[Scuddie]

When you compare music of the same genre (Or sub-genre for that matter) using the target audience, the quality of the music becomes objective.  Take, for instance, Body Movin' by The Beastie Boys.  When it was released on radio, it did not do well.  The song was said to be lacking in element and flow.  Then Fatboy Slim came along and gave it a remix.  The song suddenly was on the top of the charts in hip-hop, dance, and rock stations and stayed there for quite a while.  The remixed version was outright better, and not even the Beastie Boys defended the original (they in fact added the Fatboy Slim remix to one of their favorites albums).  Country music fans couldn't give two ****s about the genre, so their views on it are subjective.

Oh, and I'm no fan of country music or rap, but I can still objectively judge the quality of the song by following the basis of music theory and composure.  I being a big fan of hip hop, but no so big a fan of metallic punk rock, I still know How I Could Kill A Man was performed much better by Rage Against the Machine than by Cypress Hill.  Rage gave the song lots more consistency and uniformity.  Subjective?  I think not.

[karajorma]

Logical gap opens, not that it will help trash much; did the song fulfill it's purpose?

Art's purpose is subjective though.

Oh, and I'm no fan of country music or rap, but I can still objectively judge the quality of the song by following the basis of music theory and composure.  I being a big fan of hip hop, but no so big a fan of metallic punk rock, I still know How I Could Kill A Man was performed much better by Rage Against the Machine than by Cypress Hill.  Rage gave the song lots more consistency and uniformity.  Subjective?  I think not.

So what do you say to someone who prefers the Cypress Hill version? That they're wrong?

[Bobboau]

now that's not entierly true, the song did make the artists and publisher quite a bit of money, no? that was why it was produced, no? so we do have a way of quantifying how well a song "fulfilled it's purpose". at least with some of them.

[karajorma]

It's a pretty sad lookout for art if we quantify its intrinsic value by how much money it made. 

I will concede the point that if you want to measure art objectively you can use that as a measure though. But in that case rap has a lot of intrinsic value since it sells well and anything by Britney Spears has greater value than most of the music you probably like.

I don't think it was the measure myself and Trashman were debating about though. We were talking about an objective value for art as art. You're talking about an intrinsic value for art as a cash cow.

[NGTM-1R]

Logical gap opens, not that it will help trash much; did the song fulfill it's purpose?

Art's purpose is subjective though.

That depends. Obviously the creator's idea of the purpose has some more validity then some random person's.

[Bobboau]

...art as a cash cow.

well, we are talking about rap/hiphop here.

oh, pardon me hiphop and r&b 'flava'

****ing anti-thought BS... 

[karajorma]

That depends. Obviously the creator's idea of the purpose has some more validity then some random person's.

Yes the creator can state his purpose with more validity than some random person but why did he choose that purpose?

That's what I mean about the purpose of art being subjective. When an architect creates a bridge we can also say that the purpose was to make sure people could cross a river and measure how well it does that objectively but when it comes to the design of the bridge even if the architect tells you flat out that he wanted to make the bridge look like the wings of a dove you still don't know why he did that, and deep down, he probably doesn't know either.

With all art the reason why you did A rather than B is usually just a matter of aesthetics and that is always a subjective choice. So even if you measure how much said bridge looks like a dove you still haven't done anything to assign an objective value to how beautiful the bridge actually is, because whether bridges that look like doves wings are beautiful or not is a completely subjective matter.

...art as a cash cow.

well, we are talking about rap/hiphop here.

oh, pardon me hiphop and r&b 'flava'

****ing anti-thought BS... 

Well if you don't like rap that's your choice but throughout time much art has been made because a patron has flung a wad of cash at an artist and told him to make something they liked. Whether the song was written mainly to make money or not has little bearing on it's value as art. The two things are separate.

Yes songs that are made in a formulaic manner just to make money tend to be crap but sometimes you can still find a few good ones amongst the dross.

