Swan Lake, rhymes and Bouguereau

[Anjuli_Bai]

Someone told me yesterday that poetry that rhymes is restrictive and therefore is not innovative.

 

He went on to say, that in order for art to be art it has to be innovative - and this includes all forms: dance, voice, music, painting, sculpture, etc.

 

For instance, this person said the work of French artist Bouguereau - while nice to look at was not art because it was not innovative.  (I love Bouguereau's work, by the way).

 

The above led me to think: "Do I want innovation in Swan Lake or a Mozart symphony - or am I truly the old fuddy-duddy classicist this person is telling me I am?"

 

I'm not at all against innovation in art - but does it have to be part of the definition - the reason for it be considered art?

 

Not that I'll change - but as Tevya and Golda (Fiddler on the Roof) said:  "It's nice to know."

[MAB]

This is a mine field, but art acknowledged to be such at any point in that work of art's history remains art to be appreciated by it's own and future generations.

 

I imagine artists as diverse as Praxiteles, Shakespeare and Petipa were all considered innovators in their time.

[LinMM]

Very similar to what I was thinking MAB

Mozart was an innovator in his time and when you look at the difference between Beethovens early sonatas and late ones you can really see the development etc.

 

However once a work now considered a work of art whether piece of music, painting or book has been created its made is statement and doesn't need interfering with so in my books of course it remains art......probably an old fuddy duddy too then!!

 

New work being created right now however could be judged on whether it is particularly saying anything new.....and then of course......is everything "new" art.....probably not.....so a complicated area in the time you actually live in I think.

[Ian Macmillan]

Anjuli:  The position being taken by that chap sounds very odd, indeed.  He appears to imply that an artifact may be 'art' on the day of its creation, providing it passes his innovation test, but that it then ceases to be so on some indeterminate timescale.  So, does he abandon it as 'artless' after a day, a month, a year ......?

[Anjuli_Bai]

It seemed to me, when I heard his criteria (that art has to be innovative) spoken with such assurance - that assurance - in itself - is a problem. 

 

I happened to have with me a notebook in which I had pasted a copy of a painting I made (oil on canvas) and I asked him if it met his criteriia for art.  He said - no it did not - since it wasn't innovative. I am putting it in here - hope it works!  How could i have made this "innovative"?

 

[LinMM]

What a beautiful picture Anjuli.

 

Didn't someone say Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth

 

Of course there are many different depictions of Life which have their own particular resonance with Beauty but for me that's good enough.

I would call the above picture a work of Art as for whether its innovative or not on the grand scale I don't know but as its by you as a unique individual with an insight into this subject matter I would say it is on this level anyway!

[Buddy]

Didn't someone say Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth

 

 

 

LinMM,

 

At first glance I read this to say

 

Truth in Beauty is Truth.

 

Even nicer

 

Truth in Beauty is Beauty

[Anjuli_Bai]

So - could we say: Innovative truth is not truth?

 

Thank you, LinMM for your kind words about my painting.

 

I should identify it - I painted it from a photo of dancer Starr Danias.  She was with the Joffrey Ballet during which she danced with Nureyev in the series of ballets which were re-staged such as Le Spectre de la Rose.  A very lovely dancer.

 

Ian:

 

Anjuli:  The position being taken by that chap sounds very odd, indeed.  He appears to imply that an artifact may be 'art' on the day of its creation, providing it passes his innovation test, but that it then ceases to be so on some indeterminate timescale.  So, does he abandon it as 'artless' after a day, a month, a year ......?

 

I found his view dismissive (to say the least).  His comment about rhyming in poetry as being restrictive brought a response from me that I didn't think Poet Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson felt at all restricted by having his poems rhyme.  Sometimes,  I have to admit that I suspect those who put down those poets who can rhyme do so becausey they can't. 

 

It also seems to me that having such as opinion "art in order to be art has to be innovative" is restrictive!

 

(This is one mine field, as MAB calls it, is at least not lethal. 

[LinMM]

There are also some very good modern "rap" poets who have brilliant rhymes and rhythms in their poetry!

[Jan McNulty]

I always think that to work within a very structured framework actually makes you more creative!

[Buddy]

 

I happened to have with me a notebook in which I had pasted a copy of a painting I made (oil on canvas)...

You did that ?!

 

Brava !       

[Shmendrick]

  In my view saying all art has to be innovative is somewhat silly. While any artist should always strive to be original otherwise they simply become a copy of what's gone before innovation is different. I would count the picture above as art, I would count the RB's Giselle as art, neither are innovative but they both have a meaning. I think people put too much emphasis on "new" and dismiss the "old" too quickly. People are quick to insult things like Swan Lake because it is overdone and a little bit silly but done properly it can be beautiful and moving. Just because it's an old classic doesn't mean that it has any less to say than something new. 

  

   Also trying to write rhyming poetry is a lot harder than free verse. 

[Anjuli_Bai]

You did that ?!

 

Brava !       

 

 

Thank you, Buddy! 

 

  In my view saying all art has to be innovative is somewhat silly. While any artist should always strive to be original otherwise they simply become a copy of what's gone before innovation is different. I would count the picture above as art, I would count the RB's Giselle as art, neither are innovative but they both have a meaning. I think people put too much emphasis on "new" and dismiss the "old" too quickly. People are quick to insult things like Swan Lake because it is overdone and a little bit silly but done properly it can be beautiful and moving. Just because it's an old classic doesn't mean that it has any less to say than something new. 

  

   Also trying to write rhyming poetry is a lot harder than free verse. 

 

All those Swan Lakes are still selling tickets - must mean something a lot of people.

[MAB]

So - could we say: Innovative truth is not truth?

 

Thank you, LinMM for your kind words about my painting.

 

I should identify it - I painted it from a photo of dancer Starr Danias.  She was with the Joffrey Ballet during which she danced with Nureyev in the series of ballets which were re-staged such as Le Spectre de la Rose.  A very lovely dancer.

 

Ian:

 

 

I found his view dismissive (to say the least).  His comment about rhyming in poetry as being restrictive brought a response from me that I didn't think Poet Laureate Alfred Lord Tennyson felt at all restricted by having his poems rhyme.  Sometimes,  I have to admit that I suspect those who put down those poets who can rhyme do so becausey they can't. 

 

It also seems to me that having such as opinion "art in order to be art has to be innovative" is restrictive!

 

(This is one mine field, as MAB calls it, is at least not lethal.

I remember Starr Danias very well from her days with LondonFestival Ballet (now ENB) she was something of a favourite of mine.

[zxDaveM]

I'm a poet, and I know it. Hope I don't blow it....