Albums You Would Consider "Art"

[Manic Ferocity]

From dictionary.com:

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Music - an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

All sound should be considered art if it is released (includes noise, ambient albums, etc.) UNLESS the artist specifically makes a statement claiming it is not art. This keeps in line with art being defined by the one who makes it (the artist).

 

[skeptik]

The artist saying that his art is not art does not negate its status as art.

 

[waif]

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Music - an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

Odd...somehow, those two have different definitions. Could it be because...music is not inherently art?

If I take a picture on a family vacation, is it art? No. But if I do some portrait photography or whatever, is it art? Sure. So...can music be art? Definitely. Is it automatically art just because it's music? NO!

And thus, music CAN be art, but doesn't have to be. The next person to tell me Motley Crue is art gets whacked.

 

[CAIRATH]

Personally I think in order for something to be considered art it needs to be the result of genuine and honest artistic expression. While I certainly cannot prove this I very much doubt that Britney Spears' songs are a genuine outpouring of someone's heart but rather a carefully manufactured and calculated composition whose sole purpose it is to appeal to the large demographic of teenage girls. In other words it comes across to me like something that was written to make money, not to convey any kind of artistic ideas, messages or emotion.

It's obviously subjective as hell (like any kind of judgement related to art is, including its supposed quality or artistic merit) but it is nevertheless the vague guideline I use. As a result I consider almost all but the most vapid manufactured pop music to be art.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

The artist saying that his art is not art does not negate its status as art.

When the musician makes the music, they usually have an artistic idea when making the music. If this artistic idea isn't present (for whatever stupid reason) it technically isn't art.

 

[S<issors]

I kinda figured something like this might happen.

Personally I wouldn't consider something "art" if its goal is purely to amuse or make money, only if it is intended to express (or expresses accidentally, arguably) some higher concept or reaches a level of aesthetic perfection beyond that of an ordinary work. Like I said, art doesn't equate with quality, but I think it does imply a certain intent (or, again arguably, a level of unintended achievement) which is removed from the realm of pure "entertainment," however imperfectly it reaches that goal. Hence most pop would not be art, but some rock albums (many of floyd's, for example) would.

Of course, art is the very definition of a subjective term. That's what the thread is entitled "albums you would consider art," and it sounds like many of you would answer "all of them." I apologize to the mods that it turned into more of a debate than a rec thread, although it seems like its been a productive debate, anyway : P

Oh yeah, and while I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who are arguing against a traditionalist interpretation of "art," I have to say that this argument:

Yeah, with all due respect, I don't think Mozart can touch the stuff I listen to. I think the whole idea of High-Culture and Low-Culture is just about the most pathetically elitist and unintelligent view of art that anyone could arrive upon. Just because Shakespeare is Shakespeare doesn't mean it's superior to Michael Crichton. Just because Citizen Kane is called the greatest movie ever by stuffy old farts doesn't mean that it's superior to Rambo.

is, with all due respect, total bullshit. Mozart can do a lot more than "touch" what you listen to; he inspired the majority of it. Citizen Kane may not be the greatest movie ever, but I'll bet money you aren't versed enough in cinema to understand most of the reasons why it's acclaimed as such. Most importantly, Shakespeare isn't better than Michael Crichton "because he's Shakespeare," he's better because he's a better fucking writer who coined half the phrases in the English language.

Sure, there are people who have a high opinion of famous artists because they know it's the general consensus, and I agree that that's silly and embarrassing, but it's even more humiliating to become so reactionary that you slur brilliant people and works out of ignorance: the sheep are right for the wrong reasons, but you're wrong for the wrong reasons. Claiming a mediocre-to-competent fiction writer (and yes, I like Crichton, I was a huge fan of his stuff in middle school) is superior to a master of the English language is very, very silly. Read Macbeth.

 

[skeptik]

Odd...somehow, those two have different definitions. Could it be because...music is not inherently art?

If I take a picture on a family vacation, is it art? No. But if I do some portrait photography or whatever, is it art? Sure. So...can music be art? Definitely. Is it automatically art just because it's music? NO!

And thus, music CAN be art, but doesn't have to be. The next person to tell me Motley Crue is art gets whacked.

Can you justify any of these claims? Why is a family portrait not art? Why is Motley Crue not art?

Personally I think in order for something to be considered art it needs to be the result of genuine and honest artistic expression. While I certainly cannot prove this I very much doubt that Britney Spears' songs are a genuine outpouring of someone's heart but rather a carefully manufactured and calculated composition whose sole purpose it is to appeal to the large demographic of teenage girls. In other words it comes across to me like something that was written to make money, not to convey any kind of artistic ideas, messages or emotion.

It's obviously subjective as hell (like any kind of judgement related to art is, including its supposed quality or artistic merit) but it is nevertheless the vague guideline I use. As a result I consider almost all but the most vapid manufactured pop music to be art.

