Album Rating: 4.0
"it's well accepted fact in all academic circles that inferior and superior art exists."
sorry, theyre wrong.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
''A true artist creates art to impress themselves, and if others like it or don’t, the artist has still succeeded.''
They may or may not have. It depends on if they had a profound vision for the art or not and if they captured that in the art.
''By that token we should objectively hate a lot of classic albums and worship and love a bunch of shitty new ones all because some older artists deride their early work and think each new thing they do is their best.''
I don't really understand why the artist's view of their work should influence your opinion of it. If you like it, great, if you don't, fine. The thing I'm saying here is the artist probably had some idea going in and if you know the idea they had, they either brought it into fruition or they didn't. The artist themselves should know if they succeeded or not.
It seems like people here either don't make art or they don't have a vision for their art and just make random shit. Which is fine, I guess, but it doesn't negate my point and it's irrelevant.
So, to be clear, I believe the artist should have some idea of if they succeeded or not that is divorced from the fanbase's reaction to their work. And I don't see why the fanbase should be influenced by the artist's view of their work. I just don't think the fanbase should ignore that the artist probably did have some intention and goal with their work that isn't based on their reaction to it.
|
| |
"entire review justifying a positive opinion about Brokencyde"
I double fucking dare you
"The irony of this post is that Handel was generally considered Bach's superior up until the 19th Century, was more revered in his time and had a greater direct influence on the ~greats~ of subsequent eras. Even Beethoven considered Handel to be the greatest composer of all time."
yes, and guess how that turned around?
was it because of closer inspection of the works in question or because enough academics loudly exclaimed "HANDEL IS BETTER/EQUAL"?
and need I remind you the whole reason the classical era turned from a farce into an actual worthy period of the western canon is because mozarat discovered bach's music
new facts emerge
EDIT: "sorry, theyre wrong."
"everyone with any hint of credibility on a certain subject is wrong and I'm right because I can't deal with objective reality"
oh my god grow up
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"yeah, so still waiting for an example of objectively bad art and proof that it's objectively bad."
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
There's literally a museum called the 'museum of bad art'
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"oh my god grow up"
|
| |
"Ah that explains why no-one liked your last album"
A lot of people liked my last album, though, so I don't know where you're going with that. If you didn't like, that's cool, man. A 1.5 hour-long sci-fantasy concept album isn't for everyone!
That said, I read that second article you linked, and there was literally no explanation in there. The only thing relevant to the argument was at the end of the article when the author made it very clear that he was actually just quite upset that people online criticised his work, and that because he thought he did a bang-up job, that his conclusion was the only truthful one.
|
| |
"Except it's not discussed and it's well accepted fact in all academic circles that inferior and superior art exists. It wouldn't even be possible for example to make a "history of art" without being able to quantify those things and people with actual KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE know how to do it, but you nerds on the internet have to wave your subjectivity flag around to feel adequate in your malformed "opinions" that you so cherrish even though they are so fickle that you yourselves should recognise that just because you liked radiohead when you were 15 and had pimples doesn't mean they actually are a great band (you don't STILL listen to radiohead, do you?)"
this is a great copypasta
"I double fucking dare you"
doesn't a double dare mean that you have to do it too?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
i enjoyed how he never explained what the "truth" is or how you determine what the "truth" is.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"Except it's not discussed and it's well accepted fact in all academic circles that inferior and superior art exists. It wouldn't even be possible for example to make a "history of art" without being able to quantify those things and people with actual KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE know how to do it, but you nerds on the internet have to wave your subjectivity flag around to feel adequate in your malformed "opinions" that you so cherrish even though they are so fickle that you yourselves should recognise that just because you liked radiohead when you were 15 and had pimples doesn't mean they actually are a great band (you don't STILL listen to radiohead, do you?)"
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
I did like it dude, despite the track titles. But clearly that means nowt because after all the hard work you put in nothing separates it from hello kitty suicide club
|
| |
A lot of things separate it from Hello Kitty Suicide Club. But if someone finds more value in HKSC, who am I to tell them they're wrong?
It's not like they're the target audience.
Ultimately though, I make music for my own sense of personal satisfaction. I've made a lot of stuff I consider to be utter garbage but I still got a lot of gratification from making (dozens of tracks I've never released).
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"yeah, so still waiting for an example of objectively bad art and proof that it's objectively bad."
im gonna keep reposting this until someone tries. hmm, i wonder why nobody has yet.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
once i found out what noise music was and that people enjoyed it any idea i've ever had about anything, EVER being objectively good/bad went out the window
i do find HKSC to be more annoying than most noise though
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
But not separated in quality according to you?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
"But not separated in quality according to you?"
im sure in his subjective opinion his own music is better.
|
| |
In my personal opinion, I like my music a lot more than HKSC, but that's because I make music I'd like to hear, and I don't like HKSC.
So in conclusion: I personally dislike HKSC, but I am completely comfortable with the logic that somebody else would enjoy them.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
'im gonna keep reposting this until someone tries. hmm, i wonder why nobody has yet.'
Lol if it stops your dick going floppy go for it but no-one ever made that argument to that extreme so you're going to have to keep posting
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
HKSC?
|
| |
"yeah, so still waiting for an example of objectively bad art and proof that it's objectively bad."
I guess art could only be called objectively bad if there were no possible way for a being on earth to ever enjoy it. So, it doesn't even have the potential. Art is subjective because it has the potential to be loved or hated. A piece of art that's objectively bad would need to have no potential to be loved whatsoever. But I'm sure there is no actual example of that. I don't even think that would be possible, but it is a theoretical idea - something that could never be rewarding and never provoke a positive reaction. The problem with that theory is ... wouldn't a piece of art that unlovable be interesting enough to be loveable ...
|
| |
|
|
