[Steve999]

Louis Armstrong said "Bop is slop." Out of ignorance? Now for the record, I love bop. And Louis Armstrong.

And the ignorant guy is here to actually post some music. . . and Gregorio, thanks for having my back (whether you meant to or not)!

And this is an incredibly deep song. It took me a while to get it.

 

[bigshot]

Artists themselves have a different kind of point of view. Oscar Wilde said...

Bad artists always admire each other’s work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected.

When you hear an artist analyzing another artists' work, you're hearing an analysis filtered through the artists' own criteria for his own work. That makes their opinions doubly interesting because you learn something about both.

That is self-contradictory. If "you apply your criteria" (which is subjective) then how can you "come up with objective judgement" on something which is subjective?

The subjective criteria is applied for judgement objectively. You don't pick criteria just to make a point. You choose it to try to define truth. Then you apply it and let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't always come out the way you expect. (By the way, that is what happened when I finally sat down and thought critically about Brian Eno. I was a fan, but I determined he was lousy. Now I just "like" some of his stuff for personal reasons. I don't think he is a good musician any more.

1. Yes, spoken words can be musical and yes, that's what singing is BUT, according to your definition ALL conversations are music.

The difference is that it has to be *sound* that communicates. Words can communicate in a verbal way, but music communicates through the sound of the words.

2. No, that is incorrect. Look up Aleatoric music and "Indeterminacy". The aforementioned "4:33" by Cage is specifically NOT organised, for example.

Randomness isn't art. Rolling dice doesn't create art. Organizing sounds or images or shapes is what an artist does. 4:33 isn't music. It isn't sound. It's *potential* sound. That's conceptual art. Conceptual art invaded the other arts back in the 60s. The idea or process became more important than the execution or product. Warhol, Eno, Yoko Ono, Naim June Paik, etc. Most of it doesn't fit my criteria for music or representative art. But I suppose it might be good as conceptual art. I don't have much experience in that area.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

The process of analysis is that you have to puzzle out the reason why before you decide whether something is good or bad. Most people just look at something blankly and say to themselves "Do I like that?" That limits their judgement to their own taste. Instead, you should define what makes something "good", What are the basic attributes of good art? Or what are the attributes of good art in this particular genre or medium? You start there first, then you apply it and let the chips fall where they may. That way you aren't limited by your personal taste. You're actually discerning why something is good or bad. You can still "like" something that is lousy. But you know it's lousy. You aren't trying to defend your own ignorant tastes.

They don't teach this process in school. They probably should.

Defining preconceived attributes for judging art is applying your own subjective opinions.Unless they are generally accepted, they are nothing more than an opinion......objective/subjective is like the difference between art and science.

 

[bigshot]

Defining preconceived attributes for judging art is applying your own subjective opinions.

It might be your subjective perception, but the overriding goal of selecting your criteria should be defining truth, not serving yourself. Good criteria are constantly being revised and refined as you gain experience and grow in knowledge and wisdom. Exploring someone else's criteria and understanding the reasons behind them might teach you something too. It's a path, not a destination.

It's actually similar to coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it to see if it is true. And all of the different degrees and types of truth are the variables.

 

[Steve999]

Wynton Marsalis loves Willie Nelson, and vice versa. Go figure.

And Oscar Wilde was not a musician.

And Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Artists themselves have a different kind of point of view. Oscar Wilde said...

Bad artists always admire each other’s work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected.

When you hear an artist analyzing another artists' work, you're hearing an analysis filtered through the artists' own criteria for his own work. That makes their opinions doubly interesting because you learn something about both.

 

[bigshot]

Well, keep listening and keep thinking!

 

[Glmoneydawg]

It might be your subjective perception, but the overriding goal of selecting your criteria should be defining truth, not serving yourself. Good criteria are constantly being revised and refined as you gain experience and grow in knowledge and wisdom. Exploring someone else's criteria and understanding the reasons behind them might teach you something too. It's a path, not a destination.

It's actually similar to coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it to see if it is true. And all of the different degrees and types of truth are the variables.

I have seen 3 different art proffs have 3 different opinions on the same piece....on more than one occasion.

 

[bigshot]

If they all defined their criteria and stated why they had selected them to judge by, then you got three different opinions that helped you get closer to the truth. I learn as much from people I disagree with as I do ones I agree with. (unless that person is disingenuous or they aren't thinking or listening, just speaking.)

 

[Glmoneydawg]

If they all defined their criteria and stated why they had selected them to judge by, then you got three different opinions that helped you get closer to the truth. I learn as much from people I disagree with as I do ones I agree with. (unless that person is disingenuous or they aren't thinking or listening, just speaking.)

I'm no artist.....my daughter however ,has had one professor tell her to quit the art program....and 2 others take her art and send it on a tour of universities and art museums.This is clearly not something that can be proven with a graph or chart.We visit art museums on a regular basis and i have opinions on most of the stuff i see,but i understand it to be my opinion and nothing more.

 

[bigshot]

I'm sure all of them weren't judging on the same thing. Our current world doesn't value artists. For someone to create for a living, they have to work within some commercial framework. I would suspect that one professor was thinking about how easy it would be to make a living as an artist and two of them were just looking at the pieces.

But you're continuing to miss my point. I'm not saying one determination is wrong and the other one is right. I'm saying that by defining criteria to hone in on truth and then judging objectively from many points of view, a pattern emerges that points you to truth. It's like the story of the blind wise men being asked to describe an elephant... all of them were correct from their own perspective. But by combining observations, you get a better picture of the overall truth of the matter.

