Cheesy Metal

[razoredge]

That had to be some kind of knee jerk reaction or just totally arrogant because spitting on people is messed up, and typically a indication that you think you are better.

I liked The Wall better before I saw the movie but I believe I mentioned that before. Same deal with Tommy, I cant be inspired by that movie.

 

[-CC-]

Even Tech N9ne's fans usually say he is cheesy as hell.

With the exception of his latest album KOD, how is he cheesy?

 

[RedFox742]

It is up to the artist to construct a work of art. If a viewer in some manner "makes" something a work of art then he becomes an artist by prescribing an is to an object.

So then you're saying that Duchamp was not the artist of his "readymades", but the people who saw them were? At this point, the term "artist" becomes very fuzzy. Duchamp would tell you he was the artist for "selecting" an item for consecration in a gallery, but it would be the viewer's perception who would elevate him (Duchamp) to that status. Using the dragon example, he who drew the dragon is the artist, but only once someone recognized it as such--and then, only to that person, or people.

(Which raises an interesting take on an old question: if a person sculpts something, and nobody but themselves ever see it, is it art? I guess it would be to them, since they act as both artist and viewer.)

I still believe that terms like "art", "literature", and cultural quality in general are largely subjective. Such terms can only be applied by those experiencing the work. What one person sees as art, another sees as nothing at all--a tire yard, a la Kaprow, or just an "illustration"--and, incidentally, are Renaissance paintings of famous myths just "illustrations"? or is what was once art no longer art if it's made today?

I agree that "cheesy" is an extremely ambiguous term, but your attempted definition is, too. What is "over the top," and what separates it from authentic drama? What is "embarrassing", and who is embarrassed, or who is laughing? "Cheese" is essentially as subjective as love or hatred of a music or cultural item.

 

[Vitor]

Total fucking necro thread! (not complaining, this thread was just reaaaaly old)

But this is very cheesy.

you'll never make a point calling Impetigo ''cheesy''. Is impossible to be right saying that.

 

[Einherjar86]

So then you're saying that Duchamp was not the artist of his "readymades", but the people who saw them were? At this point, the term "artist" becomes very fuzzy. Duchamp would tell you he was the artist for "selecting" an item for consecration in a gallery, but it would be the viewer's perception who would elevate him (Duchamp) to that status. Using the dragon example, he who drew the dragon is the artist, but only once someone recognized it as such--and then, only to that person, or people.

I'm not sure if you learned about Minimalism in your modern art class, but this is similar to what that movement of visual art aspires to. It assumes a viewing audience (which is the reason Michael Fried criticized minimalism for its theatrical nature) and assigns that audience with the task of attributing artistic value to the work.

Essentially, Fried argued that because Minimalism emphasizes the relationship between the art and the viewer, and relies on that relationship to achieve its supposed* artistic nature, it denies the viewer the proper experience that should derive from observing a work of art. In a work of Minimalist art, the audience plays an integral role and becomes part of the work.

*it is "supposed" not because I don't believe it's art, but because that is what Fried would claim. According to his argument, theatricality is anathema and directly opposed to art.

 

[CF87]

you'll never make a point calling Impetigo ''cheesy''. Is impossible to be right saying that.

Impetigo , they have a live DVD coming out on Deathgasm.

 

[Krow]

you'll never make a point calling Impetigo ''cheesy''. Is impossible to be right saying that.

"Cheez" was in the title.
Sheesh.

 

[BaNnEdFrOmHeVeN]

i'm not sure if this band is considered metal but what about GWAR?

 

[Badbird]

...No but I don't know there music aside from one meh song,so can't tell you.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

GWAR is a joke band, so they would not be considered cheesy. A Band of Orcs, on the other hand, is cheesy, because they're not trying to be tongue-in-cheek about their image, and it unintentionally comes off as hilarious.

 

[skeptik]

So then you're saying that Duchamp was not the artist of his "readymades", but the people who saw them were?

No, I'm saying that Duchamp was the original viewer, since his art object was an actual object in the world already before he made it a work of art, and thereby becoming the artist of the piece, which I guess kind of renders most of the rest of your first paragraph useless...the dragon sketch is not a work of art unless somebody makes it a work of art in some way, and it really has nothing to do with the person that created the sketch.

