Concerto for left hand and umbrella

thallo wrote:

That being said, to avoid going off-topic, I will add that conceptual art has always fascinated me. I have been moved more than once listening to 4'33'' and I would be very curious to attend a performance of this concerto.

So, assuming that I substantially agree with what Simone wrote, this time I will take the risk of saying something completely foolish (the thing itself is nothing new).

I watched 4'33" on television on Rai 5, not live. And what can I say? As often happens to me, I thought of the famous fairy tale where the child, while everyone else is silent, shouts "the king is naked". An orchestra, there on the stage, an audience and for four minutes and 33 seconds the "almost" silence. And then... the king is naked! It's like that canvas where the painter made slashes with a knife and it's famous because the painter is... The king is naked and I feel like I'm being mocked. Forgive me Claudio, but I truly don't get it!

Look Daniele, in the past I had spoken about my work: "The scent of non-scent". In a beautiful hall you open an EMPTY bottle and sniff what comes out of the bottle, but there is nothing, so you will listen to the scents of the hall. This explains to us that when someone spends x euros for Chanel Nº 5, in reality they won't truly be able to smell the precious scent of the Chanel essence to the very end because there are inevitably impurities (the empty bottle proves it, something is smelled anyway). You see, all this attention to the sound of silence... which if you go to the Orient has been known for millennia (absolute silence does not exist). And indeed we all know where Cage might have copied from....

... on that occasion I was insensitive, but the substance doesn't change, it's always the same old story:

- the sound of silence

- the scent of non-scent

etc.

It is a concept, if you like (and it is also interesting, if we are talking about philosophy) ... and you do everything in a theater, it becomes an opera. From my point of view, it is a trick, a bluff (it works only once). If someone likes it, okay. There are people who love being whipped in bed, let alone if one can derive pleasure from listening to an orchestra that does not play"

Given that everyone can express their own convictions, when something is published, the rules of the game dictate that one must accept the opinions and criticisms of others; therefore, I believe that anyone who knows that if tomorrow I decide to write a book about compression algorithms, when it comes out in bookstores, it will be subject to criticism. If I hadn't wanted my book to be criticized, I would have kept it to myself... And I must accept criticism also because that book is a source of income for me, whether it be remunerative or for image purposes.

It is fine to release an idea to the world, but one must also ensure that it is credible; otherwise, everything is art, but the opposite would also be true, namely that not everything is.

A torn painting to me is not art, it is just a game for the rich. I don't think I can quantify a torn canvas: at best, a ripped canvas is not quantifiable because it is useless. If someone sold me a broken canvas, common sense would dictate that I go back to the sender to have an intact one given to me. In this case, I would be told that that is art, and then everything takes on a meaning. But of what? Tearing a cloth with a knife is art?? For me no, it is pure provocation, it is a game for the rich since that painting costs several thousand euros. If to make art and create value it is enough to just do something that no one has done before, then the matter is very simple... Now I will go out onto my balcony, and take a selfie while hanging with one hand from the railing and with the other holding my part where the sun hits less and I pee on the neighbor's head (I will title it "Slimy Neighbors"). Would this make me an artist??

danielescarpetti wrote:

but I really don't get it!

If you don't get it, I don't even understand what I'm supposed to get!?

TheSimon wrote:

Would this make me an artist ??

No, because first you didn't eat the asparagus. That would have been a masterpiece.

TheSimon wrote:

Given that everyone can express their own convictions, when something is published, the rules of the game dictate that one must accept the opinions and criticisms of others; therefore, I believe that anyone who knows that if tomorrow I decide to write a book about compression algorithms, when it comes out in bookstores, it will be subject to criticism. If I hadn't wanted my book to be criticized, I would have kept it to myself... And I must accept criticism also because that book is a source of income for me, whether it be remunerative or for image purposes.

As if that weren't enough... we are here to compare our ideas. It wouldn't do if there were only one right one and the others wrong too.

