ez wrote
Hammeron wrote
I'm a bit of a purist I guess.
Art is too broad a term.
I am a musician not an artist.
In my opinion the guitar is the most incredible musical instrument {note: musical instrument} on the planet.
I joined this forum to be exposed to like minded musicians,
not to be exposed to pseudo commercial pornographic electronic bullshit - made OK- in the name of art.
You can be a musician but not an artist. A musician plays music. An artist creates art. Music is art of course. And musicians can be artists, but not all of them, only the good ones.
Well there's a whole semantic minefield there. Music, by most definitions, is a subset of "art". "Art" is not only what hangs in the Prado in Madrid (or even the large, detailed sculptures of naked men hanging around the lobby there). Sculpture, poetry, dance (though I think we can exclude just shaking your booty to the latest hit) are all "art". That's why the Greek mythology has more than one muse.
Art can be bloody and violent too. There's a rather striking painting in the Prado of John the Baptist being beheaded. There's also a couple of rape scenes, and all sorts of depictions of violence being inflicted by people upon people or by people upon animals.
Art doesn't have to be "nice". It doesn't have to seek approval. Art can be in one's face.
I'd not make a stand on pornographic grounds myself. Firstly because whilst I find Die Antwoord generally not my cup of tea and quite distasteful (by my subjective standards) I don't find them pornographic (though I confess that I don't follow them closely). Secondly because once you take that simplistic stand you'd have to rule out The Scorpions, Blind Faith, John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix (not an exhaustive list) and do the decent thing and burn any records you might have (or at least lock them away so the kids won't see them).