That is why it's so important to think critically and express your process for judging and judgements clearly. If you just say "I like it" or "I don't like it" you add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. All opinions are not created equal. Some lead to learning and some just sit there on the floor like something the dog made.

Many people resist thinking critically about art because they're afraid of looking like they don't know what they're talking about. But that is totally wrongheaded. The only way to know what you're talking about is to discern your own errors and correct them by listening to other people's perspectives. Otherwise you just remain ignorant. I celebrate when I'm wrong. It gives me a chance to learn something new.

Art and music aren't magic. They can be broken down and analyzed and that leads to appreciation. No one is required to be informed or interested in art, but I can't imagine having an interest in it and not analyze it critically.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

I'm sure all of them weren't judging on the same thing. Our current world doesn't value artists. For someone to create for a living, they have to work within some commercial framework. I would suspect that one professor was thinking about how easy it would be to make a living as an artist and two of them were just looking at the pieces.

But you're continuing to miss my point. I'm not saying one determination is wrong and the other one is right. I'm saying that by defining criteria to hone in on truth and then judging objectively from many points of view, a pattern emerges that points you to truth. It's like the story of the blind wise men being asked to describe an elephant... all of them were correct from their own perspective. But by combining observations, you get a better picture of the overall truth of the matter.

That is why it's so important to think critically and express your process for judging and judgements clearly. If you just say "I like it" or "I don't like it" you add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. All opinions are not created equal. Some lead to learning and some just sit there on the floor like something the dog made.

Many people resist thinking critically about art because they're afraid of looking like they don't know what they're talking about. But that is totally wrongheaded. The only way to know what you're talking about is to discern your own errors and correct them by listening to other people's perspectives. Otherwise you just remain ignorant. I celebrate when I'm wrong. It gives me a chance to learn something new.

Art and music aren't magic. They can be broken down and analyzed and that leads to appreciation. No one is required to be informed or interested in art, but I can't imagine having an interest in it and not analyze it critically.

fair enough

 

[Steve999]

Would someone just post some music already?

Okay, Bigshot’s point of view reminds me of Leibniz’s monads, a philosophical theory that always fascinated me, and perhaps Leibniz kind of taking this sort of thinking to its extreme did lead him to independently coinvent or codiscover calculus, however you want to look at it. So it has a foundation in Western scientific thought. It may have been the beginning of astonishing mathematics. Notice my provisional language because I don’t know what I’m talking about. I did take two semesters of calculus and two semesters of philosophy in college though. Meager credentials I know but it stuck with me. So google Leibniz’s monads and have a blast.

Now could someone please post some music? I for one will listen to it several times, provided I have not heard it on the radio 100s or thousands of times. Edit: Even if it’s 20th century classical music!!!

I expect some music when I get home tonight! Or else you are going to get Eeka Mouse’s Neutron Bomb (and you might anyway, I’m torn between that and Randy Travis. What a voice).

 

[GearMe]

 

[gregorio]

[1] The subjective criteria is applied for judgement objectively. You don't pick criteria just to make a point. You choose it to try to define truth.
[2] But by combining observations, you get a better picture of the overall truth of the matter.

1. But there is no definition of the "truth" (of what is music/art) so therefore, whatever definition you come up with is subjective! Furthermore, even if it were possible to define "criteria to hone in on truth". see an emerging pattern "that points you to truth" and actually arrive at the truth, it's still NOT the truth! At best it's the truth for an instant in time but the truth evolves and changes with time, there is no objective truth!

2. No, you get a more informed subjective opinion. The widest combination of views and observations ultimately leads to the realisation that there can be no "overall truth".

[1] The difference is that it has to be *sound* that communicates. [2] Words can communicate in a verbal way, but music communicates through the sound of the words.
[3] Randomness isn't art. Rolling dice doesn't create art. Organizing sounds or images or shapes is what an artist does. 4:33 isn't music. It isn't sound. It's *potential* sound. That's conceptual art.

1. But that's not a difference, a spoken sentence is "sound" that communicates, indeed, an organised series of sounds that communicate and therefore by your definition it MUST be music.
2. Spoken words are sound, by definition. Therefore, a spoken sentence must be communication through sound!

3. So you're saying that conceptual art is not art, what is it then and why call it conceptual Art? And, aren't you contradicting yourself on another level as well? You stated that one gains a better understanding (closer to the truth) from combining different points of view ("different criteria/judgements"). Clearly there is a very well established point of view that conceptual art is art but you're eliminating that point of view from your own criteria/definition of art. Doesn't that mean that you have less understanding and are further from your "overall truth"?

Also, 4:33 is not "potential" sound, it is actual sound! Maybe you've never heard it or never heard it "performed"/presented correctly?

G

 

[castleofargh]

No one is required to be informed or interested in art, but I can't imagine having an interest in it and not analyze it critically.

me! me! me! ^_^
I don't care who did it, if the singer murdered people or loves to show his penis, what instrument was used, what technique... I usually don't know those things because I have no personal interest in them.
for art/creative content where I have some above average knowledge and practiced the "art" myself, of course the nature of my interest has shifted and I pay attention to things the average Joe wouldn't care about, and will inquire about those things. perhaps your career is a big part of why you are interested in more than just enjoying the sound?