DuckToller Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 I am still in love with DFA's versions of "Strange Fruit" and some covers of BH songs by Cassandra Wilson. Link to comment
shum3s Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 “Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking” Renan It would seem that there is not a lot of thinking going on in this thread- just my humbled opinion😁 In the post modern world that is a washed in relativity, “objective truth” is hard to come by. You remove object truth from reality, then all you have is ones experience - his or her truth (opinion) there is no more effective way to shut down thoughtful, meaningful debate than to claim - “dude it’s my truth” you can’t argue against someone’s experience or taste! Thus we have elevated experience over objective truth, hence we have a lot of non thinking people - just a lot of opinions that can’t be challenged or fact checked. There are objective standards that goes into writing, composing and delivering music. As there is in painting, producing movies and etc. The dictionary defines opinion: “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty”. More thinking is require! Finally, we audiophiles have a very high standard when it comes to recording production. We can come to a objective consensus determining which recordings is good or bad, it’s not a opinion - it’s true! I would suggest that when it comes to recording producers, which I believe is a art form- there are mediocre and very accomplished producers; just as there are with music artists. Sam Bill Brown 1 C.A.P. Pipeline, windows pro 10 > Roon > SOtM USB > Keces power supply > HDplex power supply > 4x2 HD Mini DSP > Ayre DSD QB-9 > Naim CDX > ModWright 9 S.E. Preamp > A21 Parasound Amplifier > Magnepan .7 > Augie's Dipole sub, ML sub, DIY sub > Dedicated room with acoustical treatment. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 This Rothko sold for $86.9 million. Art is all subjective. Rothko is no better than any other artist. Many people like Rothko's work and are willing to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with being better or worse. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Iving Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: This Rothko sold for $86.9 million. Art is all subjective. Rothko is no better than any other artist. Many people like Rothko's work and are willing to pay for it, but that has nothing to do with being better or worse. Will you admit that you posted that example exactly because you knew that many/most of us would find it preposterous? [not or questionable Art / not worth $87m] ... in which case we are leaning towards (but haven't arrived at) objectivity? Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 7 minutes ago, Iving said: Will you admit that you posted that example exactly because you knew that many/most of us would find it preposterous? [not or questionable Art / not worth $87m] ... in which case we are leaning towards (but haven't arrived at) objectivity? No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless … Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Iving Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless … I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!) But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one. I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example. And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out! No? Link to comment
Popular Post bbosler Posted September 7, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 7, 2021 34 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: no better than any other artist. if nobody is any better or worse then all art is equal, all music is equal, everything is equal you may not be able to quantify it, but saying everything equal is just a cop out I get what you are saying.. "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but some art is just crap no matter how you assess it, some "music" is just noise It escapes me at the moment who it was but there was a 20th century composer who "composed" music by flipping a coin. Heads he went up in tone and tails he went down. There were others who did similar experiments. The resulting piece of "music" is random noise. It sucks. It is irritating and no sensible person would call it music. Same for a lot of so called art. Bill Brown and masch 2 see my system at Audiogon https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/768 Link to comment
Qhwoeprktiyns Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: No, I posted it as illustrative of my point that art is 100% subjective. Some person(s) believe that piece if art is worth that much money. It could be an investment based on historical increases in the price of art, it could the person thinks Rothko is a great painter, it could be endless … Appreciation of art can require some effort, especially when confronted with art forms we are not familiar with. If you were to sit down with a modern art specialist passionate about Rothko you may end up changing your mind. If art can be explained then it is not entirely subjective. Iving 1 Link to comment
MarkusBarkus Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 45 minutes ago, Iving said: But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position. I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher. I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
