sorry dodens gra
y that was in response to vvvvv, stop responding so fast
this is gonna be 'mushmouthed' and probably irrelevant as well btw, its like 6am here.
No worries, for some reason I can't quite manage to gather my thoughts on this subject properly at the moment anyway.
i know what you mean, i guess my question is that if determining what's "well done" is down to the individual then how does it differ from pure personal preference? if evaluating music 'as art' involves the use of some more objective method of judgment, more than merely 'what we enjoy', where do we acquire that method from? i think this is one of the central questions of aesthetics and i'm probably not capable of debating it competently but nevermind. same question for vvvvv.
I don't think that art can really be evaluated by merely 'what we enjoy', I think there is a bit more to it than that. There are countless examples of artwork that I don't particularly enjoy, yet nonetheless respect as a great piece of art (though one could argue that I 'enjoy' the work
as a piece of art, I'm speaking of enjoyment in terms of a more base pleasure, more akin to entertainment). Of course everybody can have different ideas as to what makes a work of art a 'good' work of art, but there are measures by which qualities in a work of art can be judged at a somewhat less biased level.
I would rather not use the term objective, and should have intentionally left it out from the beginning, because I don't think that a work of art can be 'objectively' good. My usage of the word was meant only in so far as it referred to an attempt to analyze from as unbiased a point of view as possible. The way that I look at a work of art is like somewhat of a time capsule of an idea or representation. It's an expression of something from the mind of the artist, and this applies to music just as much as it does to literature and film. I do not dislike a novel solely because the ideological views expressed therein by the author are ones that I disagree with, and I do not dislike a piece of music solely because the ideological views expressed therein by the author are ones that I disagree with. It see it as an open window, an access point through which I can experience a part of somebody else, for the better or for the worse. That is not to say that ideological facets of a work of art have no bearing on my enjoyment of said work, but it is minimized to a considerable degree, I would imagine, compared to most people. And this is not because, as seems to be the case with most people, I don't care about what the artist is saying; it is, rather, because I do care about what he's saying, and I want to understand his position and the way that it shapes the work of art. Obviously I'm not going to like something just because there is a holistic completeness between ideology and sound, but it is something that I look for, both in what I like to listen to and in what I view as an accomplishment as a work of art.
as for arghoslent, how about this. imagine if it turned out that arghoslent intended their work to express the need for women's rights (i know this is a stupid, exaggerated example but you'll get the picture). this would surely count as a monumental failure of expression on their part for nobody has gleaned anything even remotely like that from their music, but speaking for myself at least the album would be made no less appealing by the accidental nature of its mood. the work is "bad" at expressing what was intended to be expressed, yet it is "good" at expressing stuff which appeals to me and apparently plenty of other people, does this make it a bad piece of art or what?
Well I would first say that this does indeed affect the appeal of the work for me. An artist's success in expressing what he means to express is something that I value. If such a grievous failure as the one that you outlined were to occur, I am fairly certain that I would think less of the work of art, both as a work of art and as something that I would like to listen to.
Secondly, I would say that what you're looking at is not the same work of art that the artist created. Or at least what he meant to created. I don't remember who said it, but I have always like the quote that goes something to the effect that "when an artist writes, he writes more than, less than, or other than what he meant to say". I do believe that to be true. But my recent readings have led me to the idea that there is only one genuine interpretation of a work of art, and that is the interpretation put forth by the artist. Alternative interpretations, depending upon the degree to which they vary from the original interpretation, are essentially interpretations of a different work of art altogether. In your example, I would say that what Arghoslent created was a horrible piece of art, but that your reinterpretation of it (for you) is a good one.
for the record i'm personally not that fussed about intent, i agree that music is the product of an artist's mindset but i think so much of what filters through must be unconscious. i've never been fond of the idea that the artist has complete authority over the meaning of his work - a piece of art always extends far past what the artist could possibly have meant, both forwards and backwards. i mean most (in fact, all) metal musicians probably aren't fully aware of what drives them to make the music they do, or what the full implications of their music might be, or exactly what cultural associations their music contains in reference to the history of music, or etcetc. i'm not sure i'm even disagreeing with anyone here.
I suppose I mostly addressed this above, though I should add that I agree that an artist rarely, if ever, is fully aware of the complete interpretation of his own work of art when he has created it. Depending on the nature of the artwork, however, he should be able to determine whether or not a given interpretation can be aptly and legitimately applied to his work. Further elaboration can only go so far until it transforms the subject in question into something that it is not.
actually going back to arghoslent, i don't think they're necessarily expressing an undesirable ideology brilliantly, but maybe that the conceptual thrust of the music is something different (at least slightly) to that which they espouse in interviews. music is just another language after all, and musicians are often way more capable of expressing their true mindsets than they are using words (this explains why metal lyrics tend to be pretty awkward too). i sometimes get the impression their stated political views are kind of surpressed in their music by some altogether more potent force, maybe something they're not even aware is there. i definitely get that impression with certain other bands even moreso. anyway shut the fuck up it's bedtime.
I think this more or less sounds about right and is something that I can agree with.
