Music as Art

[essexbasscat]

Hi all

What are everyone's thoughts around music as art ? what philosphies does music share with painting and sculpting etc ?

Of course, the easy ones are that painting and sculpting are visible and of direct physical substance, while music is appreciated through a different sensory medium and transient. Of course, transient art such as music and dance can be captured to become permanent, but require and intermediate source.

Do similar thoughts (if any) occur to the musician and the painter / sculpter ? Creating music and painting must surely share some core processess and philosophies ?

I do recall Jakesbass writing a few very interesting paragraphs on this topic about six months ago, but I've forgotten which thread it was on and a search has turned up nil.

Are there any books out there that discuss this topic ? I've wondered about it for years to be honest and decided I'd better get around to looking into it while I can still read !

Thanks for reading all

Edited January 11, 2011 by essexbasscat

[noelk27]

Depends how you define "Art". If you use the "provokes an emotional response" yardstick, then sure. But a dentists also provokes an emotional response when pulling a tooth. Personally, don't doubt that creating music is artistic, or that making music involves artistry, but to my mind it's not per se art.

Edited January 11, 2011 by noelk27

[Bassassin]

I'd define art as an act of creative expression that exists for no reason other than as expression of creativity. By that measure some music's art, some isn't, in the same sense that some (for example) pretty pictures - or ugly ones - are art & some ain't.

I consider the ugly music I create to be art.

Jon.

[paul h]

I agree with Bilbo.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='3' date='May 4th 1957, 10:41 PM']Music is not art. It's sex. It's passion. It's violence. It's fun. It's disposable. But it's not art. But then, what is? Art? Is art art? The answer is no.[/quote]

[essexbasscat]

Could Holst's Planets be described as musical art ? could Debussy's Claire De Lune be described as musical art ? would the same apply to Sgt. Pepper's at the time of it's release ? or Purple Haze ?

How about Talking Heads ? Jean Michel Jarre ? Frank Zappa ?

How about Take Five and more of Brubecks's work Bilbo ? the ad - lib bits too ?

Is creative dancing art ?

But not limiting the discussion to defining what Art is, what about creativity ? creating a new piece of music or a new painting ? common aspects of the creative process ?

Edited January 11, 2011 by essexbasscat

[LukeFRC]

the problem I think you would have goes back a few hundred years.

Then you would have the rich peoples music, the culture of the time and art
and the poor peoples music, common and vulgar

in the same way culture was the "fine art" and kitsch was the common non-art.

Thing is at some point in the twentieth century the whole thing became scrambled and the division between avent-garde and kitsch doesn't exist anymore. see pop art, britart for example.
but even pop art and the britart and so on understood what they were doing within the art world. they were using their brains to challenge culture with challenging stuff. A soup can can be art, but the artist has a certain understanding to make that statement. It is still deliberate.

Music went another way. Classical music went 'avant guard' much like visual art and ditched all the perceived rules, much like visual art did.
A lot of what we listen too now comes down from 'pop' which derives from the earlier 'low brow' music. Now not all of it is, but a fair bit still has a lot in common with that.
so is music art. no, but it can be. If it is thought through, and deliberate.

one of the things we found in my last band was the amount of bands who made music for no real reason that sounded derivative becuase thats what they wanted to be. Question what you do, understand the reasons and the you are making something more like 'art' and more interesting to listen too.

[paul_5]

I think to get an accurate response you'd first have t define the term 'art'. The idea of simply 'provoking an emotional response' isn't enough (as we have already seen), so should that definition be stretched a little to include whether or not it 'says something about the human condition', or challenges its consumer to reevaluate their sense of place in the world or personal value system? Are there links between art and something which is considered culturally worthwhile?. Hmm, I'm really tired so I'm going to bed shortly. Just a little food for thought.

[TimR]

Art cannot be defined.

[essexbasscat]

[quote name='LukeFRC' post='1086238' date='Jan 11 2011, 11:23 PM']the problem I think you would have goes back a few hundred years.

Then you would have the rich peoples music, the culture of the time and art
and the poor peoples music, common and vulgar

in the same way culture was the "fine art" and kitsch was the common non-art.