[Bobboau]

there has also been an unimaginable volume of horrible crap that was forgotten about.

[karajorma]

Fair enough but the solution is not to get rid of rap any more than destroying Hollywood is the solution to the fact that it constantly puts out boring formulaic movies.

[Bobboau]

oh, I never said that was the solution, I just said the genre is a virtually unredeemable mire of some of the most uninspired auditory waist ever to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting universe, that it promotes and sustains a culture of style over substance and mindless sensationalist stupidity, which could one day bring about the fall of man kind. I never said it should be banned, just I don't like it, and would be pleased to see it fade, silently, into history due to people finally recognizing the inherent evil_[1] of it along with some of America's less horrific creations such as lynching and thermonuclear warfare and the income tax._[2]


[1] I consider the promotion of stupidity to be evil
[2] the preceding paragraph may have contained some usage of hyperbole

[Mars]

I look at most rap in sort of a darwinian light; most of the people who listen to the will probably remove themselves from the gene pool, so why should I complain?

[Scuddie]

So what do you say to someone who prefers the Cypress Hill version? That they're wrong?

No, you're misinterpreting what I said.  The preference is a subjective matter, the mechanical composure is not.  I know plenty of people who prefer the Cypress Hill version, but who would not argue against Rage performing and composing it better.  It just doesn't happen to be their style of music, so they don't like that version as much...  But then again, I prefer Rage, so maybe my ideas are a little bit biased .

A lot of people pass of ****ty art as abstract, but most people know after looking at it/listening to it, it's just not well done.  To create art, it requires both the mental ability to form creative ideas, as well as the trained ability to execute said ideas.  To have one without the other would not make good art.  Without the ability to create ideas, but a good ability to draw or sing, you end up with something that looks/sounds good but doesn't mean anything.  Without the ability to draw or sing effectively, but with the ability to construct rich ideas, you end up with something that has meaning but looks/sounds like ****.  To have either one skill a deficit would likely create a lower quality of art.  It is in this where art is objective.

[castor]

From a bathing tub
I throw water into the lake -
slight muddiness appears.

- Hekigodo Kawahigashi

Some people may find an "idea" there, some may not. Who is right, objectively?
Personally, I'm not too eager to claim something not being art. But I can tell what is, in my opinion, after experiencing it.

[Mobius]

The point is that Rap is modern. People will take it in consideration...in the future....after the death of all Rappers.

What about Picasso? His art was considered thrash. Everything changed after Pablo's death. )

[TrashMan]

Picassos early art was good.. that impressionims (or watever) IS trash.

[Mobius]

That's not impressionism...and that's not trash. It's just...modern.

I mean, under a certain point of view...Michelangelo, Raffaello, Giotto, Masaccio and Bosch rule. But Picasso kicks asses.

[TrashMan]

Picasso kicks as much ass as all the modern "art"  - like sculptures that look like someone just flung clay around, disgusting "performaces", pictures that look like a baby played with colors, bathtubs full of barbie heads or crap (literary) and other such ....stupidities.

Let's face it, the modern art world lost it's way... everything good has allready been done, and in their desparate search for something new tehy turn everything into art

Makes me wish all those art critics were gathered in one big room.....
*GUNNERY CONTROL, OPEN FIRE!*

[Mobius]

But there still is something good in modern art. Art has always been connected to what the human species wanted do and/or wanted to be.

In Ranaissance, there was an high consideration of the man. "The man who, all by himself, succeeds". Michelangelo's David is the reflection of that philosophy.

The Romans always considered the Architecture a superior art because they liked immense structures. Everything was intended to "Celebrate the glory of Rome". In their period, statues were important...but as much as important as mausoleums and theatres.

The structure of human buildings changed in the past centuries. The humans changed as well. The modern art represents our period. Our achievements and our failures. A mix of good and evil.

[TrashMan]

Modern art represents the crappines of modern life?

Sound true

[Mobius]

Yep. That's what I'm saying.