Re: Post '81 Gould

[Jim Morrison <jim_morrison@sprynet.com>]

Hi List,

My thought on this artist versus art issue is that human beings when
intensely studying a particular artist's work inevitably become wrapped up
in the artist as well, even if they have to speculate about it ala
Shakespeare or Bach.  I mean, art is a messy and complex kind of creation of
human beings and the act of appreciating art is just as messy and complex.
My feeling is that analysis and criticism of the *art* that tries to
eradicate the *artist* (and the human beings on the receiving end) is going
to come up a bit short of a thorough and lucid understanding.  I'm not
saying we should go about diagnosing the mental conditions of our artists,
though we can certainly give it a try and I'm willing to eavesdrop on the
conversation.  What I am saying is that the people who I think know the most
about a particular person's *art,* also know a heck of a lot about the
artist's *life,* which I don't think is accidental, and these people in fact
relate one to the other in their criticism, which I think is helpful.  To me
the people that are the best overall critics also know the most about the
artist in question.  Which isn't to say they can't be wrong or that people
that know less can't add something to the discussion.  They can be.  But in
the end, more is more often than not better, and better means more.

For me, music doesn't really exist in a abstract realm but is art made by
human beings for human beings.   It's very nature seems social to me, so I'm
not surprised that we, when talking about a performance by Glenn Gould or
his art in general, also find ourselves starting to talk about Glenn Gould
the man.  What would surprise me is if we didn't.

Jim (who for those of you with some literary background may like to know
that yes indeed I am interested in reader response criticism)