Cristian Capatana said:
Continuity said:
Cristian Capatana said:
First of all, if it's popular it doesn't necessarily mean it's shallow and meaningless. The Beatles, Queen, Miles Davis and a boatload of others rocked millions of people. Nowadays, every hipster with a webcam thinks she's an artist filled to the brim with originality and inspiration but the masses are to obtuse to get her art.
Secondly, success is exactly that: the recognition of others and surpassing your original condition.
I know what success is thank you, and no, not every popular work is shallow and meaningless; I was employing a generalisation to make a point, I would of though that was plain.
I would expand my argument but you're plainly being deliberately obtuse so I shan't bother.
Oh wow, instead of an argument I get insulted. I'm sorry my friend but that's never how someone with something eloquent to say about a subject reacts.
Btw, why generalise when we were talking specifics? That's just a way to change the subject when you feel like you're losing your grip on the matter.
Fine, fine, lets have at it then, but remember this wasn't my idea.
Firstly in response to your last post:
Oh wow, instead of an argument I get insulted. I'm sorry my friend but that's never how someone with something eloquent to say about a subject reacts.
OK, where was the insult exactly? and for the record a person's reaction to just about anything is never simple, and its practically impossible to gauge someone's reaction just from a few sentences they've typed on the internet, so your generalisation here isn't really apt.
Btw, why generalise when we were talking specifics? That's just a way to change the subject when you feel like you're losing your grip on the matter.
Generalisation is a basic element of human reasoning and a logical tool, frequently employed in debates. When someone employs a generalisation is in no way means they want to change the subject or that they are "losing their grip" on the argument.
And in response to your previous post:
First of all, if it's popular it doesn't necessarily mean it's shallow and meaningless.
Quite true, it does not
necessarily follow, however is it very often the case.
The Beatles, Queen, Miles Davis and a boatload of others rocked millions of people.
"rocking millions of people" does not indicate artistic depth, it merely demonstrates an ability to entertain which is entirely separate. You can tell art from basic entertainment by simply contrasting the cerebral element of consumer's engagement with each; true both art and entertainment can provoke emotional or instinctive responses, the difference is that in entertainment these are just passively absorbed and enjoyed at a superficial level, where as art is appreciated intellectually.
Yes I realise that this description makes art subjective, as each person will respond differently, however that doesn't mean it is entirely subjective. All art appreciation is tempered by taste, you need a palate to determine good art from the banal.
Of course this is also a whopping generalisation and this is one of the reasons I didn't want to get into this argument, there is no concrete definition of "art" and any opinion I express on the subject can never be absolutely correct or even objective. The above can't really be said to be anything more than just my opinion.
Nowadays, every hipster with a webcam thinks she's an artist filled to the brim with originality and inspiration but the masses are to obtuse to get her art.
"Nowadays"? you pretend not to realise that there has
always been a vast artistic community below the surface of popular culture, the difference here of course is that via the medium of the internet we are
blessed with access to this in some part.
And in full riposte to your comment I say yes, in fact the artistic subculture is
far more original and inspired than the droll churned out mediocrity of pop culture, and indeed that is its function.
Let me be plain, the artistic subculture is the furnace of originality and inspiration, of course all mixed in with derivation and plagiarism, which by the way are equally important components. And by the time the blossoms of originality and inspiration have made it into pop culture they are already dead! Like a wilted cut flower it looses its charm.
Secondly, success is exactly that: the recognition of others and surpassing your original condition.
popularity and financial prosperity only indicate just that: popularity and financial prosperity. They don't tell us anything else for sure, so I don't know what argument you're trying to make here.