I have to say that I disagree. Art is not an exclusionary term and is outside of the artist itself, so its explicit intents are largely irrelevant regarding whether or not it can properly be called 'art.' A work of art is created as much by the audience as it is the artist, after all. I think that virtually anything can be viewed through the lens of art, in fact. It's not merely limited to literature, film, painting, sculpture, etc., etc. I'm not sure what exactly an 'artistic expression' is or what make that expression artistic, but I get the sense from a lot of people here that they have a more connotative sense of art as 'art that is intellectually, progressively, or sophisticatedly relevant,' which is fine in itself, but my understanding of art is not so limited and exclusionary.

When the musician makes the music, they usually have an artistic idea when making the music. If this artistic idea isn't present (for whatever stupid reason) it technically isn't art.

Can you define an "artistic idea?" What is an artistic idea, and how is it separate from a normal idea? And why does art need this 'idea'?

I kinda figured something like this might happen.

Personally I wouldn't consider something "art" if its goal is purely to amuse or make money, only if it is intended to express (or expresses accidentally, arguably) some higher concept or reaches a level of aesthetic perfection beyond that of an ordinary work. Like I said, art doesn't equate with quality, but I think it does imply a certain intent (or, again arguably, a level of unintended achievement) which is removed from the realm of pure "entertainment," however imperfectly it reaches that goal. Hence most pop would not be art, but some rock albums (many of floyd's, for example) would.

Of course, art is the very definition of a subjective term. That's what the thread is entitled "albums you would consider art," and it sounds like many of you would answer "all of them." I apologize to the mods that it turned into more of a debate than a rec thread, although it seems like its been a productive debate, anyway : P

Oh yeah, and while I have a great deal of sympathy for the people who are arguing against a traditionalist interpretation of "art," I have to say that this argument:



is, with all due respect, total bullshit. Mozart can do a lot more than "touch" what you listen to; he inspired the majority of it. Citizen Kane may not be the greatest movie ever, but I'll bet money you aren't versed enough in cinema to understand most of the reasons why it's acclaimed as such. Most importantly, Shakespeare isn't better than Michael Crichton "because he's Shakespeare," he's better because he's a better fucking writer who coined half the phrases in the English language.

Sure, there are people who have a high opinion of famous artists because they know it's the general consensus, and I agree that that's silly and embarrassing, but it's even more humiliating to become so reactionary that you slur brilliant people and works out of ignorance: the sheep are right for the wrong reasons, but you're wrong for the wrong reasons. Claiming a mediocre-to-competent fiction writer (and yes, I like Crichton, I was a huge fan of his stuff in middle school) is superior to a master of the English language is very, very silly. Read Macbeth.

This again seems to reflect the connotative art that I mentioned earlier. It is impossible to call Shakespeare objectively "a better fucking writer" than Michael Crichton in any real sense.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

The artist saying that his art is not art does not negate its status as art.

It's a subjective thing, the creator (not artist) would not consider his work art, but others would. No one wins.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I just think all "artists" have a say in whether their music is art or not. I'm sure Seth Putnam (Anal Cunt) would tell you his music isn't art even though it could subjectively (in some weird way) be considered so. I think "art" can only be art when thought is put into it to make it as such. If an "artist" somehow miraculously comes up with some crazy "artistic" composition, it's a coincidence (but I honestly don't see how that would ever happen anyway).

 

[skeptik]

The artist would be wrong.

 

[Cythraul]

From dictionary.com:

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Music - an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

Dictionary definitions aren't very helpful in these matters. No person seriously undertaking an investigation of the nature of art is going to rely on dictionary definitions. But going by those definitions then I guess music is art by definition.

It's obviously subjective as hell (like any kind of judgement related to art is, including its supposed quality or artistic merit)

Any judgment related to art? Maybe you should reconsider that.

When the musician makes the music, they usually have an artistic idea when making the music. If this artistic idea isn't present (for whatever stupid reason) it technically isn't art.

Circular definition. Thus, not very helpful.

 

[S<issors]

It is impossible to call Shakespeare objectively "a better fucking writer" than Michael Crichton in any real sense.

Necratul, let me first say that I enjoy your arguments and respect your opinion, and I don't want you to view this as an attack in any way

That said, I think you're wrong. "Art" means a lot of things to a lot of people, but many of the posters here have begun using "subjective" as a byword to get them out of tough spots. Here's a few quick things I'd like to point out:

1. "Better" does not mean "X likes them more." I'm not trying to say you have to like Shakespeare more than Crichton, that's what the oft-abused phrase "entitled to your own opinion" means. What better means is greater in excellence or higher in quality or more highly skilled or adept. Sounds qualitative (note the word "quality"), but we can measure both those things, we just have to agree on a criteria. Which brings me to point 2.

