Music Which music do you dislike the most?

[Mark44]

More specifically, could the same work be done by an untrained two-year-old? If so, not art. Could an identical musical work be done by a computer program producing random sounds? If so, not art.

This is basically what I think when I see a Miro. Now, am I wrong or the rest of the world?

It's also what I think when I see some Picassos. Regarding your questions, was the man who cried, "The emperor has no clothes!" wrong, or were all the others who failed to notice the emperor's lack of raiment wrong?

And who is it to decide this question?

We do.
I like what Russ said:

art is in the eye of the beholder, engineering isn't. I'm a "beholder" so I get to tell "artists" that what they are doing isn't art. And besides, I think they already know.

The only possible solution is: Allow all, whether some like it or not.

That's not the poiht of this discussion -- it is what is art and what isn't art. The discussion has nothing to do with allowing this or not allowing that.

"The right to say and to print what we think is the right of every free man, of whom we can not deprive him without exercising the most odious tyranny.This privilege is ... essential ... and it would be displeasing that those in whom sovereignty resides can not say their opinion in writing."

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

 

[bhobba]

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

You can call anything you like crap or groundbreaking genius be it science, music art - anything. Its just in math/science facts not personal judgement have a lot to do with the validity of such opinions. Music art etc is simply in the eye of the beholder.

Thatks
Bill

 

[fresh_42]

Sure, but this thread isn't about the right of some to say or print whatever -- it's whether we can call it crap or not.

I think that is exactly the discussion. I've read early in the thread about someone who dislikes opera singing. I love coloratura sopranos, the higher the better. So whose crap is it? There is simply no ruler for it, so it comes down to an absolute measurement made by someone.

 

[Mark44]

I think that is exactly the discussion. I've read early in the thread about someone who dislikes opera singing. I love coloratura sopranos, the higher the better. So whose crap is it? There is simply no ruler for it, so it comes down to an absolute measurement made by someone.

What you're describing is one-dimensional, and I'm saying it's at least two dimensional. I'm making distinctions between "crap art" and actual art on the one hand, but also distinctions between art that I prefer versus art that I don't care much for. I don't care much for opera of any kind, but I recognize and appreciate the abilities that opera singers possess. In a completely different arena, my feelings are similar with golf -- I can appreciate the skills that good golfers have, but I otherwise have no interest in the game.

 

[russ_watters]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder" is not very explicit. (In a lovely bit of irony, the meaning of "art is in the eye of the beholder" is apparently in the eye of the beholder)

It's a common saying and I'm a bit surprised you don't find it clear, but...

Do you mean to say that people are entitled to their opinion of whether something is art? is valuable? Do you mean that the question "Is this art?" is simply subjective?

...apparently you do; yes.

Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?

Certainly not. That would contradict my previous statement!

Otherwise, this doesn't really mean anything at all.

I don't see that at all. It looks perfectly consistent to me. Please note: you changed your wording between the two statements to create a contradiction where none exists. Untangle the wording and the contradiction goes away (I will below).

I get to tell engineers that what they're doing isn't engineering, but it is basically irrelevant to anything, because I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

No, you DON'T get to decide what is engineering because you are not the/an arbiter. There are no twists here - just keep it straight! I do because I am, you don't because you are not. Here's how it works, and please pay attention to the exact wording:

-I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-I am not "the ultimate" arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-You are not an arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

See the difference now?

 

[TeethWhitener]

I'm making distinctions between "crap art" and actual art on the one hand, but also distinctions between art that I prefer versus art that I don't care much for.

Maybe this is the issue. I consider the questions "is this valuable?" and "is this art?" separate (but both ultimately objective), and I personally think each of them are separate from the subjective "do I like it?"

