@seth (or anyone) ... a recap and orientation to some especially key points about my criteria and evaluations, which may clarify some things for you...
Art can be subdivided into 3 factors that monitor its resultant quality or conveyance:
One will find that all art shares these key elements as primary common denominators, to greater or lesser degree.
Art is fundamentally a creative expression. This expression is always of emotion(s) and/or concept(s), and it always requires an impulse of creativity. Furthermore, all of these factors are always impelled by an intention or conviction from the artist. All of these factors are indisputable and are evident (to varying degrees) in all art.
The greatest work of art would be that which features the most extraordinary collective expression of those factors.
It is key to note that expressed emotional conviction is referring, primarily, to the artist's conveyance as opposed to the listener/viewer's reaction.
It is key to note that expressed conceptual significance is referring, primarily, to the artist's conveyance as opposed to the listener/viewer's reaction.
It is key to note that ingenuity/creativity is referring, primarily, to what degree the work stands out expressively, in relation to art as a whole (how close did the artist and work come to expressing his own voice or vision?), the perception of which is largely monitored by the listener/viewer's experience and assimilation of art.
These factors each approach (perhaps could be said to be, in essence) objectivity -- in the sense that they don't actually change. But the listener/viewer's perception of them does. The work, as completed, is what it is. The listener/viewer changes as he/she experiences and assimilates more art, listens/views the surrounding or historical influences/prerequisites of a work, and revisits the work itself and becomes increasingly acclimated to it. It is the listener/viewer's job or goal -- if the goal is utmost accuracy -- to arrive at a point where the above factors can be viewed as closely as possible to their "natural" (or "objective") expressive states. In doing so and striving for this, the work will become less and less colored by misconceptions or predjudice from inapplicable or disassociated experiences (that are basically barriers to really "seeing" the work itself).
The above factors (expressed emotional conviction, expressed conceptual significance, ingenuity) are all potentially observable (not entirely, but by estimation) even before the listener/viewer himself has gained much acclimation with the work. This allows one to know (in many cases, more difficult in others) rather quickly if a work needs, or even deserves, revisitation.
As the work never itself physically changes, it is the listener/viewer's job or goal to get to the point where he/she can procure or at least closely approximate, the degree and consistency of expression of the 3 factors above, very efficiently and in real-time, while the experience is unfolding.
The rating and impact/significance upon the viewer/listener occurs in close parallel to the actual work itself, to the degree that this has been done, and to the degree that the listener/viewer has arrived at a point where he/she knows what he/she is observing and can procure and assimilate these expressions for what they are and relative to others where the same has been done.
This means one is consciously and intentionally trying to meet an artist and work at its own expressive demands. This is active, alert, participatory listening/viewing and is far superior (and of much greater value) in resultant assimilation to the usual practice, which often involves only letting a work do to you what it will, which usually means the person ends up not realizing what he/she doesn't know, only "sees" the work through the guise of prejudice and reaction, and isn't aware that he/she never even experienced the work to begin with, but very likely experienced a misconception of it (despite apparently "listening" to or "viewing" it).
This is what effort and result my criteria, ratings scale and lists represent. A very concerted attempt to accomplish the above, hence the meticulous logic that will be found throughout the lists and ratings (of course, to the degree one has met or approximated a similar demand). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Hello AfterHours. I see you and sethmadsen have been having quite the conversation, and I don't mean to intrude, but I do have some thoughts, specifically about your last post.
