|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
( I think I'll start "this" again somewhere free of all this subtle antonomasia)
And if you do, Mister Musick, then I'll (meaning Mister Milum) will be your most staunchworth supporter.
Say "high five", big jigger, say hey to your number one "gasser". 
Oh, I do love so much to talk jive talkto the people 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
A theory should not be the driving force in composition any more than technique should be the driving force in a performance While I agree with your desideratum, I think the two cases are not really parallel. Technique is a necessary condition for a performance, though by no means a sufficient one. Theory is not a necessary condition for a creative act. It tends to be applied by those who try to "explain" it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
To posit a clean distinction between theory and "the creative act" once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
To posit a clean distinction between theory and "the creative act" once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
(broken down for elucidation)
To posit a clean distinction
between theory and "the creative act"
once theory has entered the discourse and given rise to the possibility of the notion of creativity
is itself at once a creative performance and a hapless theory.
(rephrased for clearity)
If we hypothesize a clear difference
between a theory of creativity and the act of creativity
we have, by doing so, paradoxly precluded any worthwhile
theory of creativity but have been creative in the process.
Oh really?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
I have no idea. I don't understand what you wrote; perhaps it was the clearity.
Last edited by inselpeter; 04/02/06 09:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Well, Inselpeter, would you yourself be so kind to explain what you wrote?
Will ya?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
The notion of "creative acts" arises in a conceptual/practical frame that is already completely saturated with theory. Therefore, to posit a non-porous divide between the theoretical and the "creative" is to sight a phantom. Such a divide does not and cannot exist, except as seduction.
Last edited by inselpeter; 04/02/06 10:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Quote:
The notion of "creative acts" arises in a conceptual/practical frame that is already completely saturated with theory. Therefore, to posit a non-porous divide between the theoretical and the "creative" is to sight a phantom. Such a divide does not and cannot exist, except as seduction.
Tell you what, inselpeter, it's late and I need to get up early but I'm gonna pull out a bottle of Evan Williams Black and drink and think about the meaning of your strangely arranged words until either I pass out or I find some degree of coherency within your odd juxtaposition of English words.
Only thirty minutes and four fingers of bourbon later
I got it! Inselpeter you are a poet. You think in "nuance".
"saturated with theory" "posit a non-porous divide" "to sight a phatom" "except as seduction" That's not science, that's intuition.
Ok, inselpeter, here is what you have said...
The concept of the "creative act" has been framed by the general conception of what constitutes a "creative act" and so by definition a "creative act" is delimited by it's own definition and any deviation from that definition is specious and incoherent.
Aren't you glad that I am here to tell you what you said?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
to tell you what I said<<
No, but it's nice of you to try to figure it out.
Whether or not I'm a poet, I don't know. I'm just trying to save myself a couple of thousand keystrokes, so I'm writing shorthand. That said, you did get part of it. But, for example, what has been more thoroughly studied than the diatonic scale and its permutations in music? The way we think about, hear and compose music in our tradition has been thoroughly shaped by the theoretical understanding of our system of its tonality. While there is, "no doubt," that the diatonic scale was originally simply "heard," that event, if it ever was, is long ago and far away. Our system of notation takes into account the steps of the scale and attempts to reconcile it with the "ergonomics" of sight (the five-line staff) and a system of absolute intervals (half-steps) which has been derived theoretically from the eight tones that compose the scale which we hear as an aesthetic unity. This, in a simple way, is a part of the frame. All cultural transmission exists in such frames. But I do not mean to say that such frames merely form the background or "horizon" of transmission. There is an active interplay between what we call the theoretical and what we call the creative. I do not mean to suggest that there is no distinction between these, whatsoever, only to cast doubt on the the notion of "creativity," which, as it is commonly used, I find to be an offensive term. Anyway, it's always nice to have something to drink to.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
381
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
