At this point I just feel the need to call it when I see it.

Here we have gaslighting.



Here we don't have gaslighting.

We've all heard that expression. I believe Aristotle originated that phrase (don't remember where). — Jackson

High quality philosophy and great writing skills to boot.

Irish...ambient music?....such an un-heard-of gem.

"Video unavailable". — Jamal

Russia blocking the PT eh?

Yes, it's Porcupine Tree. My expectations were so low that I ended up enjoying it. Not sure if that says anything.

@Jamal Honestly the new PT album is lo key kinda fun

By the way, I'm totally with you here. let's get woo...

But then again, some of the stuff that is created by the most talented artists with masterful skills, you will keep room for the woo-woo explanations. They are otherworldy. — Merkwurdichliebe

We should keep the classical rules in place for the simple fact that it produces superior artists that can transcend any genre. — Merkwurdichliebe

How is their superiority measured?

As for measuring universality, it would be the principles and techniques that comprise the classical school. — Merkwurdichliebe

How can you demonstrate the universality of those principles and techniques?

I wonder, what are some of the key principles of modern art that differ from classical art which might lend to its superiority? — Merkwurdichliebe

From your classical view of what is superior, nothing. I'm happy to talk about what excites me about "modern" art if you're interested in listening.

My theory is that modernism diminishes the tools with which the artist has to work with, and produces an overall inferior quality of artwork. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not that modern art diminished the tools of artists, it's that modern life diminished the life of society so that modern artists had to follow suit in order to express the zeitgeist of modernity. A loaded concept, I know (edited).

Only in the advent of postmodernist and modernist art did those classical rules become obsolete. So, now, in our generation, art requires no skill or training, everyone is an artist and everything is art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Aha, so as I thought, you don't like this stuff. In some ways I'm partial.

However. What sets the classical laws of art in place? The philosophy of the time in which they were born sets them in place. Are we philosophically living in the age of the enlightenment where all of those rules comes from? No. So why should we keep those old rules in place?

One could argue that these laws are universal laws proved by art itself. That's an intriguing perspective, but how do you measure universality?

You don't. There is no universal aesthetic law. Art functions in tandem with culture. What is good art is a function of what is good culture. It changes. The rules change. There is nothing universal in art, other than it's expression of the human person. Humanity is evolving, so necessarily art evolves with it. When we get old, we don't like the new art because we don't understand it because we don't understand how our constantly changing (and increasingly globalized) culture led us to the place we're in. That says nothing about art. It only speaks of our old age and our perennial inability to grasp the constant evolution of humanity, of which we are part and parcel.

But it requires some skills doesn't it? I definitely don’t have the talent or skill to do that. If it is a style, then there are probably a few techniques for making that style. Did you possess all those techniques from the start, or did you have to develop certain skills to achieve them? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah sure, of course it requires skill, but the skill is just the prerequisite to the talent, the creativity, the emotional sensibility to come up with a guitar part like this. I eluded to this earlier, but simple music is often harder to write well than complex music.

You need a basic skill set to play subtle, simple guitar parts, yes, but to me that's almost not even interesting to talk about. Of course you need some skills. That's a given, and it's not a big deal. I'm more interested in the intention, the mindset, of an artist like Mark Hollis, who wrote that song and played the guitar. Guitar is a goofy instrument, and I find it's ubiquity somewhat ironic; it's not particularly fun to play. It's a pain in the ass and very uneconomical. Guitar parts like the one in that song I think are brilliant because they circumvent the awkwardness of the instrument and get to the heart of how it operates. It's intuitive playing.

Although oddly, on the other end of the spectrum, we have Ravel, who is notorious for writing some of the most technically difficult piano music, but it sounds "pianistic", meaning it sounds very natural, but it's anything but. A true master I suppose.



On the skill vs. talent debate, I guess I think anyone can learn a skill. Guitar, painting, writing, whatever. Anyone can learn a set of rules that produce a desired result. But I think this idea of "talent" isn't so much a result of some vague concept of being "born with it", but more a product of one's environment, and one's psychological makeup. I've always been terrible at drawing and painting, but how much of that was just a feedback loop of feeling inadequate in art class, and how much of it was an actual inability somehow programmed into my genes at birth? If I had had a more positive experience in art class, maybe I would be a painter. But I've been surrounded by music and musicians since birth, so I naturally took that path. I'm a product of my environment.

