Suckers and Music?

[Catison]

Whoa there, Josh.  I think you've just switched positions.  Before you had a problem with two physically equivalent works having different values.

So if I try to sell you a blank canvas by the famous painter John Doe, it's worth something; now, after you buy it, I laugh and say "just kidding, that was by John Blow, some nobody bum", suddenly the exact same canvas WITH ZERO CHANGES TO IT WHATSOEVER, magically changes value?!?!

Now you've switched your position.

Specifically, I don't mean something like the Joyce Hatto affair, taking credit for someone else's creation or performance. I mean actually making something with the express purpose of "conning" people out of money, and/or to laugh at people when they take it seriously.

The "switch-a-roo" quote is exactly what happened with Joyce Hatto, correct?  Or is there a difference?  Why can two equivalent works have the same value in one case and different values in another?

[JoshLilly]

I haven't switched positions, those two things are not related. I'm talking about two completely different concepts. I was clarifying the point of the whole thread was not to discuss one composer stealing the work of another (which can be pursued in court, &c.), but rather a composer making some sort of product related to music in some way (even if only by name) on their own with the purpose of getting money or acclaim that they internally don't even feel is justified. In other words, they're deliberately trying to sell you a can of crap on purpose. So don't jump all over me switching positions, those two statements are entirely unrelated.

To tie in that unrelated point, I would do so at this point by stating that, if I were to steal another's composition and publish it in my name, the value is unchanged. For example, if I somehow were to uncover Sibelius's 100% finished 8th symphony in a box in Finland and publish it as my own symphony, that's a lie, but not one note would be altered by me, making the value identical to if I were to publish it in Sibelius's name. I'm sure due to the fame of Sibelius, the financial amount paid for it would be more if I were to do so in his name, but the music itself is 100% identical in either case, not one note, tiddle, or line would be altered.

I wanted to point out that I specifically was not hunting for cases of one composer stealing another's music, but instead as I described above: an original "work" that was specifically intended to con, mock, or otherwise rip off the audience/buyer. Joyce Hatto was not creating her own new stuff to mock or con a buyer, she (/Barrington-Coup) was stealing and passing off as her own. Those are two different forms of thievery. Both are interesting for discussion.

Do not say that I've switched a position, I absolutely have not. I have no idea in the world why you would say such a thing.

[RebLem]

A somewhat analagous situation was that of Chopin.  During his own lifetime, the core of Chopin's fanbase were the 19th century equivalent of young, effete dopers with generous trust funds from rich daddies.

That doesn't mean, of course, that Chopin wasn't a great composer.  He was.

[sonic1]

I haven't switched positions, those two things are not related. I'm talking about two completely different concepts. I was clarifying the point of the whole thread was not to discuss one composer stealing the work of another (which can be pursued in court, &c.), but rather a composer making some sort of product related to music in some way (even if only by name) on their own with the purpose of getting money or acclaim that they internally don't even feel is justified. In other words, they're deliberately trying to sell you a can of crap on purpose. So don't jump all over me switching positions, those two statements are entirely unrelated.

To tie in that unrelated point, I would do so at this point by stating that, if I were to steal another's composition and publish it in my name, the value is unchanged. For example, if I somehow were to uncover Sibelius's 100% finished 8th symphony in a box in Finland and publish it as my own symphony, that's a lie, but not one note would be altered by me, making the value identical to if I were to publish it in Sibelius's name. I'm sure due to the fame of Sibelius, the financial amount paid for it would be more if I were to do so in his name, but the music itself is 100% identical in either case, not one note, tiddle, or line would be altered.

I wanted to point out that I specifically was not hunting for cases of one composer stealing another's music, but instead as I described above: an original "work" that was specifically intended to con, mock, or otherwise rip off the audience/buyer. Joyce Hatto was not creating her own new stuff to mock or con a buyer, she (/Barrington-Coup) was stealing and passing off as her own. Those are two different forms of thievery. Both are interesting for discussion.

Do not say that I've switched a position, I absolutely have not. I have no idea in the world why you would say such a thing.

And to be clear: you are asking if there are any known con artists in this way who have fessed up to duping the public, right? You are not suggesting that artists who have been referred to above had the intention of duping the public-say, an artist who paints a "white" painting with mostly white paint, or an artist that paints a bunch of squares, or the shit in the can. As far as I know, most artists in that genre take themselves seriously and are not intending on duping the public, despite the fact that much of the public suspects them of such.

