Best Ever Albums

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

SquishypuffDave — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:48:32 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 02/14/2015 00:48

RockyRaccoon wrote:

So the question is, what happens when the artist creates something that is typically art (e.g. music, a movie) and says "this is not art, this is just how I make money". Someone pumps out an album of uninspired songs that they openly say they made simply to make some money, is it still art even though the creator doesn't it believe it to be?

It just means they aren't the one to put the frame around it. Duchamp decided that the urinal was art, even if the manufacturer didn't.

RockyRaccoon wrote:

In other words, if we separate the artist from the art, does the intention of the artist matter at all? And if we don't separate the art from the artist, does the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the art?

The artist's interpretation of the work has the same weight as any other listener's interpretation of the work. Actually I don't even like to separate "artist" and "listener". A sample-based artist is an involved listener that hears things in the source material that the original artist didn't (if the source material was even originally considered art). A guitarist hears things in their guitar that the guitar didn't intend.

babyBlueSedan wrote:

What's your opinion on an album like Straight Outta Compton? You can't tell me NWA didn't have any specific intention for that album when they wrote it. Same with anything Public Enemy has done or Dylan's protest songs. They had a pretty specific purpose in mind, although they might have different personal meanings for whoever hears them.

The listener still makes up the intention, but their interpretation is still guided by the work. Some works are more direct in their guiding of our interpretation.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:50:32 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/13/2015 22:50

Great read. Gonna try not to be late and actually contribute to the next one

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:26:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/13/2015 14:26

pretty much what meccalecca and Norman said

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

RockyRaccoon — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:31:59 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/13/2015 13:31

Defago wrote:

Not a problem! Might send you some of the ideas I had if I could just remember them...

Sounds good!

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Defago — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 22:54:27 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 02/13/2015 03:54

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Oh ok! I forgot about that. You can still do then if you want, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I mean, this is really just a reiteration of the ideas you and Puncture had.

Not a problem! Might send you some of the ideas I had if I could just remember them...

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:54:23 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/13/2015 01:54

Defago wrote:

I had planned on doing my "Mental Masturbation" threads on a monthly basis which were of a similar vein to this, but I'll gladly let you take over!

Oh ok! I forgot about that. You can still do then if you want, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I mean, this is really just a reiteration of the ideas you and Puncture had.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Defago — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:30:14 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 02/13/2015 01:30

RockyRaccoon wrote:

My plan is to post another one next week at some point.

This has been great! I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and it's awesome that it's been going so well! Hopefully it continues this way.

Again, if anyone has any questions or topics they think would be good for PoD, PM me and I'd love to put it in.

I had planned on doing my "Mental Masturbation" threads on a monthly basis which were of a similar vein to this, but I'll gladly let you take over!

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

babyBlueSedan — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:28:31 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 02/13/2015 01:28

Gowienczyk wrote:

Art theory is really a headache, isn't it?

It reminds me of a philosophy of science class I took, where I learned that we never know anything and we know even less about what it is we're trying to know. Nonetheless it has been interesting to hear other perspectives

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

RockyRaccoon — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:59:13 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 02/13/2015 00:59

Kiki wrote:

Can we get a second thread like this on weekend RockyRacoon?

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:31:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/13/2015 00:31

It has been rather fun 😄 I feel we all said a lot of good things, it doesn't matter if we don't agree.

Also, as I never really debate or discuss, this thread has been a wonderful exception. Can we get a second thread like this on weekend RockyRacoon?

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

mickilennial — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:26:43 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 02/13/2015 00:26

Art theory is really a headache, isn't it?

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Defago — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:23:28 GMT

Author: Defago

Posted: 02/13/2015 00:23

Art is what results from our interpretation of the artist's work. Necessarily a collaborative effort, and impossible to guess the artist's intentions perfectly right. It's all about how we relate to and interpret what the artist is TRYING to say, IMO.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

babyBlueSedan — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:16:07 GMT

Author: babyBlueSedan

Posted: 02/12/2015 23:16

Norman Bates wrote:

We fucking make the intention up when we listen. We make the meaning. That's our part of the deal.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:22:18 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/12/2015 21:22

Norman Bates wrote:

We fucking make the intention up when we listen. We make the meaning. That's our part of the deal.

Perfect. Yes.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Anonymous — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:50:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 02/12/2015 18:50

The thing about artist and art is that the artist may not realize they make art so they might not make it at all. If you seperate from the other it comes with the price that it may not be respecting wishes.

