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

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

Nothing I've heard by them has been exceptional. In fact, it is probably generally the same or similar to how you feel about both Soilwork and slam death

 

[Dak]

I don't think you have any room to laugh...aren't you a gigantic Radiohead fan?

Dakryn: You're wrong. The point of art is not to be "validated" by some panel and judged objectively (especially not by someone with standards as ridiculous and unfounded as yours). Art exists to be experienced through human senses and to be taken as given, discussed/milled over/possibly remembered or forgotten, and passed on to the next person or group of people to experience all over again. I don't think you have any right to claim anything is "ridiculous" (for obvious reasons ), but I guess it is your opinion that, for instance, a Pollock piece has no aesthetic beauty to you and you find it juvenile and silly. That's fine. I, however, find beauty in Pollock's sprawling abstractions; indeed, I'd even go so far as to say that I would unequivocally (greatly) prefer a large abstract expressionist piece to experience than a picturesque, technically-competent/astounding piece. I hate photo-realistic paintings. Talent does not make good art, necessarily. These are all pretty basic concepts in the judgment and discussion of art, though.

edit, I need to address this because it's really dumb:



First of all, since when does art have to be socially or morally acceptable? Plenty of art has been remembered and revered by people for some conception of beauty merely for its extreme scandal, lewdness or vulgarity (and I personally wouldn't have it any other way; it goes a long way to showing how art is absolutely subjective). Second of all, who are you to judge what is wrong or right? Third of all, what is your point by saying this? It's a shitty analogy (pun intended) in any case.

edit again: I'm now posting this just to pre-empt any cries that I'm just being rebellious and trying to ruin the (futile and debasing) attempt at establishing standards for beauty in art..."why should what I think concern you?"

By this logic, you could say anything is art, if the "artist" claims it as so, or maybe the viewer. So pedophilia (or any other currently illegal act) could technically be an art.

Lines have to be drawn with no matter what the subject, and art is no exception. If there is no standard, there is also no value.

 

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

You're missing the point so much it isn't even funny. Pedophilia isn't art because it is not an act undertaken creatively for the sole purpose of completing a final work in some form which others may experience. It's just an act like many other things such as sleeping, working, and even other kinds of sex. The "lines" you're seeking to draw don't delineate "tasteless art" from "tasteful art" but instead divide "art" from "any action most or all people do in their lives." Of course there is a line dividing what art is versus what art is not. Art is very much about creation and the undertaking of the creativity (the process). Art is about the form and content of the created piece (visual, film, theater, music, etc.). Pedophilia doesn't have a form or content, it isn't creating anything. Sex isn't art either, although there are people who consider sexual intercourse an "artform" (though I think of this definition of art more as being something which can have a book written about it by a proclaimed or elevated expert; thus, it's very different from art how it's being discussed and is another story entirely). What I think is that you don't understand art and should stop talking about it like you do.

Note that my delineation is not based on value vs. standard but rather based on what lines such as this one SHOULD be based on; definition and semantic meaning. There is NO standard in art, and there can and should not ever, by any means, be one or a group of them. Standardizing art is anathema to the entire artistic idiom because it discourages creativity, which is, as I said, one of the very last bastions of interest humanity has left.

 

[Dak]

Of course there is a line dividing what art is versus what art is not.

Who are you to decide where the line is, or if it exists at all? (to follow through on your reasoning).

 

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

Note my follow up in which I explain that my "line" was not the same kind of line I was warning against the temptation of creating when it comes to art. My line is one of definition, which stops you from creating misled and misunderstood (and, quite frankly, dumb) arguments and constructions against the freedom and creativity of art.

 

[Dak]

Note my follow up in which I explain that my "line" was not the same kind of line I was warning against the temptation of creating when it comes to art. My line is one of definition, which stops you from creating misled and misunderstood (and, quite frankly, dumb) arguments and constructions against the freedom and creativity of art.

Like I said, you just set the lines you see, but why are those valid? I don't see any true ability to create a definition without a standard.

 

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

Artistic standards are not language and vocabulary standards. Sleeping isn't art, for instance. Nothing is created. You're right, there is a line where something is art and where something is NOT, and I suppose that is up for discussion, but what we disagree on is both where that line is and why it is drawn where it is.

 

[Dak]

I would agree with you that sleeping isn't an art. But what about it makes it not an art? What if I, as a hypthothetical artist, arrange someone who is currently sleeping in (x_form) and call it "live art". Is it merely art because I arranged it? If the sleeping person managed to create that form unaided while sleeping would it still be art?

