Since we're constrained to the real world, we can only approach this ideal objective essence, not attain it. But its existence implies that our successive approximations must eventually differ from each other less and less. In the long run, only the tiny details are up for grabs.
To me this just seems patently absurd. Who but an arrogant ignoramus would insist that great past artists contribute nothing lasting to the practice of their art? Do cellists today learn nothing from Casals and Rostropovich? Do pianists learn nothing from Rubinstein and Richter?
-
-
I do not mean to offend, but neither am I prepared to acknowledge the impotence of the past to inform and to benefit the present and future. No one emerges from the womb knowing how to practice an art. The knowledge is transmitted, and transmuted, from generation to generation.
-
Who today plays Bach in ignorance of Glenn Gould? Who plays Rachmaninov in ignorance of Vladimir Ashkenazy? Certain extraordinary individuals reveal to us essentially new things -- and even if we strive not to imitate them, we are all changed by their revelations, forever.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.