Ah ha! I don’t think “all art is equal”. There’s still plenty of crap in the world.
But I do think all art deserves to be judged on its own terms. In the case of many non-Western art forms we’re experiencing them after they’ve been divorced from the cultural context in which they were created. So if a piece of non-Western art looks or sounds like crap, is it really crap? Or are we just ignorant of the critical framework that it originally operated within?
Maybe one objective test is the test of time or the test of “distance” from the culture that created it.
So, if you find cultures that are very different (either due to distance or the passage of time) from the one that produced the art/music, and these cultures find the art/music very appealing, that would make it superior, in this sense, to art/music that is not appreciated by cultures that are different.
Not a perfect test, because I can think of some counter-examples, but at least art/music that satisfies this must have some universality to it, since it transcends human cultural biases and focuses on what we humans fundamentally like.
But, how can you consider any art crap? Maybe what you consider crap is actually very meaningful to the person who created it. If you had his/her upbringing, that art would be very meaningful/powerful/beautiful.
So, using your reasoning, we can’t call any art crap.
Crap is crap.
Again–what museum were you discussing in the OP?
I’m afraid not, no - but I will continue to assert that there’s no inherent quality that makes them less likely to do so, to somebody unfamiliar with the musical language, than the reverse case of the Afrian percussion. A difficulty is that unfamiliarity with tonal music is, thanks to the modern worldwide dominance of western culture, not easy to find - my reference to the local pop music traditions Africans would certainly be familiar with was primarily because the language of chords, of major and minor harmonies, and so forth has long been something which has spread far beyond Europe and America.
You need to take a very selective view of European art for this to be the case, selective to the point of artificiality, with the circuitous argument that those which fit your criteria of ‘European art’ are the ones you’ll consider at all. Renaissance Italy was, after all, the meeting-point (edit: a meeting-point!) of east and west.
Passage of time is certainly not an objective test - the cultural significance placed on permanence or on preservation of an artistic creation is hugely significant. Musical notation, not the quality of the music, allows us to hear what Mozart wrote. Nobody gets to re-hear any jazz improvisation that doesn’t happen to be done with a microphone in the room - and nor do we get to hear Mozart improvising, either.
Similarly, the ways in which a creation can be transferred over distance, literally or metaphorically, vary widely. The Pietà is hardly portable…
So what is it that we ‘fundamentally like’ about Mozart? (Yes, I’m picking on poor old Wolfgang again, but you did start it 
)
Art which fails to achieve its aims - be they explicitly stated, culturally expected, or whatever - is crap.
Why is that crap? Do you have an objective metric by which you can measure and compare art?
Why are you supremely objective when comparing art from different cultures, but very subjective when comparing art from within western culture?
What does it matter what the latest museum I went to is? I’ve been to several. FTR, the latest one was at Stanford.
Look at their collections. Also, they have some exhibitions: Dürer to Picasso and Timbuktu to Cape Town. To me, compared to the former, the latter look, in your words, like crap. This is stuff from the 20th century. The Greeks and Romans were producing hugely superior sculptures 2000 years ago.
I give up. If you’re a Thomas Kinkade fan, you’re beyond help.
‘Superior’ - in what way? As a demonstration of greater craftsmanship? If something else, then can you claim to have an equal understanding of the cultural context in which the African works were created?
You missed my point. I’m not a Kinkade fan. But, based on ideas expressed in this thread, exemplified in this quote from **Pochacco **“There is no objective standard for judging good and bad in art. Only each viewer’s subjective opinion”, we can only conclude that no one can claim that Kinkade’s art is crap.
Can you not see that?
Because I have my OWN aesthetic framework that I work within. It’s crap, because it’s crap to ME.
I realize that sounds ridiculously self-centered. The important point is, is my view the consensus, or is my personal idiosyncrasy? If everyone thinks something is crap, then it really is crap.
You deal with this sort of socially constructed truth every day. What separates a dollar bill from a worthless piece of paper? Isn’t it merely the fact that everyone around you BELIEVES that dollar bills is worth something? If they all stopped believing, dollar bills would become worthless. Similarly if I unilaterally start treating Post-It notes as money, that doesn’t make them so. Unless everyone else believes along with me … then, voila, Post-It notes are money!
Thomas Kinkade is crap in my preferred aesthetic framework. I can appreciate that other people are operating within other frameworks that make his work appealing. I understand those frameworks, but I don’t like them because I don’t think they provide enough opportunities for interesting aesthetic experiences. I like my playground better than their playground. But ultimately it boils down to personal taste. There’s nothing inherently superior about my framework.
If I thought Kinkade was crap, but everyone else thought he was great, then he wouldn’t be crap. But if most people within a certain context THINK he’s crap, then he IS crap … within that context. He’s crap as much as anything can be crap because artistic judgements, like the value of money, depend on group consensus for their existence.
