Avantgarde / transgression / industrial

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Above you say "destroying these rules and building new one" now you say  "There aren't innovators.... " a person who introduces new methods, ideas, or products." Are you happy with your contradiction?

And you still don't understand that we can build on base old, checked concepts, or we can build something new avoiding these concepts. Yes, in the modern art, nowadays aren't innovatores, even in the avantgarde. There are many artists who are still rejecting classic concepts and operating in the new (in meaning opposite to the old, classic forms/ideas) fields. They aren't innovatores because of secondary basing on "avantgardish" idiom of art which is opposite to the classic arts. What is schizophrenical in that?

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

ok so just make another thread about how its really obvious that the shared experience of the conception of the industrial genre is obviously subjective

Everything is subjective experience. Problem is if you or me are able to legitimatise our (subjective) experience.

when I need you to legitimize my experience, i'll come running to that new thread

No, I wanted to legitimatise your subjective experience by yourself. Mine - be myself. Is it more clear?

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

P.S. you might like to give this a look...https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/death-of-the-avant-garde/

or a longer work https://www.amazon.com/End-American-Avant-Garde-Experience-ebook/dp/B00EIFPF7G

I don't know these works but I know concepts about death of Avantgarde. Everything depends on how author wants to consider this trend in the art. I could ask such author who sees death of avantgarde if he sees death of anything from classic form of art too? If anybody still demends innovatores in the Avantgarde, then yes, the avantgarde is dead.  But avantgarde is first of all alternative way of creating art which rejects classic rules which dominated art since over at least two thousand years. And, if we would like to segregate artists who are still creating in old way and who these are committed to avantgardish ideas - then we must name this world as Avantgarde (as neo-avantgarde or post - avantgarde and so on) because it still exists.

[JLIAT]

Above you say "destroying these rules and building new one" now you say  "There aren't innovators.... " a person who introduces new methods, ideas, or products." Are you happy with your contradiction?

And you still don't understand that we can build on base old, checked concepts, or we can build something new avoiding these concepts.

I understand that I think, in music this would be in the first instance Wagner, in the second Schoenberg  and serialism. Or if you like i the first case Whitehouse and PE building on Industrial, in the second Noise n.b. Merzbow esp.

Yes, in the modern art, nowadays aren't innovatores, even in the avantgarde.

Then you cant build anything new at all, either based on old or avoiding the old " we can build something new" then you have innovation - new.
A clear contradiction.

There are many artists who are still rejecting classic concepts and operating in the new (in meaning opposite to the old, classic forms/ideas) fields. They aren't innovatores because of secondary basing on "avantgardish" idiom of art which is opposite to the classic arts. What is schizophrenical in that?

If they are not innovators where is this new field and who is creating it?
Look your definition of Avant Garde is just that, yours, but even here there is an apparent contradiction.

And what are old classic forms/ ideas and what are these new fields you talk of. Could you answer that please, and deal with your contradiction.

[JLIAT]

P.S. you might like to give this a look...https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/death-of-the-avant-garde/

or a longer work https://www.amazon.com/End-American-Avant-Garde-Experience-ebook/dp/B00EIFPF7G

I don't know these works but I know concepts about death of Avantgarde. Everything depends on how author wants to consider this trend in the art.

Well that might be but the real killer is that avant garde as generally understood entails "French, "advance guard" or "vanguard", literally "fore-guard") are people or works that are experimental, radical, or unorthodox with respect to art, culture, or society. It is frequently characterized by aesthetic innovation and initial unacceptability." is that there is no hegemony in po-mo as to what the front is.

I could ask such author who sees death of avantgarde if he sees death of anything from classic form of art too? If anybody still demends innovatores in the Avantgarde, then yes, the avantgarde is dead.  But avantgarde is first of all alternative way of creating art which rejects classic rules which dominated art since over at least two thousand years.

could you say what these classic rules are please... because the rules used in western music have certainly change over 2000 years.

And, if we would like to segregate artists who are still creating in old way and who these are committed to avantgardish ideas - then we must name this world as Avantgarde (as neo-avantgarde or post - avantgarde and so on) because it still exists.

Who are where. And what are these new rules...

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

I understand that I think, in music this would be in the first instance Wagner, in the second Schoenberg  and serialism. Or if you like i the first case Whitehouse and PE building on Industrial, in the second Noise n.b. Merzbow esp.

Yes, in the modern art, nowadays aren't innovatores, even in the avantgarde.

