Does "greatness" in music exist, and if so what defines it?

[Einherjar86]

How is this thread still going?

All this talk and nearly zero progress. I am sure their are some philosophers out there who have tried to tackle this idea (universal standards of quality), perhaps we should bring them into the discussion before going down this path any further?

Why not look at Aristotle, Horace, Dante, Sidney... there have been a number of philosophers who endorsed the idea of objectively good and bad art (in literature, mostly). And throughout the tradition of literature their views have been supported, challenged, acknowledged and distorted by writers. But these are the men who are always in the back of the artist's mind. I'd say that, objectively, one of the rules of art is that the art must respond to its predecessors.

EDIT: so, here's my position, I suppose: great art must respond to its predecessors and expand upon/contribute to its tradition.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, that's it. You're full of fucking shit. Please go talk to somebody who's alive that studies art. Go read a contemporary work on the philosophy of art. Your conception of art is no longer held and is seen as wrong by the institution of art today. You're working backwards. You're starting with the premise that art has to be this grandiose, elevated, superior thing, which is not the case, and you can verify this by reading a book about the philosophy of art that wasn't published in the Victorian era which you seem to come from. You're so frustrating because it's so obvious that you simply can't accept anything other than what you already think which causes you to come up with this asinine that you can't even support. Art is not necessarily above all other things. Art is not necessarily this great, superior craft that only experts can perform. This is such an antiquated notion that it's not even amusing any more. You don't get to decide what is an is not art. If there is to be any guidelines by which we mutually agree, it is that which the institutions of the art world deem as such, and you should know that not even they have ever come to a consensus as to what is or is not art, and is ever evolving. How about you just admit that you're arguing for what you are comfortable with calling art and not what is actually called art and that your entire objectivity thesis is entirely bunk and call it a draw? I can't remember the last post you've made that's actually contained something that merited a rebuttal, so I don't see where else to go from here but to start just quoting what I've already said. If you'd like, I'm sure Cythraul and I could recommend you a few books to read on the subject of the philosophy of art that is from the last few decades. Note that this is a result largely of frustration at your lack of argument and not just me being a dick or having a grudge against you or anything of that sort, but seriously, come the fuck on already. I can't imagine why you can't see that you don't even have a valid argument.

Maybe it's you who can't accept anything other than that which you already think you arrogant prick. Fucking hell, leave me to my own. Fuck off already.

Einherjar, you are killing art, please stop and get away from it.

Art isn't what you think it is. I'm studying visual art (in school) with respect towards all kinds of art, from the Renaissance to modernity and you're looking at it from a horribly antiquated perspective.

"Antiquated" doesn't mean shit if I think it's right. The two of you both need to get off your high fucking horses. Just because you own more records than anybody else on this forum and choose to listen to them by yourself when your parents leave doesn't make you the fucking god of everyone else.

I explained earlier that I'm willing to accept why you all believe the way you do, and I said I understood you. Then you both fucking jump on me and tell me I'm full of shit. Shut the fucking hell up, both of you.

 

[skeptik]

You ARE full of shit, that's why. If you keep talking about this objective bullshit interpretation of art that necessitates staying within the traditions of the art world, then perhaps you should look to the art world as it is today, and not the art world as you wish it still was in the 19th Century. Read Nöel Caroll's Philosophy of Mass Art as to why Plato's theory of art is bunk. Also, Plato thought that poets were raving lunatics who did nothing themselves but were possessed by gods and muses. For somebody who's so hung up on lineage, you don't know anything about art as it is seen today, which leads me to believe that you're working solely under the conventions that you want to be true while ignoring everything else. As far as high horses go, you're the one proclaiming that art is high and elevated and objective and requires years of practice and dedication and whathaveyou. You're the one with the audacity to claim to know what is and is not art and to know what OBJECTIVELY makes are great. So before you go about throwing terms around such as arrogant prick and high horses, maybe you should reread what you have been saying. You're out of touch with what art is seen as (or at least debated as) today.