I think I grok what you're saying, for the most part, but I can't say this aligns with my view of how one should go about evaluating art. It seems your method is hell-bent on removing from the equation anything personal to the individual experiencing the art. Nostalgia, for instance, is a factor I'm sure I'm not alone in saying has no small influence on what music I like. As a young 'un, I often sat with my older brother on the floor of his room in the basement and played games while we listened to music. One of the most commonly featured albums during these sessions was 311's self-titled 1995 "blue album", and I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy it as much as I do today if it didn't bring back those memories. If that brings me joy, should I try to erase its impact from my evaluation of the music and focus only on what the band was trying to accomplish, how effectively this was accomplished, etc.? Even if so, that's easier said than done. The nostalgia is a crucial element of my experience of listening to that album. And yes, it has faded over the years and continues to do so (the album has long since dropped out of my top 100), and perhaps eventually the nostalgia's influence will disappear altogether and my view of 311 will become more "objective", but I see no reason to hasten the process. And nostalgia is just one (of many, I suspect) potential influences on one's view of a work of art that seems to be on the chopping block if one adopts your criteria for evaluating art.
Please don't see this as a criticism. It's merely an example that I think highlights a stark difference between my understanding of our respective points of view. I don't expect to change your mind, and in fact I'm not trying to at all. This is just to show you where I'm coming from.
Okay, I have what I think is a pretty good guess at what you're thinking of me at this point, which is that when I evaluate art, I am "only letting a work do to [me] what it will", only experience it "through the guise of prejudice and reaction", and "likely experienced a misconception of it". Fair enough. That isn't how I'd phrase it, but I don't fundamentally disagree. I'm sure I don't engage actively with the music I listen to quite as often as I should if my goal is to come to a "serious" evaluation of said music. Also, I think that we all filter the art we experience through our own personal quirks, tastes, and, yes, prejudices. And it has never seemed that important to me to really try to get into an artist's point of view in order to properly appreciate their art--either it works for me, or it doesn't. So it seems that you and I simply have fundamentally different approaches to art.
But I can't deny that you intrigue me. I appreciate rigor, in pretty much any context, and whatever else may be said of you and your "criteria", no one can honestly claim you're not rigorous. Also, your charts are certainly interesting. There are a lot of great albums there (In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, and Astral Weeks, to name just three), but there's also a whole lot that's baffling to me (primarily the harsher and more experimental stuff, which I just can't seem to get into). And while it could seem that's just a result of you aping Scaruffi and merely claiming to have arrived at the same conclusions independently, I totally see your point of view, that if multiple people discovered the (for lack of a better phrase) "objectively correct" way to evaluate art, it should be no surprise that they rate the same works similarly. I don't fully buy it, but I absolutely see the point of view.
All that said, I consider myself open-minded, and if your way of approaching art is, as you say, "far superior (and of much greater value)" to mine, it seems it would be foolish to not hop aboard.
Which brings me to the point of my post, which is a request (and I understand completely if time constraints or even just lack of interest prevent you from fulfilling it).
The request is this: Would you perhaps consider putting together some sort of Grand Guide to the Assimilation of Great Art, for plebs like me?
You mentioned the idea of a guide back in the post about removing the recommendations section. So it sounds like I'm asking you to do something you already said you plan to do anyway. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you were talking about individual guides to particular works of art, and what I mean is a grand overall guide to all (worthwhile) works of art.
I can't say for sure what such a guide would look like. I presume you have a much better idea. As you yourself said, "Looking back, its easy to see ways I couldve gone faster".
But I have some thoughts. I imagine it would be some kind of list, series of lists, or perhaps even flowchart (something likethese) that begins with the easier-to-assimilate works and steadily introduces the not-so-immediately-accessible works as it goes along. Each entry could have a description to aid in its assimilation (something like "This is where the artist is coming from, and what they're going for, and this is how they achieve that objective, and make sure to pay attention to these things, and if you're having trouble with this work check out these other works by these other artists that are doing something similar, etc.", or, you know, whatever is appropriate).
This would be a ton of work, so I repeat, I understand if you don't want to do it, or if what you do want to do differs substantially from what I've described here. No worries. But if you do want to do some sort of guide, as you mentioned, I personally would be most interested in something resembling what I'm proposing.
Hello AfterHours. I see you and sethmadsen have been having quite the conversation, and I don't mean to intrude, but I do have some thoughts, specifically about your last post.
