Art vs. Entertainment: Is there a clear line?

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

Disagree with Butt. Your post sounds like a little kid's definition of art through the lens of trying to sound advanced and Nietzschean ("THIS SELLOUT COMMERCIAL DIME-A-DOZEN STUFF IS NOT ART!!"). I too have thought this before, but it is easier and more comprehensive to consider all music artistic, even if the "performer" is not the one who "creates" the main aspect of a piece.

And panzerfaust, I know you're not talking to me, but I personally would rather look at a Pollock piece than any Italian Renaissance "classic" stuff, any day of the week.

 

[damnromulans]

Yep

 

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

 

[panzerfaust666]

Disagree with Butt. Your post sounds like a little kid's definition of art through the lens of trying to sound advanced and Nietzschean ("THIS SELLOUT COMMERCIAL DIME-A-DOZEN STUFF IS NOT ART!!"). I too have thought this before, but it is easier and more comprehensive to consider all music artistic, even if the "performer" is not the one who "creates" the main aspect of a piece.

And panzerfaust, I know you're not talking to me, but I personally would rather look at a Pollock piece than any Italian Renaissance "classic" stuff, any day of the week.

I agree with this!!!! Also, my dad would always say to me ( back when I thought Pop was not art at all) that " Looks at a Concert Pianist. He just takes classical songs, by other people, and re interprets them. Thats exactly what someone like Beyonce would do.Not saying I listen to Beyonce, but she is very much an artist.

Also, I would much rather look at a Pollock or Basquiat over a Renaissance piece ( except maybe a Carravvagio .sp?)


EDIT: Pollock is just to damn awesome

 

[The Butt]

panzerfaust: I actually view Jackson Pollock is art... you must take intent into account. He knew why he wanted to do the style he did... he wanted to be a part of his painting, that's why he used the "canvas on floor" method of painting, so he could walk around it and tackle it from all four directions. Also I believe that his volatile personality played a part in his abstract paint dripping style... he loved the spontaneity of the technique. So yes I would view his works as art. They may be abstract, they may be ugly (I don't view this as a bad thing), but they actually have purpose.

Also Krampus: For the record, I put Lady Gaga far, FAR above 99% of mainstream pop artist tbh. She can actually write good hooks and is a really good singer. She's pretty unique. She actually fucking knows what she's doing, musically (having the musical knowledge helps I guess), and it's not the exact same recycled shit. It's catchy but still is sorta well-composed music. I consider her art.

V5: I actually have no problem with pop, as a genre, at all. This applies to all genres. Hell there's even some metal bands that I would not classify as art (666SatanicArmy666? Anyone?). But there are some "artists" (I use the term lightly) that put out music that I would very much so not call art at all. There has to be some standards, there has to be some sort of distinction somewhere down the line. You can't just let anything be art. If I created an albums worth bunch of generic, music-by-numbers melodies and burned them to CD... is that art?

 

[skeptik]

Whether or not something is 'art' is not a judgment call. It either is art or it is not art. Something is art if it makes sense to ask of it, "what is this about?", even if the answer is nothing. Even the worst pop music is still 'about' something, it still 'is' something. Mass art invariably contains elements about it that naturally attract a wide audience, almost always by design, but that in no way diminishes its status as art. It is not a ringtone or elevator music or a audio recording of 'night sounds.' I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. You're ascribing value judgments to art as a status without even realizing it.

 

[Cythraul]

Trying to satisfactorily define art is a hopeless enterprise. Have fun getting nowhere.

 

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

Art does not necessitate any requisite skill level or knowledge. Therefore, whatever you create is art, yes.

 

[Cythraul]

Art does not necessitate any requisite skill level or knowledge. Therefore, whatever you create is art, yes.

That argument is clearly invalid.

 

[waif]

Honestly, a lot of times I wish you used instant messenger programs so I could take my time to explain things to you in detail and have you give immediate responses to make sure you're understanding. A lot of times I see you post and I feel like "oh god damnit, there goes WAIF again", and then I actually read what you say, and fairly often I'm just baffled as to how you developed the reasoning to support your position and I just want to either yell at you or go into minute detail in explaining why you don't really have the frame of reference to hold the position that you do.

I've been meaning to get an AIM. The idea of an actual conversation with you is intriguing.

And thrash is awesome art. The very concept of "rocking out, playing fast, and being METAL" has inspired an entire movement, an entire subculture. Thrash was meaningful as all fuck, it was practically a fucking lifestyle in the 80s. It has a MASSIVE mindset behind it... and the artists fucking LIVED their music. That's what I feel makes it art.

That has nothing to do with art. By your definition of art, which is something that is intended to do more than entertain, thrash is not art.

 

[The Butt]

Whether or not something is 'art' is not a judgment call. It either is art or it is not art. Something is art if it makes sense to ask of it, "what is this about?", even if the answer is nothing. Even the worst pop music is still 'about' something, it still 'is' something. Mass art invariably contains elements about it that naturally attract a wide audience, almost always by design, but that in no way diminishes its status as art. It is not a ringtone or elevator music or a audio recording of 'night sounds.' I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. You're ascribing value judgments to art as a status without even realizing it.

How can something be art, if there is no meaningful, artistic purpose for it to exist?

 

[skeptik]

Who are you to define what it is for something to contain purpose that is "meaningful" and "artistic"? Isn't an "artistic" purpose that which designates something as art? And isn't art those created objects about which the is of artistic identification can be applied? Nobody ever said art has to be good or "meaningful", or even "artistic" depending on how you're using the term. It just has meet the criteria I mentioned. This is NOT to say that we have a full understanding of "what art is", but that also doesn't mean that art doesn't have a concrete definition. It simply means that we don't have a concrete understanding of art, and we only realize this when it occurs to us that we're wrong about something, like before photography and dance and 'modern art' were considered forms of art. "What art is" didn't change, what changed is our knowledge about it.

 

[unknown]

ohh the intentional fallacy. and all of a sudden, t.s. eliot and other old british dudes rise from the grave

edit: @the butt

 

[Cythraul]

Maybe he didn't commit the fallacy intentionally. Give him a break.

This is a terrible joke and I apologize in advance for it.

 

[unknown]

hey-o!

 

[waif]

You say circular reasoning, but I like to think of it as having no holes.

 

[-CC-]

Since when did The Butt make meaningful posts that did not include "Cock" or "Balls"?

 

[damnromulans]

Stop piling on, he is fighting the good fight.

FOR TR00 ART!

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

All I can say is that art is 99% intent, the intent being to create something (relatively) unique in order for other people to observe and draw their own conclusions. The United States Tax code, while full of "colorful" language, is not art. It's intention is functional. While the quality of the writings of, say, V.C. Andrews can be obviously be debated, she is still an artist, because of her intent when she is crafting her sordid tales of incest. Just as Max Martin (who wrote the aforementioned Britney Spears' breakout hit "Hit Me Baby One More Time") arguably writes horrible music, he is still just as much of an artist as Bob Dylan, Roger Waters, or even Roman Saenko.

 

[damnromulans]

Trying to satisfactorily define art is a hopeless enterprise. Have fun getting nowhere.

Basically, this.

Let's enjoy what we enjoy and live and let live and other assorted hippy things.