But indeed, everyone is free to dedicate 4 minutes and 33 seconds of their life to forcibly listening to nothingness and watching an orchestra just sitting there staring into the void and holding their instruments; just as they are free to listen to a concert by a guy who presents himself sitting at the piano with an umbrella in his hand, just as they can be free to smell all the empty bottles they want (it should be noted that even you, Backspace, who is the creator of it, are talking about Bluff). Not me, no thanks!

TheSimon wrote:

da notare che addirittura tu, Backspace che ne sei l'ideatore

Of course, I had dedicated it to Thallo like your "Viscidi Vicini", just to demonstrate that it doesn't take much to take a chair, put it in a theater, and claim it is an opera.

However, one must recognize that if there is the opera, the theater, and the audience: bingo!

Exactly, everyone is free to do whatever they want. Of course, if someone were to call me as a performer, I would make the necessary evaluations.

BackSpace wrote:

However, one must recognize that if there is opera, theater, and an audience: bingo!

Ahhh Yes, there is no doubt about this; for opera and theater there is no problem, but if I were in their place, I would worry about the audience...

Frank wrote:

Granted and not conceded that I see nothing wrong with it (especially if there is a commission), everyone can express themselves however they please in the world; one just needs to be aware of it.

Maximum banality: in the end, I think this is the right thing. And I say this, above all, in reference to the discussion being held elsewhere regarding atonal music or whatever you want to call it.

Let's stop fighting over what is right and what is not. As for the rest, only time ... will decide and judge!

danielescarpetti wrote:

It's like that canvas where the painter made slashes with a knife and it's famous because the painter is... The king is naked and I feel like I'm being mocked.

Premise: regarding art, ancient or modern or contemporary, I know little or nothing, and I rarely visit it. I can say quite calmly that I don't understand it. A few years ago, I saw a work by Burri in a museum: a raw canvas, crudely painted, and pierced by some fairly small holes (from a few millimeters up to 2 cm in diameter at most). I approached it to observe it, and I saw that behind this canvas there was a mirror. You couldn't notice it from afar. I looked at it again from a distance, for quite a long time, because I found it had a rather impressive effect: but I wouldn't know how to better explain my sensations, nor justify or motivate them. What can I tell you? It was nonetheless an experience that I continue to remember, and therefore it must have some meaning for me, even if I don't know what. But this obviously is not meant to be the subject.

BackSpace wrote:

This explains to us that when someone spends x euros on Chanel Nº 5, they actually won't be able to truly feel the precious scent of the Chanel essence all the way through because there are inevitably impurities (the empty bottle proves it, something can still be smelled).

You could call your work of art Absence of Essence... it seems like a nice idea! (if you actually do it, I demand 10% of the rights).

TheSimon wrote:

Slashing a cloth with a knife is art?? For me no, it's pure provocation, it's a game for the rich since that painting costs several thousand euros.

To be precise, since you rightly reserve great importance to the market, I believe that the prices of Fontana's cuts easily reach hundreds of thousands of euros in the art market.

TheSimon wrote:

If to make art and create value it is enough to just do something that no one has done before, then the matter is very simple... Now I will go out onto my balcony, and take a selfie while hanging with one hand from the railing and with the other holding my part where the sun hits less and I pee on the neighbor's head (I will title it "Viscid Neighbors"). Would this make me an artist??

This argument always seems very weak to me. If "it is enough to do something," and if you want easy money, why don't you create your own work of art too? After all, you say it is very simple. I fear, however, that you would soon realize that the game is not so automatic.

In the same way, repeating "for me it is not art" does not change the fact that for thousands of people the things we were talking about are art, and one must come to terms with this fact as well.

RedScharlach wrote:

Premise: regarding art, whether ancient, modern, or contemporary, I know little or nothing, and I rarely encounter it. I can say quite calmly that I do not understand it. A few years ago, I saw a work by Burri in a museum: a raw canvas, roughly painted, and pierced by some fairly small holes (from a few millimeters up to 2 cm in diameter at most). I approached it to observe it, and I saw that behind this canvas there was a mirror. It wasn't noticeable from afar. I looked at it again from a distance, for quite a long time, because I found that it had a rather impressive effect: but I wouldn't know how to better explain my sensations, nor justify or motivate them. What can I tell you? It was nonetheless an experience that I continue to remember, and therefore it must have some meaning for me, even if I don't know what. But this obviously is not meant to be the subject of discussion.

