|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 7, 2007 14:43:17 GMT -5
Dude, she's going to be someone's bitch in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 7, 2007 17:34:36 GMT -5
in honour of the unofficial mascot of this board,  |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 8, 2007 11:21:22 GMT -5
art is an activity, that's all. it is done by people trying to achieve (or extemporize) an inner ideal. i don't really think that there are prescribed Platonic forms for this. just activity. and applied, at that. But there is a distinction i'm willing to make. Very hard to prove, usually, and a source of endless debate, but i don't think that activity done in the name of consumerism or commercial gain can ever qualify as art. I've been wanting to respond to this for a while... if that's the case than anyone who has ever made an album or song while having a record contract doesn't make art. Do I have to mention the multitude of artists who have record contracts? Is it wrong to get paid for making great music? I don't think so. If any of these people had to have regular jobs (you know, to make a living) they wouldn't have nearly as much time to work on their art. People need to make a living. You might argue with me, but there are a multitude of artists who are good at what they do, and they sell millions of albums because of it. You might not consider it art, and most probably wouldn't, but I do. If Britney Spears decides, hey, I want to record a fucking great song and brings out something like "Toxic," then I consider her an artist. The song will always be associated with Britney Spears. I also think art can be unintentional. The amount of people who criticized Britney Spears when she first came out for her "sexy" image is far beyond ridiculous. In some sort of way, Britney Spears created an artistic statement about our society through her supposedly shallow, non-artistic music. Of course, I think after the initial reaction occurred, I think Britney knew exactly what was going on and went with it. People are still fascinated with this girl who supposedly has no talent... but they're surely paying attention... and so are you. She also made a boatload of money off of it. Not to mention, the Beatles, the saving grace of music from what I hear around here and many other places. They had a major label record contract. They made millions of dollars. Are they not art? |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 8, 2007 11:25:52 GMT -5
in honour of the unofficial mascot of this board, Unofficial mascot? I'm cool with that, but everyone probably knows already who I think the mascot of this board is... the person who used image most artistically, IMO...  |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 8, 2007 12:36:20 GMT -5
art is an activity, that's all. it is done by people trying to achieve (or extemporize) an inner ideal. i don't really think that there are prescribed Platonic forms for this. just activity. and applied, at that. But there is a distinction i'm willing to make. Very hard to prove, usually, and a source of endless debate, but i don't think that activity done in the name of consumerism or commercial gain can ever qualify as art. I've been wanting to respond to this for a while... if that's the case than anyone who has ever made an album or song while having a record contract doesn't make art. Do I have to mention the multitude of artists who have record contracts? Is it wrong to get paid for making great music? I don't think so. If any of these people had to have regular jobs (you know, to make a living) they wouldn't have nearly as much time to work on their art. People need to make a living. You might argue with me, but there are a multitude of artists who are good at what they do, and they sell millions of albums because of it. You might not consider it art, and most probably wouldn't, but I do. If Britney Spears decides, hey, I want to record a fucking great song and brings out something like "Toxic," then I consider her an artist. The song will always be associated with Britney Spears. I also think art can be unintentional. The amount of people who criticized Britney Spears when she first came out for her "sexy" image is far beyond ridiculous. In some sort of way, Britney Spears created an artistic statement about our society through her supposedly shallow, non-artistic music. Of course, I think after the initial reaction occurred, I think Britney knew exactly what was going on and went with it. People are still fascinated with this girl who supposedly has no talent... but they're surely paying attention... and so are you. She also made a boatload of money off of it. Not to mention, the Beatles, the saving grace of music from what I hear around here and many other places. They had a major label record contract. They made millions of dollars. Are they not art? i wouldn't say that anyone who has a record contract is not an artist. As all artists are ultimately looking for recognition of some sort. And everyone needs to eat and live. i think i mentioned that somewhere, or maybe i didn't, but anyway, that's not under dispute. Where