Iving Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Iving said: I do understand what you're driving at. And in the end you can't argue with the subjective (or with a sick mind as Joe Walsh would say - musical reference not a personal one!) But objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans - not an idiosyncratic one. I think you invited a common reference by posting that particular example. And by doing it yourself - defending the subjective position - I thought it even more worth pointing out! No? 13 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said: Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position. I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher. Perhaps you misread me. I answer since you quoted me. 1. When I say "objective can and probably does mean a common reference point for humans", I am stating something ordinary. Neither Eastern nor Western nor anything in between. The dictionary would do just as well. It would be different if I were cleaving to an objective (or subjective) position. I am not. 2. My post in response to the first Rothko post was to politely point to an anomaly. Well - a double one actually I think - as I made clear. I am not cleaving to an objective or subjective position. It's just conversation. @The Computer Audiophile is holding the fort on "Art is all subjective." If anything is a very strong (philosophical) position, that is! Link to comment
Iving Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 We can see only the first page here, and unfortunately I don't have the full article. We can get the gist readily enough. What I find interesting is Best's position as stated: Now we have a fascinating crossover of the present conversation and our hackneyed Subjective-Objective tension - in which Art-Subjectivism and [ASR-style] Scientism are on the same side of the road. Now there's a conundrum! Best is saying (I take what I hope are inconsequential liberties): a) Scientific methods are the only route to objectivity = False b) Art subjective appreciation cannot be be proven scientifically = True c) It follows from b) that Art appreciation cannot be objective = False and intends to depict Art-Subjectivism and Scientism [Science as religion] as linked distortions. Link to comment
PeterG Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 44 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said: Honestly, no offense intended, really...but this is a very Western/intellectual position. I have no axe to grind with either group, or with the estate of Mr. Rothko, but would it be a reach to think it would be easy to find "humans" from various cultures and backgrounds that wouldn't think any particular piece of art (including music here since we're in this thread) was...artful, beautiful, exciting, etc.? Art and culture and intelligence and emotion are a real jumble to decipher. No offense here either, but this is wrong in a Western-centric sort of way. One of my caveats in one of the first posts on this theme was that a person had to have an understanding and appreciation of modern music--anyone who had this understanding would concede The Beatles were among the very best. So I agree that a person from another culture might not find Western art great. But it is not the case that non-Westerners cannot differentiate or rank art--they would have their own culture, art, and history behind them. They would be able to differentiate and rank their own culture's art. Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 hour ago, bbosler said: if nobody is any better or worse then all art is equal, all music is equal, everything is equal you may not be able to quantify it, but saying everything equal is just a cop out I'll say it, all art is equal in an of itself. Some people like some art more than other art. If we can truly judge art and art is objective, then someone should have a handy list of data points / specifications / etc... that need to be met by all artists partaking in whatever art is being judged. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, PeterG said: The Beatles were among the very best. Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria? Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
shum3s Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Would it be fair to say that all forms of art is rooted in “objective truth of reality? In other words, all of creation, in its beauty, order, function serves a purpose- and a big part of that purpose is for humans to recreate, by way of our senses. We do not create out of nothing- hence all of art is a reflection that is rooted in objected truth about our selves and the world we live in. That’s the amazing thing about art, we enjoy it for the art in itself, because we all have a common reference point in the world in which we have our being. Iving 1 C.A.P. Pipeline, windows pro 10 > Roon > SOtM USB > Keces power supply > HDplex power supply > 4x2 HD Mini DSP > Ayre DSD QB-9 > Naim CDX > ModWright 9 S.E. Preamp > A21 Parasound Amplifier > Magnepan .7 > Augie's Dipole sub, ML sub, DIY sub > Dedicated room with acoustical treatment. Link to comment