My point was that your arguement in the earlier posts places the decision of what is art and what is not purely on personal preference. Therefore, anything can be art, which makes it relativily value-less.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I disagree with you. For instance, I find immense power and beauty in the works of abstract expressionists who don't "paint" in a technical, restricted sense, such as Terry Winters and of course Jackson Pollock. So do many other people.

I think Pollock was a hack. So was Warhol. That shit sucks. Give me Bosch, Michaelangelo or Dore anyday.

 

[skeptik]

Art is that about which it makes sense to ask of it what it means. Not 'means' in a defining sense, but rather a metaphorical and transitive sense of conveying meaning. Also not to be confused with mundane meaning of actions to which the meaning of it is not its intent, such as the meaning of a traffic cop putting his hand up to stop oncoming traffic.

Art is, has always been, and perhaps always will be, fluid and everchanging, and that which once was not considered art is now art, such as dance, photography, and sculpture. It is for this reason that essentially any statement beginning in the manner of "art is" will not be sufficient. The one that I have proposed (or rather have suggested courtesy of Arthur Danto) is, however, the one under which I believe all art as we categorically recognize it is accounted. Art is not a tangible object or even idea, but rather a symbolic gesture of representation. Art is the 'meaning' given to something, or perhaps the meaninglessness of a thing about which it is appropriate to ask of it its meaning. This is what I and what others feel is the most poignant representation of 'art' that has as of yet been brought forth among the artistic institutions and aesthetic philosophy.

Now as to 'greatness' in art, it is first important to distinguish between two senses of 'objective,' the first being objective in the sense of absolute truth, omniscient understanding, and things of that nature, the second being objective in the sense of, as worded in Oxford's dictionary, "Of a person or his or her judgement: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts; impartial, detached"; or "Associated with or considered in relation to its object; material as opposed to formal." That is to say objective in the sense of treating a work of art in and of itself of its own qualities, outside of the boundaries of the personal preferences of the observer, measuring the actual quality of the various aspects of the work itself insofar as this can be done without bias. With this said, art is meant to be viewed in this objective sense. That is not to say that subjectivity does not also play a role, perhaps an equally significant role, in artistic evaluation of any sort. For one thing, the 'quality' of an object is determined relative to humanity, regardless of the fact that the measurements of quality must be constructed at some point. There will inevitably be disputes as to not only what constitutes quality and how it can be measured, but also as to the measurements themselves and the different importances placed on every quality. It is for this reason that there will never be a universal consensus of 'greatness.'

This is, yet again, not to say that there is no objective measure of greatness simply because we don't have one, as Danto would say. It is certainly acceptable to acknowledge not only that some works of art is certainly better than others, but also that some observers and critics are more qualified than others, in addition to simply stating that some observers and critics are wrong.

Do I believe that there is an ultimate and defining evaluative measurement of greatness, as a result of which there is no leeway for parity of (critical) judgement? I have to say that I don't. I think it's reasonable for one critic to believe that, while both authors were brilliant, Poe was the more quality writer over Wilde, while another critic disagrees and believes that was the superior writer, based perhaps in part due to a variance in the importance of various qualities and a disparity in the ultimate evaluation of each quality. Greatness does obviously exist in art, and it's not absolutely objective or subjective, but rather an inescapable balance between the two. It is, in fact, for this reason that the institutions of art exist, to give some semblance of structure to the 'great' works of art throughout history, institutions through which experts have determined perhaps not concretely what constitutes great art but shining examples of that elusive concept of 'greatness.'

 

[Blind Guardian]

If someone can define a piece of art to 100% it loses it's purpose in my opinion. People shouldn't analyze art too much, because without a naive approach when listening to music or watching a movie and so on, it becomes hollow. That's why I don't understand people who review records like ANUS for example, they take away everything that is supposed to light up your imagination. What they do is to say; "this part is constructed like this, and it is so because it is supposed to make you feel like this, before moving on to this, which is supposed to..". People who try to make art out to be purely intellectual instead of emotional have totally missed the point. That's what I mean by having a naive approach. And that's also why I loathe people with absolute opinions on art, call it "pretentious" people if you will.

 

[no country for old wainds]

so dodens would you say that 'greatness' is just a special (or not special?) kind of descriptive word meaningful only via its historically-formed function/s within the context in which it is being applied? because this seems to me the only alternative to positing an absolute/transcendent truth to which 'greatness' is intrinsically related.