My point is that your 'definition' of art is entirely hypocritical if it so vehemently focuses on the tradition of art and yet ends this lineage at a finite point that seems to be not within the past century. If you want to argue that art has to be made within the traditional legacy of what came before it, then you can't ignore what is considered art today by the very legacy that you are so obsessed with. This is your own argument working against you, not me, because I don't believe for a second that, in order for something to be art, it has to fit snuggly into some kind of timeline.

 

[Einherjar86]

You ARE full of shit, that's why. If you keep talking about this objective bullshit interpretation of art that necessitates staying within the traditions of the art world, then perhaps you should look to the art world as it is today, and not the art world as you wish it still was in the 19th Century. Read Nöel Caroll's Philosophy of Mass Art as to why Plato's theory of art is bunk. Also, Plato thought that poets were raving lunatics who did nothing themselves but were possessed by gods and muses. For somebody who's so hung up on lineage, you don't know anything about art as it is seen today, which leads me to believe that you're working solely under the conventions that you want to be true while ignoring everything else. As far as high horses go, you're the one proclaiming that art is high and elevated and objective and requires years of practice and dedication and whathaveyou. You're the one with the audacity to claim to know what is and is not art and to know what OBJECTIVELY makes are great. So before you go about throwing terms around such as arrogant prick and high horses, maybe you should reread what you have been saying. You're out of touch with what art is seen as (or at least debated as) today.

My point is that your 'definition' of art is entirely hypocritical if it so vehemently focuses on the tradition of art and yet ends this lineage at a finite point that seems to be not within the past century. If you want to argue that art has to be made within the traditional legacy of what came before it, then you can't ignore what is considered art today by the very legacy that you are so obsessed with. This is your own argument working against you, not me, because I don't believe for a second that, in order for something to be art, it has to fit snuggly into some kind of timeline.

That's fine if you believe that. Fuck dude, how many times have I said that's fine if you disagree with me. But you're being fucking offensive and an asshole (which is to be expected, I guess). Furthermore, I never once cited Plato as a source. Second of all, why are we to believe Noel Caroll and not Plato? Lastly, writers grappled with the influence of Plato for centuries, and we're still grappling with what he said. Why do we feel the importance still to disprove Plato if art is completely subjective? The reason we still debate about Plato is because art still has to work its way around what he said; it's always responding, always reacting. You say you don't want to believe that art has to fit into some pattern or tradition, and yet every fucking work of art has. My theory is actually the one with more proof throughout history. Yours is simply the modern, liberal bullshit. And that's fine if you want to believe bullshit. But there's no reason why it has to be right simply because it's modern.

 

[Death Aflame]

That's fine if you believe that. Fuck dude, how many times have I said that's fine if you disagree with me. But you're being fucking offensive and an asshole (which is to be expected, I guess). Furthermore, I never once cited Plato as a source. Second of all, why are we to believe Noel Caroll and not Plato? Lastly, writers grappled with the influence of Plato for centuries, and we're still grappling with what he said. Why do we feel the importance still to disprove Plato if art is completely subjective? The reason we still debate about Plato is because art still has to work its way around what he said; it's always responding, always reacting. You say you don't want to believe that art has to fit into some pattern or tradition, and yet every fucking work of art has. My theory is actually the one with more proof throughout history. Yours is simply the modern, liberal bullshit. And that's fine if you want to believe bullshit. But there's no reason why it has to be right simply because it's modern.

You probably aren't even familiar with what he (Noel Caroll) is saying, yet you are already making such a far reaching,tentative judgment about the merit of his work as compared to Plato?

It seems to me, that you aren't really equipped to be throwing your opinions around here with as much weight as you are. Sure, you may agree with ancient philosophers ideas on the subject, but you do so while failing to take into account all the thought on the subject (i.e. post Enlightenment reaction).

Maybe after you have read more 'modern' thoughts on the subject than you could return to Aristotle as 'more right' than Noel Caroll, but simply ignoring this body of work makes your perspective selective and highly biased, no matter how 'right' you think you are; ignorance is ignorance.

