Like stupid and pompous idiots, who try to define and limit what art is.

The BBQ Pit
241

Tough. Your book is wrong, and you are an idiot who knows nothing of music or art. The fact that you don’t like or understand it is irrelevant, and the fact that you don’t get that it’s irrelevant makes you even more of an idiot.

Do you actually know what 4’33’’ is? It’s been written out as a musical score, and it’s been performed in concert halls and recording studios, in the original solo piano version and an orchestral version. Just like any other piece of classical music. What it isn’t is nothingness. The score is not empty, and neither is the stage when it’s performed. I can only imagine this is what you don’t grasp.

Is it good music? Not particularly, in my opinion. As I said earlier, I prefer the piano version, the orchestral version is overkill. Of course, it’s impossible for anyone now to hear it as it’s meant to be heard, as it would be impossible to be surprised by it, so that may be why I don’t particularly appreciate it.

242

Well, if we’re going to get even more pedantic about nothing, I pose that Alphonse Allais’ Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man is the much better of the two. Certainly much more powerful and concentrated.

Listen carefully. Gets better each time.

243

Interesting chap Allais. Also did one of the earliest blank canvas artworks I’m aware of. The difference between his Funeral March and 4’33’’ shows the difference between a humourous and a serious treatment of a similar theme. Me, I prefer the serious, but I guess I’m a fairly dark and twisted individual.

244

Oh, and if 4’33’’ isn’t long enough, the current performance of Cage’s As Slow As Possible began with approximately 17 months of silence.

ETA Exactly 17 months, I’ve just checked the dates.

245

Well these threads are always fun. A few points outlining my opinion.

Don’t try to create a global definition of what art is or isn’t. You can only honestly say what works for you personally.

Me? I think art does rely on invoking emotion in the one experiencing it. That emotion is dependant on the degree of skill shown in its conception, composition and execution.

Critics don’t have any better judgement than the man in the street regarding what is good. They can only ever speak for themselves the same as you do. Some critics are horrible snobs and will belittle you for your personal likes and dislikes. Some won’t. Some like to think they have better taste than the average person and we quite rightly despise them for that. All of this can be explained by Novelty Bobble’s first law of human interaction, which states “remember…some people are dicks”

And while we are dealing with human nature…yes, some artists are pulling a con. They are knowingly churning out tat and coining it in whilst some critics laud them for it. How do I know this? Because there is not a single aspect of human endeavour where this does not happen. Art is no exception.
The Emperor’s new clothes has been mentioned more than once in this thread and, though it isn’t universally applicable in the art world, it most certainly is relevant on occasions. The big question is, how can we tell which is which? Answer - we can’t. Not reliably anyway so don’t worry about it and just concern yourself with what works for you and take comfort in the fact that everyone that considers themselves an expert is being conned the same as you or I.

Finally, and most importantly, wherever you can please try and experience the artwork in its original intended form. Music, painting, sculpture, theatre. They all benefit from a personal experience in the flesh.

246

you’ve worded this maybe a little more strongly than I would, but I just find it sad that people are so quick to dismiss stuff. I mean, there are lots of resources that could help someone at least get a good sense of what Cage was shooting for, and how it’s perceived these days - Kyle Gann wrote a very good book about 4’3", Alex Ross has written eloquently on Cage, and there are Cage’s own excellent writings collected in Silence. But instead of people seeking out more information on something like this rather than leaping to the conclusion that anyone who pretends to like it is deluded or a fraud…well, let’s just say it’s taking longer than we thought.

I remember a period in early high school when I was reading all kinds of criticism discussing radical music and film in this vein. I couldn’t get enough of it - the ideas at issue were fascinating to me, and I’d never dismiss something like 4’33" just because the concept of it was strange at first. I mean, where does that get you? Since then, I’ve zeroed in a little more firmly on the areas in music, literature, and art that are of interest to me, and Cage’s music isn’t really something I love (his writings, though, are still like oxygen) - but I hope I’ll never be so cynical to assume that something with a superficially bizarre concept is a bunch of foolishness and that others are somehow wrong for finding value in it. Depressing to see people without that sense of wonder and the possibilities of art.

247

I understand that just because a critic or historian says an artwork is good, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good and everyone should agree wholeheartedly. But it irritates me when a non-historian/critic assumes their opinion is just as good as an art expert’s. I mean, a good critic has studied this shit for years. He or she has seen more art and discussed art more often than any average Joe or Jane.