If someone can define a piece of art to 100% it loses it's purpose in my opinion. People shouldn't analyze art too much, because without a naive approach when listening to music or watching a movie and so on, it becomes hollow. That's why I don't understand people who review records like ANUS for example, they take away everything that is supposed to light up your imagination. What they do is to say; "this part is constructed like this, and it is so because it is supposed to make you feel like this, before moving on to this, which is supposed to..". People who try to make art out to be purely intellectual instead of emotional have totally missed the point. That's what I mean by having a naive approach. And that's also why I loathe people with absolute opinions on art, call it "pretentious" people if you will.

anus sucks because they generally fail to explain the experiential consequences of their technical descriptions, or when they do they resort to melodramatic writing full of superfluous or clichéd modifiers. i don't think it's fair to say that analysis invariably detracts from a work's emotional resonance though, the best reviewers write in a way which reflects and enhances the poetry of the art they're describing.

 

[skeptik]

so dodens would you say that 'greatness' is just a special (or not special?) kind of descriptive word meaningful only via its historically-formed function/s within the context in which it is being applied? because this seems to me the only alternative to positing an absolute/transcendent truth to which 'greatness' is intrinsically related.

Warning: the following is a scatterbrained attempt to express in words what I naturally intuit on this subject. It's not entirely coherent, nor clear, and, in fact, I'm not even sure if I answered your question. I suppose my overall statement here was meant to be that we don't have answers to many questions that we ask about art, and may never, but nonetheless, although greatness is not some absolute property bestowed on a work of art through divinity, the recognition of greatness still possesses real transcendental value, even if we can't properly define, or even identify, it.

I do think at least in praxis that 'greatness' is to a fair degree rooted within a historical narrative, but at the same time I would like to think that it may also be more concrete than that. I do believe that art is some thing about which certain things are great, and that these great things are found within the works of art themselves, whether or not they are successfully identified as such (without regard to whether or not they are enjoyed). There's a reason that it is Beethoven and Bach and Shakespeare, etc., who are remembered throughout time and not perhaps others who were their contemporary rivals; their works were genius. Some obscure poet or other may have a brief resurgence in popularity at some point in time, but the work of Homer is something that will die with mankind. I think it was Hume who wrote an article on a subject similar to this, I'll have to try to remember what it was called.

I am always wary of speaking in absolutes about art, however, especially given not only the philosophical questions that will probably never be satisfactorily answered regarding it and given its inherently fluid nature. Different definitions of art were suitable for different periods of time, and who's to say where 'art' will go next and whether it will fit others' criteria of what makes something a work of art? Maybe it will at the same time nullify our conception of greatness as well. Warhol and Duchamp would not have been considered great in the 1700s; maybe would not have even been considered art. In fact, probably not. Art had a great movement toward metarelational pieces in the 1900s in which the 'art' of the piece itself was a commentary on the artworld itself, something that is intrinsically related to its historical position. Not only art, but also greatness. It seems mere happenstance that certain qualities of greatness have carried on throughout history so that we still admire Virgil and Bosch. It seems ultimately that we seek in vain for a standard of taste, for even among the most experienced critics there is diversity of judgement relative to the certain fancies of the individual. How many of these art critics, for example, would be able to acknowledge greatness in the work of any heavy metal album? It seems that nobody has a stranglehold on the observations of greatness. We all have our own biases and preferences and are more adapted to certain aesthetic characteristics of certain works which allow us more easily to penetrate a work to its core and appreciate it objectively, yet this at the same time runs the opposite risk of enjoying it for its mere aesthetic properties. We are all acute to certain things. There is nobody in the world who can 'properly' identify the greatness in every work of art that possesses greatness, so ultimately greatness has to be a collective. Even though we will never be perfect, I think that we can reach a close proximity.

 

[diddykoi6]

holy FUCKING shit, id say its opinion, no musics perfect because no one can really define it =/ meh i dno

 

[Zephyrus]

So you would agree, Matt, that art is culturally bound through history, and that modern art is simply bound to the aculturalism of postmodernism?

Personally speaking, greatness in music and all art depends on a strong positive intellectual AND pleasured response sustained beyond the time of its creation. The degree of greatness increases as that level of reception continues through time. Thus Bach is that much greater than Burzum at this point. But 300 years from now it could be that Bach is forgotten and Varg is raised to Johann's pedestal.

Thus the subjective response of a culture (ethnic or intellectual) is a major factor.

However, as I have argued some time in the past, I'm convinced a biological component to discerning great music exists. It's part of what makes some melodies and harmonies make our hair stand on end, and why others don't. This hypothesis of mine only pertains to music, as responses to visual arts are more associated to one's experience of their environment.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

This subject is too convoluted for there to be a correct answer. Sure, some musicians have more historical relevance and overall influence than others but all it really comes down to is someone's personal understanding of what is great. Being that art is based on one's composition, can you really justifiably hold one work of art over another?

