Misconstrued Thoughts : Yesterday's Misconstrued Thoughts Today

Radiohead and Beeth-oven (as Bill and Ted would say):

I think the comparison is warranted.

Both have sacrificed their sanity for their art. Both were/are misunderstood to certain varying degrees, but are still accepted and reveered. And, finally, Beeth Oven has already gone down in history for being a musical genius, and Radiohead (depending on how long this system goes on) will most likely follow.

Now, if you want to tie everything together, why not try to find a comparison in the physical art world with musical art?

The first one who comes to my mind is Jackson Pollack, but that might be a but more Autechre than Radiohead...

Discuss.

D.A.

I will eat you alive I will eat you alive I will eat you alive I will eat you alive I will eat you alive I will eat you alive I will eat you alive

Sorry to post twice, but I forgot to say good job Jerm. Nice piece.

D.A.

Not that they're all not good pieces, but I digress...

Jerm, since when can you take a camera in a museum? Did you have to get permission from some seedy caretaker lady?

Hey Jerm - long time reader, first time commenter.
Just as a side point, where does originality come into play? I would have to point out that I've seen quite a few artists (in any genre) that are uniquely talented, and yet they do the same old things (landscapes, portraits or Nirvana/Korn/Blink 182 rip-offs). The same really gos for creativity if you look at it - Van Goh was creative in his method - only his method. His paintings were the norm at best.
Personally I view an artist that can push the edges of society (and I don't mean this in the Super Bowl Halftime pushing society vein) as a true artist. Look at the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright, Picasso, Dali or, on a musical scale Elvis, the Beatles or (gasp) Nirvana - all of whom took the conventional, tore it apart and rebuilt it in their own artistic styles.
Look at Andy Warhol. He painted a freakin' Cambell's Soup can. He did the Apple logo. He painted a multi-faced picture of a yellow and pink Marilyn Monroe. Who cares? To me the sum of his work is greater than one particular piece. Yes, I can't really put Campbell's Soup I on the same level as, say Van Goh's Lilies, but the work he did was unige, skillful and creative. As was Dali and Picasso.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, can we really call someone a great artist without looking at the entire collection of work, the time period, and what they did to the world? If Nirvana had never existed until the year 2004, and Pearl Jam was the great savior of rock, would they recieve the same reception as 1991 Nirvana did? Of course not. Nevermind would still be a rock-solid album, but it wouldn't be the "great" album most consider it. They pushed boundaries, they were creative and they had skill. That's why people remember them (love or hate) and that's why they will be remembered. Or maybe it was because Kurdt died, I'm still not clear on that...

Art + Music = beauty....my recipe for some good art......

Some good thoughts some good thoughts....

first case... well just ask..., then ask another person .. if you can take pictuers... you will or will not find out... my just be certain areas.

now on the area of autechrea... theses poeple are genious! just as keats stated... they created something not created to this point. The clicks n tics they produce with cohesion is quiet amazing!

I give creativity being inherintly apart of not being something that has taken place before. IN other words... creativity when a complete new vein is quiet amazing and wonderful! And something we should all stive for...

now for some comparisons

Dali...Radiohead
creating somethin excepted from something not seen before, and not accpeted or understood by many

Claude Monet - Beetles... famous before his death... he created something reveread and accpeted by many ... and still famous and respected

Pablo Picasso - Nirvana ... the connection here is self abuse and art which would be associated with extremes and violence in ways... even if not meant to be...

Andy Warhol - White Stripes.... the basics of art and the general world were brought together and made famous by warhol... the white stripes have also taken somethin basic and made it popular and unique.

Marc Chagall - Moby ... taking somethin simple and becoming famous by it cubic in nature just as the electronic music of moby... then combined with the complexity of other shapes...

...and there are so many more

It would seem reasonable to say there's an artistic difference between what is known as abstract art and creatively abstract art (I mean art as in tangible things. Paintings, photographs, wads of paper, et cetera). Really, a pretty small amount of new art is original now days and this can influence people to try to make things different or original as best they can. What's left to do, though? Not much. So they think of things like a pile of paper clips representing the way taxes bind you, or they take a huge canvas and put a tiny black dot in the middle to make you wonder if it's there or not. I'm not a fan of this kind of thing because these cutting edge artists of today have effetely made "art" itself completely relative to context, which makes it convenient for the artist because he can say, "Yeah, that picture is whatever you want it to be. It's abstract." No one can get say anything negative about any bit of art because it's politically incorrect to do so. It's some kind of artistic discrimination. Then again I'm no expert, but I know that I'd rather go see the Mona Lisa than and of Picasso's paintings, and I'd rather go see Picasso's painting’s than some guy who decided it'd be cool to throw paint on a big sheet in random gobs and sell it for $5000, and I'd rather go see that than an abstract sculpture exhibit, because to me that list gets less interesting the further down it goes.

So... yeah.