A critic’s taste is without a doubt better than yours or mine, and if I saw an artwork that I shrugged off as awful, but an experienced critic called it a masterpiece, I would most certainly reconsider my position. Even if that critic were a huge asshole.

248

I strongly disagree. Define “taste” and define “better”

There is no objective criteria for judging what art is never mind how “good” it may be. A critics education and experience may enable them to better describe their experience in the context of previous works and artist. It may make them more eloquent but it certainly doesn’t make their judgement on worth valid for anyone other than themselves.

249

I’ll take one. I’m sorely lacking in class.

250

Reminds me of Andy Warhol’s "Sleep’. An 8 hour movie of someone sleeping.
They are deliberately telling people not to define art.

251

On some level, if you enjoyed it and got your money’s worth, is it a failure as a con and a success at art?

252

I certainly suspect that is the justification that the art world would use.

253

All right. I regard 4’33" as music.

So what, exactly, is my pretense?

254

You just got lucky! As a pre-launch special, I am giving you the Internet version for the incredible price of nothing!

Here goes*****:

Feel free to scroll back and forth until fully cultured.

*©RedFury 11/07/2011

255

So explain to me, if I (being of sound mind and good judgement) got value worth what I paid for something, how it’s even possible for it to be a con?

Or are you saying that scenario would prove I’m stupid?

256

Not only is 4’33" music, it’s my favorite piece. I’ve been listening to the extended live version all day long.

Question for those who say that intention is part of art: I know of a store that sells big painted wooden slabs that say “BEACH–>”. They were not originally intended as art, but are being sold as art. Are they art? (And yes, I would buy one if I could afford it.)

Question for those that think that art needs a certain amount of veiwers: Suppose that I paint a masterpiece, and hang it in a room where I don’t allow visitors. I will be the only person to ever enjoy it. Is it art?

257

Good grief no! definitely not. The smartest and dumbest amongst us are certain to be falling for cons on a regular basis, artistic, marketing or otherwise.

The fact that you got what you felt was your money’s worth is really all that matters. It works for you.
It doesn’t change the fact that you may have had an emotional connection to something that had zero artistic intent behind it. That it may have been a cynical attempt by the “artist” to part you from your money.

258

Well unless you allow a critic to pass judgement on it I’m not sure you can call it a masterpiece, but letting that slide, yes, I’d consider it art.

259

That’s about the stupidest thing I have ever seen, or will likely ever see.

Anyone who thinks the above is a musical performance has their head so far up their ass, there is no common ground to discuss this issue.

260

I think meaningful definitions of words like art and music are important because they’re important parts of a developed culture and they’re worth discussing, but if we can’t agree on what we’re talking about, we’re not having a meaningful discussion. And this is something I talk about quite often as I’m into some obscure music and often encounter arguments that it’s not really music, which is just a true Scotsman argument, when what they really mean is that it’s not good music, which is an opinion.

So, for art, let’s start here:

The first one is hitting at an important concept. It has to require some conscious design on the part of the artist. A tree in and of itself isn’t art. But a picture of a tree, wherein the artist obviously chose the camera and the angle and likely other aspects like aperature, exposure and all that stuff probably is art.

The second part is hitting on opinion. A drawing by a 4yo is decidedly lacking any any skill and is trivially reproduced in the original medium, but is definitely art. The level of skill and reproduceablility may be a factor in how good the art is, but I don’t think that makes it art or not art. Instead, I would argue that it has to express some message or have some sort of meaning to the artist and culture.

So, for example, the sound of a lawn mower isn’t art. A simple recording of a lawn mower isn’t art. But if the artist attempts to convey something with it through some aesthetic decisions, like express suburban life or whatever, it could be. It’s probably bad art, but I’d say it qualifies as art.

And in that way, a silent track sort of fits in there too. Silence by itself isn’t art. A “recording” of silence isn’t art. However, there are aesthetic decisions involved in it if it’s part of an album and the artist is trying to express something through that context, then it very well could qualify as art. It may not be very compelling art, but it is probably art.
Music, however, I define more closely because to just call anything that involves sound that is art music sort of makes the term useless. For me, those aesthetic decisions must include aspects of melody and rhythm or it’s not music. If it doesn’t have those parts, it can still be a form of audial art, it’s just not music. And, of course, just because it is music doesn’t mean that it’s good music.
But the part that bothers me about this whole sort of discussion is that it so often devolves into true Scotsman arguments because people really detest a certain type of art or music and they try to make really complicated definitions to include stuff they like and exclude stuff they don’t. I’d rather have simple meaningful definitions and then just focus on what makes it meaningful or require skill or enjoyable or whatever.