The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 16th January 2017
  #331
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfterViewer View Post
To invoke Pilot Wave Theory and Quantum Realism in this particular thread, would be akin to rationalizing the significance of Bowzer of Sha Na Na, and his relative influence on the character of Fonzie from Happy Days, and the subsequent role it played in the oft used term 'jumping the shark'...
Old 16th January 2017
  #332
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
If you want to argue that a car commercial by default is a piece of art then go ahead. I will disagree.



I get the feeling that some people just want to not have this conversation on a particular level. It's as if it has to be a pretty 'pedestrian' conversation where any word can take on virtually any meaning, because if we start defining words too much - even when they pertain to our own community's activities and are seen only by us - it becomes too sensitive, and we can't have that.

So everything is art, and everyone is an artist, and every art form and genre requires the same amount of skill, and there's no difference between the design of a Colgate box and a Monet, and everyone is a special snowflake worthy of love and admiration.

That's right. We can have a conversation about this using our intellect and experience as a community that hopefully mostly specialize in the field of the liberal arts, or we can have a completely pedestrian conversation about it and talk about what Joe the plumber thinks is art.
God.......

what's the definition of ******* *******?

You act incredulous when people supposedly put words or ideas in your mouth, yet here you are doing the exact same thing and more....

but okay, Mr. Craftsman/engineer/intellectual/liberal arts expert, carry on with the other experts....I'm sure it will prove real useful and enlightening.
Old 16th January 2017
  #333
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I still don't see what difference it makes, this splitting of hairs of what someone might call you, and the subjectivity of it all.

Bowie is an artist like thousands of people you've never heard of are, too. They "create", they are "eccentric", they are "unique". Big deal.

What sets Bowie apart is one, he's really famous and successful, (as most everyone that people reference in these threads usually are), and he's generally considered really good. But probably a ton of people don't think he is.

Calling him an "Artist" with a capitol A is like calling a legendary basketball player a Basketball Player, or a Baller...it's just slang really, and all subjective, except the fame and accomplishments and sales and things like that which are facts.
Oh I never said to be an "Artist" one has to be famous, I only used Bowie as an example we might both know.

I have recorded many musicians over the years I consider to be a true "Artist" who sadly have never had there voice heard widely enough.

Quote:
They "create", they are "eccentric", they are "unique"
.... and they are a true "Artist" .... in my eyes.

For you it's no big deal, that's fair enough, I can respect your view, I had already said this whole subject is highly subjective, there's no objective position to be had.

For me personally (to to be clear only my perspective) writing a song or playing an instrument does not an "Artist" make.

So I'm answering the OP's original question 'is a musician always an artist?"

And to answer the question I took the question to be the usual meaning of the word, you know, how my wife would understand it. Where my wife would talk about Dylan being one of her favourite "Artist's"

So it seemed obvious to me, I needed to add a capital "A" to the word so as to make it distinct from the consumate musician or prolific composer who is a great exponent of "art" - my uses here are most definately not my definition of slang, I was simply trying to defend the word from becoming simply a prosiac adjective.

Every two year old who picks up a crayon and scribles on paper is an artist just by the act. As is the musician who writes and records his music, they are an artist.

But I don't think that's the use of the word "artist" the OP was getting at, because that label is a given just by action alone.

I'm sure he was refering to the use of the word my wife or friends would use
and by turns the use of the word I would use in reference to someone I considered a true "Artist"

But hey, it's all good by me, and other peoples view of this highly subjective topic is equally as vaild as mine or anyone elses.

I'm just happy to be able to join in a fun debate
Old 16th January 2017
  #334
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post

But I don't think that's the use of the word "artist" the OP was getting at, because that label is a given just by action alone.

I'm sure he was refering to the use of the word my wife or friends would use
and by turns the use of the word I would use in reference to someone I considered a true "Artist"
Right, I think the trouble comes when people try to make the subjective objective.

So and so isn't an artist because they did it for money, so and so is because they wear a beret.