2. Unless we adopt a totally arbitrary definition, I can objectively demonstrate that Shakespeare is the better author. According to any reasonable criteria, he is quantitatively a better writer. Here's some suggestions- enduring value? If you look at the readership he's maintained over the centuries, it's clear time is on his side. If the trends continue, millions of people are still going to be reading Shakespeare hundreds of years from now, but they will not be reading Crichton. Contributions to the English language? Shakespeare coined hundreds of phrases that are integral parts of English today. Crichton, to the best of my knowledge, has coined none. Vocabulary? No contest. Influence? Harder to measure, but once you agree on a criteria it will inevitably come down on Shakespeare's side (elements of his works are present in far more books, movies, etc than elements of Crichton's). You come up with a measurable criteria that we can agree upon and the Bard comes out on top.

3. In the grand scheme of things, people's opinions are not equal. Being able to present a valid argument for something requires a degree of education in the subject. No literary expert, writer, or critic, not even Crichton himself, would ever claim that Mike can be placed above Shakespeare. Or, on a more personal level, compare my opinion to trendkill's: I'll bet you'll find I'm more qualified. I don't know how you'd go about deciding that (Formal education, maybe? I have solid 800s in writing and critical reading on the SATs and another 800 on the SAT-II Lit test. Informal criteria, like number of books read, number of works published, or something?)

Basically, to quote some random internet guy, "if you refer to something as objectively better, you have to be able to identify objective standards by which the conclusion is reached. For a standard to be objective, many people would have to be able to apply it and reach the same conclusion."

Also, seriously, everybody needs to go read Macbeth, it may remove your will to fight.

 

[ohiogrinder]

I agree with V5. and this is an idiotic idea for a thread.

 

[S<issors]

I agree with V5. and this is an idiotic idea for a thread.

Yeah, that's my bad, I don't know what the fuck I was thinking .

Opened a fun conversation, though, which is more than a lot of threads do.

Also while the title was dumb I think the opening post ("I'm looking for the pinnacle of your musical taste, the kind of stuff you feel damn proud to own and that you really think expresses more than some juvenile angst or proto-satanic church-burnin' ideology") kinda clarified what I actually meant... but whatever.

 

[CAIRATH]

Any judgment related to art? Maybe you should reconsider that.

Aside from dealing with very extreme ends of the spectrum (say, the Mozart vs. Pantera example) I think qualification of artistic quality or merit is pretty subjective yeah. You yourself stated earlier that you feel it is impossible to come to a satisfactory definition of what art even is. If we cannot even clearly nail down a definition then how can you possibly qualify it in a meaningful and objective way?

Unless you were alluding to something completely different there, in which case maybe you could eloborate?

 

[cookiecutter]

I really think the definition of art is pretty fixed. What makes good art should be the debate. It's like those people who say metal (or rap, or pop) is not music. It obviously is, the debate to be had is not whether it is music, but the quality of music. I think this is the same for our debate. The actual definition of art is pretty concrete, with a few grey areas, where as the quality of the art is almost totally subjective.

 

[Cythraul]

Aside from dealing with very extreme ends of the spectrum (say, the Mozart vs. Pantera example) I think qualification of artistic quality or merit is pretty subjective yeah. You yourself stated earlier that you feel it is impossible to come to a satisfactory definition of what art even is. If we cannot even clearly nail down a definition then how can you possibly qualify it in a meaningful and objective way?

Unless you were alluding to something completely different there, in which case maybe you could eloborate?

When we're talking about defining art we're talking about a concept. When we evaluate art we evaluate specific works of art, so not being able to give a definition of art is not a problem here because we're not talking about the problematic concept. Also, I did indeed say that I think it's impossible to give an adequate definition of art. What I should've said is that I think it's impossible to give a fully adequate definition of art. It's quite possible to give partially adequate definitions (In fact, the history of aesthetics is full of such definitions). Also, I should say that the reason we can make objective claims about works of art is that not being able to give a fully adequate definition of art does not prevent us from being able to identify clear cases of art (Is a Van Gogh painting art? Of course).

 

[Cythraul]

I really think the definition of art is pretty fixed. What makes good art should be the debate. It's like those people who say metal (or rap, or pop) is not music. It obviously is, the debate to be had is not whether it is music, but the quality of music. I think this is the same for our debate. The actual definition of art is pretty concrete, with a few grey areas, where as the quality of the art is almost totally subjective.

Fixed? How so? The concept of art is an open concept just like tons of other concepts we employ everyday, so it's in no way "fixed".

 

[cookiecutter]

Not fixed in that things new things cannot be added as they are created, but I think at the level we are describing the definition from the dictionary is pretty reasonable. I certainly think all music is art.