> To accept that all of Jim's work comprises a cohesive
> whole is to ignore any intrusion of the real world: that
> he has never needed to pay the bills, to make a buck, or
> to indulge some impulse to tell another, seperate story.
>
> It's lunacy and idiocy.
I've been thinking of what to write in reply to your post, GTKarber. I think it is safe to assume that you have a certain impression of what my meaning was, and so I shall try to explain my meaning, which I think is different than what you think I meant.
You portray the mind image of someone writing one song and then spreading it out throughout their entire career, and that would be one work......so you say, that would be ridiculous. I agree with that. That would be. But that is not what I am meaning. What is more to the point is more like "a body of work" which is contiguious as to theme and such as like a long classical piece with numerous movements in it, that gets added to at various junctures, growing and growing, in depth and in breadth, and dimension. The way that some artists division their works differs from inspiration to inspiration. One might say, that such and so work was inspired by some such thing. This work could be long, short, or be a body of work....such as several pieces that together tell various aspects of it. And so what Jim does is something like that. Instead of a few pieces in a small body of work, that is definitively one work based upon a single set of inspirations, there are many pieces. The principle is the same, but the voluminous dimension of it is quite complicated. That is what I mean.
|
