Prove him wrong moo.
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Prove him wrong moo.
His reviews aren't anything special and his ratings are inconsistent as fuck, why do we give a shit about this guy?
>>65079701
He reached meme status as a result of your points, then some newfags at the time saw the memes and took them unironically and those newfags are the majority of /mu/ users.
>>65079659
>implying a critic can dictate methods and intentions of the artist.
>>65079781
>implying a critic isn't the real artist
>>65079659
Self-indulgence isn't inherently a bad thing in art.
Prove THAT wrong.
>>65079827
>if there was no art, there would be no critic
>if there were no critic, there would still be art
Hence critics are not the real artists
>>65079842
human -> art -> critic
therefore critic is more important than art
>>65079897
Incorrect. The only thing you can remove from that for it to still work is the critic. They are inessential, but I am not surprised a critic would feel differently, for the need of self-preservation
>>65079897
Ah but if there was no human there would be neither of the other two so human > art > critic (and I assume you meant this and merely mistyped the dashes) so art is more important than the critic.
>>65079827
>>65079897
>said the non-artist
>>65079933
art isn't essential either. the critic is just the top of the pyramid.
>>65080007
>art isn't essential either
You clearly aren't an artist
>the critic is just the top of the pyramid.
Not all art is meant to be heard/seen, so no.
>>65080007
The pyramid of least importance I assume ?
>>65079659
>caring about pedoruffi opinions
>>65079659
>Prove him wrong
I can't. He's right
>>65079956
? i don't see what your point is. yes that's what i said, however the dashes are there to show it's a progression
>>65080028
i do create. all i'm saying is that art is less essential than the human (survival i guess). yes, the critic is less essential than art
>>65080029
i'd say it depends what you mean by 'importance'. critic is just the end product in that sequence. unless something new appears
>says GY!BE is self-indulgent
>gives a Hash Jar Tempo album a 9
What the fuck?
>>65079828
Self-indulgence in art leads to a lot of unnecessary things existing in art. In Milan, opposite the Last Supper is this late gothic era piece. It is more technical than the Last Supper for sure, but despite having so many characters in it and so many items, not a lot of them are there for any good reason. Comparatively, The Last Supper has a lot less people/items, but each one has context for being there. Thus, despite having a lot less, The Last Supper is able to say a lot more.
>>65080125
>i do create.
No, I mean as an artist.
>all i'm saying is that art is less essential than the human (survival i guess)
That's the thing: the human will not survive but it's art will. Art is the only testament to a human's existence.
>critic is just the end product in that sequence. unless something new appears
ONLY IF the artist intends it. Hence the artist has more power over the critic.
>>65079828
He didn't say it is inherently bad, though. For him, the problem with GY!BE is too much self-indulgence. I'm a fan but I kinda of agree with him.
>>65079659
I can't, but that doesn't mean their music is bad
>>65080246
congratulations mu, we went from arguing about scaruffi to talking about philosophy
>>65080193
>a lot of unnecessary things existing in art
unnecessary according to whom/what?
>>65079659
relying on what a critic says and not forming your own opinions is shitty and that's coming from someone who hates both those bands
>>65080349
Contextually.
>>65079842
I think the point is that art exists by there being an observer. The observer/critic places the object on a pedestal, gives it meaning and it becomes art.
>>65080246
>That's the thing: the human will not survive but it's art will.
art does not remain forever. music disappears as soon as the air ceases to vibrate, great buildings can crumble, footsteps disappear when the wind blows. the earth will be gone at some point
>ONLY IF the artist intends it. Hence the artist has more power over the critic.
yes, and also the human has 'more power' than the art (since he creates it)
the point is that the critic is the next step. like clapping -> instruments -> computer production
>>65080389
>I think the point is that art exists by there being an observer.
This is incorrect. See >>65080246
>>65079659
Why are crescendos self-indulgent and what does that have to do with Sigur Ros?
>>65080445
>art does not remain forever
Very poetic but due to modern technology, it certainly can.
>yes, and also the human has 'more power' than the art (since he creates it)
Red herring
>the point is that the critic is the next step
Non sequitur. We already covered this.
>>65080538
>ONLY IF the artist intends it.
i don't see how this matters
>>65080583
Do you not know what power means?
>>65080700
does important=powerful ?
>>65080797
Why are you answering my question with another question?
>>65080861
why are you doing the same? i'm trying to understand what you mean.
>>65080927
Did you read the thread?
>>65080988
>>65080927
you guys are both stupid and have almost zero understanding of art, stop shitting up the thread
>>65081046
I'm an art teacher though
Nice try.
>>65080988
did you?
>>65081098
Of course.
Any other questions?
>>65081192
are you going to post something interesting from which i/we might even learn from, or should i just leave the thread now?
>>65081303
>are you going to post something interesting from which i/we might even learn from
I already did. That's why I asked if you read the thread.
>or should i just leave the thread now?
