>>60307310
>music

I always considered music an art. Even meme artists and that shit, it all has a message. Even if the message is shitty

>>60307310
all things in the world are art

not all things are good art

>>60307335
does "having a messege" define art?

>>60307327
An aural art form, yes.

>>60307310
Music is inherently art. It is, however, not inherently good art. Music made unartfully is just bad art, not not art entirely.

honestly, "art" is such a nonsense word. these discussions are frustrating b/c we're throwing around abstract concepts/words that are nearly impossible to define

>>60307358
Good point, that is just the way I've always viewed it.

>>60307358

I believe so, and I also believe that where you draw the line for what counts as a "message" - in terms of complexity, originality, and intent - ends up being where you draw the line for what "counts as art".

There are certainly plenty of visual artists who only go as far as trying to evoke simple emotions, and are still seen as fine artists, e.g. Rothko. Some artists take that further and don't even have any deep intent behind it... e.g. whoever the fuck took the photo for that giant poster of the rope bridge they sell at IKEA. (It's so calming! And that's literally the whole point of it.)

There are parallels to the latter everywhere - blandly pleasant prints in offices, hotels, and first apartments everywhere, embarrassingly bad prose splashed over those images people share on tumblr/pinterest/fb, butt rock at sports bars and top-40 pop at clubs.

If you don't acknowledfe that it's just really (bad/poorly executed/lowbrow) art, then you're drawing the line somewhere else, and it occupies some weird third space of things that are intended to evoke feelings/carry a message but aren't "real art".

>>60307358
Not at all, that's what Modern art was doing in some movements. They were breaking down everything that people thought "made" art, from technicality to aesthetics to message and so on.

writing>visual art>music>film>comics>vidya