What I ask of a work of art is to amaze me. To give me something that makes me think! This is always what I ask of a work of art.

. If "it's enough to just do something," and if you want easy money, why don't you create your own work of art too? After all, you say it's very simple. However, I fear you would soon realize that the game is not so automatic.

In the same way, repeating "for me this isn't art" does not change the fact that for thousands of people the things we were talking about are art, and one must come to terms with this fact as well.

What I contest is that if you are "somebody," you can do anything and it is art. Fontana can slash the canvas and it's art, while if Daniele Scarpetti does it, it's a total load of rubbish. This is what I contest!

I don't know how to draw - I am hopeless at that too - some time ago at an exhibition I saw a painting that alternated white squares with black squares - forgive me but I don't remember the painter, but he is very famous - and, I can assure you those I could do too. It's just that they were made by the great painter and it's a work of art! The king is naked, once again!

Daniele, you probably never took yourself seriously

danielescarpetti wrote:

What I am contesting is that if you are "someone" you can do anything and it is art. Fontana can slash the canvas and it is art, while if Daniele Scarpetti does it, it is a total load of rubbish. This is what I contest!

Dear Daniele, Fontana was not "born" Fontana, he "became" so. It's not that one fine day he cut a canvas, and for that reason they paid him a fortune. Somehow, one must convince (better to start by convincing oneself). Just read some biographical news: Fontana is someone who has followed a path.

Similarly, it is not by filling a painting with many small black and white squares that you become Scarpetti. But if you start making a few hundred of these paintings, you might have already embarked on a path. But the same thing applies to composers. You don't become a composer by composing a single piece!

As for what you ask of a work of art (to surprise, to make one think), isn't that what that Burri I was telling you about gave me? So I agree with you!

RedScharlach wrote:

This topic always seems very weak to me. If "it's just a matter of doing something," and if you want an easy profit, why don't you also create your own work of art? After all, you say it is extremely simple. However, I fear you will soon realize that the game is not so automatic.

In the same way, repeating "for me this is not art" does not change the fact that for thousands of people, the things we were talking about are art, and one must deal with this fact as well.

I distinguished in my speech: art and the art market; here you are merging the two. If we speak of the market, the market is decided by the publicity given to a creation. If one of my creations, however mediocre, is widely publicized somehow—especially if it is mediocre—someone will talk about it (perhaps badly) and someone else perhaps well. Why do I say someone else will talk about it well? Because, as in the example made regarding masochists, there are also people who enjoy having their testicles crushed under a woman's heels. Now, this is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong. You, as no one else will ever be able to convince me, that left-hand and umbrella concert presents even the slightest artistic spark, because my idea of art, as recalled by Plato in the world of ideas, does not correspond to that idea! I only cited one of my convictions and commented on one of my points of view; then if someone (and I even wrote about it regarding 4'33") wants to have their testicles crushed by the heels of an attractive woman, go ahead—after all, they aren't my testicles and it doesn't bother me at all. The point is that when you come out into the open and present the result of your "art" to the world, you must accept negative comments as well as positive ones. Then, you as an artist may be completely right in what led you to do what you did, but if for me that is not art, in my realistic view of the world, that is not art, period!

Phen you throw the challenge at me by saying that if it's so easy for me, then I should do it too... I assure you that with my broken brain, it would take me nothing tomorrow to improvise 4 disconnected notes on the piano while masturbating with my left or right hand in front of the camera and my fine set of condenser microphones to publish what I would call "Musical Orgasm." The problem is that I, considering myself a normal person, would never start ejaculating publicly in front of a camera while playing the piano, just as I would never stand before an audience with an umbrella in hand playing 4 senseless notes. And I assure you that many, especially those over 70, by re-proposing my "artistic" idea, would find it much more difficult to keep their genitals upright than an umbrella.