 

[muzmaze]

So you would agree, Matt, that art is culturally bound through history, and that modern art is simply bound to the aculturalism of postmodernism?

Personally speaking, greatness in music and all art depends on a strong positive intellectual AND pleasured response sustained beyond the time of its creation. The degree of greatness increases as that level of reception continues through time. Thus Bach is that much greater than Burzum at this point. But 300 years from now it could be that Bach is forgotten and Varg is raised to Johann's pedestal.

Thus the subjective response of a culture (ethnic or intellectual) is a major factor.

However, as I have argued some time in the past, I'm convinced a biological component to discerning great music exists. It's part of what makes some melodies and harmonies make our hair stand on end, and why others don't. This hypothesis of mine only pertains to music, as responses to visual arts are more associated to one's experience of their environment.

YA NAILED IT!

More-so, (in my simple mind) pertaining only to music that does make our fur rise and gives us chills...that to me is when something is great! It could simply be a part of a song, a solo, an instrumental, an intro or outro...could also be a whole song or our favorite album thru and thru. I also find surprises in different genres of music that unexpectedly blow me away. Stuff that I would normally not go near and wouldn't even think of being great...then WACK, that moment hits you when you can't deny it sparking your senses.

Musically / technically, a good producer or the right production is very key. Sure a great musical moment can be heard, felt or captured from an early stage...say a jam session, demo tape, etc. But obviously great production will sonically highlite a great piece of music-along with our senses, or potentially may make something good going in...sound great in the final production.

These moments are few and far between, its all in our own senses and likes. For me, its saved only for the hair raising-ultimate experience. Ya can't just throw "greatness" out there...too many times people think something new from thier favorite artist is automatically great...only later to be realized as just mediocre. Its all subjective.

The Beatles are of course known as a great band with great songs to wich I can enjoy to a point...yet they do nothing for me as far as fur rising or giving me chills. Can't honestly say that they are great in my own eyes and ears.

 

[Zephyrus]

George Harrison's voice does that for me.

 

[skeptik]

So you would agree, Matt, that art is culturally bound through history, and that modern art is simply bound to the aculturalism of postmodernism?

I would say that art is culturally limited, but not culturally bound, only because 'bound' implies impenetrability, and I think that we can gain at least some access to even the most obscure arts from all periods of time and ancient cultures. There is certainly a more conscious sense beginning with modernism of the cultural reality of art and the desire to become acultural, but at the same time I think that a lot of this backfires and causes these works to be very grounded within their own locality in time and space.

That is for the individual perspective, at least. In terms of metacultural levels, there are obvious fundamental differences between how various cultures respond to certain things as a whole.

However, as I have argued some time in the past, I'm convinced a biological component to discerning great music exists. It's part of what makes some melodies and harmonies make our hair stand on end, and why others don't. This hypothesis of mine only pertains to music, as responses to visual arts are more associated to one's experience of their environment.

I agree with this and believe that it can actually be carried beyond music, though music is the most basic and probably most powerfully associated form of art that is tied to biological predispositions. It's such an ambiguous and underexplored avenue of research, however, that it's difficult for me to even bring up even though I recognize the role that it must play.

This subject is too convoluted for there to be a correct answer. Sure, some musicians have more historical relevance and overall influence than others but all it really comes down to is someone's personal understanding of what is great. Being that art is based on one's composition, can you really justifiably hold one work of art over another?

Well I don't know whether it's too convoluted for there to be a correct answer or if it's too convoluted for us to have a correct answer. This is a debate that is still carried on in aesthetics. I don't think it merely comes down to "someone's personal understanding," however, because that implies that everybody is equally qualified to understand. I also think it's patently obvious that one work can be justifiably held above another, even if there is some dispute. I think that two rival works can both be justifiably held above the other at the same time. Of course there is no "greatness machine" where you put in two works of art and the machine outputs an answer of which is better.

 

[no country for old wainds]

although greatness is not some absolute property bestowed on a work of art through divinity, the recognition of greatness still possesses real transcendental value, even if we can't properly define, or even identify, it.

i'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but i really can't comprehend this kind of conception of anything, it doesn't make sense to me. i'm certain that shakespeare and beethoven are geniuses, and that they will die only with the end of mankind, but for such things as genius, universality, timelessness etc to be great in a transcendent sense there surely has to be some form of omniscient perspective, which just isn't an intelligible idea. nothing has transcendent value, words aren't signs for things which exist outside of language - the concepts themselves are linguistic, their only meaning lies in the way we use them to communicate. even a proven biological connection to stuff considered great wouldn't change this.