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

Opinions may be opinions, but if SOMEONE in the world thinks that something sounds good, then, technically, isn't it? I am sick and tired of hearing people (my friends) listen to something that I think sounds great, and then they say "OH GOD TURN IT OFF! That SUCKS!" Are they just not accepting the music, or is it REALLY that bad?
state your thoughts.

Nothing artistic will ever be universally "good," not even the Mona Lisa

The short answer is, if you think something is good, then it is good, TO YOU. For others it's bad. Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with a more satisfying answer than that

Originally Posted by Dev

The short answer is, if you think something is good, then it is good, TO YOU. For others it's bad. Unfortunately I don't think we can come up with a more satisfying answer than that

Really.

What other answer could there possibly be?

Where do people come up with the idea that anything has to be absolute?

Everything's subjective.

But is a fart as artistically viable as a symphony?

I think there is such a thing as an absolute, and that there is such as thing as bad taste. Some people are more fortunate than others.

At a certain point it becomes impossible to say what is 'better' or 'best', but to say that my drawings are as artistic as Michaelangelo's David would be pretentious, self-indulgent lunacy. I also don't think you should try to argue that farting requires as much skill, talent, creativity, self-discipline etc as symphonic writing.

And what is artistic/talented? In my opinion, it is the ability to do something that many other people can't. If everyone could run the 100m in less than 10seconds, would we be impressed by somebody who ran it in 10 seconds? Why is it that most people are not impressed by a cheese sandwich!?
There is a reason why things that are hard to achieve should be and usually are rewarded.
I think there is a standard to some degree in most things, and it is important to uphold it, lest we want our head chefs to be unable to cook anything other than beans on toast; our musicians to be unable to play anything other than the aeolian mode; our artists unable to produce anything more than an unmade bed and our composers unable to write anything more than one note.

There is no best but one of the principle rules of life is: There is a better!

Originally Posted by almacg

But is a fart as artistically viable as a symphony?

I think the fact that "nothing" (John Cage's 4:33 or whatever the time is) is considered viable as a symphony can validate pretty much anything else.

Originally Posted by Dev

I think the fact that "nothing" (John Cage's 4:33 or whatever the time is) is considered viable as a symphony can validate pretty much anything else.

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

Originally Posted by almacg

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

Mumble mumble, I hate to get involved in the same old tired discourse but I want to repeat what always needs repeating:

Art is Art for the sake of Art being Art, made by an artist.

Art isn't objective, it can't be compared to food, of all things, which can be judged on a lot of objective factors which simply don't apply to music (such as taste developing biases towards certain kinds of chemicals due to evolution and natural selection, etc etc. The ear doesn't have such an important role as to account for a similar specialization in detecting certain types of sounds and labeling them "pleasant" or "unpleasant" to avoid having you eat your own poop.)

Your opinion about Art isn't better or worse than the next guy's. However, given that opinions can also be criticized, this particular opinion of "Well OF COURSE a symphony is better than a fart when it comes to artistic merit!" is a non-argument. Same could be said in reverse and be just as valid ("OF COURSE a fart has more artistic merit than a symphony, what are you thinking!")

A blank piece of paper can be a powerful piece of art, as can be a Shakespeare play. A fart can be a powerful piece of music as much as a symphony can be. There's no universal concept of aesthetic that accounts for all the shit going on the world, as much as there's no discourse on taste that is absolute.

Deal with it.

Originally Posted by almacg

But that is only your opinion and I do not see it that way. If you see 4'33'' as being as viable as a symphony you might as well say that a chef who hands you a plate with nothing on it is able as one who cooks you a lasagne. Shakespeare is more artistic than a blank piece of paper, if not only for the reason that everybody on the planet can produce a blank piece of paper. If you find that you are impressed by a blank piece of paper as you are by your favourite piece of literature (which I do not for one second believe) then you are being uninstinctive in your judgement, and I would argue that you have bad taste.

Actually I hate John Cage but that's just the thing - despite whether or not I like him or his music, he's expressing something through music (or lack thereof) and thereby creating "art," and you better believe someone out there likes it.

And that's pretty much the answer. To the man who appreciates a fart as a symphony, then yes, that is "good" music.

*applauds SSC for a post well posted*

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

Short answer: yes.

Deal with it! I actually predicted you'd write that! Shame on us for wasting our time once again...!

It's upto you to decide whether a fart is as valuable as a symphony. My decision as to why I do not want to value a fart as much as a symphony is obvious. I fart about 100 times a day, and I'm not the only one. If you think that something that anybody can do, with no training, effort, or even intention in some people's cases is as impressive or as emotionally enfused as any sympony, then I expect to see you pay money to go and see somebody walk on stage, fart, and then walk off in the near future. Except you won't, because you don't really believe what you are saying.

It is important to have a universal or cultural standard. Should we encourage flatulence as an art, merely because philosophically speaking it is artistically viable? Should we put particularly flatulent children into the high-flyers class, merely for the fact that they can fart? If somebody gets into the 'high-flyers' music or even english class it won't be through their ability to fart, it will be through their musical or linguistic abilities. Why? Because farting is not as artistically viable as rare talents or skills in a sane world.

When you have kids, I hope for your sake that they are particularly gassy.

Oh and I suppose that dog being murdered for an art exhibition (thanks to Guillermo Habacuc Vargas) is good merely because some sick people like to see dogs dying?