Yeah, absolutely not a problem. Anyone is free to join in if interested in discussion, particularly towards a more constructive or educational (and so forth) end. And, if it gets touchy or momentarily hostile (as these things can ... art is very important to people), it is recommended that they be willing to sort it out a if need be (like seth and I tend to do).
Rhyner wrote:
I think I grok what you're saying, for the most part, but I can't say this aligns with my view of how one should go about evaluating art. It seems your method is hell-bent on removing from the equation anything personal to the individual experiencing the art. Nostalgia, for instance, is a factor I'm sure I'm not alone in saying has no small influence on what music I like. As a young 'un, I often sat with my older brother on the floor of his room in the basement and played games while we listened to music. One of the most commonly featured albums during these sessions was 311's self-titled 1995 "blue album", and I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy it as much as I do today if it didn't bring back those memories. If that brings me joy, should I try to erase its impact from my evaluation of the music and focus only on what the band was trying to accomplish, how effectively this was accomplished, etc.? Even if so, that's easier said than done. The nostalgia is a crucial element of my experience of listening to that album. And yes, it has faded over the years and continues to do so (the album has long since dropped out of my top 100), and perhaps eventually the nostalgia's influence will disappear altogether and my view of 311 will become more "objective", but I see no reason to hasten the process. And nostalgia is just one (of many, I suspect) potential influences on one's view of a work of art that seems to be on the chopping block if one adopts your criteria for evaluating art.
Re: nostalgia ... You sort of answered it for yourself. If its not a part of the work (expressed by the work), it will sooner or later fall away, especially if one finds superior alike works or finds works that fulfill that emotion more significantly. There are lots of albums I rate high that do express nostalgia in emotionally/conceptually significant ways and are much more fulfilling for someone looking for that sensation (and your chart is replete with this expression ... with several excellent, some among the very greatest examples imo such as Aeroplane, Astral Weeks, Blue...) and I would suggest that these discoveries are a major reason, including revisitation of the 311 album, that this has worn off and its fallen down your rankings towards its more "correct" (for lack of a better term) rating/ranking.
Re: hellbent on removing anything personal ... Not at all actually ... it is actually expanding what is or can be personal to someone into being able to empathize/understand/find admiration in/be astonished by as many great/substantial works and their expressions as possible. Anyone reasonably intelligent and bright can do so (as the mind can replicate ...well, anything you can imagine so are there isnt much in the way of potential/limitation) ... ... but its like a muscle that needs to be worked out.
Please don't see this as a criticism. It's merely an example that I think highlights a stark difference between my understanding of our respective points of view. I don't expect to change your mind, and in fact I'm not trying to at all. This is just to show you where I'm coming from.
No worries, Ill try and clarify as necessary.
Rhyner wrote:
Okay, I have what I think is a pretty good guess at what you're thinking of me at this point, which is that when I evaluate art, I am "only letting a work do to [me] what it will", only experience it "through the guise of prejudice and reaction", and "likely experienced a misconception of it". Fair enough. That isn't how I'd phrase it, but I don't fundamentally disagree. I'm sure I don't engage actively with the music I listen to quite as often as I should if my goal is to come to a "serious" evaluation of said music. Also, I think that we all filter the art we experience through our own personal quirks, tastes, and, yes, prejudices. And it has never seemed that important to me to really try to get into an artist's point of view in order to properly appreciate their art--either it works for me, or it doesn't. So it seems that you and I simply have fundamentally different approaches to art.
My example was more for the type of listener that is probably less likely to exist on BEA (or any forum/site/group that considers music important and really tries to listen to it, rank/rate/discuss etc). So of course there is a lot of middle ground between that and the most attentive listeners, and maybe you're somewhere in there but I wouldn't be the one to truly know for sure. There are conclusions you've drawn that are very unlikely if you hadn't been an attentive listener (such as Astral Weeks, which has more emotional depth and nuance and is much more creative and structurally free than the avg music listener is used to).
