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

[Omni]

I petition that this thread be locked before we're exposed to more opinions presented as facts and seriously argued as such.

 

[Zephyrus]

Let him answer my question first.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

this is a never ending debate, you can't just change someones opinion on this topic... though it is fun watching you guys argue back and forth

 

[Blind Guardian]

I agree, though more personal insults would make it a whole lot more fun to watch.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

I like how you took my quote out of your sig because you disagree with me now.

Anyway, as I've said earlier, modern music is a very different deal. However, if you look at classical music, you can see it continuously building off of the period that came before it.

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.

Interesting may have been a poor choice of words. I'm sure lots of people find Wordsworth far from interesting. At any rate, people who understand the art can find it interesting.

I'm perfectly fine with ending this debate, but you're actually the one who has failed to provide me with something, as I'll show in responding to The Butt...

You're the one arguing that art can be objectively good. The burden of proof is on you, mate.

On the contrary, I provided my examples. I said that all artists draw from the history of their tradition. I then proceeded to list: Shakespeare, Duchamp (Dodens' example), Wordsworth... but hell I can go on.

So I ask somebody here, please: give me the name of a "Great" artist who had no knowledge of the history of his artistic tradition.

Furthermore, I'm perfectly fine with everyone ganging up on me, no problem at all. But let's keep the name-calling to a minimum. I'm not a retard, and I'm probably one of the most intelligent people on this forum. So calm the fuck down, and let's all have a nice chat.

 

[no country for old wainds]

ok this is how i choose to interpret einherjar's posts (let me know if i'm anywhere close):

i think what he's basically arguing or trying to argue is that by analysing what has been called art through the centuries we can know the fundamentals of what the word 'art' tends to communicate, and in knowing that we can also know what the purest examples of this concept 'art' are. in other words, those examples which are best *at being art*.

he may be wrong about what those fundamentals are, and maybe a good counter-argument is that it's impossible to be right, or even that the fundamentals just don't exist. but for what it's worth i'm inclined to agree that all art is shaped to a large extent by the art works/traditions/whatever which came before - i can't think of any works of art which have no influences from within the art world.

but yeah the problem i have even then is that it's like saying the best dog is that which is the purest form of dog, or that which most fully satisfies all criteria of dogness. it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'objective quality' as i understand the idea.

 

[Einherjar86]

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?

I'm perfectly fine with ending this argument now. I'm getting real pissed off and this is seriously cutting into my productivity today. However, I won't agree with that, I'm sorry. You all are obviously free-thinking, intelligent and gifted people, so everybody can choose to disagree with me. I just do not think that art can be subjective. I think that there are certain traditions that must be followed in order for art to be given purpose and meaning. Art doesn't spring purely from inside oneself; it comes from years of training, studying, and interpreting. Artists must read, they must write, they must discuss, they must learn; that's how art is created.

 

[Omni]

I like how you took my quote out of your sig because you disagree with me now.

I took it out because I didn't like the way it looked with the picture I have in my signature now. It's one of the few good things you've ever said in my opinion.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

I'm not a retard, and I'm probably one of the most intelligent people on this forum. So calm the fuck down, and let's all have a nice chat.

One of the most intelligent people on the forum, yet couldn't give a nice example of greatness. Give yourself a nice pat on the back .

 

[Einherjar86]

he may be wrong about what those fundamentals are, and maybe a good counter-argument is that it's impossible to be right, or even that the fundamentals just don't exist. but for what it's worth i'm inclined to agree that all art is shaped to a large extent by the art works/traditions/whatever which came before - i can't think of any works of art which have no influences from within the art world.

Thank you, seriously.

 

[skeptik]

I just do not think that art can be subjective. I think that there are certain traditions that must be followed in order for art to be given purpose and meaning. Art doesn't spring purely from inside oneself; it comes from years of training, studying, and interpreting. Artists must read, they must write, they must discuss, they must learn; that's how art is created.

You haven't explained this at all, and this is why I chose to stop trying. What you did was say this over and over again in a different order. If you can actually lay out an argument for this and not just repeat the thesis statement, I'll continue to entertain your ideas, but you seriously have to explain where the objectivity comes in.

 

[no country for old wainds]

einherjar i want you to try and define for me something more simple, without all the nonsense about what things are or are not - how would you define a 'great chair'?

edit: and you could respond to that thing about dogness i posted a bit further up the page. even if i don't agree with you i want to understand where you're coming from, i feel like everyone's talking past each other. i'm not sure what einherjar's saying has anything to do with objectivity as everybody else (including myself) means it

 

[Cythraul]

The very definition and usage of the term greatness kind of necessitates the idea that it's at least somewhat subjective...something is great because somebody perceives it as great.

