Jump to content

One thing GNR have taught me is skeptisim...


DurhamGirl

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, EvanG said:

You talked about this before on here and I thought you mentioned something like that before. If not, my bad.

Yeah, we did have that discussion before if I recall, quite extensively.  Well art generally fits the remit of like...high culture if you like.  Enduring culture, stuff that lasts through the ages, stuff that advances culture by leaps.  I could sit in the park thinking and coming up with ideas about the world and culture etc and call myself a philosopher...do I then warrant mention in the pantheon alongside Plato and Aristotle?  Rock music, popular music, the vast majority of it is...its about as substantial in the field of music as artistic expression as Lifetime movies are in the pantheon of cinema.

At its very very best, perhaps, you could make an argument for The Beatles as art, or Bob Dylan, I dunno, perhaps time will tell a little on those examples, I was just rambling off names but really and truly, Ratt, Poison, Guns n Roses, The Sex Pistols (my favourite band of all time), The Stooges, are these things art?  Are they really?  Or have we watered down the term for the sake of an abject lack of the real thing in our society anymore, in our culture.  In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that even culture is dying.  What culture in the world is there today, who are the great artists of the last, I dunno, 100 years, where's the amazing new architecture?  Where are the great thinkers, the great playwrights?  The world is becoming a bunch of malls and McDonalds, its a slow process but the disease is spreading.   

Rock music, to me, is juke joint music, it is not meant to be pored over or laboured over, its good time entertaining music that has its power in that it can speak to a wide audience, its for the lowest common denominator, low culture if you will.  And I mean all of that in the best sense of the term, I am the lowest common denominator, I have listened to and enjoyed and loved rock music all my life but it lacks the importance, the complexity (though art doesn't necessarily need to be complex), the gravitas and indeed the scope to really be considered art.  Its a wonderful and amazing thing and I can't imagine my life without it.  But that doesn't make it art nor does it need to be art, with its various conceits and preoccupations.  Its done well enough without it and suffers when there is an attempt to make such associations.  I don't believe that you do art or rock music any favours by attempting to draw associations.  Dionysian art I've heard it called, I kinda like that association, chaos and destruction and all that :lol:  But lets be honest, its more to do with selling T shirts today.

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, we did have that discussion before if I recall, quite extensively.  Well art generally fits the remit of like...high culture if you like.  Enduring culture, stuff that lasts through the ages, stuff that advances culture by leaps.  I could sit in the park thinking and coming up with ideas about the world and culture etc and call myself a philosopher...do I then warrant mention in the pantheon alongside Plato and Aristotle?  Rock music, popular music, the vast majority of it is...its about as substantial in the field of music as artistic expression as Lifetime movies are in the pantheon of cinema.

At its very very best, perhaps, you could make an argument for The Beatles as art, or Bob Dylan, I dunno, perhaps time will tell a little on those examples, I was just rambling off names but really and truly, Ratt, Poison, Guns n Roses, The Sex Pistols (my favourite band of all time), The Stooges, are these things art?  Are they really?  Or have we watered down the term for the sake of an abject lack of the real thing in our society anymore, in our culture.  In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that even culture is dying.  What culture in the world is there today, who are the great artists of the last, I dunno, 100 years, where's the amazing new architecture?  Where are the great thinkers, the great playwrights?  The world is becoming a bunch of malls and McDonalds, its a slow process but the disease is spreading.   

Rock music, to me, is juke joint music, it is not meant to be pored over or laboured over, its good time entertaining music that has its power in that it can speak to a wide audience, its for the lowest common denominator, low culture if you will.  And I mean all of that in the best sense of the term, I am the lowest common denominator, I have listened to and enjoyed and loved rock music all my life but it lacks the importance, the complexity (though art doesn't necessarily need to be complex), the gravitas and indeed the scope to really be considered art.  Its a wonderful and amazing thing and I can't imagine my life without it.  But that doesn't make it art nor does it need to be art, with its various conceits and preoccupations.  Its done well enough without it and suffers when there is an attempt to make such associations.  I don't believe that you do art or rock music any favours by attempting to draw associations.  Dionysian art I've heard it called, I kinda like that association, chaos and destruction and all that :lol:  But lets be honest, its more to do with selling T shirts today.

I guess I am much more a simpleton than you because I think very simplistic about it. Or I associate that word in a different way. Expressing yourself creatively in whatever way is an artform to me. Whether it's writing a song, making a film, making a painting, writing a story, etc.. It's for each individual to take out of it whatever they want. For example, a two and a half minute pop song can mean the world to me and get a reaction out of me like nothing else does, so to me that is art. It connects with me. But I get what you're saying, I just look at it very differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I guess I am much more a simpleton than you because I think very simplistic about it. Or I associate that word in a different way. Expressing yourself creatively in whatever way is an artform to me. Whether it's writing a song, making a film, making a painting, writing a story, etc.. It's for each individual to take out of it whatever they want. For example, a two and a half minute pop song can mean the world to me and get a reaction out of me like nothing else does, so to me that is art. It connects with me. But I get what you're saying, I just look at it very differently. 

So, by that rationale, any time someone writes something to express themselves its art?  So if i write on this table in front of me the word ‘hello’, thats art?  10 year old scrawls on the back of a cereal packet thats art, 8 yr old girl writes in her journal, thats art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So, by that rationale, any time someone writes something to express themselves its art?  So if i write on this table in front of me the word ‘hello’, thats art?  10 year old scrawls on the back of a cereal packet thats art, 8 yr old girl writes in her journal, thats art?

Quote

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

Yeah, it's pretty broad, isn't it? It is art if it's an expression of your emotion. That's why there's so much crappy art in the world, even though that is subjective too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Yeah, it's pretty broad, isn't it? It is art if it's an expression of your emotion. That's why there's so much crappy art in the world, even though that is subjective too. 

If that definition were true art would be about the most boring thing in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Fair enough :lol:

What music, they didn't make any...or in fact play much.

I was never saying money shouldn't be a concern or people shouldn't be paid when they play, I just don't think anyone with an once of self esteem would care to be Axls monkey boy, sign over the rights of the band and put up with his girlish hysterical behaviour, which Izzy didn't.  Come to that I don't even really hold it against the rest of the band for being, whether they were or not, greedy.  I'm just pointing it out as an apparent fact.

No ones asking him to make art, just sing those already recorded and well practised songs.

Well he's not an artist, he's the singer in a rock band.  A late 80s, highly derivative popular rock band who, once upon a time, people liked to hear sing.  Lets not lay it on like this is Beethoven agonizing over symphonies whilst slowly going death.

I have no issue with bands like the stones being greedy in terms of how they generate money as long as they give a bang for buck show and still consider themselves artists and release new music.

I understand why someone like jagger is $$ hungry, compared to when they started and signed shit contracts because they didnt understand the contract and made not much money in the 60s and 70s because of the contracts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...