 

[skeptik]

That's fine if you believe that. Fuck dude, how many times have I said that's fine if you disagree with me. But you're being fucking offensive and an asshole (which is to be expected, I guess). Furthermore, I never once cited Plato as a source. Second of all, why are we to believe Noel Caroll and not Plato? Lastly, writers grappled with the influence of Plato for centuries, and we're still grappling with what he said. Why do we feel the importance still to disprove Plato if art is completely subjective? The reason we still debate about Plato is because art still has to work its way around what he said; it's always responding, always reacting. You say you don't want to believe that art has to fit into some pattern or tradition, and yet every fucking work of art has. My theory is actually the one with more proof throughout history. Yours is simply the modern, liberal bullshit. And that's fine if you want to believe bullshit. But there's no reason why it has to be right simply because it's modern.

If you are so obsessed with the idea of artistic traditions, then, which is what I've been trying to point out to you, you should not be ignoring the contemporary traditions that exist today which have 'learned' from the traditions over which you masturbate. You make the false association that we continue to address Plato because the majority still believes that he is right, which is not true. As I said, Plato thought that poets were mad men. He also thought that art should be banished because it was corrupting. Do you believe that? How about instead of rejecting Carrol you read his work and see what he has to say about your beloved Plato and his descendants such as Bloom and Leavis? Or read Arthur Danto, my personal favorite, and see what he has to say about your interpretation of what is and is not art. For you to say that your theory has more 'proof throughout history' doesn't even make sense, since all I'm suggesting to you is what your theory has evolved into today. You seriously seem like you haven't read anything newer than John Ruskin.

Again, with your obsession of the artistic traditions, you should not be dismissing what you call "modern, liberal bullshit", since it is the logical successor to the 19th Century rhetoric in which you are cemented. What you fail to see is that, yes, we still address the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, but we have also moved past them. We have moved past your 1800s and early 1900s thinkers as well. We have, in your own words, responded to and expanded upon these predecessors. This is not modern, liberal bullshit. It's the same thing that you're saying, only with an understanding of the development of the way that art and how it is perceived has evolved since Wordsworth.

 

[no country for old wainds]

yo matt you read any george dickie?

 

[skeptik]

I have his Art and Value, but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet.

 

[MasterOLightning]

So Einherjar, I take it that you don't think outsider art is actually art? Or is it just art that cannot be great?

 

[no country for old wainds]

I have his Art and Value, but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet.

from what i remember of that book dickie expands on danto's ideas so you'd probably find it interesting. one of my lecturers effectively sucked that guy's dick and kept talking about him at every opportunity, it was annoying

 

[skeptik]

Yeah, I bought that book on the recommendation of one of my professors who happens to have been a student of Danto. I plan on reading it over winter break, from what I discussed with my professor (Peter Kivy, not a bad author himself), he definitely seems to be someone I would be interested in reading.

 

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

I furthermore declare this page to be a work of art by me.

 

[no country for old wainds]

my penis is a work of art

 

[Life Sucks]

Yes, greatness does exist in music. And I believe it is defined by the songwriting ability, technical prowess, and to some extent creativity of a band, all viewed from as objective of a standpoint is possible. Not to repeat myself again (and believe me I'm aware I do, but I'm just making a point here), but there are plenty of bands that I objectively realize are great, but whose music I hate. (rhyme not intended)

 

[no country for old wainds]

oh well that's ok then, problem solved

 

[Einherjar86]

If you are so obsessed with the idea of artistic traditions, then, which is what I've been trying to point out to you, you should not be ignoring the contemporary traditions that exist today which have 'learned' from the traditions over which you masturbate. You make the false association that we continue to address Plato because the majority still believes that he is right, which is not true. As I said, Plato thought that poets were mad men. He also thought that art should be banished because it was corrupting. Do you believe that? How about instead of rejecting Carrol you read his work and see what he has to say about your beloved Plato and his descendants such as Bloom and Leavis? Or read Arthur Danto, my personal favorite, and see what he has to say about your interpretation of what is and is not art. For you to say that your theory has more 'proof throughout history' doesn't even make sense, since all I'm suggesting to you is what your theory has evolved into today. You seriously seem like you haven't read anything newer than John Ruskin.

Carroll believes that Mass Art should "promise accessibility with minimum effort, virtually on first contact, for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences." I don't agree with this philosophy. What's the problem with making art that needs to be opened up and studied to be understood? What's wrong with making people think about what they're absorbing? I believe that art should inspire people to study it. Its importance shouldn't end at the emotions or immediate reactions it incites.