 

[stevendaryl]

You can call anything you like crap or groundbreaking genius be it science, music art - anything. Its just in math/science facts nor personal judgement have a lot to do with the validity of such opinions. Music art etc is simply in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not so sure that the distinction between art and science/math is that sharp. Yes, there are objective criteria for whether mathematics is correct or not. You can look at a proof and see if every step logically follows from the axioms or from previous theorems or definitions. So that's objective. However, the vast majority of valid proofs are completely boring and uninteresting to anyone. If I randomly generate a syntactically well-formed statement in the language of ZFC, and then prove it, that's not going to be something that anyone is going to be interested in. On the flip side, a mistaken proof can be enormously valuable if it spurs interest in figuring out exactly where the mistake is, what can be done to fix it, are there models for which the statement is true (even if not in the intended model), etc. The notion of good/worthwhile mathematics has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, as well.

 

[TeethWhitener]

...apparently you do; yes.

I was asking what you meant by it. These were three separate questions. See my post 66 above. As far as I can tell, you think the answer to "Is this art?" is simply subjective--each person decides for themselves what is and isn't art. It's still not clear to me. But despite your forceful responses, I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so if this is misguided, just let me know.

This response is confusing to me because you said you were confused about something you actually understood, then interpreted something else backwards, then somehow stuck them together to generate something meaningles. I think if you untangle these things it will make more sense -- particularly if you stop adding and subtracting words to change the meanings of the statements.

I'm not sure what the point of this portion of your post was, but it sounds accusatory. I assure you, I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

-I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-I am not "the ultimate" arbiter of what is and isn't art.
-You are not an arbiter of what is and isn't engineering.

No, you DON'T get to decide what is engineering because you are not the/an arbiter.

Not really germane, but who decides what is and isn't engineering? If someone decided to teach a calligraphy class in the engineering department, who would step forward to say "that's not engineering?"

The point is that there are objective criteria that make engineering what it is. I can't tell for sure, but you seem to be asserting that this is not the case in art. I don't think it's a particularly tenable position, and I gave you some reasons why in post 59.

Please note: you changed your wording between the two statements to create a contradiction where none exists.

I'm not sure where I did this, but again, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I think there are a lot more nuances to these questions than people here seem to acknowledge.

To be sure, there are plenty of people that assert that art is whatever a consensus view decides art is. It's somewhat circular, but it's a position that's consistent with your assertion "I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art." There are difficulties with this view as well, but I find it a little more plausible than naked subjectivism.

 

[stevendaryl]

Maybe this is the issue. I consider the questions "is this valuable?" and "is this art?" separate (but both ultimately objective), and I personally think each of them are separate from the subjective "do I like it?"

I would say that there is an internal and an external motivation for art. The internal motivation is that the artist has ideas or emotions that he longs to give expression to. The external motivation is that the artist wants to evoke thought and/or emotions in his audience.

For the latter motivation, it's sort of cheating if the emotion being evoked is disgust or annoyance at having wasted your time. That's too easy. I feel the same way about art whose point is to shock or offend the audience. For one thing, the people who would be shocked or offended would tend to just avoid it in the first place (unless exposed to it by accident). So to me, for art to be externally successful, it has to reward (in some way) those who engage it. I think some art that is dismissed as crap can actually be engaging. I think there are two nearly opposite ways that it can reward engagement. One is to give a first appearance of being trash, or simple-minded, but upon closer engagement, you see patterns and themes and points of emotional resonance that were not visible on first exposure. Learning to like dissonant music, or jazz, or rap, or whatever can be like that. It can sound like noise to the newcomer, but connoisseurs see the artistry. The opposite response (that I think only works once) is for art to seem at first to be something beautiful, but on closer inspection, you find that it was created in a way that is disturbing, or that there are disturbing details that you don't notice at first.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not so sure that the distinction between art and science/math is that sharp. Yes, there are objective criteria for whether mathematics is correct or not...

The notion of good/worthwhile mathematics has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, as well.

Not just a fair amount; value judgements are essentially completely subjective. And you can always overlay subjective judgements on top of objective ones. They are, as others have said, different questions.