[karlhenning]

The 'crap in a can' really is getting away with something, though . . . .

[sonic1]

The 'crap in a can' really is getting away with something, though . . . .

Not really. If someone wants to buy so be it. Unlike music that gets piped into our ears wherever we go, the shit in the can does not permeate to every corner of our being.

Most people are quite unaware of such art.

What are they getting away with anyway? Money?

Most of what I see in wallmart is equivalent to that work. And the former offends me much more, as it fills our landfills and oceans.

[karlhenning]

Not really. If someone wants to buy so be it.

That's my point;  it's the cynical view that, if someone ponies up money for it as art, why, that means it's art.  So it's exactly on the level of the Wal-Mart art.

[pjme]

I quote from the Guardian article :

Does it really matter, though, what went into Manzoni's tins? Not really. The joke, the artistry and their collectability turn on the artist's attempt to shock, and on the fact that he signed the tins. Manzoni said that the gullible art world would buy anything signed by an artist, even a tin of faeces. He was right. Manzoni has had the last laugh. Even the excrement po-faced collectors bought from him was fake.

Some artists have a cruel sense of humour.

[Catison]

Do not say that I've switched a position, I absolutely have not. I have no idea in the world why you would say such a thing.

To me, it did appear that way.  I apologize for saying that you did if you had not.

I am interested in your opinion on another theoretical situtation, however.  In both of your examples, the art was stolen from the true artist and passed off as another artist (i.e. Hatto and your Sibelius example).  Both of these examples do not explore the problem we were talking about (or about which I thought I was talking about ).  You say that art has value, no matter who made it.  The art must stand completely on its own.  This is why you could become as famous as Sibelius, as in your example.  But that is only because Sibelius wrote it.

Imagine a different situation.  Think of your absolute favorite painting.  Now suppose I told you there was a machine which could examine the molecular structure of the painting and reproduce it exactly.  The original and the molecular copy come up for auction.  You win the auction for one (and only one) of the paintings.  Which one would you choose?

I am honestly very interested in your answer.

[JoshLilly]

I would choose the original for its added historical value, and since I'd love to own something by Jan van Eyck for sentimental reasons. But, in terms of the actual art itself, if it's a molecule-by-molecule exact copy, then that's precisely what it is. There's no difference in an artistic sense, only in a sentimental (or historical) value sense. And that difference is only in the mind of the owner, any potential buyer, and any people who care or know who Jan van Eyck was. It has zero - zero - to do with the art itself depicted in the painting. IF it's an exact copy, as you say.

Good question, by the way.

[Catison]

I would choose the original for its added historical value, and since I'd love to own something by Jan van Eyck for sentimental reasons. But, in terms of the actual art itself, if it's a molecule-by-molecule exact copy, then that's precisely what it is. There's no difference in an artistic sense, only in a sentimental (or historical) value sense. And that difference is only in the mind of the owner, any potential buyer, and any people who care or know who Jan van Eyck was. It has zero - zero - to do with the art itself depicted in the painting. IF it's an exact copy, as you say.

Good question, by the way.

Well, the "sentimental reasons" you speak of is the "context" I speak of.  It is true the reaction to a piece of art without any knowledge of it cannot be related to the artists himself or his other works.  But art doesn't really exist in a vacuum.  And in the case of the blank canvas, I would argue that this is precisely why it can be called art.  The artist is revealing the lack of vacuum to us.  That certainly is the reason given by Cage for his 4'33", the aural equivalent to the blank canvas.  These works have the purpose of revealing the environment in which the art lives, but which often remains invisible.

[JoshLilly]

To me, the value of any kind of art or music does exist in a vacuum. If I hear a piece of music, I couldn't care less who wrote it or why. Well, that's not true, I like to find out because I'm interested in exploring in depth any of my hobbies. But in terms of liking it, it has no impact whatsoever. I look at a painting and I either like it or I don't. If you love any work of art, then you love it, or you don't. In music, notes are notes. You either love the notes or you don't. Nothing else you ever learn, think, or believe changes those notes once they're on paper.

[orbital]

Imagine a different situation.  Think of your absolute favorite painting.  Now suppose I told you there was a machine which could examine the molecular structure of the painting and reproduce it exactly.  The original and the molecular copy come up for auction.  You win the auction for one (and only one) of the paintings.  Which one would you choose?

That has already been done in music you know. We have the example of Gould's re-performance of the '55 Goldberg digitally recreated with all timings and dynamics matching to the miniscule. Still, I am sure, most people would argue that it will not have the same value as the original, which is inferior in the molecular level btw, if you think about the sonics, etc.

