- The question, for instance, came up of the famous Well, say an artist draws a line on a canvas and calls that art. How are you going to tell him it isn t? IMessage 1 of 13 , Jan 31, 2004View SourceThe question, for instance, came up of the famous "Well, say an
artist draws a line on a canvas and calls that art. How are you
going to tell him it isn't?" I thought of the following response.
If I am going to build a house, and I lay one brick and then
stop, I can't really say that is a house now can I? It is the same
with the artist and his line, because a line is simply one aspect of
what makes a painting a painting (some others would be color,
texture, etc). So I would say that one line is the beginning of a
painting, but is not the whole painting and therefore is not "wholly
art." Please, I need arguements based on reason. ScottVMANN: personally, i define art in terms of its function.ayn rand was a decadent artist herself. for her, art is to be 'edifying' in that it should show us how we 'ought' to be. to her, this was 'rational.' she even said that shakespeare sucked.vigilius haufniensis
- While I agree with you Meridith, there might be a small contridiction, for you say that music is simply organized sound. But John Cage s Sixty-two MesosticsMessage 2 of 13 , Jan 31, 2004View SourceWhile I agree with you Meridith, there might be a small
contridiction, for you say that music is simply organized sound. But
John Cage's "Sixty-two Mesostics re Merce Cunningham" is organized
sound, but I certainly don't think it is music because it lacks the
things which music needs (one of the following or all); emotional
expression through harmony, melody and rhythm.VMANN: this is merely a matter of subjective appraisal.
It could, I suppose, still be argued that this is music (because
technically rhythm is invovled), but it certainly isn't good music
and hardly passes. I guess this goes back to my previous theory; it
is simply incomplete music.VMANN: is bad art art?vigilius haufniensis
- ... Even improvization is organized (albiet not as much as, say, Schoenberg s pieces). Random sounds (like people in the audience coughing, a piano refusing toMessage 3 of 13 , Jan 31, 2004View Source
organization, no music.> Music is organized sound. That's it. No
Even improvization is organized (albiet not as much as, say,
Schoenberg's pieces). Random sounds (like people in the audience
coughing, a piano refusing to eat straw, and other modern pieces) is
not music.> MeridithVMANN: the artist will say that positive chaos is in play here. the sounds arrange themselves spontaneously into music. 'all the world's a stage.'vigilius haufniensis
- Coughing is not music. At best, it could be a rhythmic element of some shitty composition, but random noises can not be labeled as music. If they could, theMessage 4 of 13 , Jan 31, 2004View SourceCoughing is not music. At best, it could be a rhythmic element of
some shitty composition, but random noises can not be labeled as
music. If they could, the people yelling in the hallway could be
music, my dog barking could be music, car horns could be music. Then
the definition of music would be rendered useless. If you want to
change the definition, that is one thing, but arguing that random
people coughing is music is quite another.VMANN: all art is relative to context. for instance, what is a door? a door is an emptiness within a frame. a lacuna.
According to Oxford, music is;
Art of combining vocal and instrumental sounds (or both) to produce
beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.
I am in agreement. Music must have organized form, even a small one.
Even the freest forms of jazz have some organization of some sort,
but random noises cannot be organized.ScottVMANN: this begs the question, what is 'organisation?'sorry if im butting into your discussion.vigilius haufniensis
- Out of curiosity, would you not consider techno/electronica to be music? What about exersises used to learn to play an instrument? I guess I don t think thatMessage 5 of 13 , Jan 31, 2004View SourceOut of curiosity, would you not consider techno/electronica to be music? What about exersises used to learn to play an instrument? I guess I don't think that the definition of music needs to include emotion. Part of the expressionist movement in music at the beginning of the 20th Century was the removal of "sentimentality" from music. They thought that appealing to emotions and feelings in music was limiting. Instead, they tried to reach people's intellect through music, which I consider a valid use of organized sound.VMANN: i believe that this would be of great interest to rand, and her decadent school of 'romanticism.'Which actually raises another question: Does the definition of music have to include the musician's intent(ie, to rouse the emotions/intellect...whatever)? I'd like to say no, because we're defining a non-sentient object, which cannot have goals, drive, wants, ect(except perhaps to resolve to the tonic. But that's a whole other can of beans). Musicians have intent; music does not. Unlike architects, who's goal (broadly) is to create a shelter, musicians don't have a general goal that is linked to their product. The intent of a composer in his music can vary much wider than some other designers.VMANN: i define art entirely with reference to its function.vigilius haufniensis