I agree.

For example, when someone notices that he does not pay enough attention to the art he consumes, because he consumes vast amounts of it, he can make a decision to train himself to stop that, consume less art and pay more attention to it. — Πετροκότσυφας

So you don't think the ubiquity of art in the internet age changes anything about our consumption and experience of art?

I addressed that quote in relation to high art, which you earlier said was the theme of your OP. How does the answer you quoted not address Mondrian's experience in the context of high art in pre-modern and modern times? — Πετροκότσυφας

Sorry, you're right, it does.

There are always pressures, no matter what. One can minimize pressures as best they can and get on with their art. Pressures to avoid may be to please, to make money, to emulate, to do better, etc. — Rich

True; wise words.

Art is not to please others but to express oneself. — Rich

I disagree; it's natural to want to share art. The audience is something like 50% of the work, in my estimation. Artists like myself who are or are pursuing art as a full-time vocation need the same sort of validation that their work is meaningful as anyone else in any other field.

If art is the act of creative self-expression, then globalization has no impact, it remains the same. — Rich

But I'm arguing that the social and psychological pressures of a globalized world do affect our ability to be creative.

Whereas in the past, those with money decided what was art and what would be displayed in their museums (as a form of propaganda and marketing), now pretty much anyone can share their art and have it viewed. — Rich

The art world is still run by old money. Everyone can share their art, but a lot of it sucks. Which is worse, a democratized internet of art, mired with a lot of mediocre art, or a gate-keeping artistic intelligensia?

Yeah. "Underground" acts, be it black metal bands, music concrete composers, drone ambient artists or whatever, have fans from all social classes. — Πετροκότσυφας

How do you know that?

Also, there are people, irrespective of social class, who like both "underground" ("unapproachable") music and popular ("easy") music or art in general. I happen to be one of them. — Πετροκότσυφας

How are you a person "irrespective of social class"?

Atonality certainly is not a feature of all classical music (since all of it would count as high art), certainly not a feature of all high art. But even if it was, I doubt it would be sufficient or even necessary for the distinction. — Πετροκότσυφας

I didn't mean that; I was referring to "unapproachable contemporary classical", since that's what you asked about, and I assumed we both understood that to mean atonal music, as in the example I gave. Did you listen to the examples I posted? And why wouldn't atonality be necessary for the distinction?

It means that technology does not inevitably dictates how closely you're going to experience art. — Πετροκότσυφας

So it doesn't mar the experience for most? I'm confused.

I would guess that in pre-modern times, someone like Mondrian would still be the exception. I would also guess that most artists who used to produce high art back then, were schooled and exposed to other high art as well as patronaged to do it. Also, it's possible that avant-garde art was mostly viewed as low art or no art at all by the high art intelligentsia of those times. It seems to me that to be an avant-gardist and to be considered high-art at the same time, became far more possible during late modernity (or post-modernity, if you want). — Πετροκότσυφας

You're still not even addressing what I want to talk about in this thread. Consider this: arguably the genesis of post-modern art, the true artistic "renegade" was Duchamp. His "Ready-Made's" were postcards anyone could buy. All you needed to do to make the Mona Lisa was buy a Mona Lisa postcard, and draw the famous mustache on yourself. So, already, in the first half of the 20th century, the concept of mass duplication is being introduced.

In what way is it unapproachable? Certainly, socially they do not exist in different worlds. — Πετροκότσυφας

Can you back this up?

If you want to define it musically, then you should be able to provide the distinct characteristics of each part of the dichotomy. — Πετροκότσυφας

Atonality, the evolution of the whole tone scale, on the one hand, and the focus of the tonic and using only chords that relate to the tonic key, on the other.

I don't think that accurately describes all actual (and possible) experiences. — Πετροκότσυφας

It doesn't need to because it describes a general, traceable trend.

Technology might have marred the experience for some, even the most, but there's nothing necessary in this. — Πετροκότσυφας

What does that mean? So, if technology mars the experience for most, then what exactly are you saying here?

Nothing excludes the possibility that the majority of the rich and noble who had access to "high" art weren't attending simply because of the status it used to come with such attendance. — Πετροκότσυφας

That's certainly true. But I'm talking more about the actual experiences of the artists themselves, which was more or less implicit in the OP. Maybe that wasn't clear.

the biggest difference is, I guess, that there's no longer a distinction between high and folk art. — Πετροκότσυφας

I disagree; the lines are more blurred but only because there's so much more art that exists in the middle somewhere. But unapproachable contemporary classical music still exists, and so does Miley Cyrus. Maybe that's one of the hallmarks of our age, that we can have a band like Son Lux that appropriates the best of both worlds.

There are of course other differences too, besides the blurring of this distinction. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right. I appreciate the additional differences you brought up here, but the main thrust of my thread is very different; I'm not too interested in the differences you brought up just now. I've spent plenty of time thinking about them, as I'm a musical artist who happens to straddle that line between "folk" and "art" music that you brought up. The idea of the OP started with the Mondrian quote; it made me remember that trips to museums and concert halls were much more special occasions than they are now, due to the ubiquity of art in the modern age. I was imagining what life must have been like without the internet or TV or records or whatever. It must have been a more visceral world, in which art was experienced more closely, and in which the overwhelming inundation of technology didn't mar our experience of art.