 

[TeethWhitener]

I would say that there is an internal and an external motivation for art. The internal motivation is that the artist has ideas or emotions that he longs to give expression to. The external motivation is that the artist wants to evoke thought and/or emotions in his audience.

For the latter motivation, it's sort of cheating if the emotion being evoked is disgust or annoyance at having wasted your time. That's too easy. I feel the same way about art whose point is to shock or offend the audience. For one thing, the people who would be shocked or offended would tend to just avoid it in the first place (unless exposed to it by accident). So to me, for art to be externally successful, it has to reward (in some way) those who engage it. I think some art that is dismissed as crap can actually be engaging. I think there are two nearly opposite ways that it can reward engagement. One is to give a first appearance of being trash, or simple-minded, but upon closer engagement, you see patterns and themes and points of emotional resonance that were not visible on first exposure. Learning to like dissonant music, or jazz, or rap, or whatever can be like that. It can sound like noise to the newcomer, but connoisseurs see the artistry. The opposite response (that I think only works once) is for art to seem at first to be something beautiful, but on closer inspection, you find that it was created in a way that is disturbing, or that there are disturbing details that you don't notice at first.

I'm fine with different people making different value judgments about a piece of art. I was trying to highlight the difference between our judgments about a piece of art and our attempt to define what art is. It's like if you and I are arguing over whether peaches are delicious or disgusting, and someone else comes along and states that peaches aren't food. There are two issues at play.

BTW: peaches are delicious. I can state that categorically.

 

[stevendaryl]

I'm fine with different people making different value judgments about a piece of art. I was trying to highlight the difference between our judgments about a piece of art and our attempt to define what art is. It's like if you and I are arguing over whether peaches are delicious or disgusting, and someone else comes along and states that peaches aren't food. There are two issues at play.

BTW: peaches are delicious. I can state that categorically.

I wasn't talking about value judgments. I was talking about what I think art is. People can disagree about whether something is successful as art, but I think it counts as art if it either expresses emotions/ideas of the artist or is intended to evoke ideas/emotions in the audience.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I can tell, you think the answer to "Is this art?" is simply subjective--each person decides for themselves what is and isn't art.

That is correct*. You understood the cliche correctly.

*Caveat: I choose my criteria to be objective because I find subjective value in objectivity. But others are free to choose purely subjective criteria.

It's still not clear to me. But despite your forceful responses, I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so if this is misguided, just let me know.

I'm not sure what the point of this portion of your post was, but it sounds accusatory. I assure you, I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

Fair enough. I would appreciate then some additional care in your interpretation and restating of my positions; You attributed words to me that I did not say.

Not really germane, but who decides what is and isn't engineering?

A number of governing bodies and industry organizations, depending on the specific field and locale.

If someone decided to teach a calligraphy class in the engineering department, who would step forward to say "that's not engineering?"

ABET:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABET

The point is that there are objective criteria that make engineering what it is. I can't tell for sure, but you seem to be asserting that this is not the case in art.

I choose objective criteria for defining art. You are free to/not to.

I don't think it's a particularly tenable position, and I gave you some reasons why in post 59.

Given that Post 59 badly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said, I don't know what to make of your stated positions/reactions in it. I suggest rewriting, now that I've been explicit about my 3 positions and hopefully you now see them as they are.

I'm not sure where I did this, but again, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I think there are a lot more nuances to these questions than people here seem to acknowledge.

Fair enough. For my part, I have thought this through and I try to use very precise wording, so please don't insert such nuances into my opinions; I'll tell you if they are there.

To be sure, there are plenty of people that assert that art is whatever a consensus view decides art is. It's somewhat circular, but it's a position that's consistent with your assertion "I am an arbiter of what is and isn't art." There are difficulties with this view as well, but I find it a little more plausible than naked subjectivism.

I don't see a need for a consensus view on art.

 

[russ_watters]

When an untrained two year old sings "Mary had a little lamb," is it music?

