If a piece sounds good to me, does that mean it's good?

Originally Posted by all the things you are

Again, I cannot stand that conceptual "either everything sucks or everythings is just as valid" conclusion. Sure I can't prove Bach's invention is of more artistic value. Nor do I have any specific problem with the photocopy being a byproduct. Yet the fact that one can't prove it changes nothing, it still may be better -can I dare say so? I really think the invention IS more valuable!

I'm just as openminded as any. But the mere logical possibility that a photocopy can be more valuable (let's say just not less) than its original -in other words, the lack of proof against it- cannot be used as defense. That's fooling people with false arguments. Sure I can take a photograph of some work that's as worth as the work itself, but that doesn't legitimize every knucklehead with a camera.

I'm really not saying that you CANNOT think that Bach's invention is better or worse than the photocopy of it. Instead, I'm saying that the logical implication of art, that the photocopy CAN BE as important or even more important than the original work it was derived from, cannot be ignored.

It's precisely the lack and absence of proof which makes this very topic subjective in nature. There can't be proof unless we define what proof can possibly be, and we will never agree on such a thing because it's subjective. That's the ramification of that logical process. As such, your suggestion that the original invention is "better" is only really valid if we define what "better" is and I'm arguing that we CAN'T do that objectively and effectively.

I'm not saying any ol' idiot with a camera or a photocopy machine is an artistic genius nor any of that. I'm saying that we should treat taste and opinion as taste and opinion (about art) which, ultimately, is not based on anything more than personal preference and experience, not on objective fact.

Originally Posted by all the things you are

Agree with the concert thing. Now, if I EVER express my intention of writing a fart symphony, please prevent me from doing so, laugh at me, insult me, just you guys don't let me do so. I might truly regret it afterwards.

Well, I can say it's a pretty silly idea, but that shouldn't stop you if you really want to do it. That's your business and it's your right to carry out your artistic vision even if I or anyone else may think it's nonsense.

Ugh, I knew this was going to happen

Listen, is a fart valuable as a symphony? Most people will say no. Probably almost everyone will. Does that mean that it, universally, has no artistic value?

No. Because art is just ambiguous like that - almost anything can be considered art. Even if no one likes it.

We're not going to get a better answer than that, srsly

Funny story... not sure how on topic it is.

A few years back I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with a class. As we were walking through a gallery there was a very sophisticated-looking man, like with an admiral suit on, older man, very proper, talking to one of the museum people. They seemed to be in the middle of an enthralling conversation about artistic theory when this man rips one loose. And no one did a thing. Let me tell you... if you sneeze or cough or if--god forbid--your cell phone goes off in the Met, they all stare at you as if you just defecated on the Pope, but you are allowed to fart in the Met.

My class, however, could not stop laughing. We had to get to the next gallery really quickly so he wouldn't see us. When we got there, my professor says, "It's the Metropolitan Museum of Art, not the Metropolitan Museum of Fart!"

But then again, who knows? Maybe that guy was just trying to make his own small contribution to the museum.

Originally Posted by Dev

Ugh, I knew this was going to happen

Listen, is a fart valuable as a symphony? Most people will say no. Probably almost everyone will. Does that mean that it, universally, has no artistic value?

No. Because art is just ambiguous like that - almost anything can be considered art. Even if no one likes it.

We're not going to get a better answer than that, srsly

That's pretty much the only answer that makes any sense.

But that's not the question. The discussion is not whether it IS art - clearly it is. The question was whether it was GOOD art, which is a quantifiable question, but any time an "artist" finds someone who might not like his art, the discussion quickly turns to "well its art, and art is sacred and.. and... and..." or "its not art because its not according to x

If there wasn't so much bile, maybe the actually interesting topic - what are the criteria for "good" art - could have been discussed.

On a tangent, that's why I loathe the term "composer" or "composing" - for chrissakes I write music simple as that.

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

But that's not the question. The discussion is not whether it IS art - clearly it is. The question was whether it was GOOD art, which is a quantifiable question,...

I disagree - 'goodness' is entirely subjective and personal. It's not quantifiable in any way. You'll find VAST variances depending on race, creed, geographical location, upbringing...you-name-it. Your definition of 'good' applies to you, and you alone...someone with different listening experience - different life experiences - may be utterly repulsed by something you think is great!

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

If there wasn't so much bile, maybe the actually interesting topic - what are the criteria for "good" art - could have been discussed.

I don't think there's ANY other way for a discussion like this to ensue...the ENTIRE premise centres around opinion, conjecture and speculation - there are NO universal criteria for evaluating the inherent 'goodness' or 'value' of a piece of art...which, I believe, SSC has so valiantly been debating all this time.