Thing is at some point in the twentieth century the whole thing became scrambled and the division between avent-garde and kitsch doesn't exist anymore. see pop art, britart for example.
but even pop art and the britart and so on understood what they were doing within the art world. they were using their brains to challenge culture with challenging stuff. A soup can can be art, but the artist has a certain understanding to make that statement. It is still deliberate.

Music went another way. Classical music went 'avant guard' much like visual art and ditched all the perceived rules, much like visual art did.
A lot of what we listen too now comes down from 'pop' which derives from the earlier 'low brow' music. Now not all of it is, but a fair bit still has a lot in common with that.
so is music art. no, but it can be. If it is thought through, and deliberate.

one of the things we found in my last band was the amount of bands who made music for no real reason that sounded derivative becuase thats what they wanted to be. Question what you do, understand the reasons and the you are making something more like 'art' and more interesting to listen too.[/quote]



Hmm, interesting post Luke, a historic / social example.

I'm sure most people would agree culture of all descriptions through the ages has influenced art. How many painters and composers produced work for the wealthier clients ? it paid the bills and gained influence at court in ages gone by - Bernini comes to mind. I havn't researched it, but from what I've seen so far, Van Gough was skint most of his life.

Would the commoners music not be described as art ? could the songs of the music halls of the Victorian era not be described as art ? (being wary of the generalisations here too, there must have been some works that could be readily described as art, even if much of it wouldn't warrant it).

Coming a little more up to date, how about the dance set to the music of the films in the 1930's and 1940's - Irving Berlin etc. Some of those scenes and sets were very highly imaginative.

As with many historical things, any given time periods can be described from many different perspectives, depends who's telling the story.

However, I do agree with you there does appear to be a sense of purpose behind the creation of art, a desire to express something. Does it have to be thought through ? does the blues guitarist ponder every note ? But there again, is that art ?

Hmmmmm

[TimR]

If you create something that serves no purpose other than to please someone else. Then you have created art.

[essexbasscat]

Thought;

If art is born of invention, creation, of an exploratory spirit, it would appear to belong in the philosophical realm of increasing, expanding possibilities.

Therefore, to seek to define art is to attempt to place limits on something that defies limitation. So I agree, art can't be defined in it's entirity.

Art can definately be described however.

Hang on - does art have to be original to be art ?

Edited January 12, 2011 by essexbasscat

[Bassassin]

Why should art need to please anyone other than the artist?

J.

[Bassassin]

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086278' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:09 AM']Thought;

If art is born of invention, creation, of an exploratory spirit, it would appear to belong in the philosophical realm of increasing, expanding possibilities.

Therefore, to seek to define art is to attempt to place limits on something that defies limitation. Art can definately be described however.

Hang on - does art have to be original to be art ?[/quote]

Your first sentence could be taken as a pretty fair definition of art.

Originality - depends how you define it, but I'd say it's a necessary quality. That said, there's no art - in any medium - which is free of influences.

J.

[essexbasscat]

There must be a book on this topic out there somewhere ......

[steve-soar]

Art is expression, then, we all become critics.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='noelk27' post='1086167' date='Jan 11 2011, 11:16 PM']Depends how you define "Art". If you use the "provokes an emotional response" yardstick, then sure. But a dentists also provokes an emotional response when pulling a tooth. Personally, don't doubt that creating music is artistic, or that making music involves artistry, but to my mind it's not per se art.[/quote]
I could go on at length about what art is, drawing on university lectures in Art Theory. However I can't be arsed, its not that important. Its all subjective and you can each make your own minds up about what art is. For me, music shares many aspects with visual art, but its a relatively constrained, linear experience. You can't choose which bits to listen to without affecting the quality of the experience...of course, having said that its perfectly possible for someone to create a musical experience which allowed you to choose how to listen...just like you choose which parts of a visual piece of art to look at in more detail...

[essexbasscat]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='1086299' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:34 AM']I could go on at length about what art is, drawing on university lectures in Art Theory. However I can't be arsed, its not that important. Its all subjective and you can each make your own minds up about what art is. For me, music shares many aspects with visual art, but its a relatively constrained, linear experience. You can't choose which bits to listen to without affecting the quality of the experience...of course, having said that its perfectly possible for someone to create a musical experience which allowed you to choose how to listen...just like you choose which parts of a visual piece of art to look at in more detail...[/quote]

Could you possibly shed any light on similarities of the creative processes of painting, sculpting, music etc ? Could we discuss the creative process in general ?

