deefstes wrote:
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 ?
Sure, this is a very interesting topic, and I see no need for it to turn into a flame war. The debate on what constitutes art is indeed one that will never be resolved but it remains useful to try and hammer out some theories ?
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.
There may be no unified yardstick, but there are ways. Just on a merely technical level you can see if something is done well or not, this holds true for poems, pieces of music or films. Is it executed proficiently, technically speaking? Does it move you in any way? Does it engage the mind or the emotions and affect you on some level? Also, is it just plain good or bad? A dance song that cannot be danced to is a bad dance song. Maybe it's good for other stuff but as we are judging it as a dance song, if it doesn't deliver on that promise it is bad.
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.
There are always short-sighted people. But criticising the sound or production isn't the same as criticising the artistic merit of the work. There are some horribly produced stuff from the past and even today that is held up as shining examples of brilliant art. Especially in the black metal genre, where horrible production was seen as practically a requirement!
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.
I understand what you're saying. You don't appreciate metal or shredding, but that doesn't mean there aren't bad shredders or bad metal out there. Someone who does appreciate it will be better capable of telling you when he's hearing good or bad metal or shredding.
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.
Like I said, I quite enjoyed Weeps as well. This raises another interesting issue in the whole theory of literature and the theory of aesthetics. According to for example the Russian Formalists and other schools, intent is important as to whether something is art. A beautiful sunset moves you emotionally but it's not art, because it wasn't made by someone. A nice formation of wood washed out on the beach can be beautiful and move you emotionally, but again it's not art because it wasn't made by someone with the intention of making an artistic work.
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.
See above. Just because it might affect people doesn't mean its art ... some people get affected by Julius Malema's speeches ?
It could be argued that this describes George Händel and Richard Strauss fairly accurately.
Maybe. Maybe sometimes people create art despite themselves. Some manage to make art that happens to be commercially viable. It's an interesting discussion.