So let's separate art from the market. If I find someone to publicize me and invest in me, or gives me access to competitions and events where there is press and I have great visibility, it doesn't take much to transform the worst performance into news that makes people talk; this is proof of that. If instead you are talking about categorizing according to my standards what is art from what is not, then the discussion is different. Certainly, in my artistic idea, "Musical Orgasm" would not truly be art!! Just as, for me, a "left-hand and umbrella concert" is not art—which makes me laugh just writing it...

RedScharlach wrote:

Dear Daniele, Fontana wasn't "born" Fontana, he "became" it. It's not as if one fine day he cut a canvas, and for that reason they paid him a fortune. In some way, one must convince (better to start by convincing oneself). Just read a few biographical news items: Fontana is someone who has followed a path.

Similarly, it is not by filling a painting with many small black and white squares that one becomes Scarpetti. But if you start making a few hundred of these paintings, you might have already embarked on a path. But the same thing applies to composers. One does not become a composer by composing a single piece!

As for what you ask of a work of art (to surprise, to make one think), isn't that what that Burri I was telling you about gave me? So I agree with you!

Yes, in fact I meant to say that Burri's work had achieved its purpose.

What I intend to point out instead is that I don't think it's right that great artists - and Fontana is certainly one of them - just because they are now considered as such, can then do things of this kind and that, simply because they are done by them, can be passed off as works of art and cost crazy amounts of money.

RedScharlach wrote:

You could call your work of art Absence of Essence ... it seems like a nice idea to me! (if you really do it, I demand 10% of the rights).

You see, the sound of silence has been labeled a masterpiece, as the "piece" that changed the history of music... and mine is just a nice idea? Perhaps because my name isn't Cage.

No, mine is an absolute masterpiece and I won't give you 10% ...and besides, it already has a title

danielescarpetti wrote:

Yes, in fact I meant to say that Burri's work had achieved its purpose.

What I intend to emphasize instead is that I don't think it's right that great artists - and Fontana is certainly one of them - just because they are now considered as such, can then do things of this kind and that, just because they are done by them, can be passed off as works of art and cost crazy amounts.

The point, in my opinion Daniele, is that the value of a work cannot depend on the name of its author. Schubert's unfinished piece was (and is, obviously) a masterpiece regardless of whether it was attributed to Him.

Therefore, returning to Simone's discussion, Fontana's painting is worth a few thousand euros because whoever buys it, pays for the signature... otherwise I would have dozens of paintings like that in my cellar. Therefore, there is nothing more linked to marketing than this type of operation... which if we want, is a very current logic, certainly a product of our times.

BackSpace wrote:

Look, the sound of silence has been labeled a masterpiece, as the "piece" that changed the history of music... and mine is just a cute idea? Maybe because my name isn't Cage.

No, mine is an absolute masterpiece and I won't give you 10% ...and besides, it already has a title

:lol:

BackSpace wrote:

... and mine is just a cute idea?

The cute idea was my title (I believe) ... while your perfume is obviously a masterpiece!

BackSpace wrote:

So, returning to Simone's point, Fontana's painting is worth a few thousand euros because whoever buys it, pays for the signature... otherwise, I would have dozens of such paintings in my cellar. Therefore, nothing is more closely linked to marketing than this type of operation... which, if we want, is a very current logic, certainly a product of our times.

It is not at all a current logic; it has been this way for a long time (at least for six centuries, if not more!) and one only needs to study a bit of reception history to realize it. See, for example, the case of Josquin, rightly considered since his era 'Princeps musicorum': one of his motets performed at court was blissfully ignored by everyone, until word spread that it was his work, and from that moment on everyone boasted in praise (see The Book of the Courtier, II, 35).

Another significant case, regarding art history, is the market for forgeries, which certainly was not invented in the twentieth century! As you can see, the matter is quite complex.