@neo lover I thought you were heading there... thus..

If you are convinced, in your own mind, of the crystalline greatness of your creation, then you submit it to the public..
and the reaction is one of pretty much unanimous disinterest,
where does the value of the art lie? in your own satisfaction only,
that it was all about you ?

so called great art, wasn't just in the mind of the creator, it was also determined by the collective subjective reactions, of
thousands, or millions (?) of people hearing or viewing it

even so there are people who interact with great art and find it totally un-impactful and repulsive

it seems in your idea, there is no interaction required, or only praise is valid.

 

How then is music not a utility. Spoken and written language need not be used to convey emotions, thoughts or other ideas. If not we would not have mimes or dance. I would also have to say that music too is first and foremost a utility as well as mathematics. No BS or philosophy needed.

 

Art has difficult life as it can be approached from spiritual and rational or rather rigorous mindset.
Music is the ultimate expression of soul, yet in technical terms it's following basic harmony/disharmony elements that are scientifically proven. You can technically dismantle every musical style, break it into scales, tunings, tempo, ...
It's possible to compose track based on pure logic. But then there's creativity - and that allows for endless variations and representations of this scientific logic. That's why art needs to be approached from both mindsets. Logic and spiritualism, Stark and Arcadia.

 

doing great for a guy on opiates +1 bro

 

Indeed - What listeners make of it once it is finished is their enjoyment - And do not forget that there is a great deal of great art that has not been seen by millions of eyes but that has remained vertually unseen in vast private collections - That eyes have been cast over a painting does not verify it as great art - It seems that it is already inherent within it regardless -

This is not an investigation into what art is at this stage - At least for the time being - Though I would enjoy the drawn out theorising much - This is more simply about creating music alone to a completion and revealing it to a world finished -

 

Do we need to make a distinction between solitary art and collaborative art? By it's very nature the latter will be prone to criticism.

 

then I don't get what your complaint is at all.... proceed to reveal yourself...no one is impeding you, the world is waiting

 

Check this guy out, Cameron Carpenter, a great artist deconstructing Rachmanoff's Paganini for Organ and Orchestra, for those who hate organ music. He has arranged for organ as apposed to the piano which has had a monopoly on this piece for many, many years. He is a great artist who is also a great historian, teacher, player and philosopher as well as probably the only person playing with symphonies world wide who sports a Mohawk haircut. It is kind of long but is very educational.

 

I said in one of my posts that every thing is changing. Let's name them here again. Some of the them are occurring fast and some needs decades or centuries:

1- Our knowledge
2- Our thoughts
3- Our feelings
4- Our rules
5- Our behaviors
6- Our interpretations that what is good or bad
7- Our life styles
8- Our abilities
9- Our tools
10- Our beliefs
11- Our humanity
12- Our environment
.
.
.
At the end, every thing. They also have effect on each other.

Maybe someday, creatures smarter that us end our life and they talk about their ours.

When we talk or give opinions, they are just our views at the present time. Tomorrow we are another human.

Instead of expressing what is good or bad (I should admit that sometimes I do that) and wasting our time on convincing each other, let's continue our experiments.

This is my first an last statement in this thread. The most important thing for me at this time is WHAT not HOW. This is the reason that I hate some genres.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2016

That is unfortunat -

 

they are just here to help You if You want to sell Your music...
I mean, even a single note can be considered as art, but it is not easy to sell it.... the critics can tell You: if you add a few notes here, and a bend there, You will sell it much easier... (IMO)

 

what a wonderful vision of that piece

 

Music is art, but it can also be a craft. I used to work on music purely as an 'artist' for my own pleasure, experimenting with new ideas and rejecting sounds and styles that sounded too familiar or derivative. Now I work teaching music production and also writing tracks to order pretty much, I need to pay my bills so I don't really have time to experiment the way I did when i was younger

I'm a lot less precious about my work now, I even play it to people, because I feel emotionally detached from it, whereas I never considered my music finished as pieces of art.

