Best Ever Albums

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Wed, 7 Jan 2015 15:58:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/07/2015 20:58

meccalecca wrote:

Not quite sure what that means.

I think Satie and Ben both made a good case for why imagining 4'33 isn't the same as experiencing it. I'd also argue that both Beethoven's 9th and 4'33 can be written out as sheet music. One is far more complicated and harder to imagine, but both exist. Most composers can imagine every detail of a symphony without actually hearing it played, so sheet music is not exactly unimaginable without hearing it performed. I'm sure if a skilled composer read sheet music of an unperformed symphony, they would be able to tell you whether or not they love it.

To follow up on this point, assuming you're correct Muslim-Bigfoot, and we take your definition of art object and concept interchangeability as the limit on what art is, where exactly is that line? JLIAT's The Nature of Nature is one hour of the same tone. Is that enough to overcome 4'33"'s 0 tone non-art status? If not, what about slightly fluctuating sine waves on various onkyo releases? No? What about a minimalist score with three rotating nexuses? Or is complexity not a part of your argument?

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

WindowAbove — Wed, 7 Jan 2015 12:38:45 GMT

Author: WindowAbove

Posted: 01/07/2015 17:38

Art consists of all of the music ever released except for that released by Jay-Z.
(I apologize if someone made this joke already, I didn't read through most of the thread)

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

meccalecca — Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:16:53 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/07/2015 16:16

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

My challenge is not result-sensitive.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

benpaco — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:21:54 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 01/07/2015 04:21

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

Don't tell me you wouldn't be able to imagine 4'33'' if I told you what it was? Now think about how that would work with Beethoven's ninth symphony. What I'm saying is that ideas and concepts cannot be works of art. I cannot tell you what art is though.

I was no older than 7 (maybe younger? I dunno, but I can tell you that was the oldest I was) when I first went to see a live orchestra, and they performed some big opening that was loud and interesting and then a slow piece and then something from some movie my parents had seen and I hadn't, and then announced their next piece and my dad laughed. He knew what was happening, the rest of us didn't. They sat there for some time, and then people started clapping. I don't have terribly clear memory of the experience, again, I was fairly young, but I remember being weirdly shaken by it. To go from some loud cool thing to just the sound of the wind and the trees and the whole audience breathing, breathing, breathing, louder almost to try to fill the void of sound ... I didn't understand it as a kid, I was almost scared. Looking back, it seems kind of cool I guess.

In other words, to me, it's art if it's used right, and anything from silence to a fart joke to a skeleton can be.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

SquishypuffDave — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:20:42 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 01/07/2015 04:20

My preferred definition: art is an interpretive action. Art is the frame, and the frame is a frame of mind. Mind over matter 'cause the matter doesn't mind.

This makes no distinction between "artist" and "viewer". Both are involved in the action of artistic interpretation. In fact I'd say that act of seeing something as art is the act of an artist.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:20:05 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/07/2015 04:20

I think the label of "art" is far less important than how the work at hand, whether someone has a problem calling it art or not, enthralls and engages like great art always does. The label isn't important. It doesn't matter if you call me hetereo/bi/pan/poly/genderqueer-sexual or not, I still badly want to fuck Kitty Pryde and Ryan Gosling at the same time (that last part was very relevant I know, but both are works of art.....)

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 23:05:34 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/07/2015 04:05

I was talking with Cubazed about this topic a few hours ago due to this thread, and we had a pretty nice discussion I thought would be worth sharing. I tentatively agreed with Jhereko's position that anything made with the intention of being art is art, with exceptions for outsider art made by children or purely for catharsis or what not, Cuba's definition was along the lines of art being human expression in basically any form. We both agreed that any attempt to put objective measure on what art is or isn't tends to introduce bias into the equation, so for a truly encompassing definition it had to be pretty open-ended and vague. I can't remember exactly how the conversation went, but it eventually got into the sort of line of would something like Pac-Man be considered art due to its cultural significance even if it's intention was purely to entertain when it was made. Likewise, would sports be considered art considering the creative thoughts that go into strategy, the emotional expression from athletes, so on so forth. My idea was that when something was made with the pure intention of being something else, like an athletic contest, it precludes it from being art, but then there have been films made without the intention of being art before, so it opens up that objective measure with subjective bias concept again. Then sports like figure skating and synchronized swimming were brought into the discussion that certainly could be considered art, but if we were to consider them art, why would something like basketball not be? With the concept of art as human expression a whole can of worms is opened up on what could be art to the extent that almost anything human could be considered art.

