(January 5, 2015 at 10:58 am)Alex K Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 10:52 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I have to come at this from more of a literature perspective, because music isn't my passion.

Take H.P. Lovecraft. [...]

Awesome example. I really need to read Lovecraft at some point...

It might help to listen to the HP Lovecraft Literary Podcast at the same time - the guys do a good and entertaining job parsing out the stories - including the bad ones....because don't get me wrong - some of them were complete bombs.

(January 5, 2015 at 10:58 am)Alex K Wrote:

Quote:So what then makes high art? Stuff that's been around for centuries? Stuff that's been imitated by others? Stuff that builds on certain principles and speaks to the human condition? Stuff that follows a strict set of rules?

Well that is the question, isn't it. My point of view is that so-called "high art" (as was intended in the thread title) has given up on beauty and being fun in the widest sense and has therefore divorced itself too much from the audience, much like what Deist Paladin also says. At the least, I would say high art should do more than copy, but should bring some innovation to the table, should somehow be authentic, but at the same time involve some level of skill or virtuosity.

I think I'm confused as to what you consider high art and low art. What's the criteria? Because if people are still producing beautiful things, riffing on old themes but making them their own, what's the demarcation line?

(January 5, 2015 at 11:00 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I think I'm confused as to what you consider high art and low art. What's the criteria? Because if people are still producing beautiful things, riffing on old themes but making them their own, what's the demarcation line?

I really don't want to be so presumptuous and say that I have a valid definition of my own. I should use as a basis of discussion what is generally considered "high art" by those who have some say in its politics.

Hard to say it has jumped the shark then. People who dismiss art past a certain time period simply because it's not "like" the stuff they prefer are being jerks.

(January 5, 2015 at 11:06 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Hard to say it has jumped the shark then. People who dismiss art past a certain time period simply because it's not "like" the stuff they prefer are being jerks.

It's not like the priests of high art dismiss anything that is past a certain time period, they merely dismiss most popular stuff and concentrate on a rather narrow academic, obscure range of things, or so it seems.

I define that as "being hipster."

Some guy signs a urinal. Such great art.

(January 5, 2015 at 10:52 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: So what then makes high art? Stuff that's been around for centuries? Stuff that's been imitated by others? Stuff that builds on certain principles and speaks to the human condition? Stuff that follows a strict set of rules?

I think, to even make a distinction is elitist and doesn't say what art is ultimately about. For me that's creating an enjoyable experiecence for those seeing, hearing our reading it. It isn't about some sort of mind fapping.

I'm not that much into art studies, but when I see a picture it either speaks to me or it doesn't. I can appreciate Leonardo's last supper just as well as Picasso's Guernica. And on the other hand, there are paintings that have nothing to say to me, but that again says nothing about their quality, just that it's not my cup of tea.

Same goes for literature, music and film. Lovecraft is a good example, but I would also say, Steven King added something to literature, whilst in my understanding (and most of you probably don't even know him) Peter Handke is only playing with words. Yet the latter somehow gets all the critics on his side, while the other two are considered pulp.

Representational art was supplanted by photography.
You could no longer get a paying gig doing portraiture.
'Fine' art with abstracts, impressionists, cubists etc. are a separate matter in which niches exist because of the community of individuals who are willing to stroke one another with, in my view, empty expressions of exceptional worth. It works because nobody in the community breaks rank and nobody outside of the community is considered to have a valid opinion. It is supported by a population of wealthy patrons and speculative hangers on who are able to monetize the collective fantasy. Rich people can get richer by appreciation of fine art, but only if other rich people go along and bid up the price.
Commercial art is more of a craft which, in my humble opinion, is more worthy because of the talent, skill, training and practice involved.

Avant garde music shares some of the same attributes (emerging after a technological sea change,) though there isn't much of a secondary market.
Classical musicianship was destroyed by mechanical recording. You don't have be a king and hire a quintet to have dinner music. The musicians released needed a gig and some of them found one by telling each other they have something new and special, like 5 minutes of silence. It is a small niche and dying. Pop music succeeds on its own because there are still people (sort of) willing to pay for it. The ease of pirating music has squeezed this niche until there is room for only a very few members. It too may die off. I hope not because I do enjoy listening to something new and I have absolutely no musical talent so I can only be a consumer. With luck, there will always be some who can play and do so mostly for their own satisfaction, as bittorrent and distain for intellectual property rights has eliminated their paying job.

(January 5, 2015 at 11:12 am)abaris Wrote: Same goes for literature, music and film. Lovecraft is a good example, but I would also say, Steven King added something to literature, whilst in my understanding (and most of you probably don't even know him) Peter Handke is only playing with words. Yet the latter somehow gets all the critics on his side, while the other two are considered pulp.

King is a great example of someone who became another linchpin - and he readily admits he was heavily influenced by Lovecraft. Pet Semetery creeped me out so much I never finished it.

(January 5, 2015 at 11:14 am)JuliaL Wrote: Representational art was supplanted by photography.

You could no longer get a paying gig doing portraiture.

Er...I know personally a woman who was paying someone to do her painted portrait, and I see it a lot on DeviantArt.

Quote:
Classical musicianship was destroyed by mechanical recording.

Are you saying people don't perform live anymore because you can listen to it over a speaker? You need to visit my city - people play on the streets for the hell of it. They play in halls for the performance. It's definitely not destroyed.

Quote:Pop music succeeds on its own because there are still people (sort of) willing to pay for it.

Again...wut? Pop is huge. I'd argue it's even bigger than ever, because people DO pay for it, in one way or another. We have more music now than we did EVER.

Quote: The ease of pirating music has squeezed this niche until there is room for only a very few members. It too may die off. I hope not because I do enjoy listening to something new and I have absolutely no musical talent so I can only be a consumer. With luck, there will always be some who can play and do so mostly for their own satisfaction, as bittorrent and distain for intellectual property rights has eliminated their paying job.

This sounds incredibly Chicken Little.

(January 5, 2015 at 11:14 am)JuliaL Wrote: Pop music succeeds on its own because there are still people (sort of) willing to pay for it.

Pop music succeeds because it offers enjoyment. That's why people are willing to pay for it. But it's often presented in some kind of opposition to classical music without taking into consideration that classical music was the pop music of it's time.

At least when it comes to Mozart and quite a few others. Yes, Mozart got parts of his money from the imperial court and from wealthy people ordering pieces of music from him. But he also composed for suburbian theatres. Together with Schikaneder he created some of his operas to debut before a popular audience.

And when it comes to literature and performing arts, the list gets even longer. Shakespeare exclusively wrote for ordinary people. Same goes for the German poet and writer Schiller, who introduced revolutionary ideas and criticisms to his work.