STYLE AND REPRESENTATION OF HISTORICAL TIME / GEORGE KUBLER
This text is speaks volumes and says very little. Perhaps the language barrier can account for some of the odd phrasing and poorly articulated points. When some of these points were made I found myself saying, "well, no shit."
Everything about a work of art is contrived to force us to perceive it as a unique object occupying one place and having unusually integral properties of material, technique, form and significance. Our habit of meeting it in a museum or on a stage or in a concert hall, where it bids for our attention with the illusion that it is a single point in space, time, and feeling, further masks the historical reality of every work of art. That reality is totally different from the illusion of uniqueness.
Such a convoluted approach to discussing the metaphysics and historical context of artwork.
I usually enjoy deciphering the idiosyncrasies inherent in texts like this, but I found this aggravatingly obtuse.
It's hard to be compelled by the profound cultural impact of what is essentially the author's nostalgia.
An autobiographical account of the chronology of synthpop, serving more as a means to recount anecdotes
from the author's youth than any great insight into a particular genre.
The article wanders through markedly prosaic lyrics, explaining how they fit into the canon of her highschool
record collection in search of evidence beyond the circumstantial to support the hyperbolic claim at the top of
the article.
To be fair, selling the period following the catalytic introduction of the keyboard to western pop-music as the
single most culturally relevant era of profound artistic expression in the 20th Century is a fairly impossible feat.
No comments:
Post a Comment