It would be no great lost.
>>65081353
>I already did. That's why I asked if you read the thread.
i knew you'd say this, being the faggot that you are (no offens). i meant something new
>>65079659
burden of proof hitchens' razor etc etc.
>>65081406
>i knew you'd say this
Then why ask?
>i meant something new
Ask me a question directly, and I'll answer it for you. That's how conversation works.
embaressing.png
>>65081465
what's the answer to the question? are questions anything but answers unanswered?
>>65081580
>what's the answer to the question?
Which one?
>>65080327
It was a quote from scaruffi in the first place anyhow
>>65081560
it's the two autists with the neverending chain of 6 word or less replies
>>65081647
what is your top5 bands
>>65081749
Not relevant.
>>65081767
it is though
>>65079827
>>65079897
>>65081046
Scaruffis criticism is dependent on the art, meaning his words mean less than nothing without the existence of the artist. When Scaruffi writes a review, he narrows down the infinite possible perceptions, and trivializes the intentions, quality, and authenticity of an artist. He narrows the most fleeting of all art forms, music, into a concrete description, and a single perspective. He is quite literally THE ANTI-ARTIST.
>>65081894
>a art critic doesn't exist without art
wow, that's some groundbreaking stuff
also the artist's intention is irrelevant. the quality and authenticity exist only in the mind of the beholder: the thing-in-itself lacks these properties, even artistry. read some art theory before embarassing yourself
>>65081814
How so?
>>65081982
>also the artist's intention is irrelevant.
Not true by the way
>the quality and authenticity exist only in the mind of the beholder
They are also irrelevant in creating the art.
>read some art theory
Read: only read Barthes, only he is correct
>>65081982
The art is in its absolute most large and pure form before it is judged. When someone comes in and judges the art, they destroy many different sides it once had, and any one who has read this review, as a result, has narrowed their perspective. It is like compressing a file on a computer, it just gets smaller and less detailed. A critic cant make a work of art any bigger, they just make it smaller. They decontruct, and basically un-create the art.
>>65082141
>How so?
So I can judge everything you said...
Nah, not really but I'd just like to know what you listen to, argushitting aside
>>65082141
how about benjamin, adorno, deleuze, foucault and derrida? they all hold similar views.
>>65082290
they destroy nothing, they create nothing. a object or piece has no meaning in itself, it only becomes a work of art via interpretation. what scaruffi does is what we all do when exposed to sensible stimuli: to apply judgement. the difference is he tries to translate those judgements into writing and has an audience. we are all art critics. art wouldn't exist without art critics
>>65081982
>the quality and authenticity exist only in the mind of the beholder: the thing-in-itself lacks these properties
The fuck did you just say to me, you little bitch.
>>65082398
>They create nothing
So does this at least lead us to agree that the critic is not the real artist?
>>65082398
>how about benjamin, adorno, deleuze, foucault and derrida? they all hold similar views
these are good recommendations, anon. you'll have lots of time to read them now that it's summer and you don't have AP tests to study for!
>>65082456
why don't you explain Heidegger's views on art for us real quick, anon? or did you just hop on the thing-in-itself meme real quick because you're 15 and are ~soooo~ into critical theory?
>>65082398
>>65082141
>reading people's made up shit
you realise that your perception of art is also art? why would you cripple yourself by reading someone else's made up definition of whatever
>>65082456
>>65082529
>why don't you explain Heidegger's views on art for us real quick
yes please, I want material to /lit/ cringe thread
>>65082540
>hurr why read, muh common sense intuition which has been constructed by predominant cultural notions are the only thing that matter.
>>65082456
have you actually read any heidegger, nigger?
>>65082493
I never said otherwise
>>65082502
>"art teacher" is exposed and gets mad
I mean, if you're going to roleplay as a specialist you should at least do some basic reading? Kant is a good starting point
>>65082540
come back when you're 18
>>65082529
This is a very passive aggressive comment on my, ultimately, tongue-in-cheek post that obliquely references Heidegger's views on the metaphysical quality of the work of art expressed in his in "Poetry, Language, Thought".
My question to you is: "Are you okay, dude?".
>>65082570
/lit/, /mu/, /pol/ and every other board on 4chan that pretends to know enough about philosophy to speak meaningfully about it is cringe. Every fucking time, we end up with discourses that show no actual understanding, because 90% of the people on this site are pretentious teens. Just like reddit.
>>65082697
>4chan boards are individuals with knowledge
Hope this helps: http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/mental-health-psychotic-disorders
>>65082630
you realise that it's literally the same thing? philosphy is not knowledge. maybe you should read to get some of that instead.
>>65082642
you realize Poetry, Language, Thought is a collection of essays, right? so why don't you tell me how a phenomenologist doesn't include human perception in his evaluation of art?
>>65082734
Got me good redditor! I used figurative language, and now you totally owned me! Please screencap and post to /r/4chan for upvotes and reddit gold.