I consider this talented guitar playing; it doesn't require that much skill though. It's probably my favorite style of guitar playing.

Mistakes are an interesting thing in art. Very advanced artists are capable of breaking rules of the tools while still pulling off amazing shit. Whereas when a less skilled artist trangresses the rules of the tools, it is an error and almost always looks like shit. Experts can bend and manipulate the rules of perspective to create amazing effects. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes this is all true, but also see our sporadic discussion here about outsider art. This is why the older I get, the less strict I am on definitions and rules within art. The more you go down the rabbit hole, the less you see the distinction of rules. I do go back and forth on it though.

I always thought there were fundamental music principles, many which were popularized in classical and jazz. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah, I mean it depends on how fundamental you want to get. Obviously there has been a profound sense in which decunstructionism has altered the fundamentals of what constitutes music, but of course it's a contentious issue. The fundamentals of pitch, rhythm, harmony, etc., have been manipulated into unrecognizable forms in different eras and styles. I don't know, it can get pretty bewildering. A couple of years ago I made an album by manipulating recordings of an old out of tune spinet piano I made with my iPhone. You wouldn't be able to tell. Is it "good"? I was pretty happy with it, and anyone who's into relaxing ambient music would have a pretty decent chance of liking it.

Ok, so art proper is "just another thing we do" right?

Hmmm, I disagree. I don't count art as being on the same level of other things we do, assuming that includes basically everything, given the triteness of your response. Maybe it's similar to other things, I don't know (provisionally), but it's not just "another activity" in my mind.

What I mean to say is be one with the ball in a manner of speaking until no one can tell where the technique & tools end and you begin - samadhi i.e. indivisible union of a person with, sensu amplo, his trade. — Agent Smith

I like this, but how does it apply to art?

:pray:

Sifting is the proper word, I think. Excellent.

Maybe it is a given and I'm just wasting my breath, but I doubt it. Not even sure my contributions are useful for this crowd, but I'm not mad about it either way.

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. It is much easier for a nonartist to judge the intention of a realist work, versus a cubist work. This is becuase the margin of error in realism is much smaller, so mistakes are much more obvious in realism. To avoid mistakes in realism then requires a greater skillset. — Merkwurdichliebe

One problem here is that realism does in fact require the existence of "mistakes", whereas cubism (and countless other art forms across mediums) do not. Again, this ties in to my concept of intention; there are no rules in art, except, arguably in realism. So this posits a problem for realism inherently. Intention is not tied to anything in particular except within realism. That's its weakness. Questions of what does or does not require more skill as you're implicitly defining it here don't even factor in within my provisional concept as outlined. Hope I'm making sense and not being a dick.

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance. — Noble Dust

And what are concrete examples of how these principles are found in all great works of art?

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely. — Merkwurdichliebe

I do, and I don't see it. Didn't mean it as a "gotcha", but was wondering.

"Lucrative" and "elite" are certainly the right buzzwords, but they say nothing about what I'm provisionally, at the moment, referring to as "intention"; see above. There are many lucrative fields and many elite cliques.

there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style) — Merkwurdichliebe

What are concrete examples?

Is there an analog in non-representational art forms like music?

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists. — Merkwurdichliebe

:fire:

Probably the thrust of most my posts in Phil of Art threads.

Doesn’t life already feel unending? I don’t remember being born, and I have a hard time imagining not existing.

Off the top of my head I think there can be great artistry in following a path of one's own, because doing so can produce unconventional, fascinating, and beautiful things — Jamal

Sorry, I was out of the loop on this thread so I'm just sort of jumping in on random points. I agree with this, and I think it's essentially the same point I was making by saying that creativity is a skill. Without getting too woo, when a person is truly inspired to create art, they will do it regardless of their environment, with or without training. Why this is the case I certainly don't know. I say this from experience as an observer of peers and as an artist. I guess I have skin in the game, since I received some formal musical training, but none in composition, which is what I do primarily.

By the way, Ornette's harsh tone has always been a stumbling block for me, but I didn't know about his background, so that illuminating. Always ready to give anyone another shot.