Iving Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, shum3s said: we all have a common reference point in the world in which we have our being Sadly, human beings have much more in common than they care to admit. Link to comment
Popular Post DuckToller Posted September 7, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted September 7, 2021 Some questions and thoughts about ART ... Is the art market about marketing art or the art of the market ? Is Art Basel about Art or about Basel? Or about business opportunities in Miami Beach ? Is it art if it doesn't sell ? Is it greater art because it sells for higher prices or more copys? - Having the term art disconnected from the monetarization may bring us closer, but @The Computer Audiophile's example is exactly about both. There are ugly things which haven't value, there are ugly things that are worth millions. Rarely it is only the artist that decides about the future value. However, often the value - based of market mechanisms - will decide if is called art or not. - The "poor artist" is an analogy we all know too well, I'd guess most of us carry lots of sympathy to many people performing their "art" in the streets. If they are even skilled artists, we love them a bit more. Thus often they remain poor, but loved. It is the other side of the coin of an over-montarized business that can make people very rich or destroy them if they aren't made for that trip. We tend often to forget the game that is played there. - Between the idea of a song in the head of an artist and the stream on Spotify, we have a lot of processes that are pre-defined by the industry. Many of us like the examples of the minority that gets trough to the top by chance, the one that does composing/producing in the bedrooms and have worldwide success against the odds. - The artist in Romania painting my 5-year-old face in graphite on some brownish paper (it is still hanging beside my bureau / screen) may even not seen him/herself as an artist, but someone who sold his capabilities to tourists just for survival in 1969. Other "artists" have their own studios and production lines just to use for utmost possible creativity .. for the market (often called self-expression). - I love music, performance, writing and beaux arts, however, the attachment of value to that often distorts its "pureness", the interferance of this fully dysfunctional & diversified industry (for the majprity of artists) delivering the finalized product to me, the customer, is perturbing at times. - I have no answer how to circumvent this problem, though I am quite aware it exists. I feel much better when I buy music at bandcamp or en direct from artist's webpage, just to exclude the "industry" as much as possible. - Not to forget, there is a proverb in German "Kunst kommt von Können", which may translate into "art comes from craftmanship (mastery)", which Mr. Beuys (the famous German artist) changed into "Art comes from announcement" (Kunst kommt vom Künden). - A lot of artist have invested many hours in their skillset and their education, though we only see the top of the iceberg of artistic work in our personal media life. Most of the the hours of artistic trainng will remain unpaid (for the artist) and unheard/unseen. I have doubts that there are pure objective criterias that allow us to define what is art and what not? Nontheless, I could imagine that the psychologists with us may have an vague explanation what triggers our subjective reception of art, skill and mastery. charlesphoto and The Computer Audiophile 2 Link to comment
shum3s Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Yes I agree! This debate we are having should not be about one or the other, subjective versus objective. When both have equal value. They do not need to be opposing; the artist reflect objective truth from the world he lives in through his or her Unique artistic expression. I the beholder form a opinion, reflection or experience a emotional response to what I am seeing or hearing. Sam C.A.P. Pipeline, windows pro 10 > Roon > SOtM USB > Keces power supply > HDplex power supply > 4x2 HD Mini DSP > Ayre DSD QB-9 > Naim CDX > ModWright 9 S.E. Preamp > A21 Parasound Amplifier > Magnepan .7 > Augie's Dipole sub, ML sub, DIY sub > Dedicated room with acoustical treatment. Link to comment
MarkusBarkus Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 26 minutes ago, PeterG said: But it is not the case that non-Westerners cannot differentiate or rank art--they would have their own culture, art, and history behind them. They would be able to differentiate and rank their own culture's art. ...yeah, I was writing about the cross-cultural aspects, NOT that other cultures lack ability to determine beauty in a way that makes sense/is codified to them. Loading up your neck with rings, poking holes in yourself...list goes on...is beautiful to some. Putting a crucifix in a tank of piss is high-art to some. I saw a person nailed to a car. Art? Sure, if you have an open mind. But not my cup of fur. I ran a race in the 70s and the prize was Born to Run. I was crushed. I put it in my mom's oven on a cookie sheet and melted it. And I never really liked the Beatles either, since I'm sharing. Fire at will... The Computer Audiophile 1 I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
