First off, BIG DISCLAIMER:
I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I think this could be an interesting debate (Viz. "what is art?") and I'll spar with you for a bit but I don't want this to be seen as another online argument. I'm happy to bow out if it gets ugly ?
tentop wrote:
Critics and connoisseurs are qualified to to say that an album is inherently bad. They're not always right of course, but the good ones are right more often than they are wrong.
And who decides who's right and who's wrong? I am often very much a black and white person but in this regard I just cannot classify it as a black and white matter.
tentop wrote:You CAN judge a piece of art as either good or bad
How? Against what set of rules do you measure art to determine whether it is good or bad? I would posit that those rules are very vague to start off with and in constant flux, so much so that I am not willing to accept that there is a unified yard stick for art.
Let me use an example. The amplifier was designed to amplify the volume of a certain input (let's use guitar in this case) and be as true to the original sound as possible, just louder. Then someone tried amplifying the volume of his instrument beyond the amplifier's limits and the signal amplitude got clipped, causing a distorted sound. This is certainly not what the amplifier was designed for and one critic might have said "this artist produces bad music which can be seen in his lack of understanding of even the basic principles of sound amplification" while another critic might have said "this artist is pushing the boundaries of sound amplification and came forward with a very unique style and great music". So who was wrong and who was right? According to the contemporary understanding of sound amplification surely the first critic was right, but today we know that he was wrong.
And even so, today still there are people who do not like the sound of overdriven amplification. But that says something about their personal preferences and nothing about whether the music is inherently good or bad. I, for one, do not understand and cannot appreciate metal or shredding but that does not mean it is bad music.
tentop wrote:
One definition though of art holds that it should be something that moves you emotionally. This separates it from mere "entertainment" which has as its goal, well, to entertain you. Now that Santana album may well be enjoyable but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who was moved by anything on it.
I could say that I was moved by "While my guitar gently weeps" with India Arie and Yo-Yo Ma. Sure, I've heard other pieces of music that moves me way more and no piece of music can ever move me as much as Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto does, but I'd be lying if I said that this Santana track left me cold.
tentop wrote:There is a fine line of course between art and product, and that's why there's still support for the high art/pop art distinction. Britney Spears is often called an "artist", but really, none of her music is art.
I'm not sure I agree. I also dislike Britney Spears' music and don't see any value in it. You or I might not understand how that is possible but Chris Crocker has illustrated very well how some people really are moved emotionally by her work. That makes it art - however vile and emotionally depauperate you and I might think it is.
tentop wrote:In my opinion, anything that is made expressly for commercial purposes or in which the only motivation or thought going into its production is what will make it sell more, is not art.
It could be argued that this describes George Händel and Richard Strauss fairly accurately.