Rhyner wrote:
But I can't deny that you intrigue me. I appreciate rigor, in pretty much any context, and whatever else may be said of you and your "criteria", no one can honestly claim you're not rigorous. Also, your charts are certainly interesting. There are a lot of great albums there (In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, and Astral Weeks, to name just three), but there's also a whole lot that's baffling to me (primarily the harsher and more experimental stuff, which I just can't seem to get into). And while it could seem that's just a result of you aping Scaruffi and merely claiming to have arrived at the same conclusions independently, I totally see your point of view, that if multiple people discovered the (for lack of a better phrase) "objectively correct" way to evaluate art, it should be no surprise that they rate the same works similarly. I don't fully buy it, but I absolutely see the point of view.
All that said, I consider myself open-minded, and if your way of approaching art is, as you say, "far superior (and of much greater value)" to mine, it seems it would be foolish to not hop aboard.
Which brings me to the point of my post, which is a request (and I understand completely if time constraints or even just lack of interest prevent you from fulfilling it).
The request is this: Would you perhaps consider putting together some sort of Grand Guide to the Assimilation of Great Art, for plebs like me?
As long as I don't ever have to refer to you, or anyone else, as "plebs"
Rhyner wrote:
You mentioned the idea of a guide back in the post about removing the recommendations section. So it sounds like I'm asking you to do something you already said you plan to do anyway. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you were talking about individual guides to particular works of art, and what I mean is a grand overall guide to all (worthwhile) works of art.
I can't say for sure what such a guide would look like. I presume you have a much better idea. As you yourself said, "Looking back, its easy to see ways I couldve gone faster".
But I have some thoughts. I imagine it would be some kind of list, series of lists, or perhaps even flowchart (something likethese) that begins with the easier-to-assimilate works and steadily introduces the not-so-immediately-accessible works as it goes along. Each entry could have a description to aid in its assimilation (something like "This is where the artist is coming from, and what they're going for, and this is how they achieve that objective, and make sure to pay attention to these things, and if you're having trouble with this work check out these other works by these other artists that are doing something similar, etc.", or, you know, whatever is appropriate).
This would be a ton of work, so I repeat, I understand if you don't want to do it, or if what you do want to do differs substantially from what I've described here. No worries. But if you do want to do some sort of guide, as you mentioned, I personally would be most interested in something resembling what I'm proposing.
Yes -- although I'm not ready to promise it -- this is pretty much exactly what I was thinking of: the guide part, including a recommended order to take the albums in (such as "not starting with Twin Infinitives until..."), key points about the works, and so forth. Various users (such as Facetious, DelBocaVista, HexNash, joannajewsome...) may recall me doing this exact thing some years back (not BEA). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Word..wasn't it something like, "here are some albums covering similar emotional/conceptual ground or which are stylistically similar, but which are more accessible than the album in question"?...and another that was vice versa,, "here's something that parallels but exceeds a given famous album". Cool ideas.
To be fair, I think there is easily over 100 critical theories. Some of them wasted time claiming to be the "right" way to critique art and well... some matured and realized there's multiple ways and likely most of them are accurate.
What AfterHours very well (in varying stages... sometimes it can get lost in itself... but the post above is pretty concise/clear) put together is another one of those many great ways to look at art. (I'm not suggesting AfterHours thinks his way is the only accurate way, but a way that has worked great for him).
Word..wasn't it something like, "here are some albums covering similar emotional/conceptual ground or which are stylistically similar, but which are more accessible than the album in question"?...and another that was vice versa,, "here's something that parallels but exceeds a given famous album". Cool ideas.
Yes, and the "recommended order" included "challenge ratings" for each album so the listener could estimate (essentially) how disassociated from the mainstream that work would be and could apply more effort/listens accordingly. I may include that (or something similar). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
@ Rhyner ... I do need to get around to a VU and Nico brief analysis of key "bullet points" (maybe more than that, time permitting) which I will post here, but after that maybe I can point out key points about some albums for you.
