Black Metal.

Art is a form of expression; what does Borknager express?

Yes, art is a form of expression. However, all music expresses something. If the definition of art were as inclusive as the one you give there, then Borknagar would certainly be art, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting.
 
No, because everyone perceives that something differently and therefore to one person something can be absolutely nothing, where on the reverse side nothing can be fantasticly vast for someone.
 
Would we not have to define expression also?

Sure, but I can hardly see how that's relevant.

If we were to be serious about art would we not have to see some value in this 'something'?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. One could simply acknowledge that a work expresses something without ascribing a positive value status to it. I can quite coherently say that Borknagar's music expresses something while still maintaining that said music is awful.

Sometimes something is too close to nothing to be something worth noting. Is this not true?

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Is Borknagar's music too close to expressing nothing to be worth noting that it does in fact express something? I don't think so. If you mean that Borknagar's music is simply too shit to even be acknowledged as being expressive of something, well that just seems silly to me but even if that were the case it wouldn't change anything about the nature of Borknagar's music.
 
Fucking pointless, this argument. Once you start trying to define "art", you need to shut up. Among the most vague terms in existence.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up? So fucking sue me for objecting to something that somebody said and for not conforming to the lowbrow norms of whatever is "appropriate" to discuss here. I'm not even trying to define art. Just shut the fuck up and don't even bother trying to add your two cents to anything pertaining to what I'm discussing.
 
Cythraul: What I mean is this. Even if we say that Borknagar's music was expressive of something, if this was terrible and had no value at all, it may as well be expressive of nothing, correct?

No, I do not agree with that because I take it that the fact that a work expresses something is independent of its value construed in terms of the value of what it expresses. In fact, it's just straightforwardly absurd to say something like "This music expresses something but it's really shitty. Therefore, this music basically expresses nothing."

I think what I am trying to achieve is a view of art as a qualitative concept where eternal themes prevail over transient matters, not a quantitative 'all fits the criteria' type concept where anything is acceptable. This goes against the semantic foundations of the definition though...

I'm not saying that everything should be regarded as acceptable. However, I'm not employing the concept of art in some kind of honorific way either, which is what you seem to be doing. That's fine if you want to do that, but it doesn't track the way the concept is ordinarily employed.
 
stfu_off_net.jpg