Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

To make good art you have to be skilled in the medium of your choice...

Then what do we make of the — British, not American — punk bands of the 70s? Part of their apparent appeal was that they had no skill, but only enthusiasm. Poly Styrene and X-Ray Spex, anyone?

[Lagayascienza]

Take a dump on a nice white canvas. Nah, it's already been done. It didn't sell. And it didn't institute a great new movement in art. I wonder why? I'm a full time artist. I want to folks to like my work. But I wrote this sort sensationalist of crap off with Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. I'm an atheist but I still thought [/]Piss Christ[/i] was in such extreme poor taste it did not deserve the label ART; it was just one step removed from a dump on a canvas. But if that sort of stuff turns some folks on, well, sure, who am I to criticize? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Enjoy.

[Sy Borg]

So, if we decide that quality in art is purely subjective and the notion of objective quality does not exist, then morals must also be purely subjective. If anything goes, why should artists bother practising? Why should people bother about morality, if it's purely subjective.

Being subjective is not the same thing as "anything goes", as I'm sure you know.

Indeedy, but I'm not sure you have quite expressed that in your posts. I know you have standards because you seem to mostly enjoy sophisticated music, generally performed by master musicians. You seem to be loathe to say that the music is definitively better than commercial pop for fear of seeming elitist, of falsely dismissing the enjoyment of commercial music as somehow lesser.

In a sense, yes, a strong experience is not rendered weaker for having a less sophisticated base. STILL ... there are standards. A simple design, dashed off under pressure by an inexperienced commercial artist working for a big advertising firm is not equal to, say, Guenrrica.

For instance, if I placed one of my poops in a package and posted it to you, I could call that art that is at the same level as the Mona Lisa. After all, it's creative and it will generate emotional reactions. That is great art! Convince me otherwise. Leonardo might as well step aside - the PoopPoster is the new artistic benchmark!

If you think it's great art — Dali, a famous coprophile might agree — that's OK, it's your opinion. My opinion might not be as positive as yours, but it's 'art' if you (the artist) present it as such. That much I accept. But might I judge it to be great art? Possibly not.

I didn't know Dali was a copraphile They say you should never meet your heroes ... yikes.

Still, often it depends on the packaging and marketing. If there was a strong advertising campaign, lauding the benefits of fecal transplants, and I sent the poop in a golden box with a see-through panel, with it all wrapped in a nice ribbon, the Artwork could find itself in a gallery!

[Pattern-chaser]

So, if we decide that quality in art is purely subjective and the notion of objective quality does not exist, then morals must also be purely subjective. If anything goes, why should artists bother practising? Why should people bother about morality, if it's purely subjective.

Being subjective is not the same thing as "anything goes", as I'm sure you know.

Indeedy, but I'm not sure you have quite expressed that in your posts. I know you have standards because you seem to mostly enjoy sophisticated music, generally performed by master musicians. You seem to be loathe to say that the music is definitively better than commercial pop for fear of seeming elitist, of falsely dismissing the enjoyment of commercial music as somehow lesser.

I have tried (but obviously failed) to express that clearly and often in my posts.

As to your final sentence, you have the 'what' right, but not the 'why'. I seem loth to say that my taste in music is superior to yours (or anyone else's), as both are entirely subjective, so judging or comparing opinions isn't really valid. I am happy to say that I like Paul Desmond more than I like Rihanna, but I will stop short of saying, using absolute phraseology, that Desmond is better than Rihanna. For the latter is (IMO) a stupidity of words.

[How about that; stupidity as a collective noun for words that gather together and dance around their camp-fire, singing nonsense rhymes?]

[Sy Borg]

So, if we decide that quality in art is purely subjective and the notion of objective quality does not exist, then morals must also be purely subjective. If anything goes, why should artists bother practising? Why should people bother about morality, if it's purely subjective.

Being subjective is not the same thing as "anything goes", as I'm sure you know. 😉

Indeedy, but I'm not sure you have quite expressed that in your posts. I know you have standards because you seem to mostly enjoy sophisticated music, generally performed by master musicians. You seem to be loathe to say that the music is definitively better than commercial pop for fear of seeming elitist, of falsely dismissing the enjoyment of commercial music as somehow lesser.

I have tried (but obviously failed) to express that clearly and often in my posts.