(Which raises an interesting take on an old question: if a person sculpts something, and nobody but themselves ever see it, is it art? I guess it would be to them, since they act as both artist and viewer.)

Of course it is. Art does not necessitate an audience, other than a creator/performer.

I still believe that terms like "art", "literature", and cultural quality in general are largely subjective. Such terms can only be applied by those experiencing the work. What one person sees as art, another sees as nothing at all--a tire yard, a la Kaprow, or just an "illustration"--and, incidentally, are Renaissance paintings of famous myths just "illustrations"? or is what was once art no longer art if it's made today?

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't think that what is art is subjective, or what is literature, etc. That does not mean that there can't be debate as to what constitutes what is and is not a work of art, but one cannot argue that Bottle Rack was not a work of art, for example; the person making that claim is not merely disagreeing, but simply wrong in his belief. I also believe that other similar terms like literature are comparable in their static definitions. A work is simply either A or not-A; whether or not we're wrong about our observations is irrelevant to that reality.

The last point you make is interesting, however, in that it reflect how our understanding of what constitutes art has changed over the centuries. Canoninal art used to exclude things like instrumental music, dance, and photography. I would argue, however, not that we changed what is and is not art, but that we corrected our assumptions about what is and is not art in light of newer developments. Our understanding of art evolves along with the art that we create.

I agree that "cheesy" is an extremely ambiguous term, but your attempted definition is, too. What is "over the top," and what separates it from authentic drama? What is "embarrassing", and who is embarrassed, or who is laughing? "Cheese" is essentially as subjective as love or hatred of a music or cultural item.

I agree; I was only communicating the way in which I personally use the term. I really don't think there can be a universal understanding of the term, even if many of us intuitively use it in a similar way.

I'm not sure if you learned about Minimalism in your modern art class, but this is similar to what that movement of visual art aspires to. It assumes a viewing audience (which is the reason Michael Fried criticized minimalism for its theatrical nature) and assigns that audience with the task of attributing artistic value to the work.

Essentially, Fried argued that because Minimalism emphasizes the relationship between the art and the viewer, and relies on that relationship to achieve its supposed* artistic nature, it denies the viewer the proper experience that should derive from observing a work of art. In a work of Minimalist art, the audience plays an integral role and becomes part of the work.

*it is "supposed" not because I don't believe it's art, but because that is what Fried would claim. According to his argument, theatricality is anathema and directly opposed to art.

I'm not familiar with Fried, but he just sounds like a curmudgeon more interested in protecting the sanctity of 'fine' art than in genuinely engaging in the philosophy of aesthetics. I'm also failing to understand how Minimalist art is reliant on an audience in order for it to be art.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not familiar with Fried, but he just sounds like a curmudgeon more interested in protecting the sanctity of 'fine' art than in genuinely engaging in the philosophy of aesthetics. I'm also failing to understand how Minimalist art is reliant on an audience in order for it to be art.

Fried explains it as a kind of awareness inherent in the work itself. It insists its own materiality and thus assumes an audience. Essentially, the audience plays a role in the "working" of the work by experiencing it. Since this is the technique by which the art functions it is reliant upon an audience. Fried's article "Art and Objecthood" (which I've read) outlines this somewhat, but his book Absorption and Theatricality is where he really dives into the details. I haven't read that, mainly because I don't completely agree with him. I agree that Minimalism, as it assumes an audience, is theatrical in nature; but I disagree with him that this theatricality is anathema to art.

 

[skeptik]

"Art and Objecthood" sounds familiar...I might have actually read an excerpt or something in an anthology. Anyway, I don't see why a work that assumes an audience necessitates that there actually be a tangible audience. If you perform a play, which obviously assumes an audience, in an empty theater, for example, is it not still a work of art?

 

[Einherjar86]

"Art and Objecthood" sounds familiar...I might have actually read an excerpt or something in an anthology. Anyway, I don't see why a work that assumes an audience necessitates that there actually be a tangible audience. If you perform a play, which obviously assumes an audience, in an empty theater, for example, is it not still a work of art?

I would say yes, but I would also say that a play is different than a work of Minimalist visual art. Fried is saying that Minimalist art requires an audience to work. It assumes an audience because without one it achieves nothing. We maybe could argue that a play is different because, although it assumes an audience, it does not require one to be a work of art. "Minimalist art requires an audience; therefore it assumes one" seems true; however, "A play does not require an audience, therefore it does not assume one" is not necessarily true. It can still assume an audience even though it does not need one to function.