If the artist makes art and wants to then fail to get it across if the person receiving doesn't like it. This means that they are trying to be liked which could end up contaminating the art. So it is inevitable people will listen to some music made by people they don't like or do acts they don't like. They will like it because they hear it in their own life, not some white room with nothing else to do. As they are living their life they will hear changes in the music as they will be happy sometimes and sad other times.

Norman Bates said something good which I liked to read 😄 Basically artists do things by accident and they end up doing the best thing in the world for somebody all on accident which makes it all the more beautiful.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

meccalecca — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:31:19 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 02/12/2015 18:31

Norman Bates wrote:

And if we get it 'wrong', then the 'artist' has failed

Well, i don't know if that's entirely true. Art is generally an act of communicating an idea, so I understand your point, but the artist is not entirely responsible since all communication is dependent on more than one factor. If I only speak Mandarin and listen to a Dylan record, is it Dylan's fault that I'm not going to understand.

I feel that even if the art and artist are inseparable, art can be enjoyed by artists you don't respect. It just adds an obstacle at times

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

mickilennial — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:22:22 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 02/12/2015 18:22

Quote:

We fucking make the intention up when we listen. We make the meaning. That's our part of the deal. And if we get it 'wrong', then the 'artist' has failed, and if it makes a great record he's made a great record in spite of himself and that's beautiful too.

On this: I have never thought an 'artist' was the most relevant person to speak about her/his production.

I don't agree, but perhaps this is how we differ in artistic perspective. I don't think the artist is exactly not relevant in his creation as ultimately it's about that exact artist's creative thought coming to form through their expressionism. Is it not this individual's expression?, so to presume they aren't the most relevant in their creative thought seems to me pretty off to me, I guess.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

alelsupreme — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:15:30 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 02/12/2015 18:15

I feel the intention of the artist depends on what sort of music it is. Something very lyric-centred, I'll defer to the artist because those words were chosen specifically to convey a message, and in terms of prose I subscribe to the school of thought that the artist's word is law. However, something with lyrics chosen more for their aesthetic qualities, or music without lyrics, are much more open to interpretation.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

Norman Bates — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:52:58 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 02/12/2015 16:52

RockyRaccoon wrote:

if we separate the artist from the art, does the intention of the artist matter at all? And if we don't separate the art from the artist, does the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the art?

Skipping the part where 'is it art?' is discussed, because I think that's a different topic.

On this: I have never thought an 'artist' was the most relevant person to speak about her/his production. 'the artist's intention' is an expression that means next to nothing to me because
1. I generally don't have a clue about what 'the artist' wanted ;
2. For all I know, I might feel 'the artist' has reached result that was totally beyond his intent;
3. An artist will very often state that his intent was this or that after he's heard of how her/his record was received. "Oh, absolutely, you've nailed it" or "No, that was never my goal. It was more like..." are the types of comment you can never trust and are generally uninteresting;
4. I have the (misconceived?) feeling that most of the times, the 'artist' is just doing what he does (which is no problem) and not particularly putting an 'intention' behind it.

We fucking make the intention up when we listen. We make the meaning. That's our part of the deal. And if we get it 'wrong', then the 'artist' has failed, and if it makes a great record he's made a great record in spite of himself and that's beautiful too.

Re: Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art

craola — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:21:22 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 02/12/2015 16:21

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I think this brings up a different, interesting question.

Someone (I don't remember who) mentioned on here once something Frank Zappa said in regards to "what determines what is and isn't art", and he said that what determines art is the "frame" that's put around it. When an artist says "this is art", that's what delineates art and just everyday life.

So the question is, what happens when the artist creates something that is typically art (e.g. music, a movie) and says "this is not art, this is just how I make money". Someone pumps out an album of uninspired songs that they openly say they made simply to make some money, is it still art even though the creator doesn't it believe it to be? In other words, if we separate the artist from the art, does the intention of the artist matter at all? And if we don't separate the art from the artist, does the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the art?

This is an interesting question - one that I've pondered myself on many occasions. Art is how it's framed, but I think that it's not only the artist who can frame it. For instance, the example Zappa used was Duchamp's urinal piece, Fountain. Duchamp purchased the urinal at the store. He wasn't the creator. All he really did was frame it.

I think in the same way, if you hear it, you have the right to frame it as art. Whether it's good or bad art is another story (and entirely subjective).