To Hell In A Hand Basket

[Dusty Chalk]

No.

Your analogy with purple doesn't work. Art is not an absolute the way purple is.

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed? It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input); it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it -- I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

At some point, certain pieces sold as art are so bad that they cannot be considered art . . . by me.

Purple is purple, no matter what you or I say (NO, it's violet! It is not, it's magenta!!), but a white canvas is a white canvas.

See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart. Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies. I'm not going to ask you what your definition is (but feel free to give it a try, it's hard), but from everything you've said (especially WRT musicians vs. singers), I still stand by my stance that by your own definition, rap qualifies, and you have done nothing to dissuade me.

It's like saying dogcrap is food. Wellll, you could eat it, so technically it IS food. But aside from Divine, who would?

The definition of food would presumably include some relatively oblique scale of "stuff that has nuitritional merit" vs. "is bad for you" (the latter of which dogcrap falls under), not just "that which is et".

Whether something IS art is totally in the eye of the beholder, not the guy who created it or some goober in a magazine. It's is entirely up to YOU as to whether you think it's art or not.

But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that.

You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO. White music, however, is not white.

[Troy]

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed?

Ok.

It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input);

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?

it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it --

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves. Playing music and painting. Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.

I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

My dictionary says:
ART-
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Interesting to note the word "beautiful". Perhaps "pleasing" is a better word.

If I could add to that it would be that the the individual experiencing the finished product (even if it is only the creator) is moved in an emotional way.

It's not about intelect, it's not about analysis or reasoning. It is purely an emotional response.

See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art". That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. But I won't deny the possibilty that artful rap (that isn't paligeristic of already existing artful music) exists.

But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that. You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yeah, a Recording Academy that called Milli Vanilli the best new artist, called Jethro Tull best metal band and nominated Fountains of Wayne for best new artist this year sure has a lot of credibility!

Do you really thing "most of the rest of the world" even has an opinion about this nonsense?

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO.

Your opinions are as humble as mine. And Pink Flamingos have white bellies and black around their eyes, so I question the validity of even that.

[Dusty Chalk]

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?

Alright, bad choice of words. "...has to have someone creating it...". The concentration is on a semblence of effort exerted.

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves.

That's another reason I said "potential". Presumably, if someone else saw/heard/ate said art, they would like it, yes? Besides, "themselves" is already an audience of one.

Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.

A-ha! Audience of two.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

I was.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art".

Something to the effect of "rap isn't music". Music, presumably, being a pure subset of art.

That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity.

Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

So, we've been agreeing this entire time?

EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yes, everything I say is correct.

I was just ribbin' ya'.

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

That's your opinion.

[Troy]

A-ha! Audience of two.

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.

Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).

Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.Yes, everything I say is correct.

That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.

I was just ribbin' ya'.

No****, Sherlock. Right back attcha.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.

Yeah, but you know what "assuming" does, don't you? It makes an ass out of u and ming.

Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

Some of my most favourite music is supremely depressing. Gorgeous, beautiful, pleasing...depressing.

I guess where I was coming from on that statement was censorship. The law about censorship says something to the effect of "...a work of art must have some social redeeming value..." -- I never liked that definition, so I was just trying my hand at something else -- something more vague, but not having to abide by social values. I guess it didn't work, but I think I was closer to the mark than they were.

That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.

Well, just for the record, I was trying to change your mind. There's a difference between arguing fact and arguing opinion. The latter is pointless, and I usually don't go there.

There's a grey middle ground that people often tread, and that's to try to convey fact as opinion or vice versa. I saw you...well, someone...trying to convey "rap is not music"...as opinion, and I disagree that it is a matter of opinion. It is my belief (not the same as an opinion) that what is and is not music, and what is or is not art, is not a matter of opinion.

Obviously, we disagree on this point.

Not to say I wasn't having some fun along the way. At this point, my expectations to change your mind are low...miniscule...non-existent. And it's no hair off my back either way.