And you misunderstand me. I don't think we continue to address Plato because the majority thinks he's right. I don't even think he was right in his assessment of poets. Read my post again. I asked what you think it means that artists are still grappling with the problem of Plato today? Why do people like Carroll feel it necessary to respond to Plato if art is subjective? Why can't we simply say "Well, that's what Plato thought, but it doesn't matter because not everyone has to think that way." Most scholars today are willing to argue that Plato was incorrect; but the simple fact that he continues to vex us with his claims demonstrates what I'm saying:

That art requires knowledge and study. It requires learning of the past to create art for the present. Art needs to respond to what came before it. It is constantly struggling with what came before it; to overcome the anxiety of influence.

Again, with your obsession of the artistic traditions, you should not be dismissing what you call "modern, liberal bullshit", since it is the logical successor to the 19th Century rhetoric in which you are cemented. What you fail to see is that, yes, we still address the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, but we have also moved past them. We have moved past your 1800s and early 1900s thinkers as well. We have, in your own words, responded to and expanded upon these predecessors. This is not modern, liberal bullshit. It's the same thing that you're saying, only with an understanding of the development of the way that art and how it is perceived has evolved since Wordsworth.

I apologize for my word choice. You're right, it is the next logical step; and we are continuing to question and grapple with the influence of Plato and Aristotle. And in a sense, we have moved past them; and yet, in a sense, we shall never move past them.

 

[Zephyrus]

but there are plenty of bands that I objectively realize are great

 

[mutantllama]

Album of whatever duration:

 

[Belligerent]

Just because you own more records than anybody else on this forum and choose to listen to them by yourself when your parents leave doesn't make you the fucking god of everyone else.

Wow. This page is entertaining.

 

[skeptik]

Carroll believes that Mass Art should "promise accessibility with minimum effort, virtually on first contact, for the largest number of untutored (or relatively untutored) audiences." I don't agree with this philosophy. What's the problem with making art that needs to be opened up and studied to be understood? What's wrong with making people think about what they're absorbing? I believe that art should inspire people to study it. Its importance shouldn't end at the emotions or immediate reactions it incites.

And you misunderstand me. I don't think we continue to address Plato because the majority thinks he's right. I don't even think he was right in his assessment of poets. Read my post again. I asked what you think it means that artists are still grappling with the problem of Plato today? Why do people like Carroll feel it necessary to respond to Plato if art is subjective? Why can't we simply say "Well, that's what Plato thought, but it doesn't matter because not everyone has to think that way." Most scholars today are willing to argue that Plato was incorrect; but the simple fact that he continues to vex us with his claims demonstrates what I'm saying:

That art requires knowledge and study. It requires learning of the past to create art for the present. Art needs to respond to what came before it. It is constantly struggling with what came before it; to overcome the anxiety of influence.



I apologize for my word choice. You're right, it is the next logical step; and we are continuing to question and grapple with the influence of Plato and Aristotle. And in a sense, we have moved past them; and yet, in a sense, we shall never move past them.

1) You're confusing what Carroll is saying about mass art specifically and art more broadly. Carroll is not saying that art should be anything. He's saying that mass art is such-and-such a thing. The reason that I chose that book to bring your attention to is to help you understand why philosophers of art today are coming to terms with the fact that all art is not necessarily some great, unapproachable wisdom that can only be accessed by an elite. Of course that also exists, but our understanding of what constitutes art has evolved and developed to recognize what seems to have been weaknesses in what we previously believed.

2) That is the nature of philosophy. Philosophers never move past anything. It is impossible to deny the brilliance of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle and the importance of their works. Plato was the first philosopher ever recorded to have a philosophy of art, so he will obviously always have a voice. And he still has a hefty voice today (see: Leavis, Bloom, et al). But, while he may always be there to some degree, it's also important to realize that our conception of art is and will continue to evolve, not just beyond Plato, but beyond Ruskin, beyond Eliot, beyond Duchamp even. The conception of art is a fluid and dynamic one, not rigidly defined.

I think we've reached a fairly acceptable crossroads and I'm tired of this, so I think I'm done with this particular topic.