The fact of the matter is that our present culture determines what is art based on subjective reasoning, since there is no objective qualifications that must be met for something to be considered artistic. That's something that has been completely constant since the first music and art were created. There will never be a criteria that can explain what makes something artistic, and nobody will ever be able to explain one objectively since it's impossible for one to ever exist.
Does "greatness" in music exist, and if so what defines it?
- Thread starter zabu of nΩd
- Start date
The fact of the matter is that our present culture determines what is art based on subjective reasoning, since there is no objective qualifications that must be met for something to be considered artistic. That's something that has been completely constant since the first music and art were created. There will never be a criteria that can explain what makes something artistic, and nobody will ever be able to explain one objectively since it's impossible for one to ever exist.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It was. It became meaningful when somebody expanded upon it. All traditions begin somewhere.
Furthermore, art originally wasn't created for personal reasons. It was created for religious purposes. The purpose of art is another tenet that has changed through history.
An historical legacy is evidence for how art is created and its mediums and traditions. Without knowledge of history art is meaningless. Artists create for themselves by re-interpreting what came before them. It's all about Bloom's Anxiety of Influence.
Not all art is created with the intention of being remembered or expanded upon, so your reasoning is incorrect. The fact that you can't understand that is pretty weird.
I think you misinterpreted my words. What I'm saying, is that everybody has a different idea of what makes a piece of art good. There really is no universal criterion that can be met, so really, an "objectively good" piece of art cannot exist.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
What proof do you have that suggests otherwise? Where did you ever get this notion that art has to be so integrally intertwined with what came before it? True and meaningful value does not have to come from some supernatural, omniscient, objective source. We have what we deem experts, and we value their analysis and we value the consensus of certain individuals. The regard with which Shakespeare is held is not meaningless simply because this regard doesn't stem from some kind of objective body, and I'd like to hear why you think otherwise.
First of all, explain to me why (if I'm reading this implication properly) one has to feel that art is important in order to create great art.
Won't they? Is it true that nobody who does not value art has created art? Is it really impossible for somebody to make art unless they know its historical legacy? The statement "they will have no idea what they're doing" implies that there are certain things that you have to do to create art, and I'd like to know what they are and where the objective nature of these things comes from, because it's certainly not just from you typing it.
This is erroneous at best, and I hope you see this after you reread your statement.
Does expressing the personal in an interesting way really mean "practicing, learning from predecessors, finding new and innovative ways to create art"? Is this the sufficient condition? Why can't anyone create art. I seriously want you to explain why adhering to an artistic tradition is so absolutely essential for a work of art to be great, and then I want you to explain how this pertains to the objective nature of this greatness that you claim for works of art that meet your vague criteria.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It doesn't matter if it wasn't created with the intention of being expanded upon. What matters is that it expanded upon/re-interpreted something that came before it. And honestly, a lot of artists dream about their work being expanded upon. That means that they were historically important (thus, "great") within their artistic tradition.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
I wasn't directly attacking your statement but rather the notion that people think art has to fit in a box where greatness is easily definable.
"Historical importance" does not make art "great." Nothing makes art objectively fucking great. Stop trying to argue that there is one thing that makes THE SAME art GOOD for all people and the OTHER PART BAD for all people. I can't comprehend how anyone can think there is objectivity in art re: separate pieces of art.
Ultimate_Symphony
Rusted Angel
- Jul 18, 2002
- 4,411
- 217
- 63
After reading all this thread I still fail to see a valid point proving how can one deem objectively a piece of music (or art) ''great''.
A more or less rough definition of art is a medium we as humans use as means to communicate ourselves, it would be imposible to objectively name a piece of communication great (even if our sensibilities tells us so). More so, music itself has no inherent value by itself, we are the ones that decide what are the values that are important to us in music (be it musicianship, ability to convey emotion, or whatever).
