Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[thesummerqueen]

Tolkien wrote for himself and his children to begin with, and expanded upon it. He didn't write for the critics. Yet somehow he managed to produce a mammoth fantasy world that has undeniably digested and distilled all the previous fairy and elf lore as well as Germanic epics into a body of work that set the bar for fantasy ever after.

[Alex K]

Here are two for abaris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuHiFhej_60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghbj6iNPfCU

[Nope]

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.

I feel the same way. There is no way that I can determine what will speak to another person. I like photography especially street photography and photos of abandoned places. Why? I don't know, I just do.

I haven't heard of Handke but I love Stephen King and feel like his ability to craft characters and scenes is highly unappreciated. I love his description in the first few pages of the first book in his Gunslinger series.

[abaris]

I haven't heard of Handke but I love Stephen King and feel like his ability to craft characters and scenes is highly unappreciated.

Handke is an Austrian author and playwright. He's famous in the German speaking countries for his mastery of the language. Therefore, I'm not sure he gets translated, since much of what he actually does would get lost in the process. That's also his biggest problem in my understanding, since he puts style over content.

Edit: I stand corrected, he has been translated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Handke

[JuliaL]

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.

Yes, I see. I was stressing that each genre exists in a dynamic environment where it can only survive if people pay for it. In listening at home I don't differentiate. My CD jukebox (legacy equipment) stays on all tracks shuffle. Classical, rock, classic rock, pop, punk, rap, world music... I'm not very discerning or selective. It's all good.
In the marketplace, there are market pressures (duh) which highlight or shadow artists and their works according to various complex, real but hidden rules. I imagine that only a minority recognize that Mozart was pop for his time and few also realize that their listening choices are not wholly individually determined. We listen to what we like, but in large part, what we like is a product of the selections of the community. This dynamic system washes back and forth, IMHO without absolute values, so Bach was supported in his time, fell out of favor and came back based on the sum of the individual listening decisions of those with access (today that's pretty much everybody.)

[Alex K]

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.

[thesummerqueen]

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.

A Bach fugue does not infuse the sheer joy of life in me the way listening to AC/DC's "Shook Me All Night Long" does. So no, it's not created equal, because they weren't created to do the same thing.

[abaris]

This dynamic system washes back and forth, IMHO without absolute values, so Bach was supported in his time, fell out of favor and came back based on the sum of the individual listening decisions of those with access (today that's pretty much everybody.)

On a side note, I find it hilarious if you actually look at the persons creating art, the actual artists. Mozart for example would fit the bill of pop star pretty nicely. He was a drinker, a gambling addict, who lost much of his fortune at the gambling tables and couldn't write a single letter without adding fart and poop remarks. He even wrote a canon named "kiss my ass, quickly, quickly".

[Alex K]

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.

A Bach fugue does not infuse the sheer joy of life in me the way listening to AC/DC's "Shook Me All Night Long" does. So no, it's not created equal, because they weren't created to do the same thing.

For me the effect is reverse, in comparison I get bored by the AC/DC song in 5 seconds. The way you describe your attitude towards music is however exactly how it is with me and films/movies. In that I'd rather hit myself on the toe with a hammer than watch 99.9% of what is considered high art of film making

[JuliaL]

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.

What I am saying is that it is much more difficult than in prior eras to make your living as a musician. Busking on street corners won't give you Robert Plant's private jet.

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.

So it appears because of revolutionary technological innovations in communication and information technology. These are closely held by fewer persons making individually more money. As far as music making being more widespread in actuality, I expect it only appears so because the relevant records are not available for say, the late 19th century in which poetry reading, hymn singing, private recitals and concerts were wide spread community activities.

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

Again, the technology gives you access to a larger percentage of the extant examples of realistic portraiture. That this shows a real greater prevalence does not necessarily follow. It may be also that there is a larger number of portrait painters simply because of our stupendously larger population while as a proportion their numbers are in steep decline.