I think that's even what the OP said he meant, just asking for people's subjective opinions....but it gets all out of whack because people try to prove the unprovable.
Old 16th January 2017
  #335
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Right, I think the trouble comes when people try to make the subjective objective.
Sobjective?
Old 16th January 2017
  #336
Gear Addict
I really don't see why, in your worlds, that a parent can't like the painting their child made for them more than the Rembrant on the wall???
Why do you think that your views shape someone elses???
Who's Bob Dylan anyway???
He said, Quantumphysically.
Old 16th January 2017
  #337
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Of course I haven't....

What you are attempting to disprove through your explanation is precisely what the independent observer does with a given piece of 'art'. However, I see little relationship between the impressions of said art, and game rules which your lunatic conveniently chooses to ignore.

I might just as easily apply such non sequitur to refute your first point, but what would be the gain?

Furthermore, I do not think that your interest lies in convincing me that man can be objective.
Old 16th January 2017
  #338
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Right, I think the trouble comes when people try to make the subjective objective.

So and so isn't an artist because they did it for money, so and so is because they wear a beret.

I think that's even what the OP said he meant, just asking for people's subjective opinions....but it gets all out of whack because people try to prove the unprovable.
That's was what I was thinking.

But your comparison reminds me of something else - my cousin stopped by last week. In the course of our conversation, she looked up at my head and asked, "Do you wear those because you are an artist?" I told her, "I wear them because my freaking head is cold - and because I loved Groucho Marx when I was a kid."

Later, I did an online search to find a photo of Groucho wearing a beret, but I could not find a single one. WTF?
Old 16th January 2017
  #339
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Right, I think the trouble comes when people try to make the subjective objective.

So and so isn't an artist because they did it for money, so and so is because they wear a beret.

I think that's even what the OP said he meant, just asking for people's subjective opinions....but it gets all out of whack because people try to prove the unprovable.
If it's subjective, how can they be trying to prove the unprovable provable???
Unless of course they agree with you and yours??
Old 16th January 2017
  #340
One thing is for shure, since the start of this discussion less art was made
Old 16th January 2017
  #341
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post
One thing is for shure, since the start of this discussion less art was made
This whole place is a Black Hole on your time.

But fun to talk to people into the same stuff, especially when like me, your family and friends aren't into the inner workings of recording and music :-)
Old 16th January 2017
  #342
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
I really don't see why, in your worlds, that a parent can't like the painting their child made for them more than the Rembrant on the wall???
They could, I don't see why not, expect maybe the Dutch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Why do you think that your views shape someone elses???
I think most people express their views not necessarily to shape or change other's views, but to sate a need to express their views.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Who's Bob Dylan anyway???
One of Declan MacManus's heroes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
He said, Quantumphysically.
Phantom Quizzically, said the dyslexic malapropist...
Old 16th January 2017
  #343
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
This whole place is a Black Hole on your time.

But fun to talk to people into the same stuff, especially when like me, your family and friends aren't into the inner workings of recording and music :-)

Yes it is, though I must admit it is good fun and this forum has the occasional gem.
It directed me to some very interesting hardware I would never have found if I were not reading the forums, these key pieces really upped my game.


@12tone....

I'm Dutch,... trust me, the average Dutchman does not have a Rembrandt on the wall and we don't wear wooden shoes,... we do like our cheese.

I'm more into Piet Mondriaan myself and a regular visitor of the Dutch museums.

I enjoy your witty comments a lot, and they have cost me the occasional coffee spill trough my nostrils

Note to self; don't drink coffee while reading 12tone's postings
Old 16th January 2017
  #344
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post
Yes it is, though I must admit it is good fun and this forum has the occasional gem.
It directed me to some very interesting hardware I would never have found if I were not reading the forums, these key pieces really upped my game.
Yep, I'd be lost sometimes without this place.

