Jump to content

Best Singer of All Time is...


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

Let's see if Britney can last this long

 

On the other hand, most people don't want to work at 74 years old. Brittney likely has more money than she'll ever need and can retire at any time. Her Vegas residency brings in tons of money and she doesn't even have to travel. Smart career choice.

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

Frank.jpg sunday.jpg

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

Frank.jpg sunday.jpg

 

Completely unrelated, but its all I have art related...  I won 1st place in my HS art fair whatever for a pointillism I did of a squirrel.

No electron left behind...

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

I agree with your preference and also about your suspicion about whether the upper one is pointillist.  I don't think so, either.

 

https://collections.artsmia.org/art/1721/frank-chuck-close

 

although there are other works by this artist that are pointillist. 

 

(PS - sorry about the multiple image uploads and my following post which has another copy of the image - I was trying to delete the extra image and wound up duplicating it accidentally)

 

@computeraudiophile - if it's not too much trouble, could you please delete the extra and my following accidental post)?5f1ecd2c24de8d0b39fe9c7dac051997.thumb.jpg.c1ac524927028bd6cc745196a72a63bf.jpg5f1ecd2c24de8d0b39fe9c7dac051997.thumb.jpg.c1ac524927028bd6cc745196a72a63bf.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, daverich4 said:


There absolutely are criteria for judging art as a quick Google search for that term would show you. And yes, there are goals that artists strive for. Invoking a feeling and communicating an idea are just two that come to mind. 

I’m an artist and don’t strive for those goals. I mustn’t be as good as those who conform. 
 

Plus, invoke a feeling in who and communicate an idea to who, the judges? Pearl Jam music did this to me in the 90s but certainly didn’t do either to most people on planet Earth. 
 

It’s all preposterous. 
 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

C'mon Chris, this was you who actually had made me realized some time ago on 'Music in General' what contemporary pop is about and how mechanized the creative process usually is in this case.

It’s still the case and I’m arguing the other side on this one because nobody else seems willing to admit that aren’t can’t be judged with a straight face and in good conscience. 
 

The bottom line for me is that no art is better than other art. Some has more cultural impact, longer staying power, is more copied, etc... but that doesn’t make it better. Better in your eyes is fine, but that doesn’t make it better objectively.  

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 


Frank is a cool piece. I’ve seen it here in Minneapolis. Getting really close to it is amazing. I’d say it’s pointillism. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Completely unrelated, but its all I have art related...  I won 1st place in my HS art fair whatever for a pointillism I did of a squirrel.


Have you seen the piece at Minneapolis Institute of Art? 
 

Rembrandt’s Lucretia is there as well. Really cool. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Have you seen the piece at Minneapolis Institute of Art? 
 

Rembrandt’s Lucretia is there as well. Really cool. 

 

I have not, perhaps I will take a field trip with the family to go see it, and everything else.

No electron left behind...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my bottom line is this, if art can be objectively judged, then of the two paintings I posted, one must be better. Not “one is my favorite” “one is your favorite” “one has more cultural impact” “one is more famous.” One truly has to be better. 
 

I don’t buy into that view of art, whether on canvas or magnetic tape. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s still the case and I’m arguing the other side on this one because nobody else seems willing to admit that aren’t can’t be judged with a straight face and in good conscience. 
 

The bottom line for me is that no art is better than other art. Some has more cultural impact, longer staying power, is more copied, etc... but that doesn’t make it better. Better in your eyes is fine, but that doesn’t make it better objectively.  

 

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I guess my bottom line is this, if art can be objectively judged, then of the two paintings I posted, one must be better. Not “one is my favorite” “one is your favorite” “one has more cultural impact” “one is more famous.” One truly has to be better. 
 

I don’t buy into that view of art, whether on canvas or magnetic tape. 

 

Okay, I knew it was a vexatious question when I posed it. I don't think I can reconcile the opposing views even in my own head but I do have difficulty with the concept that art cannot be judged, and by judged one considered better based on certain objective criteria.

 

My philosophical post earlier on subjectivity was not entirely tongue-in-cheek. All sensory experience is subjective and it is only by comparing notes with peers that we establish some kind of agreed reality (as opposed to hallucination). That is still sounding obtuse but I will come back to it. There is of course the philosophy that reality exists objectively and outside our experience, irrespective of our perception of it. But as humans we can only sample it and feel we get close to knowing it by comparing with others.

 

So strictly speaking, like so many other things, there cannot be art that is objectively better than other art. Objectively art is just an object and to know the object (as better or not) you have to perceive it which is inherently subjective. You compare your perceptions to those of others. If you take measurements it is an easier comparison. If no quantifiable metric exists I would still argue that there are objective criteria that can be shared among peers.

 

I can't readily accept that my dog walking over a canvas with paint on the paws can be equated with art from Picasso. Sometimes it will turn out to be an impossible comparison and where taste and preference rules but I don't think difficulty in some instances makes it impossible in all instances. Maybe?

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I can't readily accept that my dog walking over a canvas with paint on the paws can be equated with art from Picasso. Sometimes it will turn out to be an impossible comparison and where taste and preference rules but I don't think difficulty in some instances makes it impossible in all instances. Maybe?

I love this paragraph. It really describes the continuum on which art lies. Right next to your dog I'd put anything from Yoko Ono. Not saying which side of your dog on the continuum, but right next to it. I just can't get onboard with specifying a certain brain capacity or IQ in order to create art that is "better" than other art. In order to be better, there must be a common thing for which art strives. That just can't exist.

 

Is the Sistine Chapel better than Dark Side of the Moon? Sounds ridiculous to even consider the question. 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I love this paragraph. It really describes the continuum on which art lies. Right next to your dog I'd put anything from Yoko Ono. Not saying which side of your dog on the continuum, but right next to it. I just can't get onboard with specifying a certain brain capacity or IQ in order to create art that is "better" than other art. In order to be better, there must be a common thing for which art strives. That just can't exist.

 

Is the Sistine Chapel better than Dark Side of the Moon? Sounds ridiculous to even consider the question. 

Like I said, sometimes it will be impossible to judge. It will come down to what objective criteria you use and how many of your peers "see it" like you.  "better" can be seen as a relative term agreed upon by peers and not necessarily an absolute objective reality. If it is an objective fact that 90% of art enthusiasts prefer Picasso to Yoko Ono, based on whatever objective criteria, it makes Picasso "better" for practical purposes and as defined in that way.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That makes it a preference of the majority of art enthusiasts. 

 

I guess I would call it a choice if the consensus was based on objective criteria and not taste alone. (Legal) Judges can "prefer" some evidence over other evidence if they find it more compelling or of merit, especially if it fits in with some model like a legal precedent. I agree there is no absolute here. It is perception relative to one's peers and perhaps agreed-upon experts, an abstraction by agreement. Some say mathematics is an abstraction. If you prefer/choose the art of Yoko Ono over Picasso then for the sake of argument it might be said that you are out of step with >90% of your peers.

 

All that can really be said is that such agreement is a relative truth not an absolute truth.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, Picasso's work was a joke perpetrated on the art world. They still haven't gotten it, but in the future I believe it will be revealed as a hoax. 😶

“The best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the least audible flaws.”

 Dr. Floyd Toole

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...