[Catison]

To me, the value of any kind of art or music does exist in a vacuum. If I hear a piece of music, I couldn't care less who wrote it or why. Well, that's not true, I like to find out because I'm interested in exploring in depth any of my hobbies. But in terms of liking it, it has no impact whatsoever. I look at a painting and I either like it or I don't. If you love any work of art, then you love it, or you don't. In music, notes are notes. You either love the notes or you don't. Nothing else you ever learn, think, or believe changes those notes once they're on paper.

Its hard to extend this to composition, because there are multiple steps in music.  In painting, the composition is the performance.  In music, there is the composition and the interpretation.  Neither one can exist without the other.  To get the musical equivalent, you'd have to compare two performances, as orbital just mentioned.

But anyways, I think we are going to disagree with this context thing.  I don't think art exists in a vacuum.  My tastes have changed so many times from extramusical information.  I mean, I don't expect anyone to like Pierrot Lunaire the first time they hear it.  There are steps to enjoying this sort of music, and if you haven't taken them, then it isn't unusual to be baffled by it.  I would argue such a listener lacks context.

[sonic1]

Democritus said value exists only in the mind (didn't I already quote this). What more do we need to know. If someone finds value in something, it has value. While you can scoff at someone buying a tin of excrement, you must understand that there are many people who feel nearly to the same degree somewhere in the world about the very things you value.

Over and again I find people who scoff at the tastes of others, and spend a lot of time doing so. I have been guilty in the past, wasting verbage on the horror that is Brittney Spears, or some of those modern "country" singers (Brittney Spears with a twang). But I really have tried to stop doing that because I realized that somehow I was trying to justify my own tastes by demeaning the tastes of another. In other words, it doesn't matter that I am right, that it takes a hell of a lot less brains, almost complete ignorance, to be a Brittney Spears fan. But what am I actually doing by asserting the sophistication of my own tastes by contrasting them with someone of "less" taste. What am I doing by highlighting the stupidity of others? Why would I care?

Do I need to keep going here, or am I making my point?

[pjme]

  I agree Sonic - but since you learned something, can one imagine that a Britney fan would be able to learn something aswell?  Some people will never learn, but I refuse to be -only- pessimistic.

( I recently saw a documentary about Simon Ratlle conducting the Berlin PO in Rite of spring and a group of (difficult...) teenagers performing a choreography. It litteraly was a struggle , but I'm sure that for most of these youngsters it was a great experience.
The choreographers were very strict - the impact of the music huge.)

Peter

[Grazioso]

Democritus said value exists only in the mind (didn't I already quote this). What more do we need to know. If someone finds value in something, it has value. While you can scoff at someone buying a tin of excrement, you must understand that there are many people who feel nearly to the same degree somewhere in the world about the very things you value.

Over and again I find people who scoff at the tastes of others, and spend a lot of time doing so. I have been guilty in the past, wasting verbage on the horror that is Brittney Spears, or some of those modern "country" singers (Brittney Spears with a twang). But I really have tried to stop doing that because I realized that somehow I was trying to justify my own tastes by demeaning the tastes of another. In other words, it doesn't matter that I am right, that it takes a hell of a lot less brains, almost complete ignorance, to be a Brittney Spears fan. But what am I actually doing by asserting the sophistication of my own tastes by contrasting them with someone of "less" taste. What am I doing by highlighting the stupidity of others? Why would I care?

Do I need to keep going here, or am I making my point?

The point is clear and valid, yet for some, it also harbors the dangers of complete relativity, of unfettered permissiveness, of undermining shared social or aesthetic value systems that create the commonalities of a culture. "If someone likes it, it's ok (or good)" will strike many as questionable.

[longears]

Do I need to keep going here, or am I making my point?

No, yes, and a very good point it is!

Puffing yourself up by putting others down is one thing; suggesting that some values are absolute is quite another.  Brittney and Brahms are apples and oranges (well, maybe apples and wool socks).  But here, in the hallowed halls of the GMG Classical Music Forum, I've encountered posters who claim that Beethoven's no better than Nono and suggest that cretinous group-think is the only reason morons like myself prefer Bach to Stockhausen.

[Larry Rinkel]

... I've encountered posters who claim that Beethoven's no better than Nono and suggest that cretinous group-think is the only reason morons like myself prefer Bach to Stockhausen.

Isn't it?

[longears]

Isn't it?