is gallery opening code (in case anyone sensitive overhears) for "crap". Some art really IS better than other art. Each person can define exactly why only for themselves, but sometimes so many people agree that it becomes inarguable that it is, indeed, bad or good art.

Immediately following that opening I went to another one that was full of some of the most startlingly striking imagery I've seen recently. I mean, it was as it should have been; it was Blue Moon's staff show paired with the Newspace juried show. It was an interesting contrast. One of my favorite pieces was a simple triptych of landscapes in the Grand Tetons. What made it so arresting? I really don't know. But it was. There was another series that was two-frame vignettes, unrelated images tied together with a title. It was amazing.