Arguing that Western art is superior is like arguing that the dollar is superior to the euro. The question is “In what context?” If you’re trying to buy symphony tickets in New York, dollars are superior. The same isn’t true if you’re buying ballet tickets in Paris.
I do. Me, fifteen years ago. Seriously, how many people do you know who listen to classical music? Moreover, how many young people (who are less steeped in their cultures) appreciate Beethoven? I know I thought it was booooooooooring as a kid. Now, I have some appreciation, but still, mostly I’d rather listen to more modern stuff.
I think there are a few things clouding your view of non-western art. First, the examples you cite of western art are well-known pieces that have been selected from an enormous quantity of, well, crap. Generally speaking, in a western setting, a museum is going to have access to a broader range of western art than anything else. They get the luxury of picking and choosing. I’m not sure that’s the case for imported art.
Also, in reference to your African masks - first of all, do African masks occupy the same place as Greek sculpture? I don’t really know much about African art, but it’s my understanding that they’re primarily for use in cultural ceremonies - that is, the goal is not, ‘let’s make the most stunning mask ever’, but, we need a mask that looks like ____ for a ceremony. Not that that makes them non-artistic, but you’re comparing a primarily aesthetic work to an incidentally-aesthetic one. If your main concern here is that anyone could carve one - well, bingo! If anyone couldn’t, they wouldn’t have been made! Sure, anyone can’t carve the most sublime, transcendent mask ever, but you’re not necessarily looking at that.
Finally, as an illustration of the western art bias, check out this Greek statue. Now, I can’t speak for you, but I kind of don’t get the same awe-inspiring moment when I look at that as when I see plain, white marble. It looks gaudy to me - actually, similar to how I view other bright, colorful art. I’ve been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated that neutral tones = elegance, and bright colors =gaudy. Clearly, the Greeks disagreed.
When I was working on my thesis I had the opportunity to go to India and interview some of the country’s finest vocalists, Saiduddin Dagar (sorry, no link) and Ritwik Sanyal, both members of the Dagar Dhrupad tradition that spans several centuries and many generations of performers. Both of them told me that they found Western Classical music muddled and cacophonic - indeed alien, and both considered the Indian Classical tradition superior (though they both acknowledged that there was no objective way of asserting one tradition’s superiority over another’s). The only Western Classical that Ritwik Sanyal could really appreciate was Bach’s Cello Suites which in some ways bear resemblance to his own tradition.
Polerius, could you answer my question in post #6, please?
This is something I’ve always wondered about. Do we have a record of how non-Europeans reacted to European music? (By “European music” I mean music that I would recognize as fundamentally familiarly related to music I hear normally in my everyday life. Chords composed chiefly of thirds, modes you could tap out on a piano, rhythms mostly made up out of groupings of three or two, typically “european” principles of chord progression, and so on. And I mean for the most part to refer to stuff from before a couple of centuries ago.)
Are there good examples online of Indian music from this tradition?
(I’m asking instead of googling because I figure you’re in a better position than me to judge “good” examples.)
-FrL-
A scientific study of this would certainly be interesting - the difficulty being finding a culture which has not, by now, been exposed in various ways to tonal music in some form, but which nonetheless we have a good enough relationship and a deep enough understanding to be able to meaningfully assess their reactions.
On the other hand, there’s surely historical anecdotal records of cultural encounters of this kind, and I too would love to be pointed towards some!
Well, less than 100 years down the road Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring sounds pretty darn digestible–most of us would call it “uh. . . calm traditional classical music?,” but it caused riots at the time.
I’ll defend Polerius regarding the opinion that “Western” music is superior to “non-Western” music - though maybe not for the same reasons.
It’s not complexity or the fact that there are big orchestras made up of people in fancy attire who play classical works very very well.
What I like is the sense of emotion, drama and climactic resolution that both popular and “serious” music have long had in Western culture. What “world” music I’ve heard gets very dull very fast. As inspiration and limited seasoning it has its virtues. But I’d rather eat a tasty stew that has a little curry in it than eat pure curry.
And that’s my subjective opinion.
Of course, if we’re talking about “serious” music of the last 70 years or so, I don’t see any advantage for “Western” music. Crap is crap.
Just to show that nothing ever changes, my aunt once asked my father for a Beatles album to burn when they were teenagers (when they said they were “bigger than Jesus”). She did not receive an album, though. 
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Deep Purple: Smoke on the Water.
Duh. 
Comparing art of different types is a pointless exercise. The Bayeux Tapestry is an astonishing achievement even if its creators didn’t understand perspective. Ravi Shanker is a phenomenal musician even if he’d sound a bit weird plugged into a Marshall stack.