As to your final sentence, you have the 'what' right, but not the 'why'. I seem loth to say that my taste in music is superior to yours (or anyone else's), as both are entirely subjective, so judging or comparing opinions isn't really valid. I am happy to say that I like Paul Desmond more than I like Rihanna, but I will stop short of saying, using absolute phraseology, that Desmond is better than Rihanna. For the latter is (IMO) a stupidity of words.

[How about that; stupidity as a collective noun for words that gather together and dance around their camp-fire, singing nonsense rhymes?]

Then again, Paul Desmond was absolutely a better musician than Rhianna or The Boys next Door. It's not even close. Likewise, that Rhianna is absolutely a better dancer and entertainer than Paul Desmond.

The only stupid thing about those observations is their obviousness.

Do you agree that other people can be vastly better than you at doing certain things? Or do you see yourself as equal and equivalent to everyone in all areas?

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you agree that other people can be vastly better than you at doing certain things? Or do you see yourself as equal and equivalent to everyone in all areas?

Yes. No.

[Belindi]

To make good art you have to be skilled in the medium of your choice...

Then what do we make of the — British, not American — punk bands of the 70s? Part of their apparent appeal was that they had no skill, but only enthusiasm. Poly Styrene and X-Ray Spex, anyone?

If what you say is true then I think their fans are masochists seeking pleasure from pain.

[Sy Borg]

To make good art you have to be skilled in the medium of your choice...

Then what do we make of the — British, not American — punk bands of the 70s? Part of their apparent appeal was that they had no skill, but only enthusiasm. Poly Styrene and X-Ray Spex, anyone? 😮

If what you say is true then I think their fans are masochists seeking pleasure from pain.

Hehehe.

It's a similar movement to that which is happening in Hollywood, where the gender and race of writers matters more than experience or skill. It's because a certain percentage of people seek to see themselves represented in the art they consume. They most want to watch others who they perceive to be "like them", as opposed to seeking quality art.

In the past, the fascination of art was more the chance to peer into the minds of those who were not like you and to lose oneself in another world. Often, the more different and "exotic", the better. Now, it seems that cultures sometimes go through a phase of narcissism, of obsessive self-interest and an inability to empathise outside of one's circle. This need to see oneself reflected probably stems from insecurity, as these phases of placing identity over quality seem to follow economic shocks.

[Belindi]

To make good art you have to be skilled in the medium of your choice...

Then what do we make of the — British, not American — punk bands of the 70s? Part of their apparent appeal was that they had no skill, but only enthusiasm. Poly Styrene and X-Ray Spex, anyone?

If what you say is true then I think their fans are masochists seeking pleasure from pain.

Hehehe.

It's a similar movement to that which is happening in Hollywood, where the gender and race of writers matters more than experience or skill. It's because a certain percentage of people seek to see themselves represented in the art they consume. They most want to watch others who they perceive to be "like them", as opposed to seeking quality art.

In the past, the fascination of art was more the chance to peer into the minds of those who were not like you and to lose oneself in another world. Often, the more different and "exotic", the better. Now, it seems that cultures sometimes go through a phase of narcissism, of obsessive self-interest and an inability to empathise outside of one's circle. This need to see oneself reflected probably stems from insecurity, as these phases of placing identity over quality seem to follow economic shocks.

There are an awful lot of issues packed into your too brief post"

[Belindi]

Then what do we make of the — British, not American — punk bands of the 70s? Part of their apparent appeal was that they had no skill, but only enthusiasm. Poly Styrene and X-Ray Spex, anyone?

If what you say is true then I think their fans are masochists seeking pleasure from pain.

Hehehe.

It's a similar movement to that which is happening in Hollywood, where the gender and race of writers matters more than experience or skill. It's because a certain percentage of people seek to see themselves represented in the art they consume. They most want to watch others who they perceive to be "like them", as opposed to seeking quality art.

In the past, the fascination of art was more the chance to peer into the minds of those who were not like you and to lose oneself in another world. Often, the more different and "exotic", the better. Now, it seems that cultures sometimes go through a phase of narcissism, of obsessive self-interest and an inability to empathise outside of one's circle. This need to see oneself reflected probably stems from insecurity, as these phases of placing identity over quality seem to follow economic shocks.

There are an awful lot of issues packed into your too brief post"

It's new to me, and I want to read more on that topic as you describe it. Can you oblige me please?

[Sy Borg]

If what you say is true then I think their fans are masochists seeking pleasure from pain.

