I haven't said that what I described ^ doesn't have a place, or reason to existit's just that calling it music or art is unfortunate.
Edit: your comment about taking years to appreciate^ merely indicates a change in you--not in the subject matter, which remains what it is.
(Edit: your comment about taking years to appreciate^ merely indicates a change in you--not in the subject matter, which remains what it is.
LS18,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 4:53,
archived)
just chipping in my 2 centsIsn't art not necessarily something to "like" but something that makes you feel or react.
You're clip shows a very talented guitarist, which i appreciate and do actually like.
these guys could not be classed as partcularly talented, but i 'kin love this tune and i love hearing it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-u2U9iekjQ
oh, and aren't seam horses known better as collages in the art world? ;)
(You're clip shows a very talented guitarist, which i appreciate and do actually like.
these guys could not be classed as partcularly talented, but i 'kin love this tune and i love hearing it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-u2U9iekjQ
oh, and aren't seam horses known better as collages in the art world? ;)
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 6:40,
archived)
with such a broad concepts as feeling or reacting, virtually anything might qualify--including the sound of a fart in church. I think the only resolution to this is to identify what characteristics of the work itself would qualify it as art--and not define it in terms of the people observing or listening to it.
but this is probably not the time/place to do all that
Screeching "I wanna kill my mom" in the name of music? Puh-leeze.
Calling that a lame-brained novelty act would be generous. If you love that sort of thing--power to you :D
(but this is probably not the time/place to do all that
Screeching "I wanna kill my mom" in the name of music? Puh-leeze.
Calling that a lame-brained novelty act would be generous. If you love that sort of thing--power to you :D
LS18,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 7:06,
archived)
ok, so I hadn't been up too long thenrather than feeling, or reacting, can we say emotional response?
i don't see how a fart in a church is so wildly different to some of recent art, such as Damien Hirst's animals in formaldehyde, or the unmade bed.
Not my cuppa tea, but people that claim to know something about art, claim this to be art
(i don't see how a fart in a church is so wildly different to some of recent art, such as Damien Hirst's animals in formaldehyde, or the unmade bed.
Not my cuppa tea, but people that claim to know something about art, claim this to be art
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 8:29,
archived)
I think in recent historypeople who are not artists have moved to redefine "art" so that they can then become "artists," rather than taking the effort to develop skills. I think a good rule of thumb is that however art is defined, the work must be borne out of a certain level of prowess, and be of more than ordinary significance. Without those requirements, anyone can do anything and call it art, and you might as well toss the label aside as meaningless.
( LS18,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 9:56,
archived)
i agree whole heartedlyare we saying that something has to have, and i don't want to say it but, an X factor to be classed as art?
( real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Sat 30 Jul 2011, 10:39,
archived)