does "true" art have a future in our society?

[famousamoswillkillyou]

Originally posted by dreaming neon darkspot
I think it's better that we have bands like Nevermore that are more underground than other bands.The mainstream has their Creed,Nickleback and Linkin Park,but we have the kind of music that really puts thought into one's head about the lyrics and the complexity of the music.We have music that involves intelligence(see if the guitarist of Nickleback can write like Jeff Loomis),the Mtv-heads have music that is maketable and easy to swollow.
I can name 2 of the vocalists that Scott Stapp is ripping off-Layne Staley and Jim Morrison...I'm sure there are more,though.

 

[Dragonlord]

Originally posted by Black Winter Day
i'm sorry if you inferred from my post that i think that a band has to be "heavy as fuck" in order to be artistic. that was never the intention. nevermore was just the example i used because it is common ground for all of us.
yes i got it,tthat particular comment wasn't adressed to you directly.i,too,used heavy metal as common ground-because it isn't popular,and we who are supposed to listen to the true art listen to heavy music compared to the masses.
THAT is where i totally don't agree. the only 'artist' britney spears is is a 'con artist.' she knows what will sell: her looks and however many videos she can get on mtv. sure, hitler expressed feelings that amazed the minds of the masses. does that make him right, or worth following? and like i said earlier, compare britney spears to janis joplin (or any other popular female performer of the 60s or 70s). that is my point right there. is this how far society has digressed in 'artistic' popularity?
well i guess i agree about britney but it was an extreme example to prove my point.we will never know if the man who writes britney's songs sees it like a way to make money or as art.we're not in his head.there is a possibility,veeeery small but still it exists,that this man creates his art freely and luckily what expresses him is the music that sells millions and is played on the mtv all day.britney's manager buys his music and makes an album.can we call this true art?and why not?
as for janis joplin,i don't think she should be compared to britney,i'm sure there were crappy pop singers around back then,but we don't know them today because their music naturally didn't last.take loreena mckennit-maybe tori amos and bjork could stand by her on this,but i don't know their music that well.she is veeery successful and in my list of true artists.

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

well i think this topic can not be discussed as it has been on teh last page. the 'is this or musician auther whatever a true artist or not'-discussion has nothing to do with the original point.
the talk about art and not-art i think it has to be cleared what art is. i never looked it up what the encyclopaedia says. for me art is composed of two thing!

1. the craft...the skill for a musician it is the knowlegde about his instrument, the technical mastery.

2. the genius, the innovative moment.

just think about a guy who can perfectly play everything he hears on guitar but the same guy is not able to make a new lick he hasnt heard played by someone else.
but also a guy who has perfect licks in his head but is not able to play an instrument is no artist as well.

i hope you got my point. britney speats can not be an artist (if you take my definition) cause she has neither skill nor genius. will write more alter today!

david

 

[Dragonlord]

well i was referring to britney's music as "art" and not britney as an "artist"

 

[Dragonlord]

an i agree,what exactly IS art needs to be defined first before we can discuss the original topic.

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

anyway...her music shows no special sklls in songwriting neither does her vocal 'performance'... it is just an example!

 

[famousamoswillkillyou]

Britney Spears' music does not have any artistic value. The only thing she's got any talent in is that disgusting, suggestive dancing.

 

[Brooks]

The culprit is MTV, when music became more about the visuals and entertainment, and less about the actual audio. Radio was our friend. MTV is our enemy.

 

[Dragonlord]

amos:it comes down to how can one judge what has artistic value.don't forget that many great artists were accused at their time of "not having artistic value" and were recognized after death.which is another point against the opinion that true art is dying-on a larger scale of course,not only the last few decades.

brooks>the protagonist on "Ghost World" has a different opinion-and I think so do I.what mtv did,was make it easier for pop songs to become catchy-now even if you have a not-so-catchy song,you can have an interesting video clip that will catch people's attention.I don't think there was so much better music on the radio before mtv-and after all,why can't good songs also have good video clips and get airplay on mtv?
also listen to moahni moahna - radio's to blame

 

[famousamoswillkillyou]

I understand that my judging her music alone does not make Britney Spears any less of an artist or whatever. Hell, there are plenty of people that feel differently. And while she does have her own sound, it's not what I like.

 

[Dragonlord]

yes,as i've already said britney is just an example,you can put any band you like at her name's place

 

[Captain Beard]

NoLordy speared Britney.

 

[famousamoswillkillyou]

Originally posted by Brooks
The culprit is MTV, when music became more about the visuals and entertainment, and less about the actual audio. Radio was our friend. MTV is our enemy.

A lot of the programming on MTV now doesn't even have jack shit to do with music. Stupid bastards.

 

[Captain Beard]

Have a bite of my big banana?

 

[metalized]

Art in the real sense of the word as i perceive it has a cause and a purpose. It doesn't just flow arround.

And this isn't about metal at all. Metal is only a small part or a direction of something we might call artistic movement...

I think that all artists created art directed by some kind of interest. Carefull - not influence; INTEREST. They are either interested in money, in fame or in other such "interests", so they create what ppl call art. For instace Poe, or Lovecraft. They all created art (i take it for granted that we all agree that these were great artists - in my book they are anyway) to make money. To save theirselves from misery.

The factor that distinguises quality in art is the talent of each artist, the influences, the character, the idiosynchrasy. All the aspects of him/her.

All the artistic creations are enrolees. They have specific reason to exist.

Keeping this in mind and trying to answer to the initial question i think that as long as there are ppl in this planet that act like ppl, then there is direct need for art. The only thing that can't be defined is the form of art. But the concept and the reason for art to exist will always be there. Like it always has been throughout the centuries.

 

[metalized]

Of course the above mentioned are personal thoughts.

 

[Captain Beard]

Art is what is in the mind of the creator.
Though we may think many of the mainstream ideas are putrid, the writers may very well think its melodic beauty in its purest form.

(Not pop mainstream, but others.)

 

[metalized]

Hmmm... Art is created by artists. It is their for of expressing.

But i think art is in the perception of the viewer, reader, listener etc... They are the ones that define if something is art.

 

[speed]

Hey Blackwinterday, We had a very similar ongoing discussion on the state of music in the Chat off topic Opeth forum, under the title, "what is music all about" .
Yet I think the real answer is that yes real art is being created, it just takes alot of time for anyone to notice.

 

[Dragonlord]

I'll play the optimist again and agree with speed and metalized.