One of my ideas was that for something to be art it needed to have individual works, created by the artist, but that still feels pretty limiting. When the definition is so open-ended it easily spirals out of control as to what could be considered art, when too many measures are placed on it personal opinions confound judgement. I think overall the line is incredibly shaky and impossible to place as to what art's boundaries are, and any definition is flawed in some way. I don't know if I could consider sports as a whole art even when there are certainly some with creative beauty, but I definitely don't feel I could point at individual albums and say what ones are art and aren't. There's no real satisfying answer to the question, but both Cuba and I tend to favor an open-ended interpretation. I'm not happy with the answer really, but the conversation is certainly one worth having.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Applerill — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:43:34 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 01/07/2015 03:43

I guess it's about time for Charlie Blart: Scaruffi Cop and explain my philosophies.

Obviously, there are some things that we really shouldn't even try to consider art, such as media whose sole purpose is communicating information "content". For instance, I love Anthony Fantano and his criticism, but even when Cal Chuchesta is at his funniest, I wouldn't consider many NeedleDrop episodes to be "art".

But despite spending most of my Philosophy of Art class last semester working with all these different theories, I don't think it's particularly useful to spend time defining art by an in-or-out definition. I think it makes much more sense to measure a piece's "art-ness" by some sort of scholastic unit (abstract qualities?).

One definition I love from Andrew Simonet argues that "entertainment satisfies cravings; art satisfies needs". What's great about this definition is that it's not only fairly straightforward, but extremely profitable to our daily lives at the same time.

With this in mind, it should make sense why I hesitate to call American Hustle art, yet would place Miley Cyrus's Bangerz album on that pedestal without a doubt. The latter's entire purpose is to remove top-40 pop sexuality from the male gaze (as did Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers and even Beyonce's self-titled) , and uses that freedom to show the real YOLO life of a young southern girl; the former, on the other hand, thrives on this shallow indulgence, and really is rather empty without that glitz and glamour. That doesn't make it a bad movie by any means, but until someone details it as closely as I did with Freddy Got Fingered, I wouldn't consider it as pure of an art as Bangerz.

This also explains my distaste for movies like Fight Club (and, if I'm correct on my ASSumptions when I finally see it, Whiplash). There are probably deep messages mixed in amongst all the flash and shock value; but they're so layered in literal contradiction that they become absolutely unintelligible from this context. Too many IMDB movies are like that, and if we really love art, then it's our responsibility to see if they really fit the category or not.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:41:28 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/07/2015 03:41

As long as we're on the subject, I'm watching Fantasia 2000 right now. it's very art. The 30's New York segment is great.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

SquishypuffDave — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 22:27:17 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 01/07/2015 03:27

Maybe everything is art, but some things are more art than other things. Dog poop is a little bit art, but Final Fantasy cutscenes are very art.

I think the big question here is: can art be bird noises? Let's take a step back and analyse what it means to be a bird noise.

1. It's made of soundwaves.
2. It's emitted by a feathered, winged, two-legged, warm-blooded, egg-laying vertebrate.

(Detractors of this definition often make the argument that male birds do not lay eggs, but can still make bird noises. I think we can all agree that the egg-laying refers to the species in general rather than the individual creature.)

Now, does art fit into this category? I believe it can.

1. Art is sometimes made from soundwaves. Mark Kozelek is a good example of this.
2. In Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven", which is generally agreed to be art, the titular raven speaks to the protagonist. This raven is feathered, winged, two-legged, warm-blooded, and can be assumed to have a spine, and is emitting noise.

The speaking raven is potentially just a hallucination, but I need only show that the raven is potentially speaking to the protagonist for the argument to work. I hope my argument has been persuasive and you'll all agree that yes, art is a type of bird noise.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Tap — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:14:58 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 01/07/2015 01:14

It's not art until someone says it isn't.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Muslim-Bigfoot — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:43:40 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 01/07/2015 00:43

meccalecca wrote:

Imagination distorts.

My challenge is not result-sensitive.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

meccalecca — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:35:36 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/07/2015 00:35

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

Don't tell me you wouldn't be able to imagine 4'33'' if I told you what it was?

