Wow, did you really mean that comparison? Time is the only judge of what will be considered 'great'. So you seem to be implying that in the future scholars will be dissecting and quoting like mad Mr. John Grisham's novels? Is that correct? The amount of wisdom found in Shakespeare's plays is almost uncanny compared to the fast food type of literature today.
you don't get it .I'm not suggesting Grisham will become another Shakespeare. I am stating that Shakespeare while alive was concidered popular , not a master. Popular and master are not synonomous.
When you are talking about Shakespeare, it has a lot do with archeo-astronomy. The cosmological plane ended with Plato. Writers like Shakespeare, Dante, and Virgil were much influenced by it.
Incredibly, most of Shakespeare’s plays had never been published in anything except pamphlet form, and were simply extant as acting scripts stored at the Globe. Only the efforts of two of Shakespeare’s company, John Heminges and Henry Condell, preserved his 36 plays (minus Pericles, the thirty-seventh) [Barnet, xvii] in the First Folio. Heminges and Condell published the plays, they said, “only to keep the memory of so worthy a friend and fellow alive as was our Shakespeare” [Chute, 133]. Theater scripts were not regarded as literary works of art, but only the basis for the performance. Plays were a popular form of entertainment for all layers of society in Shakespeare’s time, which perhaps explains why Hamlet feels compelled to instruct the traveling Players on the fine points of acting, urging them not “to split the ears of the groundlings,” nor “speak no more than is set down for them.”
http://www.enotes.com/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-biography
The more I read, the more I realize that people are not aware of the major paradigm shifts in art compared to then and now. Art today is bound to nothing. There are no rules. Unfortunately, my mind reading abilities were not needed here. For example, my composition teacher a year ago told me to be more creative by doing whatever I want. Letting go of rules. He is not my composition teacher anymore. Any person who knows art knows that is not creativity. Painting is not my strong area (music is more in my comfort range), but it is even apparent in painting too. Giotto's painting, around the 1300's, established the basis of modern art. What was that? It was the idea that paintings were painted to "look exactly like the thing itself". And thus, the art of painting was bound to this simple idea. Over time, this idea changed, but the point is painting was always bound to something. Is art today bound by any principle? Not really, and if so, by weak ones (again the picture of someone splashing a bucket of paint on the canvass). That is why you will not see another painter reach legendary status (male or female) for a while. There is no conspiracy trying to hold some down. The problem is 'anything' has become acceptable, thus ironically killing the creative spirit and lowering the standards of a once great art.
the more I read the more I'm understanding you don't get it. I'm not trying to be harsh , but as one with a degree in Fine Arts from a private established collage, I think I may know at least a bit of which I speak. What did Giotto introduce and is famous for ? Perspective , a more natural space , it's first real use and the first that led into the Italian Renaissance of painting. The idea of realism wasn't born from him. try looking to Greek and roman sculpture or even Egyptian. but he did bring the technique to use it in painting.
This is also much much more apparent in music. In the baroque era, music was bound to point toward the heavens. The spiritual ties with composers like Bach were incredible. In this era, Masses, Motets, Chorales, Fugues, all considered sacred works were king. Music was bound to Religion.
it was because a good deal of benefactors requested such religious works - this says nothing of personal taste of the artist or what they were betrothed too. . You must also bear in mind this important point - what we think of as masters were popular musicians in their day.
Music wasn't bound to just religion - nor was it if most composers could help it. It was benefactors that decided such. Most wanted to write the 'rock' of their day. But they also had to eat and pay the rent.
Throughout the Baroque period, composers continued to be employed by the church and wealthy ruling class. This system of employment was called the patronage system. As the patron paid the composer for each work and usually decided what kind of piece the composer should write, this limited their creative freedom.
Form
Dances were popular during this period as well as preludes, fugues, suites, toccatas and theme and variations. Binary and ternary forms were used frequently.
During the Classical period it became more and more possible for the public to enjoy and participate in leisure activities. Thus, in the music world, the patronage system of the Baroque began to die out and was replaced by the first public concerts where people paid to attend.
Instead of the sudden changes in style and trills of Baroque music, the music of the Classical period tended to be simple, balanced, and non-emotional. Music had straightforward titles like "Symphony No. 1" instead of flowery descriptive titles. Known as absolute music, classical works were written for their own sake, not for dancing or any other special occasion.
Form
Forms used include the minuet and trio, rondo, sonata-allegro, sonatina and theme and variations. Composers also often wrote concertos and dances.
Music saw many changes during the Romantic period
Composers expanded existing musical forms and developed new forms as a way of expressing themselves. Thus, a huge variety of instrumental and vocal music appeared on the scene. There were no restrictions on the length of a piece, the number of movements, or the number of instruments or voices used.
It was during the Romantic period that most of the band instruments came into being as they are today.
Style
Expressive personal feeling
http://www.hypermusic.ca/hist/mainmenu.html[/PLAIN]
This is the example of a fragment of the super-science that existed in pre-history. When Religion, art, myth, science, etc were all one, with archeo-astronomy as the time measurement. It is very powerful. Bach's contemporaries, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, shifted music but kept it bound to one thing. What was the one thing? The idea that music must imitate the human voice. The rest is history and opera became King. Anyone who has studied Mozart know his operas are by far his most important works. Chopin himself explained to his pupils that the most important aspect of playing his works was the flawless imitation of the human voice. Music thus being bound to the personal aspect of humanity in music, the human voice, led to the touching of many hearts. So now we come today and what is music bound to? Nothing, it is scattered everywhere. Anything goes basically.
Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'. Thus time, the only true judge, will not remember this era well.
and yet to Mozart his favorite works were those done for children !
Creativity today is 'do whatever you want, regardless of the natural laws of rhythm, harmony, or nature itself'.
funny that's what a lot of people thought of the masters during their lifetimes.
Unfortunately that is why you will not see any legendary geniuses anymore (at least for a while). It is not because of gender, lack of talent, or a conspiracy. The fact that art stopped representing the universal truths is the reason why.
ow to use SEX to "electrify" your mental powers and become a rampant creative genius!"