>>65082752
so what did you read that gave you your objectively correct facts about what art is and isn't and what the role of the critic in art discourse is? you realize that art is a humanity just like philosophy, right? and that these scholarly disciplines are based on discursive regimes, not on falsifiable theories that are compounded by material evidence?
of course you don't, 'cause you're either a high schooler or a STEM major who came here originally to impress girls with Wonderwall before realizing your hideous visage and complete lack of understanding of human thought has made you undesirable to all creatures on the planet.
>>65082767
How is anything in this post relevant to the previous posts? As your second point, Heidegger was endeavoring to undertake a "phenomenology of the work in-and-of-itself".
>>65082845
to make this very simple, Heidegger is talking about the work-in-itself and its relationship with perception. to cite his most simple and famous essay, Building Dwelling Thinking, human activity and contemplation do as much to imbue the thing-in-itself with meaning as the thing-in-itself does in its revealing of itself to the world. it's an interactive process that lies at the heart of the phenomenological union of materialism and idealism. but you don't understand what the thing-in-itself in Heidegger's thought really is, and so you think that artistic works have inherent value without human perception, activity, or contemplation, which is the exact opposite of what phenomenologists would posit.
>>65079659
( ) is a good album though anon :)
>>65082836
>so what did you read that gave you your objectively correct facts about what art is and isn't
nothing because it doesn't exist. reading what literallywho-gerd thinks is a waste of time.
>the role of the critic in art discourse is
is this the big question in this thread?
>you realize that art is a humanity just like philosophy, right?
ok??
>and that these scholarly disciplines are based on discursive regimes,
yes they are
>not on falsifiable theories that are compounded by material evidence?
yes
>>65082964
okay, so why would you not read the arguments of thinkers who have spent more time on these things than you to try to learn from and understand their perspectives? are you really so childish and insolent that you believe that your common-sense approach (which isn't even common-sense, it's just a visceral belief on your part) is superior to centuries of deep thinking on this subject?
>>65083060
why would I read them? if ( if ) i really wanted to know what 'art' is then would reading all of those essays really help me find the truth of it? like, if i go to every different religion's church and let them preach to me, will I be any closer to the truth? nope. that's why nobody does this. they just pick a religion (or pick a side on the 'what is art' argument) and stick with it. all that is just different beliefs. you can pick one, but it doesn't make it true. this is why this argument in this thread will lead nowhere - there is just no simple correct belief. art doesn't really exist - it's just a concept of the human mind that everyone sees differently. it's there to slap labels on things that do exist. everyone's labels are different. this got really rambly but i hope it makes sense
>>65083454
>pick a side on the 'what is art' argument and stick with it
no, only plebbish idiots like you do this. actual intelligent people field different arguments and evaluate them and continue to grow intellectually. you just stubbornly have chosen one side based on muh instincts and then argue with people about it. when you're demonstrably uneducated on the topic, you hide behind muh subjectivity. you're scum.
>>65083500
and before you go on about how things don't matter or bring up some edgelord high school nihlism/absurdism thing, you should really consider not. it will just confirm that you cherry pick ideas without reading books for your own convenience.
>>65083500
>field different arguments and evaluate them and continue to grow intellectually
this is delusion. why don't you grown in an actually useful for you direction
> you just stubbornly have chosen one side based on muh instincts and then argue with people about it. when you're demonstrably uneducated on the topic, you hide behind muh subjectivity. you're scum.
none of that is what i implied. what i said is that this topic can have no resolution
>and before you go on about how things don't matter
if that's what you got out of my post, fine. you believe what you chose to.
what ideas did i cherrypick? maybe you should understand that ideas are just that - ideas. if (all of) you understand that then why is there arguing with personal attacks in this thread? you hold on to your belief so hard that you've completely closed off to doing what you said i should
>field different arguments and evaluate them and continue to grow intellectually
instead you tell me how i should read whichever thinker you agree with, aka
>you just stubbornly have chosen one side
you aren't having a discussion. you aren't growing. why are you resorting to personal attacks if you're so open minded (not just to me, i assume you were doing the same to another poster here)?
i don't see where you got 'muh nihilism' from? when i told you to read for actual knowledge?
>I have either have to totally disagree or agree with something.
Ouch, others' ideas and perspectives hurt my brain. They might brainwash me!
>>65084370
why are you so mad? i know you're too smart to be brainwashed, i just think it's a waste of time.
>>65084499
You're trying to brainwash me into thinking I'm mad. I'm onto you!
Is Christgau too concise or is Scaruffi too verbose?
>>65082398
>a object or piece has no meaning in itself, it only becomes a work of art via interpretation
Incorrect. It's only art when the artist says it is.
>>65085722
lol
>>65084818
kek, well, sorry it just seemed that way
>>65084859
Scaruffi has his moments, Christgau is an irredeemable retard.
It's pronounce "mew" not "moo".