A more or less rough definition of art is a medium we as humans use as means to communicate ourselves, it would be imposible to objectively name a piece of communication great (even if our sensibilities tells us so). More so, music itself has no inherent value by itself, we are the ones that decide what are the values that are important to us in music (be it musicianship, ability to convey emotion, or whatever).
Einherjar86
Active Member
We come to an impass then. Maybe we just believe differently. There's nothing you can do to convince me. Believe me Dodens, you sound just as crazy to me as I'm sure I do to you.
Why does one have to feel that chairs are important in order to be a carpenter? Why does one have to feel that protection is important in order to become a police officer? Why does one have to feel that cars are important in order to become an engineer?
If one feels that art isn't important, one won't create great art (or any art at all, mind you).
Give me an example, and maybe I'll entertain the notion.
I don't, and I'm growing weary of this.
Yes, creating art in an interesting way means "practicing, learning from predecessors, and finding new and innovative ways to create art." Innovation is what drives art, and innovation comes from expanding upon the past. That is what constitutes an artist. Not just "anyone" can do this, because not just "anyone" has the knowledge necessary to understand why his predecessors did what they did, and how to meaningfully expand upon it.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,685
- 9,659
- 113
i actually consider myself a bit of a harold bloom expert and although i find him totally fascinating i don't think he understands the modern literary critics he rails against
I hate to tell you, but you're a fucking retard. If you only think that music which relies on traditions and becomes influential is worthy of being considered artistically successful or great, you're blatantly ignorant of the fact that not all artistic visions involve following traditions or creating things that will be expanded upon, and this you have no right to determine what is and isn't artistic, musical or otherwise.
Like I said earlier, much of what has to be considered art was created with absolutely no reliance on past traditions and absolutely no need to be expanded upon. These are not qualifications for something to be considered artistically successful, unless they're part of the artist's specific intentions when creating their work. If the artist has successfully met their intended results, they are artistically successful whether or not they follow traditions or are remembered for their work and the influence it had on later artwork.
Try as much as you want, but you'll never be able to prove this statement wrong, since it's fundamentally correct that an artist who meets their own aspirations for their work is successful at creating what they attempted to create. A successful artist who meets their own visions can't possibly be considered objectively to be lacking any kind of greatness. This goes for music, painting, sculpture and any other form of art.
tl;dr version: You can't judge art on merits that it wasn't created to meet, otherwise you're just failing to understand why it was created and what the artist was aspiring to do. A successful artist who meets their own visions can't possibly be considered objectively to be lacking any kind of greatness.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
You're just too full of shit for this to be worth continuing. You haven't even explained exactly what it is you're talking about. I can't even fathom why you insist that art has to be created by somebody who thinks that art is important (it's certainly not true that one has to feel that a chair is important in order to make a chair, please dear lord tell me you can at least see this). Your idea of "interesting" is also heavily subjective to what you are obviously looking for in art as well. Why do you think that what you want in art is what makes art objectively good? Actually I shouldn't be asking questions when I don't intend to respond, but still, there are many fundamental questions that you have failed to address, and I'll leave it at that.
You're the one arguing that art can be objectively good. The burden of proof is on you, mate.
Where your argument breaks down, is that the word "interesting", is by it's very nature, a subjective word. What is interesting to one, is not to another.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,685
- 9,659
- 113
what you're saying isn't crazy as an opinion, it's the fact that you seem to think there's some factual basis for these ideas but refuse to demonstrate that. or maybe you don't think there is, maybe this is based on faith, but either way in this argument the burden of proof remains firmly on you.
forrest gump didn't know shit and he conquered the world man!
His entire argument has been subjectivity presented as objectivity with no real explanations beyond his own persona preferences, not to mention the fact that people have presented real reasons why his point of view is fundamentally wrong that he has yet to actually disprove.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Einherjar, it's OK to admit that there is no universal principle that will govern how art is or should be appreciated. There are several institutions who hold opinions as to what these principles are, but those institutions should not by any means impose those opinions on the industry or on people's perceptions.
Doesn't that seem fair?
Doesn't that seem fair?
Similar threads