Then you cant build anything new at all, either based on old or avoiding the old " we can build something new" then you have innovation - new.
A clear contradiction.

There are many artists who are still rejecting classic concepts and operating in the new (in meaning opposite to the old, classic forms/ideas) fields. They aren't innovatores because of secondary basing on "avantgardish" idiom of art which is opposite to the classic arts. What is schizophrenical in that?

If they are not innovators where is this new field and who is creating it?
Look your definition of Avant Garde is just that, yours, but even here there is an apparent contradiction.

And what are old classic forms/ ideas and what are these new fields you talk of. Could you answer that please, and deal with your contradiction.

"in music this would be in the first instance Wagner, in the second Schoenberg  and serialism. Or if you like i the first case Whitehouse and PE building on Industrial, in the second Noise n.b. Merzbow esp."

I don't consider Wagner as an avantgardish composer. He was innovator who created something new but on base of classic formulas and traditional image of beauty in music art. Shoenberg  and serialism (which one? this is a method of composition which is in various styles/genres?) is questionable. He can be considered as pre-avantgardist in music surely, it is complicated... It depends on what do you consider when began real avantgarde in music? In my opinion after the Second War when run concrete musique with tape-recorders, synths, and other new electronics. Before this period were protoplasts of Avangarde, but not avangardists. There isn't agreement, so if you want to see in Schoenberg's works "avantgarde", it is OK, I see that and respect your opinion.

PE and noise, the first or second, aren't based on industrial music because of PE and noise are parts of industrial music. Industrial music (including PE, noise) is based on academic avantgarde music or electronic avantgarde or academic avantgarde, what you prefer.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

could you say what these classic rules are please... because the rules used in western music have certainly change over 2000 years.

So I am giving up :) Sorry, but I can't help you if you don't know what were classic rules in visual arts or in the music over 2000 years based on which all the art before Avantgarde were created. Sorry. It is fundamental in discussing about art ;)

As I wrote earlier, we can talk about questionable things but not about evident.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I didn't even have an issue with Impulsy, in fact I quite enjoy his writing on this area.

Cosigned. I like the read on industrial wrt its sub-genres. Some of the ideas rhyme with mine, ditto Bruce Russell's notion as published in Bananafish of noise as an empty quarter in to which all musics bleed (if I've got that right, if it wasn't Russell Haswell?). (You can swap out industrial for noise, don't matter much to me.)) So here the suggestion of the possibility of any number of disparate personalities and characters converging in time and place, regardless of origin culture personal predilection whatever, none with any shared notion of what they are about except that perhaps they are not about what seems generally to be about, what some have here and elsewhere described as characteristic of the good old days eg before everything got gentrified scuse me genre-fied. A suggestion of the possibility of describing what seems to have happened but which may no longer happen, or at least relatively speaking not quite so much given the sheer numbers involved (and only due to grow in exponential terms).

The discussion as it stands is useful in considering Impulsy's chief antagonist as repping a kind of aggregate bot of prevailing public opinion (wiki et al), against which to bounce the various shall we call them more and less freakishly charged notions. This may sound exceedingly un-generous, because it is, and does not really represent my actual opinion. But let's say it did for the sake of argument. You'd still want it because it would still provide perspective and context, assuming you hadn't long since drowned in a bottomless ocean of text.


All that said-

Japnoise

uhh, my dude...

[JLIAT]

So I am giving up :) Sorry, but I can help you if you don't know what were classic rules in visual arts or in the music over 2000 years based on which all the art before Avantgarde were created. Sorry. It is fundamental in discussing about art ;)

As I wrote earlier, we can talk about questionable things but not about evident.

Well i'm glad you are giving up because we or i - seem to be annoying folk.  As for not knowing the classic rules, certainly in music and the visual arts there are non that remained fixed for 2000 years.  "From the thirteenth century onwards there took place remarkable innovations in melody harmony and rhythm..." The introduction of perspective, and at the beginning of the 2othC its abandonment...
The development of tonal systems Harmony and forms such as Sonata, Symphony etc. not to speak of the development of instruments, notably valve instruments... the Piano, Saxophone up to electric amplification and electronics.

AKA - you cant help because you don't know - it seems. So as they say, you cant put up so rightly youve shut up.

As for the previous post, i gave Wagner as building on the old - your example of non avant garde, and Schonberg's serialism a creating something new.  You seem unable to be consistent regarding your own theories. You might like to think why.

