[Dixielandjazz] Re: "Jazz"

[David W. Littlefield]

At 05:23 PM 11/23/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>David Littlefield writes:
>>I believe that Art can exist independently of audience. But once one takes
>>it public it enters the field of entertainment.
>
>Sort of a fascinating question, ain't it? Can art exist independently of 
>audience?
>It's like that old saw about "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is 
>there to hear it does it make a noise?  Hmmmm.
>It doesn't seem quite logical to me to argue that Art can exist without 
>being entertaining.

Anyone can attempt an artistic creation all alone. I would not count the
artist viewing his own finished work as an audience in our normal
connotation of "audience". I would not consider him to be "entertaining"
anyone, in our normal connotation of "entertaining"; of course he was
entertaining himself. Hey, how many times have we commented here on
musicians who play for themselves on the bandstand in total disregard of
the audience and other band members!! Art for it's own sake. 

Whether it works, sucks, etc., is irrelevent unless the artist offers it to
the world.

>
>Is a beautiful sunset "Art?"

No! it a natural phonomenon that *accidently* sweeps us off our aesthetic feet.

>If it's ugly is it "Art?"
>If I don't think it's "Art" is is still "Art?"
>If a rock on the beach is not "Art" but I put a frame around it is it now 
>"Art?"
>If I sing a song but my intonation, rhythm, meter and phrasing is all wrong 
>is it "Art?"

All irrelevant re the original question, because these involve audience
perceptions and judgements. 

--Sheik