Thanks rob. :>

Originally Posted by robinjessome

I disagree - 'goodness' is entirely subjective and personal. It's not quantifiable in any way. You'll find VAST variances depending on race, creed, geographical location, upbringing...you-name-it. Your definition of 'good' applies to you, and you alone...someone with different listening experience - different life experiences - may be utterly repulsed by something you think is great!

That's part of my point. Coming to a consensus as to the criteria would be a discussion. that there are differences in opinion mean that there are differences in reason, unless those opinion are unfounded in ANYTHING. For someone to say that only style x is good, it would be ridiculous to take their opinion seriously without a reason backing it. Those reasons behind the opinions are the objective criteria.

The goal that I was hinting at was a unified concept. That there's a concept of good timing inherent in all music. The definitions of "good" vary from style to style; there are styles where "bad" timing, that is timing that is unsynchronized with anything else (forgive my ethnocentric slant here), is the acceptable and correct timing. A concept of correct pitch - again the former's note remains.

As my last non-diatribe in this thread said, for me, looking at the intent of the composer provides the criteria by which we are to evaluate their work. If the composer was meaning to write a fart symphony for laughs, and everyone laughed, then its successful. If they were writing it for a satire, have everyone dressed up in fine symphony clothes, listening to a man farting, yet everyone showed up in street clothes, half of whom had taken no bath, the satire is lost, and the piece is unsuccessful.

If you have a techno track, going back to the original post, assuming the intent of the track was to make people dance, if it induces dancing, then its successful.

I don't think there's ANY other way for a discussion like this to ensue...the ENTIRE premise centres around opinion, conjecture and speculation - there are NO universal criteria for evaluating the inherent 'goodness' or 'value' of a piece of art...which, I believe, SSC has so valiantly been debating all this time.

So then critique is solely personal and largely worthless? If we eliminate the possibility for objective criteria of evaluation, then there is absolutely nothing but PR that separates the greats from the not-so-greats. Therefore, music pedagogy is a waste of funds.

Why is it, then, that certain people are nigh-universally hated - try punching bag Kenny G, even though he has some serious talent (or at least I haven't circular breathed for 20 minutes straight). Or some are universally acclaimed: pre-fusion Miles Davis, mid-experimental Coltrane.

There is a discrete difference between "I like" and "I think this is good."

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

That's part of my point. Coming to a consensus as to the criteria would be a discussion. that there are differences in opinion mean that there are differences in reason...Those reasons behind the opinions are the objective criteria.

But there can be no consensus. you can map out generalizations or commonalities...but there is no possible way for Everyone to agree on "what makes a work of art 'good'".

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

As my last non-diatribe in this thread said, for me, looking at the intent of the composer provides the criteria by which we are to evaluate their work. If the composer was meaning to write a fart symphony for laughs, and everyone laughed, then its successful....If you have a techno track, going back to the original post, assuming the intent of the track was to make people dance, if it induces dancing, then its successful.

I'll agree that SUCCESS can be measured - but is success your only rubric for evaluating the artistic merit of something? And again - it's still a subjective evaluation, success; a complete bomb to some, a resounding success to others.

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

So then critique is solely personal and largely worthless?

Nah...highly personal, yes...but there are certainly Many aspects of a work that can be evaluated - especially when compared to benchmark masterpieces. BUT, the critiques may still be rooted in personal taste and bias. One professor may hate the coda...another will love it.

Originally Posted by Ferkungamabooboo

There is a discrete difference between "I like" and "I think this is good."

There's also a Very solid similarity... the fact that it has to read "I like" and "I think this is good" illustrates the fact the you can not say "Everyone likes" or "Everyone thinks this is good".



[See! This is getting Fun now!!]

Originally Posted by SSC

Instead, I'm saying that the logical implication of art, that the photocopy CAN BE as important or even more important than the original work it was derived from, cannot be ignored.

I understand your point, and I agree that the fact cannot be ignored. But it cannot be overstated neither. My only concern is that it can be used -and it IS used- as a good-for-everything shield against criticism, and so the trick can be overlooked if that "logical implication" is magnified. Personally, I gladly accept the entire concept of artistic freedom, but not for it being logically obvious, but because of its wonderful consequences, both for artist and receptor. But freedom, too, has an obverse that cannot be ignored.

As such, your suggestion that the original invention is "better" is only really valid if we define what "better" is and I'm arguing that we CAN'T do that objectively and effectively.

I'm not saying the invention is better or isn't. But even if I cannot afirm it logically, nor demonstrate it, I still feel it so. I just mind logic to some extent, then the whole thing begins to mean nothing for me. But I think there's no true disagreement on the xerox thing, so I won't lead to circle-discussing on this.