[JLIAT]

I didn't even have an issue with Impulsy, in fact I quite enjoy his writing on this area.

Cosigned

Great, he thinks Throbbing Gristle and much of Industrial, Power Electronics Noise, Japanoise included not Industrial, not noise but some form of rock! he has a set of contradictory ideas re the avant garde and concludes that Vomir is industrial. Funny i give you. And that Art has had classic rules in visual arts and in music over 2000 years.. yet when asked what these were / are cant say. Why? Because they are like the flying spaghetti monster... Hilarious. You don't take him seriously do you? As for "a kind of aggregate bot of prevailing public opinion (wiki et al)" nice one. I should have used Novak, I did use Hegarty. I suspect Impulsy was unaware of his book, as also his work with and about Vomir.

Thanks for correcting my typo, (we all have our uses, and speaking of that)  i wonder if you could direct me to the Bruce Russell or is it Russell Haswell quote... they are easily confused i guess... :-#

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

"From the thirteenth century onwards there took place remarkable innovations in melody harmony and rhythm..."

To consider. Classic mimetic imagination of music was based on beauty in which music must be PERFECT to describe a God and his created world. Or human's emotions. Both (classic) visions of music had to created on base of MELODY, RHYTHM and HARMONY. All two thousand years of music were based on this classic formula and its various variations which is about quote above.
AVANTGARDE MUSIC broke this formula in every aspects. Rjects every melody, regular based on harmony rhythm, and every harmony. Besides avantgarde focused on SOUND, especially on nOISE which was taboo in human world till these years. Besides, AVANTGARDE focused on mimetic creating sound of our world because of a new instruments, mainly electronics and tape-recorders - tools which in the history weren't available for composers who wanted to imitate a reality - the main aim of the art. Avantgarde allowed to make this. Avantgarde rejected emotions in music too, what is fundamental breakaway with classical tradition in music. AVANTGARDE rejected perfect mimetic of reality - so God in the other meanings. DO you know already what was/is eternal classic in the Art before Avantgarde?

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Great, he thinks Throbbing Gristle and much of Industrial, Power Electronics Noise, Japanoise included not Industrial, not noise but some form of rock! he has a set of contradictory ideas re the avant garde and concludes that

Come on man, what are you fuckin here ? Where I "thinked" that "much of Industrial, Power Electronics Noise, Japanoise included not Industrial, not noise but some form of rock! " Are you crazy? Did you read me with understanding? I know that my English is fucked up, but you may ask abouto explaining. Now you are writing some shit what never happened. What do you do?

[Bloated Slutbag]

Great, he thinks Throbbing Gristle and much of Industrial, Power Electronics Noise, Japanoise included not Industrial, not noise but some form of rock! he has a set of contradictory ideas re the avant garde and concludes that Vomir is industrial. Funny i give you. And that Art has had classic rules in visual arts and in music over 2000 years.. yet when asked what these were / are cant say. Why? Because they are like the flying spaghetti monster... Hilarious. You don't take him seriously do you? As for "a kind of aggregate bot of prevailing public opinion (wiki et al)" nice one. I should have used Novak, I did use Hegarty. I suspect Impulsy was unaware of his book, as also his work with and about Vomir.

Thanks for correcting my typo, (we all have our uses, and speaking of that)  i wonder if you could direct me to the Bruce Russell or is it Russell Haswell quote... they are easily confused i guess... :-#

I literally read that Russell article over twenty years ago, so I honestly can't recall, nor do I have the magazine anymore (fyi I would wager between Bananafish #9 - 11). But it did resonate, obviously. I'm less concerned with who is right than simply that someone is sufficiently (emotionally) invested to go against some aspects of what would seem to rep prevailing sentiment. And by prevailing sentiment I'm referring to sentiment somewhat more broadly shared than that to be found on this tiny pimple on a donkey's arse forum. And not just to go against the supposed prevailing sentiment but to spell the argument out in specific (possibly aesthetic) terms. I do take that seriously, yes, at least as seriously as I take the counter-arguments. (My personal jury is currently out as to which I'd wish to elevate.)

Taking another look at that empty quarter- call it what you will- into which all musics bleed, and into which all notions of what it is may similarly bleed...

I reckon, as long as we keep asking these questions, we'll be fine.

But suffice it to say, it's gonna get bloody.

[JLIAT]

Thanks I'll try to find this.  The noise into which everything bleeds is the very noise the cosmos makes it seems

[BlackSunAndSteel]

TL;DR?