Put it this way, you get couture fashion houses making all sorts of weird and wonderful footwear that has no life beyond its critical appraisal on the catwalk. The designers are pushing the limits of their own creativity and finding new ways to express themselves. This is a form of art. But the models can't walk in them. You then get steel toed boots made for working on building sites and trainers made for sport which also have another life as fashion items but would have no critical value within the world of fashion. The value here is in fulfilling a need and the commercial viability of the product. This is a form of craft.

In music I would say an artist is someone like Burial, experimenting at creating their own sound, for creative not commercial reasons. The people who come on forums asking how to make their tracks sound like Burial aren't artists in the same way. Tracks like Justin Biebers latest releases are pieces of craft, fulfilling a 'need' from an audience incorporating just the right amount of new sounds with old trusted formulas to be commercially viable.

Even the visual artists in this thread didn't just paint a picture in isolation, they had 'schools' of similar artists around them, who they shared works in progress with. Their successful paintings were often the 20th version of an idea they had refined over time.

People have always been influenced by their favourite musicians and this led to a certain level of conformity but I think what technology has changed is that people want an exact recreation of their favourite artists sound pallets and the same structural formula, and that is less like being influenced by picasso and more like doing a picasso colouring book. Its strange when people request certain drum sounds or synth sounds that there favourite artist has used where the artist themselves has probably just flicked through a few presets and tweaked a few controls, a far quicker and enjoyable process than slavishly trying to recreate someone else sound.

 

In a band situation members must constantly compromise their singular vision with those of the other members, and yet the result can still be art.

Picasso asked for opinions from people he respected. Having received those opinions there's no way they would not have affected his creative direction in some way - either by incorporation or negative reaction. But either way the result was still "of Picasso" and certainly art.

I don't think that asking for opinions ruins the "purity" of your artistic endeavor. I think the greater issue is your motivation for asking, and how you ask it - and whether you're aware of it. "Do you think I've dumbed down my lyrics enough for radio?", is a different question than "does it hit you in the gut?" Are you asking because you want to know if you've achieved your objective, or because you're insecure about your vision/creation? I personally try to avoid both like the plague, but I'm no one to say that other artist's creative process should mirror my own.

And some opinion seeking is purely technical - "I've hyped the high end on this mix, do you find it exciting or harsh?"

I think it's also important to entertain the notion that there isn't only one definition of what art is. Where the boundaries between art/product/advertisement/propaganda lie is unique to us all, and that's part of what makes art . . . ART. It defies attempts to define it.

 

Every and each artist have gone through a pace of expertise before becoming the artist that produce the piece that has become a selfcontained expression of their art. Picasso for example and his cubist expression; he was an expert before developing cubism, he knows his techniques and executions, he knows the aesthetics and rules and how to break them apart with his own... but here's the catch... he knows this before he can produce his own art.

What I'm saying is, art is not the medium, art is the end result of a procedure and expertise in the subject; that expertise is only achieved by knowledge, years of perfecting and getting to know exactly why or how, and constructive criticism to reach further what you are doing or whom you are becoming.

The execution of methodologies and techniques is the medium, and the critique is where it is pointed out on it's faults. Now to the question of "How is important if my execution is faulty when there are so many faulty executions performed by the greatest, torn apart as they see fit?." The answer is in the knowledge and former appliance of the archetypes. To break a rule (when it comes to a form of art), you must know it from head to toe, so the rupture of it makes sense.

 

priceless....

 

gentlemen... may I present... fine art !

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2016

Comparing music to paintings one should remember that art as we view it today is a rather new concept.
Most time in history a painter was regarded as a craftsman, who did change his products according to the customers likes.
That "genius artist" stuff originates in the 19th century and only few were chosen by the gods, while most of the painters still were contracted workers (until photography arrived btw).
And most musicians in history composed for their customers or played in a pub (until records arrived btw).

So regarding it as art narrows the definition of music, because it neglects most of its story.

That said, myself I'm lucky, because I do not have to make a living out of music and therefore can sculpt my music as arty as I want.

 

So you did agree after all - Even if you were a little blurry in your defining - You managed to allude to the obvious difference between an artist that sculpts and a person that produces according to the customers likes - One is and one is not ---

 

I will be using this man very well said