Or possibly recommend any resources for further exploration ?

thanks

T

[Kiwi]

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086285' date='Jan 12 2011, 01:17 AM']There must be a book on this topic out there somewhere ......[/quote]
On Art Theory? Thousands, literally. Almost every well known philosopher had views on what art is including Plato, Socrates, Tolstoy, Bell, Hume, Stuart-Mill, yada yada.

All I know is...discussions about what art is and discussions about what GOOD art is, should be kept separate.

Art is just an experience created by someone for appreciation at a later point in time. An unmade bed can be a piece of art, as can a pickled shark.

What is good art, is where it REALLY gets subjective.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086285' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:17 AM']There must be a book on this topic out there somewhere ......[/quote]
There are many many books on 'what is art?' and 'what is the value of art?'. Based on the the quality of his other introductory books [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Question-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415174902/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_10"]Nigel Warburton [i]The Art Question[/i][/url] is likely to be a good starting point as is Cynthia Freeland [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Theory-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804634/ref=pd_sim_b_1"][i]Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction[/i][/url].

Anyway, here’s six standard theories of what art is, put very very briefly:

1: [u]The Imitative Theory[/u]: art is copying, imitating or representing - [i]mimesis[/i] is the technical term - and this includes symbolic representation. [Plato & Aristotle]

2: [u]The Significant Form Theory[/u]: genuine art produces an aesthetic response (an emotion) in the relevantly sensitised spectator, listener or reader; artworks can do this because they possess 'significant form' (whatever that is, but, it is claimed, the relatively sensitised spectator etc., can respond to 'significant form'). [Clive Bell]

3: [u]The Idealist Theory[/u]: art is an idea in the mind of the artist, and is not the artefact (or fabrication) produced as a response to the idea. [R.G. Collingwood]

4: [u]The Institutional Theory[/u]: art arises in a social context and is always located within relevant social practices which we can call the artworld such that x is art if and only if x is an artefact and if and only if someone, acting on behalf of an institution (i.e. the artworld), gives that artefact the status of being an object for artistic appreciation. In other words, art is such when someone with the social power and authority to call it art does so (e.g. an art dealer such Charles Saatchi). [Arthur Danto, George Dickie].

5: [u]The Historical Theory[/u]: for something to be art, the intention of the maker (i.e. the artist) is the crucial factor. [I don't know, without looking it up, who developed this theory]

6: [u]The Family Resemblance Theory[/u]: what qualifies a thing as art it is that the thing resembles already known art-works in relevant ways. [Ludwig Wittgenstein]

Aesthetics is not really my field but I believe those are roughly correct although heavily simplified representations of some standard positions on what constitutes art. Of course, they are all problematic and they don't deal with why or how we might value art. There is a Basschatter who teaches philosophy of art but I cannot recall his name. Perhaps he'll be popping along later.

Edited January 12, 2011 by EssentialTension

[risingson]

Art to me has to be an extension of a person as an individual, an artificial creation that appeals to the senses of that person or another, so yes in the simplest terms I think music is art as it fits this incredibly basic criteria.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086302' date='Jan 12 2011, 01:39 AM']Could you possibly shed any light on similarities of the creative processes of painting, sculpting, music etc ? Could we discuss the creative process in general ?

Or possibly recommend any resources for further exploration ?[/quote]
Sure but I have to finish my lunchbreak and get back to work right now, I'll put something together this evening (while you're still waking up).

[Kiwi]

Ah, I see Essentialtension has already started the ball rolling. I always thought the institutional theory was most interesting...by Danto, I believe.

John Stuart Mill's theory was called Utilitarianism.

[url="http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm"]http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm[/url]

[Bassassin]

I'll go with 2, 3 & 5 from ET's list - but the other 3 really are b0ll0cks, aren't they?

I've often thought the only person qualified to decide what is & isn't art is the artist. But who decides who's an artist?

J.

[essexbasscat]

Getting the sense of a very large iceberg here.....

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='essexbasscat' post='1086316' date='Jan 12 2011, 12:56 AM']Getting the sense of a very large iceberg here.....[/quote]
That often happens when you dive below the surface.