Music = art?
- Thread starter Sennz0r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Echoing a bit but yes, music is art. Even all that manufactured pop and rock shit, that's just the sort of art you'd see produced in crayon on a fridge door.
If this:Neosage said:
http://madsilence.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/undated-bonhams-handout-photo-of-a-painting-by-congo-the-chimp-ap-photo-bonhams-ho.jpg
is considered art, then why not?
Yes all music can be described as art if one understands that the the meaning of art varies from person to person as does what that person describes as art. There are some bands that I do find to be very artistic, coincidentally NIN is one of them. But I also have to recognize that for someone to be able to create something they call "music" and then play it to others which causes them some form of enjoyment, insight, or any other emotion or thought that is conjured up from their experience with the music, then I feel obligated to call it art no matter how much I disagree with it. For instance I am one of the masses who does not view Duchamp's "Fountain" as a work of art, though many do see it as a marvelous work of art. Duchamp's work can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
You come up with one instance of music you dislike and all music produced using electronic instruments is suddenly not music and/or art? That's a little nutty.Neosage said:
NIN does write some very good lyrics. However i really dont think anyone can beat radiohead in terms of poetry in the their music. Faust Arp?
Electioneering is an example of their more political voice. Harrowdown hill too ( i know it's just thom but since thom writes most of the lyrics anyways )
Music is definitely art. In a sense everything is art. It's just a matter of perception and a subjective matter of good or bad art.
Electioneering is an example of their more political voice. Harrowdown hill too ( i know it's just thom but since thom writes most of the lyrics anyways )
Music is definitely art. In a sense everything is art. It's just a matter of perception and a subjective matter of good or bad art.
What's this agreed upon definition again? I forget.Eggo said:
I went to Wiki hoping to find the answer written down by a random stranger and I did find this, "Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is a human activity, made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art."
Honestly though, there is no such thing as an agreed upon definition of art that spans all cultures. That's just not possible. Art isn't a thing that you can grab a hold of and say "A-ha, I have the art!" It's an idea. An expression. Me taping my pencil on the desk could be art to me but not to you. A thesis on mechanical fly-wheels could be art to the writer, yet not to anyone else.
Look at this guy:
He named off some musicians he finds pleasing, presumably and asked how it could not be art, as if music he doesn't like suddenly is less artistic. If art was something that had an agreed upon definition, I could easily point to him and say he's wrong or right. But, I can't. Because who am I to argue with his vision?zoozilla said:
Yes, Music is art, and not just a lesser form of it either. just like there is generic and bland "art" there is generic and bland music, so judging something on the predispostion that just because it's mainstream or generic it is not art is a really poor misconception about art.
I did an essay on this a long time ago...
I'll copy and paste it if you want, or do you just want that badge for 1000s of replies...
PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THIS AS I PLAN TO USE IT IN MY DISITATION
'Eduard Hanslick, a 19th century music critic, said that ?Music has no subject beyond the combinations of notes we hear, for music speaks not only by means of sounds, it speaks nothing but sound.? This man argued that music could be enjoyed as pure sound and form and that it needed no implication of extra-musical elements to stay. So for example things like Opera, song and tonal poems were often seen as music that took away the actual beauty of music in general, they were considered to be more aesthetically pleasing instead of musically pleasing.
Although Hanslick believed that Music could exist and still be considered beautiful without meaning there were many people who objected to his point of view. Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietzsche, two experienced musicians that were very much against this idea, said "Art for art sake is about as purposeful as a worm chewing its own tail" and "Instrumental music is not strictly art at all". These two men could not understand how music art, both abstract and descriptive, could not have been made without a purpose, they found it ludicrous. '
I'll copy and paste it if you want, or do you just want that badge for 1000s of replies...
PLEASE DO NOT COPY AND PASTE THIS AS I PLAN TO USE IT IN MY DISITATION
'Eduard Hanslick, a 19th century music critic, said that ?Music has no subject beyond the combinations of notes we hear, for music speaks not only by means of sounds, it speaks nothing but sound.? This man argued that music could be enjoyed as pure sound and form and that it needed no implication of extra-musical elements to stay. So for example things like Opera, song and tonal poems were often seen as music that took away the actual beauty of music in general, they were considered to be more aesthetically pleasing instead of musically pleasing.
Although Hanslick believed that Music could exist and still be considered beautiful without meaning there were many people who objected to his point of view. Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietzsche, two experienced musicians that were very much against this idea, said "Art for art sake is about as purposeful as a worm chewing its own tail" and "Instrumental music is not strictly art at all". These two men could not understand how music art, both abstract and descriptive, could not have been made without a purpose, they found it ludicrous. '
Oh come on, are you being serious? You really don't have the capacity to think for yourself? That's a rhetoric question, because I've seen plenty of your posts and I know you're a smart guy.Eggo said:
You can debate how important these so called "important people" are, let alone the debates you can have about the thoughts they have.
I guess. Although, somebody must like it, if it exists. Right? Personally, I didn't find the link you put up to be moving in anyway shape or form. So, we're completely in agreement on that. But, you just have to try and remember that although it doesn't move you, it does move somebody else. So it too has a right to co-exist with all of the other things we find pleasing and displeasing, in the realm that we call "The Arts".Neosage said:
I declare bullshit.Eggo said:
You don't need skill to create art, you just need skill to create something widely regarded as art (or apparently in some cases you need a culturally important person to call it art). No matter how bad something might be to you, the artist put a little of themselves into creating it. Art to me is a form of expression, don't matter if people don't like it, you're still expressing yourself in a somewhat creative manner.Neosage said:
.
All music is art, obviously. (yes even soulja child)
I'd go as far as to say that the most artistic advances in music are being made in electronic music right now as well, to say THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg52OSGmg7g takes no talent simply because it wass electronicaly composed would be ridiculous.
I'd go as far as to say that the most artistic advances in music are being made in electronic music right now as well, to say THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg52OSGmg7g takes no talent simply because it wass electronicaly composed would be ridiculous.