Yes, but the angle here is a separate question. In the context of this thread, we are discussing art for public consumption; professional art. Generally, we don't state explicitly whether something is "professional art" or "amateur art" because I think it is generally clear from the context. However, if you said "my daughter is an artist" and I didn't know your daughter, I might ask for a clarification.

 

[stevendaryl]

I don't see a need for a consensus view on art.

Well, there are two levels of lack of consensus: (1) People may disagree about whether it's good/worthwhile/valuable art. (2) People may disagree about whether it is art at all.

I think you can find the same sort of disagreements about science. So where is there a need for consensus?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, there are two levels of lack of consensus: (1) People may disagree about whether it's good/worthwhile/valuable art. (2) People may disagree about whether it is art at all.

Agreed; Whether it is art and whether it is good/valuable(professional/amateur) are different questions...though I'm still not sure I see a need for consensus.

I think you can find the same sort of disagreements about science. So where is there a need for consensus?

Maybe we are talking past each other? I do see a need for consensus with science. even more so with engineering.

The difference I see is that a rigorous application requires a consensus or governing body (often the same thing) to arbitrate. Science needs that, art doesn't.

 

[stevendaryl]

Maybe we are talking past each other? I do see a need for consensus with science. even more so with engineering.

I know. I'm asking why the difference with science and engineering.

The difference I see is that a rigorous application requires a consensus or governing body (often the same thing) to arbitrate. Science needs that, art doesn't.

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects. Advances in science or technology involve many parts that have to work together, and nobody can personally approve every piece. So there must be criteria for the pieces that make them "black boxes". Any way that you can fill in the box that satisfies the criteria works. In contrast, art cannot be reliably outsourced to unnamed minions/grad students. There are equally complex large projects (putting together a movie, for instance), but you can't really let anything be a pure black box. Somebody has to pass judgment over whether a piece is good enough.

 

[Mark44]

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects. Advances in science or technology involve many parts that have to work together, and nobody can personally approve every piece.

But individual project managers can and do approve the individual projects, passing their approvals up to some overall project manager, who relies on the expertise of the individual project managers.

In contrast, art cannot be reliably outsourced to unnamed minions/grad students. There are equally complex large projects (putting together a movie, for instance), but you can't really let anything be a pure black box. Somebody has to pass judgment over whether a piece is good enough.

In the context of movies, for perhaps the large majority of them, the primary motivation is to make a profit at the box office, and not whether the production is "art" or not. In any case, this is a sidetrack to the original discussion, which is whether a given piece performed, drawn, sung, whatever, by an individual, is "art." For much (most?) of what we're considering here, there is no governing body with established criteria to distinguish between art and what isn't art

 

[russ_watters]

I know. I'm asking why the difference with science and engineering.

But why that difference? I think it might be the "divide and conquer" approach to big projects.

For applied science, it's the risk to the clients/customers. For "pure" science, I think it's just more about being right.

Starting with the most rigorous: Engineering and other applied sciences (medicine) are done to/on the public, so you need standards to ensure health/safety, environmental friendliness and anything else that governments and clients deem important. Otherwise there is no easy way for a client/customer to know what they are getting and it will work for them and they aren't protected from bad engineering/medicine/food. That's why we have building codes, the FDA, etc. In short; nobody really gets hurt by bad art, but people do get hurt by bad [applied] science.

For pure science, there are no clients/customers (funding agents and college departments are not the same as customers), so there is less 3rd party risk in being wrong. Still, scientists want science to bear fruit, so they try hard to make it work, including creating academic organizations and governing bodies to adjudicate certain things.

For example, the definition of the meter (unit of measure) is dictated by a governing body which arrived at the definition by judging/incorporating the scientific consensus on related theories and issues of science and non-science. A physicist can't get arrested or sued for misusing a meter stick (an engineer can), but they can get ostracized from the community.

Maybe more directly, while bad science doesn't necessarily hurt anyone if it doesn't get applied, it does drain resources and harm the reputation of "science", which can affect funding and adoption.

