So I was watching this video that discussed how relativism in modern art was objectively deteriorating the quality compared to the artists of old and wondered if the same applied to music.
https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
What do you think? Does music still hold a higher standard than modern visual art or are albums like Trout Mask Replica the equivalent of a Pollack painting?
>>63369550
>So I was watching this video that discussed how relativism in modern art was objectively deteriorating the quality compared to the artists of old and wondered if the same applied to music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDrnQqgFSF4
>>63369617
>>63369598
fucking womemes
IIRC the value of art is based on your personal reaction and emotional response. You can work technical appreciation in there too.
I mean, how do you compare two people's personal expressions? Does complexity validate one more than the other, and if so at what point?
If complexity=objective greatness, then why doesn't somebody just compose to most technical piece possible? Or would that not be a true artistic expression and more like a construction project?
>>63369550
TMR is not even close to being an equivalent of Pollack painting. Maybe Free Form freak-outs by Red Krayola are.
>>63369550
this video is so beyond retarded.
>>63369712
I agree with this overall. Ultimately it does matter more about expression. I've just seen that if you can work both it turns out for the best
>>63369712
> the value of art is based on your personal reaction and emotional response.
is bieber pop garbage art?
>>63369733
elborate pls, he sounded pretty convincing and I couldn't think of anything to counter it with
>>63369732
Because it has form, right?
>>63369767
Shit art is still art
>>63369550
This guy talks about art like fucking Donald trump.
>>63369550
>objectively
>quality
Don't even need to watch it to know it's garbage.
>>63369784
He uses the word objectivity to refer to things that are absolutely not objective. He has literally no comprehension of modern art, period. Or "art" as a larger concept even. And he generalizes and neglects to define much of what he's talking about.
>>63369784
It's pretty obvious it has solid structure, look for Grow Fins third disc if you aren't convinced
>>63369550
What a fucking Idiot
Kinda, yeah. When everything is subjective it's pretty difficult to have objective standards anymore and everything goes. Lots of modern music is really simple compared to pre 20th century art music. It's also probably why new genres and styles come so fast and art and music gets so old so fast nowadays, novelty is considered more important than mastery. Technical and structural analysis is often not done at all or at a very superficial level, like how well a song fits a certain genre.
Personally I think that aesthetic relativism has also brought us enjoyable things, mostly by making the concept of the aesthetic experience wider and allowing us to use dissonant and unpleasant elements in art more freely. Technically the works tend to be simpler, though, and it can be depressing if you're into analyzing things at a very objective level. However, emotions and subjectivity have always played a part in art and art critique, the greatest old works still have a lot of emotion in them. However, they also give lots of intellectual pleasure for those who start dissecting the works of art. And well, at least personally I think that great technical skill just is really cool and inspiring, also on an aesthetic level. Lots of older art has that feeling of grandeur and pomposity that modern pieces lack, and that's sad. Even though everything goes, something has been apparently lost. I think that it's partly because artists seem to see art as an progressive thing like technology (despite considering everything of the same value!), so they consider the older mindset of art cheesy, outdated and unfitting for modern life.
Intellectual analysis of modern art also seems to be less about structural and technical things and more about social commentary, symbols and such. I think that this approach is ultimately limiting because it ignores lots of important and great things in art. Some kind of combination of old and new ideas could be really cool.
>>63369856
>>63369872
thanks guys, I had a feeling some of what he was saying wasn't completely solid but had nothing else to add to it so this helps
>>63369550
>Dressing up a fatuous argument with fancy graphics and font animations
It might well be deteriorating the technical quality but artistic quality is obviously subjective. Basically this >>63369712
>>63369712
And just because two pieces have differing levels of complexity doesn't mean that they can't be both good and enjoyable. Just because you like Holy Mountain doesn't mean you can't like Raiders of the Lost Ark; or some piece of classical art and a phone-photo of a sunset.
>>63369550
He's completelty right and that's what makes people here butthurt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI
>>63369930
I think I agree with your last statement especially. It's partly the reason why I thought maybe Pet Sounds could be considered a modern classical piece?
For one thing, Pet Sounds is largely pop and appeals to the masses but it's not lacking in technical mastery either.
>>63369930
>Lots of modern music is really simple compared to pre 20th century art music
I think modern music tends to be much more oriented towards easy consumption and use in varied contexts than before, which might have something to do with its simplicity.
In the days of old, experiencing music was an event. There was a time when going to a concert hall to see the few classically trained musicians that existed at that time was the only way to hear music. Then music was enjoyed in the home with record players, but listening to music was still an occasion in and of itself.
Now music is everywhere: coffee shops, adverts, bars, hotels, elevators. We can now shuffle through giant libraries on our mobile phones. We listen to music WHILE we do something else: working, exercising and so on. As a consequence of its ubiquity music becomes more and more simple as a necessity. Listening is a fragmented and continuous experience rather than a treasure rarely experienced. If music was rare, you would want to hear long, technical pieces. That's my view, anyway.
>>63369983
Hence the term "baroque pop"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
Hello from /ic/ and also fuck you
>>63370092
I agree that beauty is important but beauty could be found anywhere by anyone. For example, flies probably would worship shit if they could since it provides them with nutrients they need. So in the end, it's perspective that trumps everything else.
>>63369930
a big reason for this is trial-and-error. the technicality of, say, bach or wagner is so staggering that composers almost had no choice but to explore the possibilities of minimalist repetition and the timbres of various instruments.
>>63370181
Perspective is inherent to the concept of beauty, dum dum
what a faggot that guy was. He invalidates his entire argument of beauty being in the eye of the beholder because he's busy being pretentious about modern art.
