Article

2007-09-17 Europe

German cardinal sparks fury with 'Nazi art term'

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-09-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [12 views ] Top

#1 Painters such as Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee and Edvard Munch

I'm almost sure he means the other modern "art", like crucifix in piss or Virgin May made of dung and such, not Kandinsky, Klee and Munch.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-09-17 01:06|| 2007-09-17 01:06|| Front Page Top

#2 The "d" word, indeed "appalling."

Posted by Besoeker 2007-09-17 01:15|| 2007-09-17 01:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Sad thing is they would loisten to what is said, instead of shrieking NAZI about what they IMAGINE the connotations are, the Cardinal is correct. The aforemetnioned Piss Christ comes to mind, as do many other pieces of modern so-called "art".

Posted by OldSpook 2007-09-17 02:01|| 2007-09-17 02:01|| Front Page Top

#4 In an age when a supposedly prominent composer like John Cage can pawn off four minutes and thirty seconds of total silence as a written work of piano musicand then have his estate go on to successfully prevail in court for copyright infringement against a composer who did essentially the same thingthe word "art" no longer carries the connotations of beauty, skill, mastery or a refined sense of esthetics. Instead we are treated to obtuse slackers whose gratuitously offensive, provocative or titillating hogwash receives critical praise rivaled only by that given the emperor's new clothes.

Here is some background on the "4:33" copyright case:
(Try not to laugh or cry too hard.)

"4'33" consists of a musician (or musicians), not playing their instruments for four minutes and 33 seconds, and was intended as an ambient experience rather than four minutes and 33 seconds of silence - the music is the shuffling and coughing of the musician(s) and the audience and the background hum of the performance venue - the instructions are about the conducting of silence and the demeanor of the musician(s). "This is a deeply personal music," says ~~moron critic~~ Peter Gutmann, "which each witness creates to his/her own reactions to life. Concerts and records standardize our responses, but no two people will ever hear 4'33" the same way. It's the ultimate sing-along: the audience (and the world) becomes the performer."

But there is a copyright on the score - or rather, the several versions of the score that Cage produced over the years - because, of course, silence is never absolute nor complete, and every period of silence has different qualities of background noise. Like music, a song or instrumental piece, each silence is played differently at each performance and these variations are hard to quantify. Like software, the sound of silence is better when subjected to version control, and John Cage, or rather his music publishers, Peters Edition, now own the copyright to silence - or, at least, four minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

None of this would have mattered, but in 2002 a group known as The Planets (consisting of eight musicians, though there were then said to be nine planets - Pluto has since fallen out of planetary orbit and is now an arbitrary rock floating in space), led by Mike Batt, whose claims to fame as a composer include the music of The Wombles, and the song Bright Eyes from the film Watership Down, topped the UK classical charts with an album called Classical Graffiti, which included a track called A One Minute Silence. The track, which is silent, is credited to Batt/Cage, which Mike Batt admitted was intended as a "tongue-in-cheek dig at the John Cage piece", although he later claimed that the credits referred to his previously unknown pseudonymous alter ego, Clint Cage.

This didn't escape the notice of Peters Edition who, acting on behalf of the Cage Estate, contacted Batt and claimed infringement of copyright. Peters Edition asked for a quarter of the royalties, presumably on the grounds that the duration of A One Minute Silence approximates to a quarter of four minutes and 33 seconds of silence.

The case of Peters Edition was supported by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society who demanded that Batt cough up for the use of Cage's original work. Batt, however, claimed that his piece was qualitatively different because the recorded silence consists of the absence of noise, rather than the presence of ambient silence.

"I certainly wasn't quoting his silence. I claim my silence is original silence... Our's is better silence", he said, "it's digital. Their's is only analogue."

The scores were also different. According to ~~another moron critic named~~ Steven Poole, writing in The Guardian, Cage's score consisted "merely of vertical ruled lines marked with timings, whereas Batt's piece is written in the key of G major (or E minor), and is more structurally complex, finishing with a flourish of metre-switching from five-eight to three-eight four-four. These are obviously quite different pieces of music", a distinction that would have amused Cage himself.

The Planets' album was a bestseller, which may have influenced the decision of Peters Edition and the Cage estate. As Batt pointed out: "This is not an angry dispute - it's a gentlemanly dispute. But there is money involved."

The obvious conclusion to be drawn was that the motive for the case may have been publicity, with some advantage to all parties. But this appears not to have been the case because the bizarre legal wrangle ended with a six-figure out-of-court settlement.

And there you have it: Silence masquerading as music. Shit parading as art. A mass produced urinal or a bed strewn with condoms and empty liquor bottles are passed off as sculpture.

Remember that Duchamp's "Fountain" is valued at $3,600,000 and Emin's "My Bed" sold for a mere $225,000. The foregoing and gangsta rap's international popularity all stand as bleak testimony to how thoroughly demagnetized this world's artistic compass is.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-17 02:59|| 2007-09-17 02:59|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, Meisner now knows that next time, he would need to replace degenerate with inane, retarded, idiotic scams, posing as art.

Posted by twobyfour 2007-09-17 06:05|| 2007-09-17 06:05|| Front Page Top

#6 Missing the point, people (excepting twobyfour). The Cardinal could have criticized contemporary art without using Nazi terminology. He might as well have talked about a "final solution" to problems of immigration or suggested arabs need more "living room" in Israel. But then the Catholic church has recurring blind spot with these things (queue outrage).

Posted by Excalibur 2007-09-17 10:28|| 2007-09-17 10:28|| Front Page Top

#7 Cardinal Meisner said in a sermon in Cologne Cathedral on Friday. Meisner, 73, was commenting on the opening of an exhibition of medieval and medieval and modern art from the dioceses art collection. (emphasis added)

He criticized the "wrong kind" of modern art, so the Left had no choice but to slime the Cardinal as a Nazi boot-licker. It never ceases to amaze me how public secularists incessantly demand the complete separation of Church and State; that believers should keep their faith private - in their places of worship or in their homes. Yet here is a cleric preaching a homily in his church, and his words - twisted, distorted, and fantisized- are wrought into something howled in a Nuremburg Rally.

What is it about Judeo-Christian beliefs that drives the Left completely insane?

Posted by mrp 2007-09-17 11:00|| 2007-09-17 11:00|| Front Page Top

#8 So - lemme get this straight - if the Nazis used a word, that means that nobody else can ever use that word again?

That makes sense. In a twisted, really stupid way.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-09-17 11:05|| 2007-09-17 11:05|| Front Page Top

#9 My wife's nephew hosted us for a visit to the Metropolitan Museum in NY. He was patient for as long as he could be while we admired the Old Masters and the Impressionists. Finally he just had to take us to the modern gallery to see his favorites. One was interesting, but I don't remember the artist. The other was by Jackson Pollock. I started to laugh, and the nephew took serious offense. I told him that it wasn't great art if I could do it.

Posted by SR-71 2007-09-17 14:12|| 2007-09-17 14:12|| Front Page Top

23:56 ed
23:33 ed
23:23 ed
23:22 newc
23:20 newc
23:18 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:14 ed
23:13 ed
23:04 ed
23:03 Zenster
22:56 SteveS
22:54 ed
22:52 hiutopor
22:49 KBK
22:48 ed
22:29 DarthVader
22:28 mhw
22:27 Zenster
22:24 Pappy
22:22 trailing wife
22:18 Baba Tutu
22:17 Zenster
22:11 jds
22:10 Zenster