 

[stevendaryl]

In the context of movies, for perhaps the large majority of them, the primary motivation is to make a profit at the box office, and not whether the production is "art" or not.

You have to compare like with like. Being art is analogous to being science. Nobody funds generic science. They fund science projects to do particular things---detect gravity waves, for example.

In any case, this is a sidetrack to the original discussion, which is whether a given piece performed, drawn, sung, whatever, by an individual, is "art."

That wasn't the original discussion.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Given that Post 59 badly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said, I don't know what to make of your stated positions/reactions in it.

There's a lot in post 73 that I want to come back to, but I wanted to clear this up. I don't really think I misinterpreted anything in post 59. I gave 4 possible interpretations of "art is in the eye of the beholder," swatted down the solipsistic one, and expounded a bit on the subjectivist one, which is the one that you ultimately confirmed you adhere to. I'm not sure what about that qualifies as misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

 

[russ_watters]

There's a lot in post 73 that I want to come back to, but I wanted to clear this up. I don't really think I misinterpreted anything in post 59.

Then you still don't have a correct understanding of my original point that started our discussion:

In post #46, I said "I'm a 'beholder' so I get to tell 'artists' that what they are doing isn't art."

In post #49 you said there was something wrong with that without saying what it is: "Do I really need to go over what's wrong with this argument?

After prompting, in post #59 you said: "Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?"

The words "the ultimate arbiter" were not in, nor were they implied by my statement in post #46. It's a really big change from "a 'beholder'" to "the utlimate arbiter" - and they contradict each other.

I request a reboot, taking into account what actually said.

 

[Mark44]

That wasn't the original discussion.

"Original" as in what we've been talking about for the past 50 posts or so.

 

[TeethWhitener]

This maybe should continue over PM, but

After prompting, in post #59 you said: "Do you mean to say that you, Russ Watters, are the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't art?"

Yes, this was one of the four interpretations that I gave of "art is in the eye of the beholder." I responded to two of the four possibilities. At the time, I didn't know whether your view was solipsism or subjectivism, but I doubted that it had to do with freedom of opinion (the focus of the first two interpretations), so I ignored those two.

It's a really big change from "a 'beholder'" to "the utlimate arbiter" - and they contradict each other.

1) They don't contradict one another. One can behold and arbitrate simultaneously.
2) It is a change. They were two out of four possible interpretations that I mentioned in post 59.

 

[stevendaryl]

"Original" as in what we've been talking about for the past 50 posts or so.

I guess "original topic" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[TeethWhitener]

I guess "original topic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, it depends on what you mean by that.

 

[symbolipoint]

The posts on this survey appear to have drifted from the survey's topic.

I gave a vote for more than one category, but this list of categories is not as complete as it might/could be. There are other choices that someone could make if they were also listed as items to pick.

 

[rbelli1]

So you're saying that even though you can't decide whether someone is performing or not performing, it has no bearing on whether such a performance/absence of performance can be considered "art"?

In the case of not performing it can't really be music. But it can still be art.

I'm a "beholder" so I get to tell "artists" that what they are doing isn't art.

You get an opinion on that. Categorically stating it is not art is just going put everyone on the defensive and derail any further discussion.

BoB

 

[Mark44]

But it can still be art.

Not as far as I'm concerned, and apparently, not as far as Russ is concerned.

You get an opinion on that. Categorically stating it is not art is just going put everyone on the defensive and derail any further discussion.

Anyone who believes that a null performance == art should be on the defensive, because they have the burden of convincing the rest of us why that is a valid statement.

Furthermore, as you admitted, "doing nothing can't really be musc." What sort of art would it be?

 

[fresh_42]

Furthermore, as you admitted, "doing nothing can't really be musc." What sort of art would it be?

It's music. Simply because it can be written as music. One does not have to invent an extra notation. For me, it's a bit like the empty set or zero. We need both to do mathematics and I regard them as among the most important findings of mankind. So why not have a music play without sound?