I hate it, and I'll tell you why.
"Poetry of Reality" - I thought that all poetry stemmed from the reality of us being humans, homo sapiens. So that, in my view, is a stupid implication on his, or whoever came up with the idea, part.
Secondly, it kind of implies, even if unintentionally, that there has been no music, or any art form for that matter, that has used science or has been inspired by science (and vice-versa), which is bollocks; same with philosophy. Philosophy a couple of hundred of years ago, and rightly so perhaps, covered a much wider spectrum, so if one took a course in philosophy (which, by the way, was one of the only few courses available! you can forget about an Arts degree Mr.Lally, you'd have to have gone to an apprentice workshop), one would cover philosophy, literature and the sciences - perhaps it is too vague, true, but it also comes, I think, from the realization that one must be knowledgeable in as many things as possible.
http://en.wiped.org/wiki/The_Two_CulturesI've been meaning to read this, it is an essay on the 'split' between the Arts and the sciences; I cannot comment on it, but it is appropriate to mention here.
This is populist. Just like that sham collection
Poets Against War. It's lecturing the whole populace, and art, philosophy, and for that matter science, shouldn't be about that - it should be about excellence in the field that one has taken; it's cheap propaganda otherwise, and while documentaries are always interesting, this kind of stuff makes one think that one is a child and in need of a good spank. And also, though I have nothing against Dawkins, I've listened to a lot of his debates, interviews and whatnot, and whenever someone calls him reductionist, he mentions that "we've all read a Shakespeare sonnet and cried", to which the answer is "no, you're a scientist, and you should prove that statistically, but besides that, may I ask Mr.Dawkins, why you mention the most obvious of artists, one who is as obvious as the most obvious of scientists, say Einstein, which might show perhaps, that you are using an example which indicates no sort of real investment in the arts i.e. like just knowing who Beethoven is and knowing the opening bit of the 5th symphony? How can you then lambast people for not knowing 'enough about science' etc. etc. he might have invested himself in the arts too mind you, but that is the way I always read that statement. Going for the specific is always better I think, because if people are genuinely interested in what you're saying (if not, fuck them), then they too will look for the specific, rather than just remain stuck with a copy of Pride and Prejudice and The Origin of Species,
only. Perhaps I take my critique too far, but between the mad religious fundamentalists and the apathetic dry dolts, there isn't much to choose, only one has to decide obviously.
Since this is about music, mind if I share this clip? He (Horowitz) says some interesting things before the part where he starts playing Scriabin.
Conversation and Pie
