|
My last post, as I've pretty much shot my load on this:
Coast says that painting, sculpture, etc. are better comparisons to music than reading. That could be, and like him I have no training in any of those arts either. However, I also think my opinions in those areas are pretty deficient, and I'm often told so by people who are artists themselves. I think most people fall into this category, especially when it comes to modern art. I still think the reading analogy holds when it comes to literature however. I'm willing to entertain that different people have different beliefs in their capabilities in different arts. I consider myself very knowledgable about music theory and very ignorant about art, and so I avoid any discussion about the latter. That might be driven by my opinions about music, however. So I get both sides there.
Frank continues to equate popularity with quality (Farvefan accused me of doing this to him. He does a little, but Frank is making the blanket equation.) If 99% of people say 2 + 2 is 6 and I say 2 + 2 is 4, then I'm still right. Now, maybe my argument is wrong and everyone else is right, that could very well be true. But you have to appeal to the argument itself, not the popularity therein.
My final thoughts. There are basically two ways to come at our artistic tastes. Either, "I like it, therefore it's good," or "It's good, therefore I like it." I reject the first, which I think Farvefan is the main proponent of, since we can never debate the merits of any artistic work beyond our own vantage points within that framework. All restaurant, CD, movie reviews would be literally meaningless, since they would have no meaning for anyone besides the writer.
I believe that I like what I like because it is good. The challenge therein is to then define what makes it good. What frustrates me about musical discussions is because very often, the argument is unrelated to the music itself. The music is good because it taps into some angst in society, or it is good because its lyrics are profound. Music can do and be all that, but it must be good in itself as well. So you must ask yourself, "what is good about the music I like?"
Often, the converse argument is easier, "what is bad about the music I dislike?" Most people have no trouble with this. "Bubble-gum pop is bad because it's derivative drivel with no originality or complexity" might be an argument like that. The positive side is harder. You could say that the lyrics make a song good, but would the song be equally good if the same lyrics were set to completely different music? If not, then why not? You must answer that question by looking at the sound itself.
I have no problem with most people not enjoying classical music. It means more elbow room at Ravinia for me, cheaper CDs, and a whole slew of other things. I just don't like music or aesthetic tastes not being taken seriously. Art is important- we define ourselves as a species and our lives as individuals almost entirely through the art we have produced- and its worth the time to consider it more thoroughly, whatever the conclusions.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