Imagination distorts.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Defago — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:30:49 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 01/07/2015 00:30

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

I believe art has both a conceptual and an aesthetic component. So a book has both the particular choice of words but also has a series of concepts, and they're both equally valid as art. Don Quixote is beautifully written, but the plot itself and the irony of it all is also artistic. 4'33 is 100% concept and 0% aesthetic, but it's till, IMO, art. A gorgeous landscape photography is much more art due to the aesthetic qualities it possesses than due to the concepts behind it (the choice of landscape?), yet it's also art. Most art is a mixture of both. Like, say, a painting is both the paint on the canvas and the underlying ideas the author's trying to represent through those, and they're both equally valid components of being-art. I've always perceived intelligent, beautiful paradoxes to have a certain aspect of artistry to them. However, and returning to my original opinion on what art is, that depends on the perceiver's perception (derp). Too tired atm to really explain what I think, but I'll try again tomorrow after I've had some sleep + coffee.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Muslim-Bigfoot — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:27:30 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 01/07/2015 00:27

satiemaniac wrote:

have you ever experienced 4'33" performed in a concert hall? i can't say i have, but i have listened to a recording of it, and the choice to leap into perception of it as such was a mutually negotiated experience between the art object and myself, same as any symphony. though on a recording, i had to do a bit more work and your weirdly traditionalist view of art might refuse me for it, i figure in a concert hall that experience would be magnified and more "organically" drawn out of me.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:08:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/07/2015 00:08

Jhereko wrote:

At that point it's so broad you're almost saying every event that impacts your life is art...

to be fair, i label the best event of my day the "bass drop of my day" in my private journals.

Norman Bates wrote:

If the XXth century has taught us something, it's that this question is totally obsolete. Unless you're a student in aesthetics, it is of absolutely no importance.

Norman, you've always been my favorite poster

meccalecca wrote:

In contrast to my previous statements, I would also like to state that

Art is a valuable commodity which can be bought and traded by the wealthy elite, but ultimately contains no practical use beyond decoration and/or entertainment for the sake of pleasure. When the wealthy run out of practical uses for their money, they purchase art as a near fail safe investment plan to obtain more wealth, while displaying their wealth in a more visual way than lining their mansions with dollar bills.

there's actually very interesting scholarship on the difference between European/Eurocentric art consumers and others. a lot of the differences come in the form of function and reflection, where Europeans and those whose art education comes from them in some form or another, view aesthetics as sort of the master of art, where the aesthetic element is secondary in the self-described art of members of a chain gang or an Indian tribe, who use it to coordinate work and ritual, to go back a bit since this is the specific reference point for the essay i'm thinking of.

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

Nope, not art. Listening to it wouldn't be that different from someone telling me about it.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:57:15 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/06/2015 22:57

meccalecca wrote:

Many artists strive to have the imaginative approach of a child.

Yeah, it surprises me that most don't have it down. I guess that's what makes painters like Leonardo Da Vinci and Picasso, and filmmakers like Burton so popular. Their creations revolve around imagination and new concepts. They never really let go. When you see that somebody's visually inventive, their creations make you wonder what's going on in those people's heads (if they aren't stoned), and how they can let go of the real world so easily. It's easy for adults to live in the real world, and children to live in fantasy. In a way, these artists may bring people back to their childhood when anything was possible. A child could come up with anything and not remember it later, whereas an adult usually needs to remember the important things and they feel that they can take what's cool and make it theirs solely by copying it. hence, the copyright infringement was born, and the 1923 Copyright Act.

As long as we're on the subject of childhood possibilities, this reminds me of Peter Pan 2003 (Peter Pan is the definition of the differences between the adults and the children). The special effects were intentionally cheesy, and that's what added to the charm. And some new ideas were put in that weren't in the book or the Disney film. Example: Peter putting his hand in space and splashing the sky like water. That was cool.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Muslim-Bigfoot — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:52:46 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 01/06/2015 22:52

meccalecca wrote:

I don't quite follow. All three (Concept, screenplay, and composition) can be presented in written form to be interpreted for presentation.

My best example in regards to concept for clarity would be Sol LeWitt. His famous works contained written instructions for the executions of drawings and sculptures. These would be what I classify as the concept.

Well, concept has a definition or a description that are interchangeable. Abstract entity doesn't.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

meccalecca — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:44:41 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 01/06/2015 22:44

JMan wrote:

Ah. Then I can definitely agree with you there. A child's creation can be more interesting. Having many young ones in my family, I can see what you mean.

Many artists strive to have the imaginative approach of a child.

Re: Mental Masturbation - On Art and Its Boundaries

Anonymous — Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:42:41 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/06/2015 22:42

meccalecca wrote:

never said it did. I just said it often results in more interesting art.

Ah. Then I can definitely agree with you there. A child's creation can be more interesting. Having many young ones in my family, I can see what you mean.