I just bought a Ribbon mic and thought "oh no" I want to use it with my Millennia STT-1 channel strip and it only have 50dB gain (40dB on tube path)

I will now have the huge expense of a new clean style pre-amp.

But just hang on a momment .... check in on Gearslutz and "boom" apparently there's a device called "CloudLifter" that perfectly solves my exact issue and makes my new Ribbon mic work perfectly with my Millennia channel strip.

Up until that momment I'd never even heard of a CLoudLifter.

On the negative side, this place is causing me to spend some of my children's inheritance
Old 16th January 2017
  #345
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
I really don't see why, in your worlds, that a parent can't like the painting their child made for them more than the Rembrant on the wall???
See: I never said the above, nor did I imply the above - AT ALL.

I find it perfectly reasonable for a parent to love what their children do far more than a Monet or a Rembrant or whatever. They might love their ploinking on a guitar with silly singing more than Bob Dylan. I have no problem with that, I think it would be perfectly natural, I think it would be perfectly reasonable.

That still has no bearing on what I said though. I never proposed that "liking" in any way defines "art". That appears to be your own perception of things, and you're transferring that view of yours onto mine, which is an error.
Old 16th January 2017
  #346
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
What you are attempting to disprove through your explanation is precisely what the independent observer does with a given piece of 'art'. However, I see little relationship between the impressions of said art, and game rules which your lunatic conveniently chooses to ignore.

I might just as easily apply such non sequitur to refute your first point, but what would be the gain?

Furthermore, I do not think that your interest lies in convincing me that man can be objective.
It appears I gave you "purpose for further response", yet curiously, you really didn't actually explain just how my argument was wrong. All you did was throw out another vague assertion. And you question my intent?
Old 16th January 2017
  #347
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
God.......

what's the definition of ******* *******?
Your own posts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
You act incredulous when people supposedly put words or ideas in your mouth, yet here you are doing the exact same thing and more....
No, not really. You said:

"it still just comes down to what people like or don't like, or however they want to label people and their work."

And that indeed does sound like to you it won't ever matter what we say here, or how we view things or how we reason to come to conclusions, because the generic "people" "like" what they "like", and that's art. So Justin Bieber is art, Britney Spears is art, Milli Vanilli is art etc. With what seems to be your view that is obviously true, and completely disconnected from quality, I agree with that logic.

I just don't agree with that line of reasoning, in part because there is a not insignificant part of our community of creators that actually do make a distinction such as some of us here have already made.... again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
but okay, Mr. Craftsman/engineer/intellectual/liberal arts expert, carry on with the other experts....I'm sure it will prove real useful and enlightening.
Not to you it won't. You've clearly closed your mind to it.
Old 16th January 2017
  #348
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
See: I never said the above, nor did I imply the above - AT ALL.

I find it perfectly reasonable for a parent to love what their children do far more than a Monet or a Rembrant or whatever. They might love their ploinking on a guitar with silly singing more than Bob Dylan. I have no problem with that, I think it would be perfectly natural, I think it would be perfectly reasonable.

That still has no bearing on what I said though. I never proposed that "liking" in any way defines "art". That appears to be your own perception of things, and you're transferring that view of yours onto mine, which is an error.
No, my perception of art is creativity, which permeates the human ethos to varying degrees. From minor to incredible talent, in such creativity, that we all thoroughly enjoy and feed upon.
Old 16th January 2017
  #349
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
No, my perception of art is creativity, which permeates the human ethos to varying degrees. From minor to incredible talent, in such creativity, that we all thoroughly enjoy and feed upon.
Then why were you talking about parents liking the creation of their children?
Old 16th January 2017
  #350
Lives for gear
 

