(January 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm)abaris Wrote: But that doesn't mean I'm unable to appreciate things I personally dislike. For example, Arnold Schoenberg doesn't reach me, but I appreciate that he introduced something entirely new to music.

To me there are two quite different aspects to this topic. The first is this apparent hype of pretentious faux art which Jenny mentions here.

But Schoenberg is a different thing - he inspired me to start the thread and put WWI in the title, because with him it was most obvious that he started to eschew all things beautiful after the horrors of the war. A few weeks ago I saw this (below) live in its entirety and I was absolutely blown away. The guy was technically above any criticism and a genius, he could wagnerize better than Wagner if he wanted, and yet he decided to go in a virtually inaccessible (to mortals) direction on purpose (not pretentious lack of talent).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXhAtBT57zA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FyLuEkV5c

(January 6, 2015 at 1:17 am)Jenny A Wrote: They are mine.

When I paint I see two ways at once: a simplified whole and lots of abstract little pieces---the simplicity, and, as you say, the blob.

Beautiful work, Jen. Beautiful.

(January 6, 2015 at 11:22 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 1:17 am)Jenny A Wrote: They are mine.

When I paint I see two ways at once: a simplified whole and lots of abstract little pieces---the simplicity, and, as you say, the blob.

Beautiful work, Jen. Beautiful.

I particularly like the first one

(January 5, 2015 at 11:59 am)Alex K Wrote: But aren't there some absolute standards that allow us to say that say, a Bach fugue is a more intricate and complex creation than a more or less harmonically primitive I-IV-V-I pop song? It's not like all music is created equal.

More complex technically is not the same as more artistic. The Beatle's "Tomorrow Never Knows" is one C Major all the way through, but goddamn if it doesn't touch something very deep inside me with the way those marvelous lyrics are married to that hypnotic groove.

As a musician of 30+ years, formally educated in classical and jazz guitar, one of the big issues I have with music and musicians is the urge to be overly complex for no good reason. Sometimes, florid complexity is exactly what is needed to convey the emotion at hand; at other times, simplicity is the key.

They're both equally artistic, insofar as they move the listener, in my view. And in music in particular, a fetishism for technicality can often interfere with the appreciation of the listener. I've taught a couple of kids the basics of improvisational music and theory, and the point I try to make is one made first, I think, by Carlos Santana: The goal is not for you to play music; the goal is to let the music play you. What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

(January 6, 2015 at 11:47 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

That's one of the peeves I and many have with many technical death metal bands (I assume that's not your cup of tea though).

Those are beautiful Jenny. I love to paint but my artwork is meh. LOL When I see someone else with actual talent, it always blows me away.

(January 5, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Stephen King is considered pulp mostly because of his writing style. He's good at weaving a story and great at developing characters, however, his delivery is fairly pedestrian.

In writing, plot and character are everything -- and sketching out a character with words is an art unto itself. I disagree that his delivery is pedestrian, as well -- there are moments when his writing is perfectly electric with energy.

I think he's considered pulp because he writes two or three books a year, and sells them by the boatload.

Let's talk about Dan Brown. I love reading Dan Brown, each book gives me months of joy in which I can go on and on about how things about it piss me off.

(January 5, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 2:56 pm)abaris Wrote: Yet there is no objective standard. There isn't a checklist to say this or that artist is better than another one. To illustrate this, here's the story of painter Pierre Brassau.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...tist-hoax/

Well, there can never be an objective standard. I agree that much of what is defined as art is largely subjective. What I'm saying, however, is that one person's subjectivity can have a more solid justification, which comes from an understanding of the artistic medium.

And when checking off the technical boxes which determines that a piece is labeled art bogs the piece down and detracts from the message? Technical superiority doesn't translate into art any more than solid construction translates into beautiful architecture. It may be necessary for art, but it certainly isn't sufficient.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:09 pm)Alex K Wrote: Let's talk about Dan Brown. I love reading Dan Brown, each book gives me months of joy in which I can go on and on about how things about it piss me off.

Not a big fan of Dan Brown. In my opinion, he basically writes the same book over and over again. I stopped buying his books after Deception point. My brother had another one which I borrowed at some time, the Lost Symbol. It utterly failed to convince me.