←back to thread

1032 points decryption | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
seabombs ◴[] No.44541090[source]
There's a term I read about a long time ago, I think it was "aesthetic completeness" or something like that. It was used in the context of video games whose art direction was fully realized in the game, i.e. increases in graphics hardware or capabilities wouldn't add anything to the game in an artistic sense. The original Homeworld games were held up as examples.

Anyway, this reminded me of that. Making these pictures in anything but the tools of the time wouldn't just change them, they'd be totally different artworks. The medium is part of the artwork itself.

replies(13): >>44541180 #>>44541815 #>>44541851 #>>44542274 #>>44542699 #>>44542899 #>>44542992 #>>44543278 #>>44543418 #>>44545440 #>>44547629 #>>44553341 #>>44557614 #
timoth3y ◴[] No.44541851[source]
The same holds true for everything from cave paintings to Roman frescos. It's part of human expression. The tools of that expression shape it.

For example, Bach's music was shaped by the fact that the harpsichord had no sustain. The piano changed that, but "upscaling" Bach's work to take advantage of this new technology would destroy them. You use the new technology to play them as they were written for the old. The beauty comes through despite the change.

replies(6): >>44542375 #>>44542423 #>>44543292 #>>44545806 #>>44546405 #>>44550951 #
madaxe_again ◴[] No.44542423[source]
Similarly, Liszt made full use of what modern, powerful pianofortes are capable of - although were he a man of our times, he’d probably have been fronting a heavy metal band.
replies(1): >>44542941 #
giraffe_lady ◴[] No.44542941[source]
Western classical music had a strong tradition of taking advantage of cutting edge technological advances, especially in metallurgy but also advanced woodworking techniques like lamination making large soundboards possible and pushing the bounds of acoustic amplification.

It wasn't until I think around the advent of recorded music and electric amplification that it settled into a fairly stable set of instruments & sounds produced by them.

replies(2): >>44543521 #>>44543525 #
shermantanktop ◴[] No.44543521[source]
Settled, or ossified? Sure, there’s modern classical with more adventurous instrumentation, but that’s not what the moneyed retirees down at the opera house want to hear.

The music of the classical canon is unbelievably fantastic, and it deserves respectful treatment, but the genre has lost the audience for cool new sounds. It’s very unfortunate.

replies(4): >>44543744 #>>44543784 #>>44544568 #>>44544782 #
1. madaxe_again ◴[] No.44543744{4}[source]
Neither, I’d argue. The greats that we look back at were the outliers, the madmen at the fringe. For every Beethoven or Mozart there were a thousand thousand nobodies cranking out the same stuff that their grandfathers wrote. Rachmaninov was seen as nouveau trash in his time, Holst derided, Gershwin hackneyed. Eno perhaps falls into the same category.

Hell, in a century you’ll see string quartets banging out Aphex Twin at elegant soirées. The real connoisseurs, of course, nod knowingly and mutter that drukqs is “early period”.

Similarly, plainsong was seen as “classical” music for many centuries, and was also a largely rigid form, but there exist some absolute bangers in the canon, mostly unattributed because monks.

It’s hard to see the sweep of history from within it.