frantz

This is the latest album, in chronological order, that I liked by Battiato; after all, I’m not “battiatiano.”
I’m afraid the new CD will disappoint me like the last ones did; I heard the single, and during a quick radio listen, it didn’t convince me (but maybe that’s a good thing).
Who’s writing the review? Koopa, of course! Among debaserioti, it seems to me that Koopa stands to Battiato as Mr. Iko does to the White Duke, so it can only be him.

But to create "spontaneous" art, the artist knows, understands, deciphers, and thinks; only after does he create, even without corrections, but always and only after a long rational journey that doesn’t necessarily have to be connected to the single piece but to his lengthy path to reach that single piece. That’s why I mentioned the example of Pollock, who painted spontaneously, but the journey to arrive at his art was very, very long and surpasses Pollock himself. As for the phrase, I repeat, it’s not mine; if I’m not mistaken (though I could be very wrong!), it belongs to Lionello Venturi, and I quoted it because it struck me deeply, given that I have the habit of looking at paintings (unfortunately) from 50cm away and almost always also touching them to feel the texture on the canvas, and I realized how much I lose by never detaching analytical thought from emotional vision.

Lastly, I want to mention a quote I read in the halls of a museum, though sadly I can't recall the author: "As long as there is someone who looks at paintings from 50cm away, thinking about the technique of how the painting was made, he will never be able to enjoy the emotion that the sight of that painting generates" (more or less it was this).

As for the critic/artist dichotomy, it is true that the scholar makes a work more comprehensible. The artist expresses the "self," while the critic interprets it, but interprets it according to the recognized codes that guide the artist's gesture. This is the norm. Then there are (or were?) the "militant critics," like Achille Bonito Oliva, those who establish the codes of "thinking art" that the artist refers to, depending on different connections with the critic. The figure of the "client" deserves a separate discussion, but here we open a parenthesis that would be hard to easily close.

This debate on the enjoyment/interpretation of a work is interesting, so once again, I will share my thoughts.
First of all, I disagree with the statement that genius and unruliness almost always go hand in hand. It is true that many artists have been and are "over the top" in their thinking and actions, but to claim that this is almost a rule for making art is a bizarre notion that only serves to "add color" to the figure of the artist. Let's take one example above all: Van Gogh, an artist of indisputable greatness, is known by most as one of those artists full of genius and unruliness. Yet this is absolutely incorrect because, although VVG was hosted in care facilities multiple times, he prioritized a discussion of artistic intent over the gesture itself, which is well documented in his letters to his brother Theo, who was a gallerist at the time.
Almost always, the artist (the one who will be valued by critical recognition) performs their gesture as the ultimate genesis of a long and complex journey of reflections (and sometimes studies) on the "making of art" by others. It is true that the artist is often a person of greater sensitivity, which sometimes leads to emotional levels and rational approaches that are different and altered compared to the common and perhaps dominant thought, but it is the strong rationality of intentions that ultimately gives rise to the artistic movement even in moments of impaired clarity. However, the rationality of thought always guides the irrationality of the gesture (see Jackson Pollock).

Overall, it’s a nice album, but somewhat repetitive even if not trivial. I listened to it for several days in a row right after it was released, but then it too left my stereo without regrets. Side note: I bought the vinyl and it captures the '80s tones of the work better. The review is technically very well done and precise.

When I read your post dear Hal, I was listening in rapture to "Horse and fish." If you diss these two albums, I’ll cut off all ties with you!

I absolutely agree with the judgment given by kosmo; it’s not a beautiful album, but it goes beyond the old Lanegan that, unfortunately, many were expecting to hear again. Life goes on and people grow; chaos and obsessive guitars finally give way to thoughts.
I find this album weaker compared to the EP that preceded it, simply because it’s longer, and here it shows that there’s something too much. But ultimately, I listen to it willingly, even if right now my player is filled with high-value stuff, and Lanegan only comes through rarely (Jarrett's latest doesn’t let anyone else pass!).

I was stunned when I saw this review, but who the hell stole the review I wanted to write?
This album is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful! I've been listening to it nonstop for days, even though the CD is from 2003.
I just "gave" you this album, kosmo, along with the one from tetes de boys, but I wanted to include a few more to send you.

To respond:
A KOSMO: I reread and realized I made a mistake; I wanted to write something else about you but it slipped my mind. The judgment on the slaughtered reviews was about many others, like the debuts of Roahn and others, especially metalheads. Here regarding you I was mistaken.
X HAL: don't tell me you've never been attacked on de-baser in public or through private emails—almost all of us have been (no matter if it's a debut or not).
X L'ANONIM_: I believe that all the recent anonymous phrases are not the work of a single imbecile, who anyway shows himself to be a fool once again; whoever he is, he's an idiot. No one here has omitted their name in front of their thoughts, and you, as usual, have been able to shine above everyone else, you piece of garbage!
Bothering Vane once again anonymously is a clear example that if there’s more than one person on de-b who is rowing against the whole site, it’s fine to go against Vane, but doing it anonymously is just infuriating.
X CAZ: you keep getting better!
X KOOPA: damn, how tough are you!!! You really don’t get it, do you? For you, HUMILITY, OPEN DIALOGUE, and SPORTSMANSHIP are qualities to run away from at breakneck speed? Maybe on your site where you talk about cinema and stuff, everyone is at war. And who are you, Michael Moore?