>>63370092
Why does he talk like a cartoon character?
>>63369975
This guy always takes a good point and stretches it too far because of the attention-seeking nature of his channel. Fucking northerners.
>>63369712
>the value of art is based on your personal reaction and emotional response
I hate this opinion and I hate the assumption that art is either about "muh emotions" or "muh technical complexity." Do you really think there is nothing more to art outside of these two things?
>>63369818
The music of Justin Bieber is not art in the same way that a McDonalds cheeseburger is not art. It's just a mass produced commodity without any artistic merit.
>>63370455
'Kitsch' is still a form of art, it's just low-brow, mass-produced art.
>>63370057
Yeah, that point of view shouldn't be ignored. Before you had to get into the same space with a musician to hear music. This obviously leads to a very different attitude towards music. However, the same change in attitude towards technical skill has changed in other forms of art too which don't require to performance to be experienced and you're also ignoring the numerous folk musicians who were just ordinary folk and not necessarily even formally trained. Saying that recording equipment is the sole reason for simplifying art is too simple, though it probably does play a part in it. But if our attitude towards art and music was what it was 200-300 years ago, would we even want to listen to modern pop while doing other things? Actually, lots of people seem to like classical music while doing other things such as studying even though they don't listen to it otherwise.
Though it's also worth noting that there's a difference between the type of degradation that people talk about in visual arts and music. Pop music still aims to be generally pleasing to listen to and have functional songs while lots of art in modern art museums don't really even try to be pleasant to look at anymore. Comparing different art forms is always a bit clumsy but pop music seems to be closer to graphic design which aims to be nice to look at with simple elements but not much beyond that, not the type of art people mean when they talk about modern art. Of course there's also music genres like noise but I've understood that even the fans of those are still looking for a cool sound and maybe song and not just interesting concepts and themes, which modern art seems to do. (Personally I think that lots of things would be solved if conceptual art and visual art were considered different things and generally not displayed in the same museums as visual artistry isn't often important in conceptual art)
Idk what I even tried to say with this post but it's an interesting topic.
>>63370495
You make some excellent points and I agree that pop music doesn't really have an easy equivalent in other forms of art. I'd say it's probably comparable to mass-produced art rather than modern art. The best comparison between modern art and music is probably punk and its related genres.
Btw I was careful to say "it might have something to do with it" because I see it as something worth noting, rather than a central cause.
>>63369964
but the holy mountain is objectively bullshit.
>>63369550
>PragerU
Just the other end of retardation.
>>63370668
Isn't it critically acclaimed though? That kind of makes you wrong..
>>63370455
>>63370455
How do you think about and categorize art my man?
>>63370770
I like The Holy Mountain but no, that doesn't make him wrong
>>63369550
>relativism in modern art was objectively deteriorating
What?
>>63371570
That's what the video was claiming
>>63371672
How can relativism objectively deteriorate?
>>63371716
I don't think it can, that's why I was doubting the video
>>63371716
The idea that art is relative is deteriorating the quality of art
>>63371798
Define quality in that context
>>63371835
(positive) effect on society and culture.
art is for people.
>>63371869
That's absurd. Art doesn't have to be positive, nor have a positive effect to be considered of 'quality'.
>>63370495
Good discussion here.
We should make this kind of thread a regular.
The problem though with interesting debate on /mu/ is that it's quickly drowned out and pushed to the bottom by all the meme threads.
>he has graduate students who haven't committed to memory every Jackson Pollack painting
>PragerU
fucking trashed
>>63371912
>>63371912
Quality art inspires people
Garbage art degenerates
Both change us
How is that absurd?
>>63372126
You said positive. Art deals with many themes, they don't have to be positive.
>>63370455
>a McDonalds cheeseburger is not art.
Fuck you, bro. Fuck you and your pretentious foodie bullshit.
>>63372082
Problem is that meme painters like Pollock are given all the attention which gives reactionary weenies more ammunition.
>>63372263
Maybe I should've said
the positive effect art has on us
Art is communication and today a lot of people are communicating things that are not of the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prager university
unplug your router
rothko and mondrian are more interesting on any day of the week than photorealistic bullshit that has no reason to exist after the invention of the camera
>>63372452
Art isn't merely communication, it's also expression and many other things. The definition of art is also very disputed, so it's silly narrowing it to only communication
>>63372499
this. what the fuck is even prager university?
the guy also cherrypicked the worse examples of modern art as much as he could
>>63372579
>expression
not that other anon but I'm interested to know how you differentiate that from communication
>>63372984
Communications deals with both the communicator and the receiver, expression doesn't concern itself with the other end
>>63373083
that's what I figured, thanks anon
>>63372499
Classical paintings don't really look like photographs and you have bad eyes if you claim otherwise. In fact the hyperrealistic painting style which really resembles a photograph is a rather recent thing.
>>63372499
>>63373130
Also you have to be pretty dumb if you think that paintings before 20th century didn't have any meaning besides trying to replicate the real world as accurately as possible.
Isn't it funny how /mu/ is completely butthurt about this guy's views when you guys use the same exact arguments to discredit pop and everything you don't like ?
>>63374056
>>63374056
There's a difference between acknowledging you can discuss all music and choosing only to breed discussion of a certain niche.
You can discuss pop with NORMIES anywhere, let /mu/ stay weird
This is a great thread, guys. Good job.
(I'm not being sarcastic)
>>63376019
Agreed. I felt like I learned a lot from some of the discussions itt
>>63369617
this was kind of interesting
>>63369975
being this butthurt