I agree that Minimalism requires an audience, based on Fried's argument as well as some conversations I've had with a friend of mine who is a visual art major; however, I disagree that the theatricality that ensues means it isn't art.

 

[skeptik]

I would say yes, but I would also say that a play is different than a work of Minimalist visual art. Fried is saying that Minimalist art requires an audience to work. It assumes an audience because without one it achieves nothing. We maybe could argue that a play is different because, although it assumes an audience, it does not require one to be a work of art. "Minimalist art requires an audience; therefore it assumes one" seems true; however, "A play does not require an audience, therefore it does not assume one" is not necessarily true. It can still assume an audience even though it does not need one to function.

I agree that Minimalism requires an audience, based on Fried's argument as well as some conversations I've had with a friend of mine who is a visual art major; however, I disagree that the theatricality that ensues means it isn't art.

Perhaps I don't have the greatest understanding of Minimalist art to be arguing this. Can you give me an example of a Minimalist work (of art) that is "completed" by the presence of an audience in a way that is radically different from the way that a play is "completed" by the presence of an audience? Of course a play in front of an audience is different from a play in front of empty chairs in some respects. The audience engagement "activates" in some sense certain characteristics of a performance that would otherwise be absent, but it is my belief that that in no way relegates to empty-theater performance to something less than art.

In my understanding, Minimalist art largely works the same way, at least some of it anyway, that the beholder unlocks some element of the work that is absent without the observer. This brings up rather Minimalism's unique position in art history, in that it is neither squarely "type" or "token", but contains elements of both. It's like the work itself is the type, like a script, and then each viewer's experience with the work is a unique token, like an audience viewing a specific performance of Macbeth. Again, I don't think that this in any way implies a deficiency in the work itself or its status as art (or 'good' art) that it has this relationship with its viewership.

After all, all art in some manner has a dependent relationship with an audience, whether it's a play, a movie, an orchestra, an album, a painting, or any other genre conveyed through any medium. I would argue that the audience gives meaning to all works of art in a sense not at all radically different from Minimalism. He says the following as though it's somehow radically different from all art: "Someone has merely to enter the room in which a literalist work has been placed to become the beholder, that audience of one – almost as though the work in question has been waiting for him. And inasmuch as literalist work depends on the beholder, is incomplete without him, it has been waiting for him." My question is merely in what way Minimalism depends on the beholder differently from most other works of art, in light of what I said earlier, and in such a way that diminishes its 'wholeness'.

As for his diatribe on the horrors of theatricality, I'm not terribly interested, it sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

In all honesty Matt, I'm also not the best person to be debating this, as I'm not that well-versed in titles and examples of Minimalist art. I'm only going off of what I've read and what my friend studying visual art/film has told me (he doesn't agree with Fried at all).

With regard to your last comment about how the "beholding" of Minimalist art differs from the beholding of any other form of art, I would say that it's not the beholding that is different, but rather the art. That's what Fried is trying to argue; he's saying that where other "truer" art does not need audience observation in order to work, Minimalist art needs that observation. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd compare his theory to Mill's theory on the difference between poetry and eloquence. Fried would liken Minimalist art to eloquence in that it means to be "heard," and "true" art to poetry in that it is "overheard." Mill says that poetry is "feeling confessing itself to itself;" that is, it perceives and intends no listener (or observer). I agree with you that it's a kind of dated, traditional stance that seeks to preserve the tenets of classic "high" art.

 

[DarkBliss]

That had to be some kind of knee jerk reaction or just totally arrogant because spitting on people is messed up, and typically a indication that you think you are better.

I liked The Wall better before I saw the movie but I believe I mentioned that before. Same deal with Tommy, I cant be inspired by that movie.

The Wall is full of filler. I could never get through the entire album without falling asleep.Same with Tommy.

 

[Badbird]

I like to eat chessy metal.

 

[Inso]

HammerFall for sure, they are cringeworthy sometimes. I still love them though, cheesy isn't always a bad thing

 

[Vitor]

"Cheez" was in the title.
Sheesh.

it's clear you don't know the meaning of ''sarcasm''

and they are metal a lot!!!

nice to know that's coming a dvd