[NewMusic] underwhelmed @ Mills

[Sarah - 21 Grand]

Barry wrote:
I understand that Rothko was a part of the abstract expressionist
movement, and thats how we understand the word,

- well "abstract expressionism" is a phrase consisting of two words,
abstract and expressionism.  The expressionism part of the phrase generally
refers to the "blobs that are supposed to stand in for other things or be
references." (e.g. de Kooning) What Rothko was expressing in his most
well-known work was how fields of color play off each other when blended
together, and thus, is not the "best" example of ab-ex, or what you're
characterizing as such (as opposed to de Kooning who did a lot of work
abstracting the human form and other figures, or Jackson Pollock whose work
was interpreted to reflect an emotional state by some).

Bringing it back to music, Rothko was doing visually what a lot of the
Minimalists were doing with sound. I would consider both abstract.

More Barry:
 but it also seems to
me like we have used the term "abstract" in many cases for something
that isn't an abstraction at all, it is just meant to be presented at
face value and thus does not abstract anything

-- it's not solely about the process of abstracting a thing, it can be
presenting something at face value that is an abstract concept - like
"yellow" or "b-flat" or the circle of fifths. If a piece of music is "about"
the circle of fifths, it is to some extent abstract, if it is utilizing the
circle of fifths to accompany proclamations of love you, ooh baby baby, then
it is not.

sl

--