I don't understand why people have so much trouble accepting the idea of bad art. The only logical position to take is that it's all art, some of it just happens to be very bad. The question is whether something is good art or bad art, not whether or not it's art at all. That doesn't mean that all art is equally valuable and that all artists are equally skilled, but you have to define it by the practice, not by the result. Either way it's an entirely subjective judgement. But assuming that your own personal judgement of an artist's work has the right to give or take the mantle of artist away from the person doing the work is childish and nonsensical.
Old 16th January 2017
  #351
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Then why were you talking about parents liking the creation of their children?
Your unclear, but I assume that you like the art that you choose to feed on?
Old 16th January 2017
  #352
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Your unclear, but I assume that you like the art that you choose to feed on?
Obviously I mostly like most of the art I consume, but I was asking you why you brought up the question of liking art in the first place (?).
Old 16th January 2017
  #353
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
The question is whether something is good art or bad art, not whether or not it's art at all. That doesn't mean that all art is equally valuable and that all artists are equally skilled, but you have to define it by the practice, not by the result.
Well, literally speaking, the question actually really was whether or not some people were artists, not whether or not they or their art was good.

But let me ask then:

- Can you give an example of something man-made that is not art?
- If you can, how do you know it is not art?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
But assuming that your own personal judgement of an artist's work has the right to give or take the mantle of artist away from the person doing the work is childish and nonsensical.
I think that's a bit of a misconception of what people have proposed actually. Either way I'd rather be called a skilled non-artist craftsman than a crappy artist.
Old 16th January 2017
  #354
Lives for gear
The problem at this point in the thread is you have now descended into the parallel world of "Semantica"

Here nothing has meaning other than the meaning you give it - therefore before long you are simply debating with an echo of your own opinion.

I can take a sh*t on a piece of white card and display it in the Tate Modern and it's "art" because it provokes (and stinks too)

If my dog takes a sh*t in the street it's gross and I take out a black bag and clean up after him.

I prefer to believe the OP set a much simpler question, which actually has been well debated here in this thread, and I have drawn my own conclusion from the answers given and my own thoughts.

But I'm enjoying reading this new direction in the thread, there's a certain "dog chasing it's own tail" quality to it :-)
Old 16th January 2017
  #355
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I can take a sh*t on a piece of white card and display it in the Tate Modern and it's "art" because it provokes (and stinks too)
Not really, unless you're like Karen Finley. Otherwise, you'd probably get arrested.

BTW, coprophagia - if a fly (or E-Coli) does it it's mother nature, if Divine does it it's kitsch, if GG Allin does it it's art...go figure.
Old 16th January 2017
  #356
Lives for gear
So we can widen the scope here,

Must "Art" provoke - to be art.

Otherwise is it just "Entertainment"

So does that help define an "artist"

?
Old 16th January 2017
  #357


Dutch art by Wim T Schippers
Old 16th January 2017
  #358
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
I don't understand why people have so much trouble accepting the idea of bad art.
personally I don't have an problem accepting the "idea" of bad art

what I have a problem with is someone else's definition of 'bad art' being shoved down my throat - which is what almost all the people wanting to make a distinction between 'good art' and 'bad art' are trying to do: Have their definitions be accepted by one and all as the "correct" one.



1. is there such a thing as 'good art' and 'bad art'?

to my personal taste there is - I'll know it when I see it

2. am I willing to accept someone else's personal taste as the yardstick? No.

3. Am I willing to accept someone else's childish attempts to justify his taste as a series of "objective" decisions? Sorry, I know the Cubs won the series, and that other thing happened, but Hell hasn't quite frozen over yet.
Old 17th January 2017
  #359
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post


Dutch art by Wim T Schippers
Do you have huge dogs in Holland? :-)
Old 17th January 2017
  #360
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
That's was what I was thinking.

But your comparison reminds me of something else - my cousin stopped by last week. In the course of our conversation, she looked up at my head and asked, "Do you wear those because you are an artist?" I told her, "I wear them because my freaking head is cold - and because I loved Groucho Marx when I was a kid."

Later, I did an online search to find a photo of Groucho wearing a beret, but I could not find a single one. WTF?
So Groucho must be an artist! Or is he? Are these photos art? Only the ******* ******** know for sure!









Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump