One of the more poetic things I've heard you say, gendanken. It's easy on the eyesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Xev brings up a very good point. A film teacher once told me there are four ways to critique something: 1.) I like it and see that it is great 2.) I like it but see that it is awful (guilty pleasure) 3.) I don't like it but see that it is great 4.) I don't like it and see that it is awful. She brings up the case of Madonna: I think anyone with a brain, even her fans would see that the music is rather lacking compared to Beethoven, but they love it nonetheless. For example, I enjoy 'Don't Be A Menace', but I see that it is a completely moronic and degenerate film. As this applies to the theme of this thread: MOST (not all) modern music either falls under categories 2 and 4. This is a shame. The aesthetic standards were the ones built by the critics, the fans, the composers, the people who were truly inspired by the music. The standards were built in an age of refinement when nothing less than perfection was acceptable, to reach the pinnacle of musical orgasm. As a nihilist I say this: there is no standard but the one we make. Any standard is a human invention. However, some choices are logically better than others through preference. I think Schopenhauer was the one who firmly cemented the needs for such standards by using a philosophy of all things to do it.
Pollux: Oh? Then how about this from a thread about art that asked what is it?: Gendy: "What is art: the obsessive charm of silk spun by beauty. It is the lure of an oboe, the pique of a flute, the spellbinding glamour of paint, sound, and prose. Its the exotic magic that stirs mind and heart to its limits where a man can taste sound with his eyeballs" And200x: And as a gilded one, I will second that. "Guilty pleasure". Touche. Then he died a miserable hermit having wasted his time making love to the Renaissance. Sarge: :: cringe :: Hurl.
"As a nihilist I say this: there is no standard but the one we make. Any standard is a human invention. However, some choices are logically better than others through preference." So, why this thread?
Why? Read the original post again. The only "why" here is related to its derailment, in which I played a part, unfortunately.
Because I am not simply a nihilist. I am also an idealist. (yes, one can logically follow the other) I think humans can do much better and should constantly push harder and harder for more beautiful and inspiring art. More glory, more power, more beauty. He was a big time fatalist and for this I don't respect all of his philosophy. He kind of bought into the irrational malicious universe theory, which was a huge error on his part.
"Because I am not simply a nihilist. I am also an idealist. (yes, one can logically follow the other) I think humans can do much better and should constantly push harder and harder for more beautiful and inspiring art. More glory, more power, more beauty." Thanks, that makes more sense now. Although I kind of disagree on the power, but never mind. Youve decided your man made way things aught to be, so thats that.
This one is a bit more complex than the last one. That you did so much with so little at the beginning of this thread is what sparked my interest, Xev. It's quite hard to do, I think--if you can put an image in my mind, a "stranger whispering shakespeare in my ear"....ahh, it's glorious! You could write a whole, sick murder story from that one sentence!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"I like something" is not equal to "this is good" Nor is "I don't like it" equal to "this is bad" If you don't like something...don't you think its bad? Unless you are a compassion-whoring liberal.. Madonna - I don't like it. Does this mean it is bad? No. I wont blame Madonna for trying to be trendy. This should be obvious. Sure her music wasn't 'technically' brilliant or lyrically innovative..but her music was very much socially influential and innovative, i.e. 'like a virgin' 'erotica' albums. I don't like Picasso. I can aknowledge that he was a good artist though. If I didn't like him I'd say he was stupid..and fat. And I might even call him a jerk, too. I do like *cringes* Peter Steele's music. I don't think it's particularly innovative or creative. So you think its bad? See? Saying that an artistic judgement on 50 Cent is impossible because taste varies is ridiculous. Yeah, pal, but everyone can make an individual judgement..and from those judgements comes the construction of a pluralized popularity of 50 Cent..read: how 'good' he is. Its all relative. Hope I could help you out pal-a-roo Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! u-reg
Right now I'm trying to install a linux partition on my computer. Just to inform you all that I am not leaving this thread. But right now is not the time to go on rant. I have a computer to rigg. :m:
This is stupid. I thought we were past relativism already. Childish understanding of objective aesthetics. The only liberals are the relativists. There is nothing innovative or influential about her. Her work is the musical equal of porn. Novel, masturbatory (no pun intended), monetary. Her constant recreation of herself shows her complete lack of technical focus.
Music is in constant evolution. Beethoven produced great works in his time, and there are still great works being made in modern times. From Dylan, Ellington, Lennon & McCartney, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, Burzum, Public Enemy, Nirvana, Nas, Tupac, and Eminem. There are countless more who could be named, but the picture is clear. What's more striking is the diversity of cultural influences in music over the last century and the wide array of new genres. Let's take a look at the current leader in music (commercially), Hip Hop. Are Beethoven's works more complex in composition than a Hip Hop song, Yes. But I would argue that the overall produced sound has more depth in Hip Hop. Hip Hop has two main characteristics, beats and rhymes. Hip Hop beats use unlimited variations of sound that couldn't be reproduced without the use of sampling, a staple of the industry. The music form allows producers to intermingle live instruments with new and unique sounds that could otherwise never be recreated. The form and style of composing in Hip Hop is vastly different from that of Beethoven's era and not as complex in structure, but yet just as relevant. The lyrical side of Hip Hop adds an extra dimension of poetry, stroytelling, humor, knowledge, and inspiration to the music. Simply make words rhyme isn't true rapping. In order to write a quality song, you must use a complex rhyme scheme, and at the same time make a rythmic flow with your rhyming skills. Both are important and key, whether an artist chooses to use poetic style rhyme schemes or develop an entirely new one. This scheme ultimately turns into his style, and is the reason there are literally thousands of different rhyming styles. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a masterpiece, but there will be others. Just as there was Leonardo, there came Picasso.
This is stupid. I thought we were past relativism already. ... Childish understanding of objective aesthetics. The only liberals are the relativists. ... There is nothing innovative or influential about her. She pushed the limits of sexuality in music. Whether you like her or not, she was innovative in the way that she brought sexuality into people's living rooms, and made them deal with their own human instincts. Her work is the musical equal of porn. More or less, yeah. From an objective point of view, porn is very important art. Novel, masturbatory (no pun intended), monetary. Her constant recreation of herself shows her complete lack of technical focus. Well, when you are done being a high-strung pluralized rule freak, I'm sure we can have an intelligible talk sometime. Hope I could help Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! unreg
"More or less, yeah. From an objective point of view, porn is very important art." I can see that some porn is art, but then some isnt, so what is an objective view of porn and upon what assumptions or suchlike does it say that porn is art.
Well, guthrie, you can judge porn for yourself--and so will I. But the bottom line Madonna took it-whatever you want to call it-and packaged it up and put it on the market. u reg
But you said objective, so whats the objective view on porn as art? Merely saying I can judge it for myself is hardly an "objective" view of art, more a statement of relative values.
Well, according to the definition a lot of people go by, there is one, ie: Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds from, the object known, and not from the subject knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in opposition to that which is ideal -- what exists in nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the thought of the individual." Sir. W. Hamilton. Therefore objective and relative kind of conflict.
