Album Rating: 4.5

@MementoMori

As for the establishing of what counts as universal, simple statistics would do fine here. It’s true that even the most popular artist worldwide might be completely alien to some primitive culture that’s completely disconnected from the rest of the world, but I think that’s neither here nor there. The fact is that we do have examples of such cultures embracing something like tonality when it’s been introduced, as most of Asia is a testament to (and it’s not as if these cultures had western tonality forced onto them either). If artistic appreciation was dominated by cultural conditioning then it would difficult to explain why tonality has been accepted in culture’s that had very different musical histories than the west did. Classical Japanese and Chinese music is worlds away from western tonality, yet tonality now dominates both culture’s popular music and soundtracks (not to mention the influx of Asian classical performers, conductors, and orchestras).

Ultimately, I think it’s foolish to dismiss or minimize either the role that evolutionary psychology or cultural conditioning plays in the appreciation of art. When we discuss near-universally recognized successes like tonality, it’s likely that there’s something about tonality that appeals to shared human psychology; but when we discuss artistic differences, of which there are many, a huge part of that is absolutely down to culture. It’s also down to individuality as different people have different tolerance levels and appreciation for the “pattern” and “surprise” dichotomy in art. Most people who are passionate about art tend to seek out new and different experiences, which often makes art of different cultures appealing to them; while many people crave only the familiarity of the art they’ve known from a young age. [3]

ctrl + f "biology" 1 result
ugh
will attempt to read this later

Album Rating: 4.5

^ Not sure what to make of that comment. You seem to be suggesting I should've mentioned biology more, but I'm mostly just trying to make the point that it's a balance of both biology/psychology/evolution/etc. and culture that's needed to explain why we react to art how we do.

no, one mention was too many
probably
feeling cute, will confirm later

Are you having a conversation with copy pasta or what is going on here

Album Rating: 4.5

@JohnnyoftheWell: "no, one mention was too many"



Ah, well, that one mention was where I was quoting MementoMori anyway. Though I don't know why anyone would think that biology plays no (or a minimal) role in... well, just about anything relevant to our lives.

It’s about the craft that goes in and the appreciation of being able to create something that not anybody can whip up in about 5mins.
It’s why modern ‘art’ is nothing but a lie that people happily buy into because they believe they are part of some fringe crowd and ‘different’

Album Rating: 4.5

^ I see no reason why art that requires substantial craftsmanship, that's difficult to make, and that only few artists are capable of doing, should be innately better (more appealing to more people) than art that's easy, simple, and that most artists are capable of. Almost inarguably the two most influential/important popular music artists of the second half of the 20th century were The Beatles and Bob Dylan, and undoubtedly both of them were on the side of making easy, simple music that most artists could've made, but simply didn't.

Also, not all Modern art is simple and whippable uppable in 5 minutes. Joyce's Ulysses, Picasso's Guernica, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Eliot's Four Quartets... all of these are highly complex works that required a lot of skill and craftsmanship. Modern art isn't all just poop on canvasses, random noises, and stream-of-consciousness.

You’ve contradicted yourself there pal

"It’s about the craft that goes in and the appreciation of being able to create something that not anybody can whip up in about 5mins."
This apart from you just contradicted at least half your bad takes lol

Album Rating: 4.5

@zakalwe

I contradicted myself nowhere. As far as I can tell, there's plenty of art that's widely considered great and terrible that fall on both the "simple" and "complex" sides of the fence. My second paragraph was just correcting your notion that all Modern Art is simple; that simply wasn't true.

It’s still highlighting that the works which require skill and craftsmanship are the pieces that are admired.

Things can’t just be labelled and passed of as ‘artistic pieces’ because they feel they deserve to be.

Album Rating: 5.0

I've 5'd every Ulcerate album since EiF and i'm not stopping here.

Album Rating: 4.5

There is a very clear distinction between 'requiring skill and craftsmanship' and 'being complex' though. I feel like the two get confused in this discussion (but that might be me misreading things). Something can be quite simple yet require a lot of skill to even conceive.

Agreed

I think the (admittedly unclear) implication of zak's point is that part of craftsmanship is putting complex means to appropriate ends, if they're even embraced in the first place? am i getting that right?

Fuck knows John

ha fair

Album Rating: 4.5

@zakalwe: "It’s still highlighting that the works which require skill and craftsmanship are the pieces that are admired."



The Beatles and Dylan did not have the "skill and craftsmanship" of many of their contemporaries, yet are the most admired artists of their era. Schubert didn't have the "skill and craftsmanship" of Brahms, but is considered his equal as a composer.

Album Rating: 4.5

I disagree. I think being a 'visionary' or 'pioneer' is a skill all in itself. Same goes for a Kurt Cobain. Had no particular skill or craftsmanship to speak off, but did something others didn't and did it in a way that spoke to people on a personal level. That is a different kind of craftsmanship that is equally valid imo.