@Pinprick

I would throw another wrench in here and amend the term "meaning" in this context to "intention". The intention of cubism is different than the intention of realism, so the perennial question of aesthetic evaluation is to what extent a cubist has executed their intention, and to what extent a realist has done so. So rather than the problem of the subjectivity of meaning, we have the subjectivity of skill in relation to specific intention.

On the other hand, how one conducts oneself is equally (if not more) important than knowledge or logical correctness, in my view. So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise. — Xtrix

I agree, and remember a conversation where he actually scoffed at the very concept of wisdom. Granted it's a tricky one. I wish Street no ill will and all the best in his non-forum life.

As much as anyone streelight represented what is best in the forum. — T Clark

Unchecked hatred and bitterness are what is worst in any public forum anywhere.

Did you know that if you maintain a steady level of hatred and bitterness for long enough, political change will eventually just spontaneously occur? You're almost there, soldier.

But I take your point that art is lofty and craft seems quotidian. — Tom Storm

I don't necessarily interpret his point in that way. If art seems lofty it's only because of its emotional intensity. "Lofty" to you might mean "emotionally accurate" to me.

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality. — Pinprick

Wow. I knew I was missing something, and now I know what I was missing. The chords/rhythms/textures I choose when I make music are in fact very personal to me, without me even trying to make them so. They just are. We artists choose these things because they mean something to us; they take us beyond what they intrinsically are into a private world.

Say , why don't you put your aesthetic musings to work and join in the short story contest as a commentator?

the acme of soulless masturbatory technique. — Tom Storm

:rofl:

I'm trying to suggest that skill and creativity cannot be separated — Jamal

Ok, I think we're probably on the same page about this.

that this is what some conceptual artists have tried to do. — Jamal

Any names?

I don't understand.

the inflated status of the artist as creator, which is an ecomonic and sociological phenomenon. — Jamal

What is an alternative role for the artist if she's not a creator?

Don’t worry about it. Sometimes I get butt hurt too quickly, apologies.

Alright. Sorry for assuming otherwise, @Agent Smith. From my perspective it just looked fishy.

I'd rather understand the chapter because I don't. I don't particularly like your little :snicker: comments that happen from time to time, often directed at me. Please elaborate and don't attempt to deflect. Speak to me plainly.

Nuthin'. Thanks for your concern. — Agent Smith

I'm not concerned, I'm wondering why you made some latin joke about "no offense" in regards to Jackson telling me to get lost, and then it and my response to it disappeared.

What happend @Agent Smith?

I always loved that section of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Furniture, silver, stained glass, clothing. — T Clark

Haha, I always skip that type of section in museums.

Is that art? That's the question at hand. If we use my criteria - art is something presented to be judged aesthetically - maybe not. But that brings us back to my original question - how important is skill to art? I'm confused. This is fun. Just what I wanted to talk about. — T Clark

Nice silverware and cups are not art, no. Craft appears to be judged more on it's use; art on it's aesthetic appeal. Again, I'm contending that skill is key to art, but skill doesn't just mean technical ability.

wrote earlier he sees good writing as craft. I agree. Can't the same can be said for music? — T Clark

I think that depends on one's temperament. Some schools of thought would agree with you that well written music is craft. I'm not of that persuasion. Music is so malleable. I love ambient music and collage music, sample-based music (the whole world of sampling is a philosophical question unto it's own), noise music. Ultimately, in a grand sense, there are no rules in music, whereas something like writing has to adhere to or at least be aware of the rules of grammar. I guess you can argue that in music you need to adhere to or at least be aware of the rules of harmony and rhythm, but I would even call that into question, personally. Music has the potential for reinventing itself way outside of the lines of its usual definition, I think.

For me, one of the best things about glassware is that it's breakable. In order to love it, you have to be ready to let it go. I made a Christmas tree ornament for my daughter. It's a small cardboard box. Inside is a broken glass ornament. If you shake it you can hear the pieces jangle. On the cover is a label that says "Is this art?" When I gave it to her I gave her a picture of what was inside. Now, whether or not that is art, I think it is clearly not craft, except maybe in the sense we mean it when kindergarteners make napkin rings from old cardboard toilet paper tubes. — T Clark

Cool story. I like the idea of being willing to let good glassware go. The transience and it's relation to your aesthetic appreciation of it; your emotional tie to it...the transience of the emotional tie. Interesting. I need to think about it.

If only I had been that clever.