Socially, they exist in two different worlds. But they absolutely influence one another. I'm still not sure how this relates to the questions I'm asking in the OP.

So, do you think the experience of art has changed in the modern age, or no?

Right, so that's the difference between "folk" art and "high" art. Maybe it's an unfortunate distinction, but my OP here is essentially about high art; all of the artworks and people I mentioned were not folk artists or artworks.

Sure, can you enumerate further? I gave a few specific examples from personal accounts of people from those times. Maybe you can offer counter examples?

It looks like you're missing the forest for the trees here, with regards to the questions I'm asking. I'm relating the state of the experience of art pre-modern/pre-internet age, with what the experience is like now. Care to comment on the questions I asked?

rules about how men and women can talk about alleged sexual/gender differences — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the problem. "Rules".

That's the irony of the world we live in. It's wrong for men to force those characteristics on women; but it's liberating for women to force those characteristics on men. Revenge, mothaf***as!

Do you disagree that women have lower testosterone levels?

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men. — Agustino

This is a statement about his opinion on the state of submissiveness in the sexes. It's not specifically sexist.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually. — Agustino

Same

I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy. — Agustino

No mention of gender

I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive. — Agustino

Vague; not a sentiment I would tentatively agree with, but it's hard to know what he means here without more context.

I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West. — Agustino

Definitely not sexist.

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino

Definitely sexist.

But yes, that is sexist, and I'm surprised to find that Agustino said that. but it's not a direct quote, so I would appreciate a proper quote so as to see context.

But, like all of us, your username is now part and parcel to how we all perceive you. We don't perceive you as a bitter crank; it's rather that there's a sort of nice irony that exists between your name and your posts. A username doesn't have to be an actual expression of you; it was at some point, but now it creates it's own aura around you. Noble Dust was the name of an album I put out in 2011; I still like the name, but I also think it's pretty pretentious. But I just run with it. I trust that the mindset I was in 6 years ago is still a mindset that somehow permeates what I post on here, if only indirectly. The name you chose however many years ago is still, in some way, an expression of who you are.

But I'd rather re-watch Twin Peaks so I can catch up on all the suggestive nonsense. Besides, Banno is long past receiving notifications on this thread. We can wax pointless to the mod's content!

I was home-schooled :’( :’( :’(

Forever uncool.

:-O I can't really tell what the context is here. It seems anti-Stevie though? (Be advised, I don't have a strong stake here; I'm a dirty fucking millennial).

What would you do if you found out that was Stevie Wonder? #askingforafriend

We could pretend it's a brand new day. — Srap Tasmaner

We don't even have to pretend; we have Sting:

In the face of recalcitrance — Srap Tasmaner

I often think of myself as recalcitrant, but Thanatos/John has ascribed an entirely new meaning to the word. He's kind of broken the word itself. Props...?

Except when a pseudoscientist like Thanatos gets on the subject, and seems to believe that they have metaphysical authority. — Michael Ossipoff

>:O >:O

god, I'm starting to sound like

John Harris is Thanatos Sand, right? — Michael Ossipoff

Correct

True. Thanks for your wisdom. But, as I mentioned, you're thanking him in the one rare moment in which he's being positive. I doubt your positive reinforcement here will actually have much effect. Psychologically, he's already made the decision to be positive, here, which is outside his general personality, in which he is generally extremely negative. So, props to you for staying positive here, but realistically, your positivity isn't going to change the personality of one "Thanatos Sand/John Harris".

So, will we see this positive approach play out with Thanatos/John? I certainly hope so. But what exactly can we do as philosophy forum posters? We're not psychologists. Also, we can't teach folks like Thanatos/John the simple basics of how to present arguments; how to respond simply to other's arguments; how to reason logically; how to address some of the more hairy philosophical problems.

Why thank someone who's been incredibly uncivil on this forum in the one moment in which they happen to be civil, because their ego is being stroked? It's like saying to the whipping-post boy "Thanks for taking a quick break and giving me that sip of water!"

Noble Truth. — John Harris

:-O You're welcome.

Some of my favorite art. Truly profound:

How'd you know I wrote that wiki article?? :-O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

So, when I read it, I took it as a criticism of the approach I generally take on the Forum — Wayfarer

Tensions are a bit high around here in general, it seems. ;) Sadly it ends up being contagious.

the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right. — John Harris

>:O This might go into my quotes section on my profile, for real.

:-$

The main difference is my statements are true. — John Harris

Ah, now I get it.

See:

I continue to generalize because you continued to generalized in the bold quote below. The only difference is my generalizations are accurate. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience? Because personal experience certainly wouldn't suffice. — John Harris

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong,
— John Harris

Yes, you can disagree, but you'd be wrong, and no childish--are you over 18?--emolji changes that. — John Harris

No, that's been you, — John Harris

Actually, I have--in my last post, and in the post before where you ignored the part below. But since you've offered no actual points, we're definitely done.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it. — John Harris

What I mean is that you're making assertions instead of crafting an argument. Initially you made some arguments, which I responded to.

are you over 18? — John Harris

I continue to generalize because you continued to generalized — John Harris

I dunno, I guess we're done debating this topic? As you've offered no actual points for me to address here.

Yikes.