Point of Discussion: The Artist and the Art - Music

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

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?
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

Happymeal

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?

Any expression of the abstract (including conversations, speeches, etc.) is how I would define art so it's not how other people view an object or action that matters (from my perspective), but about whether or not it's expressing something that exists in thought.

craola
crayon master

Location: pdx

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).
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

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.

alelsupreme
Awful.

Gender: Male
Age: 27

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.
_________________

Romanelli wrote:

We're all fucked, lads.

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

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.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

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
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Kiki

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 Smile

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.

sp4cetiger

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.

babyBlueSedan
Used to be sort of blind, now can sort of see

Gender: Male

Norman Bates wrote:

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

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.
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.