To set it up for everyone, two characters are in the Museum of Modern Art - one is a young, naive newcomer to New York City, not quite schooled in the ways of the world, the other an older, more knowledgeable but not necessarily wiser city-dweller of many years. The older turns to the younger and embarks upon what he deems as his lecture on hard and soft art:All art, whether painting, poetry, music, dance, or anything else, can be divided into two groups, hard and soft, and as pleasing as the soft is, the hard is always superior - it might as well be a rule of nature... Matisse and Picasso are just two of the most obvious examples. Think about Renoir: totally soft. Monet, Sisley - you could eat them with a spoon. Whereas Vermeer, who puts them to shame, has that incredible rigor. It's the same with music, with sculpture - I happen to love Beethoven, but he's romantic, he's soft, and for excruciating perfection you just can't beat Bach, because he's got that hard edge.
I kind of surprised myself by how much I liked this passage, and especially when it pertains to music. I would never dare to argue that soft music like Franz Ferdinand, Justin Timberlake, or Bloc Party are anything but thoroughly enjoyable - I consistently come back to certain soft favorites in my music tastes. But I would venture to say of the hard choices, the Thom Yorkes, The Arcade Fires, the Animal Collectives, the Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, the Les Savy Favs of the world - finding the great moments in songs from those artists is an amazingly rewarding experience. And unlike the quote from Clausen's Pier, I don't think it's the hard edge that makes them better, but perhaps the beautiful parts within the soft edge that make listening to them that much more gratifying and personal.
That was me waxing poetic. Enjoy...
No comments:
Post a Comment