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree? At least, in 90% of the non-borderline cases. My analogy is that sometimes, whether it appears to be religious-based or not, sometimes, matters are worth arguing. To use the old camel's-nose-under-the-tent-flap theory would be wrong in this case -- just because 10% (or whatever the number is, I'm making it up anyway) of the cases are borderline, doesn't mean that the definition of "murder" isn't still some "absolute".

The analogy would be that someone says that whether or not a particular ritual is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. It might be in some cases, but in the case of murder, that's got nothing to do with it.

Sorry, that sounds pretty extreme, to compare "rap is not music" with "ritual is not murder", but I think the analogy part holds.

[jack70]

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree?

No, no, no... I didn't (really) use that "religion" analogy into the "music" debate (check it again). I used it (only) in trying to explain to Jay about my "fervor" (rather, my lack of it) in getting as "worked up" as some others (apparently) are about the "classification" of Rap in the music camp. Jay was making an issue of the depth of my belief on this issue... I was just explaining (with the religious analogy) that I was NOT a zealot on this (largely) semantic issue. If you are, fine... but I'm not, is all.

When I hear sportscasters and sports-talkshow people discuss bowling (as "sport")... I accept their methodology, even if I see it a little differently (it's NOT a big deal). Same with Rap... I don't think it's "true" music, it's something a little outside of it... but I can live with most people calling it "music", unlike say, religious zealots who have a hard time living with other popular world views.

BTW, classic producer Jerry Wexler was talking about Solomon Burke on 60-Mins last Sunday.... he called "all singing" as a trade between music & drama. Considering rappers use little melody in their "singing", one could say it IS more in the drama family (performance art).

Now, your bringing up the term "murder" is interesting because law is something that is codified through centuries of experience. It IS designed to be absolute (as close as words can make it). It's spelled out (unlike the term "music") with specifications called "elements of the law" for all manner of exigent circumstances. The whole debate of "what is music", is a pop-cultural dynamic that's very inexact and fluid, unlike the law, which is extremely exact (for good reason... ever read your state's penal code?).

At the same time, I'll bring up the fact that even "murder" is legally defined differently in different countries, different cultures, and different times (we constantly add/change those elements), sometimes radically so. If a people decide to make a "ritual" inside (or outside) some law, they can do it through our legal process. Interesting, because "polygamy" is undergoing that debate now after the results of the Mass gay-marriage case. But art isn't law, and science isn't art. For many though, art is religion... LOL.

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually, I think you did get my point, in that I was taking exactly your example, but had the opposing view.

See, you're mixing things up here a little bit, when you talk about the rigidity of the legal definition of murder, and the "fluid" definition of music. Certainly those are the cases, but those are also two different stances.

There are two ways to write a dictionary -- "prescriptive" and "descriptive". A "prescriptive" dictionary tries to define words as they should be used, and a "descriptive" dictionary tends to define words as they are already used. The two stances can also be looked at as liberal vs. conservative.

Anyway, that's what you're doing. You're taking the prescriptive stance on murder (other than that last paragraph about different cultures, but I'll get back to that in a second), but the descriptive stance on music. Why? Because it's a quickly changing society, and music is evolving quickly, and it would have been difficult to define music 50 years ago and still see it applied today.

Now back to murder -- sure there are borderline cases that, in one society would not be considered murder, but in another, it is. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the pretty clear-cut cases that most if not all of us would consider pretty clearly murder -- even if we didn't have the legal and linguistic background to give it a proper definition. The Hannibal Lechters and the Jeffrey Dahmers and the John Wayne Gacys and the Ted Bundy's and the borderline adolescents who killed "just to know what it felt like" and etc. It's still absolute -- at least in some cases. And because it is still absolute in some cases, it is not a matter of opinion -- it's not a matter of "well, that's your opinion" or Troy's or whatever. Whether or not Rap is music is an absolute, and you are wrong, not only because you don't think it is, but because you think it's your right not to think so. You're wrong about that, too.

That was my point.