 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-12 18:33
Today, in a seminar headed by the very friendly and competent Mr. Lidov (some of You might know him) - he told us that G. Crumb said to him, spirituality comes from art, not from religion.
Any comments/reflections on this?
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-06-12 22:20
Spirituality is FREE
Spiritual leaders are not.
Draw yer own kornclusions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2004-06-13 03:36
I believe that statement in question tells us more about G. Crumb than it does about spirituality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-06-13 03:39
There is definitely some truth in what you say. Religion, as such, has many characteristics spirituality being just one. Spirituality is not always a compulsory characteristic of a religion. Ritual is more important than spirituality in some religions and in others hype and energy are often mistaken as some form of spirituality. Religion does not have a mortgage on spirituality, mysticism, ethics or morality, in fact some religious groups have poor track records in these things. You find spirituality from wherever and whatever if at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim E.
Date: 2004-06-13 04:27
Spirituality, artistic expression, intelectual reasoning, political inclinations, emotional attachments, etc. are all part of the human animal. Attempts to separate one area from the rest are doomed to failure, and trying to understand one without considering the others leads to incomplete knowledge.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John_May
Date: 2004-06-13 04:45
All of life is but a reflection of great art, and not the reverse. See: Oscar Wilde.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2004-06-13 10:48
I agree with Mark Pinner. Spirituality is it's own entity. Art/Religion/Whatever can be spiritual or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-13 12:07
I´m not so sure about what "spirituality" really means, especially in this distinction from religion. I suspect that Crumb hints at a 'hidden' connection, at least for him, between a church, or rather institutionalized religion/belief, and religion. The O.Wilde statement impresses me very much, by its sheer being so uncompromisable (more often than not the realisation of a work of art is subjugated to that foul compromises that just mean nivellating 'doing what everyone/the most like to'). M.Pinner´s "you find it where- and whenever" is very difficult to differentiate against a profile- and meaningless "this is for everyone,and everyone can dabble around with it", though I of course would insist on a distinct interdisciplinary, bordercorssing fundamental quality of spirituality. I think there can be an possible answer to the Crumb-ian riddle, by distinguishing alongside Pinner´s mentioning of ritual. Ritual is a religious form (though one might attribbute it to a broader horizon in the field of ethnology, anthropology), whereas art adresses spiritual meaning without such...I´m not completely satisfied with this, I have to think about the ritual´s impact on art and its performance more, I agree...
Oh, I love those wormy cans, and am happy when the above statement tells me something about (but what?) G. Crumb, whose work impresses me immensely.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-06-13 13:12
I don't know what to make of God, but she sure has a thing for beetles...
350,00 known species to date.
Considering that they'll one day have me for lunch, ya gotta wonder...
******
Nice thing about organized religion; every week it's the same routine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-06-13 15:05
Praise the Lord
And pass the collection plate
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neil
Date: 2004-06-13 19:01
I'm not familiar with G. Crumb's art. I am familiar with R. Crumb's art. It's certainly nonconformist but I would hesitate to call it spiritual.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-14 06:22
yes, George Crumb, him I meant. "really cool music" is what he composes indeed, and I think he´d be pleased that someone his age is considered to be cool - or at least some of his compositions. / I have a rather vague idea about what it means that a musical work of art or an oeuvre is qualified "spiritual"...whether this be the case or not, the above quote struck me in a way, and now I wonder whether it makes sense to speak of music/a composition performed/a realisation of music as "spiritual". I suspect this to be of a different category than the usual romantic metaphysicism as we have in "moving, uplifting, interesting, not telling much, disappointing..." etc pp -attributions to music. Personally I insist on the spiritual quality in the music I perform, I try to make each performance a spiritual practice - not that anyone of the audience senses/realizes this at all, it´s strictly interiour. But I´d fail to give a coherent answer if I´d be asked to externalize this. And now there´s Crumb delievering such a sentence, - I wonder what to make of it. Woudln´t make that at least peformers, if not composers just as well, spiritual persons per se? But there aren´t too many of that streak, are there? Sure there´s Messiaen, Penderecki (though I don´t know where he´s heading at nowadays, falling back to retro-isms massively), Cage, A. Braxton, ... and the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" seems more than vague to me.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-06-14 18:33
Treat yourself to a recording (and score if you can... Crumb's scores are almost as fun to see as they are to hear) of Crumb's "Vox Balaenae", BobD. Better yet, try to find a performance of some of his piano music to attend (the performer practically dances as well)
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
