{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/11/2020 4:16:09 AM
13
I know it’s all subjective but a lot of pop music these days is horrible. It’s mostly rap and and sexuality packaged as art.
Now, there is a lot of good music being made these days but ya gotta dig to find it.
[spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
English
-
some rap is art. cardi b is largely crap art
-
This. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
-
[quote]I know it’s all subjective but a lot of pop music these days is horrible. It’s mostly rap and and sexuality packaged as art. Now, there is a lot of good music being made these days but ya gotta dig to find it.
-
Because rap isn’t art?
-
I agree. I meant that proper music is an art form and most of what we’ve got today is a disgrace. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
-
No, you don’t agree, because you’re missing my point. You clearly don’t have that solid a grasp on what art actually is. It’s more than just old oil paintings and Beethoven.
-
Edgy much? The interpretation of art is subjective. Therefore commentary on it can’t be more than pure opinion [i]unless[/i] everyone involved judges it by a predetermined set of parameters in which case then art is objectively good or bad. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
-
[quote]Edgy much?[/quote] There’s nothing edgy about what I said. Art is about meaning. Art is about progression. These are the things that define the impact of art, and they aren’t as conveniently subjective as you’d like to believe. Hip-hop and rap have been and are at the forefront of experimentation in music and are vastly more reflective of contemporary issues than whatever prog rock shit you listen to. People thought rock was an affront to music. Jazz was equally controversial. Debussy abhorred the idea of being called an impressionist. Like what you like, but your personal tastes don’t define art.
-
You and your assumptions are cute. I don’t listen to prog rock. Too experimental and long-winded for my tastes. However that doesn’t make it bad. It was cutting edge rock in its heyday and that fulfilled the ‘progressive’ requirement you’ve tacked onto art. I’d contest you there because art doesn’t have to be progressive to be good. The oil paintings in my house are done in a style that’s been around longer than the both of us. They’re excellent. You don’t need to like something for it to be set either. I get that. The Tango was loathed (like, as you said, rock and jazz) but is now generally enjoyed and praised. Liking something doesn’t make it art. By subjective I meant that we all have our own interpretations as to what is our [i]preferred[/i] art, not what is [i]good[/i] art. Different parameters for different needs. I think we have the same viewpoint on this but have gotten derailed by vitriol. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
-
[quote]I’d contest you there because art doesn’t have to be progressive to be good. The oil paintings in my house are done in a style that’s been around longer than the both of us.[/quote] That isn’t exactly art. Corinthian columns have been around for millennia, that doesn’t make neoclassical architecture any less of a scourge on the field. It may look nice, but it’s not art. It’s craft.
-
By that logic nothing but new and evolutionary styles of all fields can be art and even those are downgraded to crafts when they grow old. I think that certainly applies to descriptors like ‘progressive’ and ‘bound-pushing’ but it seems a poor definition of art. Art (to me) is about expression. It doesn’t have to be new or require much talent, though I would certainly require a product to be skilled to call it good art in most cases. Anyone can drive but few can drive as well as an F1 driver. They elevate it to an art form. Similarly anyone can nail a shack together but few can construct a cathedral. The cathedral elevates building to an art form. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
-
And that to me is too broad a definition. It belittled the significance of real art. Wright was an artist, Gehry less so. And there’s just so much wrong with saying “cathedrals elevate it to an art form” that I hardly know where to begin. Architecture, and art in general, is so much more complex. If every cathedral ever built were a work of art, architects wouldn’t have such a problem with the Neo-Gothic (or any neo-anything) movement. At that point, Timmy No-Name’s no less of an artist than Kandinsky because he posted a picture of his fursona on Instagram. Art’s no place for participation awards.
-
I didn’t say it was a participation award. Neither did I say all works were equal. If I had a three year old daughter and she brought me a horribly misshapen crayon drawing that she insisted was a unicorn I wouldn’t go crowing that it’s the Mona Lisa of the 21st century. It just isn’t. However it would still find a place on my fridge next to actual photos and poems because it’s still a work of art. The difference there is I applied a different set of criteria to its interpretation than I do the Mona Lisa. [spoiler]Sorry, all out of salt.[/spoiler]