i do draw the line, though, is your justification for the artistry of Britney Spears. There was such a miscatalogue of contrasting ideas in your paragraph. So Britney decided she wanted to write a great song? People can just do that? write great songs at will? Did she in fact write it, or was it ghostwritten? Assuming, for argument's sake, that she did write it, it's hardly a statement of any sort. it's entertainment, consumer mass production entertainment, but it's not art. A packaged single designed to extract the greatest amount of dash and striking novelty out of the moment (in order to sell). Novelty is not art. Novelty is the main currency of an advertising mentality. When you wish to advertise a product, you would be a fool not to hone in on novelty, on something immediately striking, and possibly a distilled sense of compression and aphorism. Pop music excells at this. It's very being is not activity based, but ideas based, and even then, in a predatory sense. Pop musicians can be very smart, very canny, i've never said otherwise. Hence Madonna, vis-a-vis Gwen Stefani, viva la Britney S... all smart broads. And here is the hollow centre at the heart of pop. Art, as i define it, is the real flesh-and-blood activity of creating music or whatever as a direct expression of instincts and perceptions you cannot escape from, you can only run towards them. This often manifests as a confrontation against a trend or idea popular with the mainstream at the time, beucase dialectics and conflict are healthy. Abstracted glitter or hints of artistry are just that... attempts to be perceived as having greater value than it really merits. I defiantly place confrontation as a key artistic aesthetic. To be confrontational (especially against contrary tendencies in yourself being the greatest of all) is to be alive, to be of value to your fellow man. To recognize the world of ideas as instruments of power projected over the world is to start talking plain common sense. To internalize deeper struggles, and make sense of it, and then craft it into a dialogue with larger society.. these are artistic endeavours. Britney knows nothing of this. She knows she must be striking. she knows she must be perceived as worthy. She knows that these things are cultural power centres. And the industry that nurtures her and mass produces her CDs in order to sell KNOWS this too. and WANTS to be percieved as edgy, rebellious, canny, and broad. Sorry brother, the only thing she did was highlight how values can be co-opted towards profiteering so easily. Very true, son. I'm also deeply fascinated by how hot Charlize Theron is, and also the size of Madonna's bra. Mostly coz i'm a leering idiot. This was just plain foolish. You know better. sorry if my post was a bit rambling. i'm at work, and i typed that out after a heavy lunch. *burp* |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on May 8, 2007 14:04:00 GMT -5
"So Britney decided she wanted to write a great song? People can just do that? write great songs at will? Did she in fact write it, or was it ghostwritten? Assuming, for argument's sake, that she did write it, it's hardly a statement of any sort. it's entertainment, consumer mass production entertainment, but it's not art. A packaged single designed to extract the greatest amount of dash and striking novelty out of the moment (in order to sell). Novelty is not art. Novelty is the main currency of an advertising mentality." - r.i.t.
I never said she wrote anything... I said she recorded it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 8, 2007 14:21:18 GMT -5
... and then i proceeded to argue as though she was the author of her own destiny, for argument's sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 8, 2007 15:01:43 GMT -5
bahahaha...
"Prince referred to the music industry as "the speculation business"." ... (from a news article today).
i love this guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 9, 2007 9:03:29 GMT -5
r.i.t, what are your thoughts on Justin Timberlake?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 9, 2007 10:43:17 GMT -5
JT's cool. i don't know if its art, but he's respectable.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on May 9, 2007 11:03:35 GMT -5
I feel that way about "Justified" but his new album I think is pretty awesome artistic achievement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on May 9, 2007 12:33:15 GMT -5
possibly. Timberlake's not just about it..... he about it, 'bout it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 2, 2007 0:11:44 GMT -5
 "I've stopped worrying about what art is. There is good art, bad art, indifferent art. It is art but it is more timeless than contemporary art" - Damien Hirst |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jun 2, 2007 1:05:20 GMT -5
GREETINGS CITIZENS,
We are living...in the age,
in which the pursuit of all values
other than
money, success, fame, glamour
have either been discredited or destroyed.
money, success, fame, glamour,
for we are living in the age of the thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 7, 2007 21:38:51 GMT -5
I'm feeling uninspired.
|
|
