Guardian of Darkness said:
....once you've delved under the surface, realising how they've used aesthetic to express the emotion, ideas and spirit of their ideology. I liked music 6 months ago which I now realise is worthless as art. Sure, a lot of it is fun, but none of it has real value.
thing is though you are limiting yourself on just how
you yourself view music as art, and don't seem to realize that it can be interpreted as art in infinitely different ways. its almost as if you've learned a little lesson from Planetary Eulogy or anus.com on "how to view music as art 101".... if you want to view it in your ways (their ways, basically)(example: the innovation, or "realising how they've used aesthetic to express the emotion, ideas and spirit of their ideology", etc, whatever
you feel makes it art....) then it is superior music to
yourself, and your beliefs only. Example, going back to food as a comparison, if I wanted to say that it is "the amount of nutrition in something relative to the quality of the taste" that would make the superior food, then I would be correct on what i feel are superior foods: it is the superior food in my views, and my views only. Another person would view food as superior only to the amount of taste, and the best tasting food would be in fact superior to
them. And same can go with maybe the visual quality of the food for others, etc.... What I am saying, is different people can interpret music as art in different ways, and there is no "right" way, which you and similar people think so. You have your own ideas, I have mine.
Guardian of Darkness said:
Most people don't listen to music as 'art', they listen purely for aesthetics. These people can't pretend that they're knowledgable on the quality of music as an artform, because they're not.
Once again this is limiting the possibilites. "Art" is a very general word that can relate to however one views the music as so: whether it be the aesthetics or whether concerning themselves with the history or the ideology of the composer, etc.... in fact, aesthetics basically are part of "Art", taken from dictionary.com:
art: "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.".I consider whatever I listen to as art. The most important part of music to me is not whether it is non-derivative, or innovative, whatever you want to think, etc.... but how it affects me in a personal manner. I find music to be a catalyst for many different emotions and thoughts, whether I want to listen to something simple and upbeat, or when I want to hear something of the exact opposite. All music affects me in different ways and I am constantly exploring all these possibities.
That, to me, is how I consider music art. It is not the only way. It is not the correct way. You simply cannot pigeonhole what music and art is exactly, which you try to do. Other people want to see music as art in different ways, no way is wrong, none superior, and you have to learn that. If you claim to be so "intelligent" then you would.
![[0hr]Sunlapse](/data/avatars/l/12/12972.jpg?1086073981){kind=avatar}
