Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Is Music Art?
Is some music art and some music not? why?
Clearly not. That'd imply whether something is 'art' is based on whether it meets a certain standard. Which obviously isn't the case.
I'm not sure there's anything to discuss unless 'real music' bores start wading in being idiots.
Is that a free pass?
I just thought I'd get the generic sarcy reply out of the way asap ;)
I hate when people bring up Adorno, because their argument is usually smashed by the fact that what he describes as "standardized" and meaningless is actually jazz.
A fact that tends to contradict somewhat the argument of the person who brings it up.
can't believe I let the thread title dissuade me from having a look
Calling something art is just something that insecure, condescending dickweeds do in order to put some intellectual distance between what they like and what other people like.
according to Walter Pater at least but that was 120 years ago
might even have given him a greater insight
although people who actually just call themselves artists have a far stricter definition, I think it goes like this.
"something is only art if it is created as a piece of art by someone who is 'an artist' "
thus apparently If I attempt to create something artistic, it apparently is not art as I do not define myself as an artist.
Also apparently 'discovered beauty or real interesting thought provoking stuff' if looked at through a 'discovered perspective' by you, is also (apparently) not art.
However I have a broader definition as I am not an artist (broader brushstrokes)
(my gran was a professional artist - a painter)
I was little 4/5 when we ran away from her.
She painted landscapes (round somerset, mostly in oil) did seascapes/ships and did still life. She did some charcoal and watercolours and pastels. She used to sell them in the winter gardens in western super mare. she would also paint something if say someone wanted their favourate church or building painted. She was not a brilliant artist as I don't think she had too much imagination or originality in her work, she basically followed the constable/haywain style (but without so much brush skill) But she sold her painting regularly and many rooms around her house were all full of paintings and easels with paintings in progress. My biggest regret is that somehow I dont have the paintings she did of me when I was little
One of my favourite things is hearing stories about people's families. Always makes me realising how weird, colourful and beautiful the world is.
(my mum had to go out to work)
I think I later had problems with guilt as I realised that I loved her and was loved by her, although she treated her own children without any love. I liked them all and kind of felt awkward about my feelings, like I was wrong.
I remember absolutely not wanting to write letters (as forced by my mum) of thanks to her for money (sent to my mum, for my birthdays) after we had run away. I felt it impossible to write these letters and resented being made to, why should i be forced to think about something that upset me so much? Just because of duty, I also found it nearly impossible to do, I wasnt being willful.
I think that it is partly the reason that I have such a reluctance to 'do as I am required to' (because of technicality and duty)
She was a very powerful woman, who could bend argument and rhetoric to her will, she was also fluent in emotional manipulation, such that she could reduce others to tears/frustration really quickly (although she didnt do this to me)
to devestating character assasination effect
her fame meant everyone was wary/scared of her
cos of what she had done to them.
Although she had lost her first husband during WWII and then remarried, had my uncle and then her second husband got killed in Normandy.
So maybe she was bitter and felt hard done by, but she was never soft enough to allow anyone to get close enough to talk about her losses
All music is art.
(My favourite is when people making aliases just to this a post)
though i realised I missed the opportunity for ShiteShightShiteShitty
Whether that be the creator, or observer, *is* art.
that it is not the definition of it (I agreed with you, but then I've been told, that this is lncorrect
and a lot of deep philosophical thinking into it.
For one, to believe that particular definition of art, you have to believe that art is subjective, which is a massive debate in its own. If it is, then surely that must hold true; Once one person declares it as art, then it must be. The merit of the art is still up for debate, but not the definition.
*Hmm somehow I got sucked into this thread.*
Look at the work of Congo the chimpanzee. It's been purchased by serious art collectors for large sums of money, displayed in prestigious galleries, and Pablo Picasso hung one of his works on his wall.
Is it not art afterall, because the artist is not able to classify himself as such?
What about Cave Art? It is art by it's very definition, but there is nothing to qualify whether the creators thought of themselves as artists. Nor many pieces of ancient art.
I don't buy it, and it seems like an incredibly pretentious definition from people who think the title of 'artist' brings themselves increased worth.
so yes definitely...
I think the question people are searching for when they ask this is 'is non-classical music high culture or low culture?', which isn't a question that especially troubles me, really.
is there really such a thing as `high` culture and `low` culture. (answer: no).
' does all art tend toward the quality of music?'
*strokes chin/cock/your mother*
Fuck compose, Fuck melody, Dedicated to no one, Thanks to no one, ART IS OVER
...someone (probably a Pink Floyd, or perhaps a Pumpkins fan) is going to have to define art first, before we know whether music qualifies or not. of course their definition will be utter balls, so i doubt we'll ever know.