Hehehe.

It's a similar movement to that which is happening in Hollywood, where the gender and race of writers matters more than experience or skill. It's because a certain percentage of people seek to see themselves represented in the art they consume. They most want to watch others who they perceive to be "like them", as opposed to seeking quality art.

In the past, the fascination of art was more the chance to peer into the minds of those who were not like you and to lose oneself in another world. Often, the more different and "exotic", the better. Now, it seems that cultures sometimes go through a phase of narcissism, of obsessive self-interest and an inability to empathise outside of one's circle. This need to see oneself reflected probably stems from insecurity, as these phases of placing identity over quality seem to follow economic shocks.

There are an awful lot of issues packed into your too brief post"

It's new to me, and I want to read more on that topic as you describe it. Can you oblige me please?

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

[Sculptor1]

Hehehe.

It's a similar movement to that which is happening in Hollywood, where the gender and race of writers matters more than experience or skill. It's because a certain percentage of people seek to see themselves represented in the art they consume. They most want to watch others who they perceive to be "like them", as opposed to seeking quality art.

In the past, the fascination of art was more the chance to peer into the minds of those who were not like you and to lose oneself in another world. Often, the more different and "exotic", the better. Now, it seems that cultures sometimes go through a phase of narcissism, of obsessive self-interest and an inability to empathise outside of one's circle. This need to see oneself reflected probably stems from insecurity, as these phases of placing identity over quality seem to follow economic shocks.

There are an awful lot of issues packed into your too brief post"

It's new to me, and I want to read more on that topic as you describe it. Can you oblige me please?

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

[Belindi]

Thanks Sy Borg. I have been reading up on the connection with the narcissism spectrum.This sort of study is I think called social psychology.

I once really liked a 'radiophonic workshop' . When Doctor Who first arose, in the 1960s I think, the signature music was synthetic. A Borg Synthesiser I think was involved. I don't know if you'd call synthetic the same as AI.

[Sy Borg]

There are an awful lot of issues packed into your too brief post"

It's new to me, and I want to read more on that topic as you describe it. Can you oblige me please?

The other phase in my lifetime was in the 1970s. At the time, rock music had grown from a simple blend of country music, jazz and gospel to progressive rock, which was creative, complex and challenging. The advent of disco and punk music shifted the focus to the self. The music has been moving from basic social conduit to bona fide art from, now it was regressing back to, in disco's case, a conduit for sex and, in punk's case, a chance for disaffected teens to see themselves in the people on stage. Again, it was not about escape and creation, but about identity.

Music seems more formulaic.
In my life I have seen the birth of several subgenres, until this century where that seems to have ceased.
Not to say that a new genre is good news necessarily. I think punk killed prog - mainly because of idiot music journos wanting to stay relevant, traduced prog in favour of punk which relished bad taste and poor musicianship.
The advent of rave/house/garage/acid ect was an attempt to end musicianship altogether. Thankfully that did not work.
What's next. the last genre : AI music?

AI music and AI art capture the formulas and clichés of those arts, but skip the artistic and creative aspects, not unlike many commercial pop art enterprises. AI seems to be the most recent attempt to eliminate musicianship. I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's satirical dystopia, Between Time and Timbuktu, where society demands that everyone be equal, so everyone with talent must be handicapped to the point where they are normal.

I have a sense that some audiences, figuratively speaking, become tired of lookup up, and would rather look across. Reality TV might be the most extreme example of this. This comes in phases (I hope).

[Sy Borg]

Thanks Sy Borg. I have been reading up on the connection with the narcissism spectrum.This sort of study is I think called social psychology.

I once really liked a 'radiophonic workshop' . When Doctor Who first arose, in the 1960s I think, the signature music was synthetic. A Borg Synthesiser I think was involved. I don't know if you'd call synthetic the same as AI.

I guess narcissism is one more expression of insecurity, a feeling with numerous manifestations. The ego shield hardens and becomes ossified, unable to trust others enough to cooperate. I could be wrong, but I doubt that today's growing narcissism would be as intense if economic and social conditions were more favourable.

I would describe what happened with the Dr Who theme is that the music was programmed in analogue media. Each note was programmed, selected as deliberately as notes composed by a human. I used music computers at times in the 80s (although I preferred playing live) and you need to approve of each note.

By contrast, AI creates music based on rules that are created by humans, but no human selects the notes or their placement.