Has art jumped the shark after WWI?

[thesummerqueen]

And I'm not a huge film buff, but I adore reading and photography. Is it really fair to judge something too much when it's not even something you like?

Unless it's 50 Shades of Grey. Then judge the fuck out of it.

---

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.

I don't think it's any better or worse. I would say that unless you can pull out numbers, the same amount - or maybe more, considering you can market to more people now - of people turn out famous than they did 20 - or 200 - years ago.

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.

You're right - I should have said we have more access to more music now than we ever did.

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.

I didn't say it was a greater prevalence. I was responding to you saying it was dead.

[JuliaL]

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.

I believe in very few absolutes...c and maybe 0 degrees Kelvin.
The market decides what music is more equal.
The "art community" is a sub-population which prospers by convincing themselves and sometimes others that there is an absolute ranking of artistic worth and that they know what it is. They prosper in direct proportion to the detree to which they can convince others that that is the case. AFAIK there is no natural law which states that harmonic complexity is innately superior to, for example, a Beyonce autotune.

[Cato]

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.

Made me think of this quote:

"People can go out and hear REM if they want deep lyrics; but at the end of the night, they want to go home and get fucked! That's where AC/DC comes into it" - Malcolm Young

[JuliaL]

I don't think it's any better or worse. I would say that unless you can pull out numbers, the same amount - or maybe more, considering you can market to more people now - of people turn out famous than they did 20 - or 200 - years ago.

Certainly with respect to musical 'fine art' as found in symphony orchestras, it is a much harder job to get.
Everybody grabbing a kazoo and going viral on youtube for an afternoon. Well, that's debatable.

I googled "Symphony bankruptcy statistics" hoping for a nice timeline or chart showing how many have died recently. Lots of anecdotes but no nice clear graphics. Not going to spend more time on this one.

I didn't say it was a greater prevalence. I was responding to you saying it was dead.

Sorry, My bad.

[thesummerqueen]

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.

Made me think of this quote:

"People can go out and hear REM if they want deep lyrics; but at the end of the night, they want to go home and get fucked! That's where AC/DC comes into it" - Malcolm Young

Fuck REM, lol.

I could never understand people bagging on AC/DC. They never pretended to be anything other than they were - a band full of piss and booze and vinegar, singing about all those electric feelings that static and spark through your body, wanting nothing more than to be the soundtrack to someone having a goddamn good time. That's why they were perfect to soundtrack Iron Man. They never pretended to have an agenda. They never made meaningful commentary, and never pretended to. They were just BOOM, balls out sex, drugs and rock n roll.

[Alex K]

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike AC/DC. There are just times when I'm in the mood of having fun background music, and there are times when I feel more like sitting in a darkened room, getting lost into some stuff with many layers. Beyonce autotune just doesn't do for the latter.

[Faith No More]

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.

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.

[thesummerqueen]

Hey, so while we're talking about books, can someone defend Anna Karenina to me? That book bored me to frustrated tears.

[abaris]

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 short, he writes as we may talk. I see no additional value in word wanking as some authors do. When we're talking about poetry however, it would be a different matter.

[Faith No More]

Yes, how we define art is a result largely of cliquish opinions, but let's not forget that there are structures in play that determine what is and isn't art. Determining what is and isn't art isn't simply about a visceral emotional reaction, because we can elicit those emotions from things that are not art. Simply because a catchy song gives you the warm-fuzzies does not mean it is on par artistically with one that has been carefully crafted using musical theory. Creating art requires an understanding of the medium and how to manipulate it, and just because you hear a song on the radio that you enjoy, does not mean that the artist has a good understanding on that medium and has applied that understanding well. Similarly just because an author told a story that you enjoyed does not mean that the author carefully crafted their words at an artistic level.

It comes down to how well does the final product demonstrate the understanding of the medium that the artist had.

---

In short, he writes as we may talk. I see no additional value in word wanking as some authors do. When we're talking about poetry however, it would be a different matter.

It doesn't necessarily have to be word wanking. Phillip K. Dick is a great example of an author that effectively uses words as art without the wanking. It's about your approach and style, not how well you can use a thesaurus.

Stephen King's approach is very simplistic and straight forward. There's no creativity to it.