PeterG Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said: I ran a race in the 70s and the prize was Born to Run. I was crushed. I put it in my mom's oven on a cookie sheet and melted it. And I never really liked the Beatles either, since I'm sharing. Let's say we agree on the cross cultural post. I would have liked your whole post, but I think Born to Run may be the greatest pure rock record of all time. It captures the angst and hope, the despair and the dream, in every one of us MarkusBarkus 1 Link to comment
PeterG Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria? Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. OK, I agree. But they did so much so well, and it may be too complex for me to articulate. How about I start with an easier, because it's much narrower, example--Bob Dylan's lyrics. They have spoken to millions about deep important themes, central to us in a wide variety of ways. They did this in a way that nobody else did before, or has been able to reproduce since. They resonate both emotionally and intellectually. It's especially cool that so many are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Among the people they have inspired are a seemingly endless stream of artists and other experts. (Ok, as I write this, maybe I'll apply the previous paragraph as my answer to The Beatles) A few examples just off the top of my head--you could dive into these and not ponder for hours: Like a Rolling Stone Highway 61 Desolation Row A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall Blowin in the Wind Blood on the Tracks (all of it) Visions of Johanna Hurricane Looking forward to your and others' thoughts Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, PeterG said: OK, I agree. But they did so much so well, and it may be too complex for me to articulate. How about I start with an easier, because it's much narrower, example--Bob Dylan's lyrics. They have spoken to millions about deep important themes, central to us in a wide variety of ways. They did this in a way that nobody else did before, or has been able to reproduce since. They resonate both emotionally and intellectually. It's especially cool that so many are ambiguous and open to interpretation. Among the people they have inspired are a seemingly endless stream of artists and other experts. (Ok, as I write this, maybe I'll apply the previous paragraph as my answer to The Beatles) A few examples just off the top of my head--you could dive into these and not ponder for hours: Like a Rolling Stone Highway 61 Desolation Row A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall Blowin in the Wind Blood on the Tracks (all of it) Visions of Johanna Hurricane Looking forward to your and others' thoughts Dylan, one of my favorites, and not only because he is from Minnesota :~) I agree he did all of those things and many of us think his lyrics are fantastic. However, we haven't established objective criteria that makes his lyrics better than any other lyrics. Or at least I didn't see that in your post. I am a bit slow sometimes :~) If we take some of your items like 1) they have spoken to millions, did it in a way nobody else did, etc... I see these as facts describing what he did, not objective criteria with which to judge art. Dang he is good :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
shum3s Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 21 minutes ago, PeterG said: It captures the angst and hope, the despair and the dream, in every one of us I really like the way you articulated “objective truth” in your conclusion. Hope, despair and dreams are not subjective. We as humans have at one time or another have experience these, and have knowledge what theses three attributes mean. Now I may not like the voice or the genre and perhaps the quality of the recording; this is purely subjective on my part. I could be misguided in working out my thinking on this topic, I sure appreciate all the perspective being share on this forum! Thank you! Sam PeterG 1 C.A.P. Pipeline, windows pro 10 > Roon > SOtM USB > Keces power supply > HDplex power supply > 4x2 HD Mini DSP > Ayre DSD QB-9 > Naim CDX > ModWright 9 S.E. Preamp > A21 Parasound Amplifier > Magnepan .7 > Augie's Dipole sub, ML sub, DIY sub > Dedicated room with acoustical treatment. Link to comment
Mayfair Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Hi Peter, this is a good place to dig in. If The Beatles were among the best, what were they best at and what are the judging criteria? Serious. It's an interesting thing to look at. FWIW, I'd suggest the perspective of history as a criterion - whether the art work is not only popular when created, but is still valued by future generations. That criterion is the test of time - a series of generational audiences who hadn't been born when the movie, song, book, painting, performance, etc. was created, opining on its merit to them with their attention, their time and their money. I think, for example, artists such as Praxiteles, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Bach, Chaplin, Beatles, Picasso, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday do meet that criterion, and that if there are humans around in 500 years, they will still be familiar with and still appreciating their art. PeterG 1 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 33 minutes ago, shum3s said: I sure appreciate all the perspective being share on this forum! As do I! MarkusBarkus 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now