I don't see how the very definition and usage of the term necessitates any such thing. As far as I can tell, 'greatness' works much the same way semantically as moral terms and other evaluative terms with a strong normative component. That is, a thing possesses 'greatness' if it is worthy of being admired, which implies nothing about what people actually perceive in that thing.

 

[skeptik]

How do you determine what's worthy of admiration?

 

[Einherjar86]

You haven't explained this at all, and this is why I chose to stop trying. What you did was say this over and over again in a different order. If you can actually lay out an argument for this and not just repeat the thesis statement, I'll continue to entertain your ideas, but you seriously have to explain where the objectivity comes in.

Art achieves greatness from its relationship to and addition to its tradition. Artists must have a knowledge of this tradition in order to create "Great" works. Artists without this knowledge create work that has no applicable meaning in the canon of its tradition, because it has no relationship to any movement or period within that tradition.

Samuel Johnson wrote, in his Preface to Shakespeare:
"As among the works of nature no man can properly call a river deep or a mountain high, without the knowledge of many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be styled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind."

T.S Eliot wrote, in Tradition and the Individual Talent:
"No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of aesthetic, not merely historical, criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not one-sided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

einherjar i want you to try and define for me something more simple, without all the nonsense about what things are or are not - how would you define a 'great chair'?

I'd say a great chair should be comfortable, possibly be able to recline, make me relaxed... and have wheels... and cupholders.

And I'm being totally serious here. That said, I don't think you can judge a chair in the same way that you judge art.

 

[skeptik]

Einherjar, your quotations lean toward the fact that it's the subjective relation that a work of art shares within its established paradigm that makes it great. They don't say anything about an objective truth about greatness in art. These works of art are great in that we have given them the status of greatness; there's nothing inherent within them that makes them great. Perhaps you mean something else by objective, would you care to explain what you mean? Because personally I feel as though the quotations you use support what I've been saying. If a work of art has to be seen within a given framework in order for it to be great, then it is not an objective measure of that greatness.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

As recently stated, there are sub-groups of people whose subjective tastes match, such as those who prefer Black Metal over Power Metal. When I write for The Metal Observer, it's assumed I have a genre-specific audience. That's why one of the first things you see on the page for a review on TMO is the genre of the album being reviewed.

I don't see how this actually conflicts with anything I said. It's only fitting that reviewers review music of genres that interest them. You can't evaluate a type of music when you can't see from the perspective of those who tend to listen to it. This, of course, does not negate the fact that you are passing a value judgment on the music you review - effectively stating that someone interested in said genre of music (in your case, black metal) should make it a priority to hear a particular album.

I petition that this thread be locked before we're exposed to more opinions presented as facts and seriously argued as such.

If you don't like the thread then GTFO.

 

[Omni]

I don't mind the thread. I just dislike people who have to state their opinions as facts and attempt to seriously argue them as such while not being able to support them as such.

So far, I've yet to see any real criteria for music or art that isn't subjective and exclusive of many things that are obviously artistic due solely to the fact that they conflict with the opinions of the person who's claiming this criteria of artistic merit exists.

 

[Einherjar86]

Einherjar, your quotations lean toward the fact that it's the subjective relation that a work of art shares within its established paradigm that makes it great. They don't say anything about an objective truth about greatness in art. These works of art are great in that we have given them the status of greatness; there's nothing inherent within them that makes them great. Perhaps you mean something else by objective, would you care to explain what you mean? Because personally I feel as though the quotations you use support what I've been saying. If a work of art has to be seen within a given framework in order for it to be great, then it is not an objective measure of that greatness.

But I've been saying that you can't call a work "great" unless you set it within its tradition. You've been saying that art can be "great" regardless of knowledge about tradition, history, etc. I'm saying that there is an objective set of standards within the history of every artistic tradition that qualifies an work of art as "great."

You know, I'm prepared to admit that I may be arguing "objective" from a different perspective than you. I suppose I believe in an objective set of standards (as I just said) that qualify an artwork as "great." In order for the art to be deemed great, it must be set along these standards, and that means aligning it within its tradition. Still, I can't help but think that if a work of art meets these standards then it possesses an objective greatness.

You said earlier something along the lines of "why does someone have to understand and have a love for art in order to create art?" I think that Eliot's quote makes that fundamentally clear. I think all artists need a knowledge of what came before them. The reason for this is that there are certain objective standards that can only be learned and identified by studying the history of one's artistic tradition. You cannot judge a work purely on the subjective perspective of one person. You have to take into account the objective qualifications of the tradition.

 

[Omni]

Yes, but where's the objective proof that a work is only great if it's part of tradition? You haven't produced this yet, because you were too busy making opinionated statements and citing sources that aren't to be considered the objective measure of artistic value since they clearly didn't define it originally and they seem to hardly support what you're saying to begin with.

There's only one perspective of objective, so you can't argue it more than one way. If there was more than one, it would be subjective.