• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Music is "art"

#41
OK,

Lets look at your first two statements defining art:

it's people expressing meaning through a medium.

you can also get meaning from people reinterpreting an existing work
Click to expand...

So, you state "Meaning" is a requirment for something to be considered art, yet you next go on to state that the meaning can really be made up on the spot by anyone at anytime.

So, if the creator had a meaning at all, it gets lost as soon as someone thinks differently of it. So, what is being said here to me is art has NO EXACT MEANING, you can make one up to suit yourself at any given time.

To me, it would have to be essentially meaningless for others to be able to associate many, perhaps wildly differing, unrelated, "meanings" to it.

Kind of like a picture of a boat is a picture of a boat, but if you draw abstract of NOTHING, people can pretend to see whatever they want in it. By drawing NOTHING specific, you allow people to see what they want, the more you add something defining, the less it is open to interpretation.

So, for ART to have different meanings to different people, it almost certainly must contain NO MEANING in and of itself that defines it in conflict with anothers perspective.

-eSmith.
 
#42
eSmith said:
To Mohawk, if you think it all the way through (as well as consider your statment that , Then
EVERYTHING produced EVER is a subcatagory of Art.

Now when something is as wide open as that to interpretation, then it is called a GENERALIZATION. And holds no real specific meaning.

"That music is artistic" doesn't mean anything, Your wasting your breath and just filling the silence with noise to say it out loud.

"That music is in the key of Dm" on the other hand actually says something and imparts information that is useful.

Don't get me wrong guys, It's not at all important to me that anyone agrees with me or even if I am the correct one here.

I would welcome anyone to correct me by giving me a concrete reason to consider ART a meaningfull description of anything. I would love to see where the line is drawn that determines, without question what is good and what is bad art. Sadly, there is none I am aware of.

Seriously though, I'm board at work, almost at the end of my day, my tasks are done and I'm killing time. I find it interesting to "Debate" in a friendly manner and it may seem I'm ALWAYS playing devils advocate but please understand I am never ARGUING with you.

I really find a one sided discussion where everyone is agreeing with each other to be pretty boaring to read, but that doesn't have to ever be personal.

Have a great day guys!

-eSmith.
Click to expand...

I think we're maybe getting off bass (har) here.

I work in science, I class it as an art form, just one in which we follow certain empirical rules, just as you would for music.

Saying "art can cover everything ever created", well yes, it can. Saying it is therefore meaningless, well, fair enough, that is your interpritation.

However, even if it holds no meaning to you, it doesn't mean that music isn't an art.

If you follow my line of thinking here?
 
#43
eSmith said:
So, you state "Meaning" is a requirment for something to be considered art, yet you next go on to state that the meaning can really be made up on the spot by anyone at anytime.

So, if the creator had a meaning at all, it gets lost as soon as someone thinks differently of it. So, what is being said here to me is art has NO EXACT MEANING, you can make one up to suit yourself at any given time.
Click to expand...

Meaning is an idividual thing. A bunch of people will feel differently about a painting. The exact same thing can be said about music.
 
#45
eSmith said:
OK,

Lets look at your first two statements defining art:



So, you state "Meaning" is a requirment for something to be considered art, yet you next go on to state that the meaning can really be made up on the spot by anyone at anytime.
Click to expand...

ah - no, I should have more clear! by 'reinterpret' I meant people performing something that has been performed before, like classical music etc.

eSmith said:
So, if the creator had a meaning at all, it gets lost as soon as someone thinks differently of it. So, what is being said here to me is art has NO EXACT MEANING, you can make one up to suit yourself at any given time.

To me, it would have to be essentially meaningless for others to be able to associate many, perhaps wildly differing, unrelated, "meanings" to it.

Kind of like a picture of a boat is a picture of a boat, but if you draw abstract of NOTHING, people can pretend to see whatever they want in it. By drawing NOTHING specific, you allow people to see what they want, the more you add something defining, the less it is open to interpretation.

So, for ART to have different meanings to different people, it almost certainly must contain NO MEANING in and of itself that defines it in conflict with anothers perspective.

-eSmith.
Click to expand...

fair point - the meaning intended by the creator of a piece of art (or music, or whatever) is often not the same as the one peope get from it.

your view that 'any posible meaning = no meaning' is a valid one. It is a free-for-all, with infinite possibilities.

...but infinite does not = 0 in my book :)

and back to the original thread, I think that music IS art. you can interpret music any way you want.

cheers :)
 
#46
No reason to argue the definition of art. It's right there in the dictionary. :D

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: \ˈärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts b archaic : learning, scholarship
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
 
#47
If you replace the subject with washing dishes, or driving a car you dont get the same results.
Click to expand...


Let's give it a try shall we:

[DEL]Music Food[/DEL] Driving/washing dishes is an inherently artistic activity in that it is creative...anybody who [DEL]composes prepairs food [/DEL] Drives/Washes Dishes or interprets a [DEL]musical cullinary[/DEL] Driving/Cleaning idea is engaging in the act of creativity (though often to different degrees). Classical [DEL]musicians chefs[/DEL] Drivers/Diswashers generally are interpreters, [DEL]jazz musicians Gourmet chefs[/DEL], Race Car Builders/ Dishwasher designers, at least the real heavies are generally creators, but they all engage in the creation of art.
Click to expand...


Nope, still works......

Surprisingly enough.... There's even a website for each case:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Link Removed

-eSmith.
 
#54
eSmith said:
Let's give it a try shall we:




Nope, still works......

Surprisingly enough.... There's even a website for each case:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Link Removed

-eSmith.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I wouldnt say that 'The Art of Driving' is an equivalent to 'Creating Art' nor 'The Art of Dishwashing' to creating dishes. The art of any craftmanship is not equivalent to creating art. The word 'art' has multiple definitions, and they are not all interchangable.
 
#56
eSmith said:
So, if the creator had a meaning at all, it gets lost as soon as someone thinks differently of it. So, what is being said here to me is art has NO EXACT MEANING, you can make one up to suit yourself at any given time.

To me, it would have to be essentially meaningless for others to be able to associate many, perhaps wildly differing, unrelated, "meanings" to it.

Kind of like a picture of a boat is a picture of a boat, but if you draw abstract of NOTHING, people can pretend to see whatever they want in it. By drawing NOTHING specific, you allow people to see what they want, the more you add something defining, the less it is open to interpretation.

So, for ART to have different meanings to different people, it almost certainly must contain NO MEANING in and of itself that defines it in conflict with anothers perspective.
Click to expand...

playing devil's advocate to the devil's advocate lol couldn't instead of saying if multiple people draw multiple meanings, which means it has no meaning, couldn't you also go on to say that if multiple people draw multiple meanings, which means it has all meaning as well? or did we all collectively divide by zero here?

to bring this around, the snobs are wrong--by the rules we've arbitrarily assigned in this thread, either everything is art, or nothing is art, and you can't pick and choose lol
 
#58
MatticusMania said:
Yes, but I wouldnt say that 'The Art of Driving' is an equivalent to 'Creating Art' nor 'The Art of Dishwashing' to creating dishes.
Click to expand...

The Miracle of Washing Dishes (1990) &#8212; Epiphanies over this simple task

Washing dishes, a miracle? Though at first such a notion may seem preposterous, think about it. What common household task have all women - and woefully too few men - engaged in? And what routine is done differently by everyone who does it? Why washing dishes, of course.

&#8216;The miracle of washing dishes is the miracle of being alive,&#8217; said Lindsey Lane, the Austin playwright who conceived of The Miracle of Washing Dishes.

&#8212;William Peterson, Austin Statesman, June 29, 1990.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back