In the meantime, out of my "greatest albums" list, is there a particular work or work(s) that sticks out that you're wanting to "get" or understand what I see in them. Please stick with Rock for now, as that is what I am focused on currently, and please limit to 3 works or less for the time being. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
I wonder sometimes if people -- particularly dedicated Beatles fans that might look on Scaruffi as their mortal enemy -- might automatically think of him as nothing but a super ornery crusty old Scrooge.
When infact, the guy is a very active, dynamic, highly knowledgeable/intelligent individual that is very interested in life and art and has invested an astronomical amount of time and energy in the areas of his expertise and interest.
I wonder if this interview, which is pretty casual and fairly interesting, might clarify your view of him or at least add some dimension and perspective to it.
Regardless, you gotta admit that having Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights on your wall is pretty badass. Not your usual living room art decor of "look at the nice flowers/mountains".
As a note, some points to be aware of on his Beatles analysis, which may not justify it for you but may put it in a more understandable perspective...
Years ago the page was just their ratings (virtually the same as now) and maybe a few short blurbs about their best works. Scaruffi received lots of hate mail about their ratings being too low and upset claims about this album and that, their merits and so forth. Apparently (at least per a story I saw a while back) he was even stalked by a hardcore Beatles fan that followed and harrassed him at his house and that he had to call the police on (simultaneously creepy and absurd/hysterical). The page as it stands now was basically an annoyed response to all of this, so some of its arguable points (perhaps inaccuracies, depending on how you read them) are likely colored by this "annoyance/defense/hostility". Scaruffi acknowledged this in a sense in the update to the page in 2010:
"Extended note from 2010. The Beatles were not a terribly interesting band, but their fans were and still are an interesting phenomenon. I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying (and as threatening) as Beatles fans, and as persevering in sabotaging anyone who dares express an alternate opinion of their faith. They have turned me into some kind of Internet celebrity not because of the 6,000 bios that i have written, not because of the 800-page book that i published, not because of the 30 years of cultural events that i organized, but simply because i downplayed the artistic merits of the Beatles, an action that they consider as disgraceful as the 2001 terrorist attacks."
Anyway, whether that changes a view or not, thought I'd throw that out there for some added perspective. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
He actually had me thinking. I think I've talked about pluralism a few times and wanted to accept his point of view. I think read some of his reviews (which I felt missed a real understanding of their music, etc... I remember stuff about Beatles having no rhythm and stuff about racism, with little to no backing up such an opinion with use cases... so it was difficult to just accept everything he said). and then saw some albums he rated on the same page as Sgt. Pepper which I thought were garbage (hence the Limp Bizkit and GnR comments earlier), and realized there's clearly a different lens he appreciates art through than I do. And as I stated earlier with the David Foster Wollace speech and critical theory at large (something I've studied fairly heavily), there's easily hundreds of lenses to look through and not all of them are wrong or right, rather provide another paradigm. Being able to appreciate each paradigm is critical to reaching some kind of Hegelian dialetical reasoning, and therefore some "real" truth.
I also like how he uses the term "important" which is exactly the term Goodall used in the video provided.
Also I suppose there are those "fanatic" groups/artists... Elvis and Beatles are easily one of them. Beatles in their Anthology book actually talks about how those with disabilities or the such would come to their show because their music/mythology/perceived personal influence created this strange situation which Lennon infamously stated: "We're more popular than Jesus now." It put them in a odd place at times as The Beatles themselves... the mentality of a fanatic. Somehow I'm getting a suggestive thing that you think that about me and I thought I was trying to have a logical conversation about how we are coming to the conclusions we are (disagreeing on their cultural and musical importance).
I also thought it interesting his comments about post 2010s music and the availability. He didn't go deep into it, but spoke to ideas discussed on the forums here a few times.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
