>other humanities such as philosophy
This kind of discussion pops up all the time on other boards, it's cool to have a place where it's not totally off topic.
I wanna talk art, specifically what makes something art, and whether different works can be "better" or "worse" than another.
Like, we all have this idea in us that Beethoven (for example) is a better composer than, say, a kid learning piano. And that more experimental works are of more value than something cliche and unoriginal. What makes that so?
Interesting point. It puzzles me that I can't even think of a reasonable definition for what is art.
However, for the Beethoven vs. the kid, I suppose music needs harmony.
If I'm not mistaken, some musicians attempted to make music without harmony in the early 20th century, but everybody gave up because they couldn't listen to it
>I suppose music needs harmony
See, this causes all sorts of problems though.
Like, in terms of just music you've got all sorts of improvisational genres, atonal music, John Cage's shenanigans, and so on.
For the rest of art, this would mean that there's some kind of ruleset an art form must abide by in order to be art, limiting experimentation and the like.
I mean, maybe that's the case, but it doesn't sit right with me.
experimental works are only seen as valuable now because we are in a post-modern age of art. before it was seen as degenerate, but now with the world changing so fast, at least some experimentation in art gives it credence. What is considered art is a reflection of the time from which it comes.
in the 80s many groups experimented with noise, unorthodox sampling and "no music" industrial music at times can have no harmony at all and it garnered quite the fanbase, see Throbbing Gristle for example
>If I'm not mistaken, some musicians attempted to make music without harmony in the early 20th century, but everybody gave up because they couldn't listen to it
For god's sake, you don't have one single solitary clue what you're talking about, do you?
The thing that makes it so is how revered it is with with the most successful people in our society.
For example, some people find caviar fucking disgusting, but its accepted as a gourmet and patrician food because the majority of people in the most successful circles in our society, both past and present, eat it.
High art is just memes for rich people.
I tend to think of this as a very broad topic, however because i'm currently reading through most of Hume's work i'm inclined to post his thoughts at this moment. "of the standard of taste" is a great essay this subject.
I feel like temporality definitely has something to do with it. Like even beyond societal influence, I can remember liking something when I was younger, only to dislike it now.
But there's stuff like, can something once considered art eventually no longer be considered art?
If not, then either the definition of art will expand to cover fucking everything, or it'll have limits. Then what are those limits?
And when I talk experimental, I just mean original in a broad sense. I'm not talking challenging or abrasive, I just mean like "non-pop." Originality has always been a valuable aspect, I think.
I'll have a look. I made the thread cause I started reading Gadamer (Truth and Method) recently, and he's tackling aesthetics from the ground up like Heidegger does with ontology.
It's a good read so far, I like what he's saying. Like, art lies only in performance and is somewhere in between subjective and objective. It's a tricky subject though and there's nothing even close to a consensus so I like hearing what other people think.
degenerate by the masses yes. but who cares what the masses think about art? there is always a youth subculture that follows a subversive art scene
A thing can be said to be better or worse if it is made by humans only in regards to its function. Art is better or worse based on the function of the art. Modern art is a pile of shit because it no longer has a function.
Aesthetics, being axiology, in my opinion, can only be an extension of your metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. Thus, since I'm a dirty yuppie millenial cultural relativist, I cite no such thing as art; it's nothing but entertainment.
You could disagree, but undeniably there is a practical aspect to what I've said. For example, Platonic forms influenced society to create perfect works of art.