Avant-Garde music is a joke

Because you're stupid

>>69540848
these are not avant-garde albums though...

(YOU)

>>69540863
>if it's wacky nonsense, then it's advanced

>>69540848
I can't tell if this is a bait, or you're actually just retarded.

File: delet this.jpg (2KB, 90x90px)

2KB, 90x90px

>>69540848
>STGSTV
>nonsense

>>69540865
>>69540866
>>69540882
>/mu/: You're dumb because i said so

No wonder we get a bad rep.

>>69540848
TMR = blues rock influenced by avant-garde music
Faust = prog rock influenced by avant-garde music
Machine Gun = free jazz
Bish Bosch = pop influenced by avant-garde music
Meet the Residents = satirical pop

so... you have no avant-garde albums on there.

i doubt you know what "experimental music" is, by the way.

>>69540943
*forgot STGSTV = pop

>>69540943
What's a "True Avant Garde" album then?

>>69540848
These albums aren't Avant-garde nor experimental. They are dada albums, these albums still take root in musical cliches and are somewhat accessible to fans of their respective genres.

Dada is simply anti-art
Experimental is the opposition to art
Avant-garde is the exploration of new ideas and pushing new ground in art

While I can neither confirm nor deny which Bish Bosch and the Animal Collective releases fall into of these three broad labels.

Faust, Meet the Residents and Trout Mask Replica are simply Dada albums. They are albums, that still withhold core aspects of their respective genres.

While Machine gun is just free jazz.
It barely falls into either of three labels. It has a many characteristics of free jazz as any other release in the genre, it's just seen as somewhat less accessible then other releases.

>>69540848
leave STGSTV out this faggot it's literally just pop with noise elements

>>69540848
You're an idiot. If you're not intelligent enough to understand something then that's your fault. Also you don't seem to know what 'avant-garde' means.

>>69540904

My rule of thumb is that if you don't get an album or genre, and people just call you stupid without explaining it, then there really is nothing to explain because there's nothing to get in the first place. The emperor has no clothes.

>ITT: People pretend to know what true avant garde it

Mind explaining why those albums aren't "avant garde" when Critics and people seem to have the opinion that they are?

File: transformer-web.jpg (104KB, 566x752px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 566x752px

tfw this is happening

File: poser core.jpg (3MB, 1713x2223px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1713x2223px

>>69540863
The amount of overlap here should tell you something

>>69540966
Cornelius Cardew - The Great Learning
honestly (it's very good)

>>69540998
>Dada is simply anti-art
No, Dada was a movement within art that recaptured 'art' from the petit bourgeois who were using it as a label for decor. In fact the rest of your post indicates that you are doing the same thing that Dada was a reaction against.
Art can be made through music, but not all music is 'art'. Art is made for a specific purpose, most music is watered down for profit and entertainment which is contrary to any pursuit of art-making.

Also, Dada ended a long time before any of those albums were recorded.

>>69540966
When a new concept in music is invented.

Examples of avant-garde artists in music:

Pierre Schaeffer
Conlon Nancarrow
Dennis Johnson
Arnold Schoenberg
John Cage
Keith Rowe
Robert Ashley

>>69541077
thanks but mine is better

>>69540848
The only avant-garde album in your pic is the Brotzmann one.

The rest are mallgoth garbage,

>>69540848
please outline the differences between "avant-garde" and "experimental", i want to see you try

>>69541077
no shit this one is practically based on the other, that's just how incestuous and small the rym/mu "scene" is

>>69540863
>advanced
Lots of these are present in standard /mu/ essentials chart, for example TMR, Machine Gun, Exuma, Alice Coltrane and Ornette Coleman.

>>69541166
Experimental is music created when the outcome is not specifically known.
Avante Garde would be the advanced guard of music, often breaking boundaries.

>>69541122
>mallgoth
Those aren't gothic albums

>>69541072
Wow, four shit bands and Loop are playing

>>69541447
>music created when the outcome is not specifically known
so only indeterminacy and someone who's touching an instrument for the first time in their life are experimental or what?

>>69542393
Why wouldn't it?

>>69541447
>advanced guard
As opposed to basic guard?

>>69541087
>not all music is art
I beg to differ. Though just because something is "art" doesn't necessarily mean it's of high quality or worth.

>>69542444
Sure, why not.

>>69540863
>all of this pleb-core

>>69542479
On what grounds are you arguing? You haven't actually made an argument. Do you know anything about art or what constitutes it? I was pretty clear in my post so unless you can actually argue against something I wrote from the perspective of someone who works in art and is well connected to people who work in music then I'd hope you'd refrain from shitposting random statements any further.

>>69540863
>exuma
>unwound

>>69542571
Not him but all music is a creative endeavor by nature, and thus it's art.

>>69540848
I don't understand it therefor it's garbage
Bisch bosch was fuckin great desu anything that Scott Walker does really.

>>69542634
>all music is a creative endeavor by nature, and thus it's art
That's not what Art has ever referred to outside of homogenised/condensed dictionary definitions written by outsiders.

An artwork is something made/carried out deliberately for an audience for a reason.
No approach or medium or undertaking or any other possible broad endeavour can carry with it the auto-classification of 'art', otherwise every single action a human being goes through in a given day - such as brushing your teeth, vomiting, taking a shit, masterbating, etc - is also 'art'. And obviously that's nonsense. Saying something like 'music is art' is exactly the same as saying 'jogging is art' and both are the same as saying 'art means nothing'. It's reductive nonsense and a clear indication that you have absolutely no idea what art is.

>>69542751
>An artwork is something made/carried out deliberately for an audience for a reason.
What music doesn't fall into this definition?

>>69542751
Oh is this just "le modern art is trash!" rhetoric?

>>69541077
the other chart is years older though newfag

>>69542789
I explained that initially.
A work of art is created to convey something, most music is written for recording as entertainment for profit and undercuts its own intentions for the sake of sticking to genres and markets and so forth.

>>69542809
>modern
what are you talking about? Art can be made with anything but not everything made is art.

If you don't actually have an active understanding of Art then why ever pretend to? That's my biggest pet peeve about this board (after the Grimes fags); people use the word art like it's a platform of quality they can slide under their preferences while not knowing a single thing about Art at all. I doubt anyone in this thread even knows who Anish Kapoor is and he's the most famous living artist.

>>69542895
>most music is written for recording as entertainment for profit
That is making music deliberately and for an audience
>A work of art is created to convey something
Commercial music can also convey something.
>>69542895
>if you don't agree with me, you just don't understand it
Yikes

File: received_1210882318957875.jpg (9KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 326x326px

>>69540848
And everyone fell for it. Can anyone actually recommend some good music?

>>69542995
>That is making music deliberately and for an audience
>Commercial music can also convey something.
You are misunderstanding my explanation and apparently on purpose. The music being made and the reason it is being made are inhibited by an additional requirement of being marketable and adhering to genre tropes and all sorts of other variables. An artwork cannot have superfluous nonsense like that distracting from its intended reading.
It's common sense.

>>if you don't agree with me, you just don't understand it
>I'll project over your explanations and try to argue while never making a point because I want to claim I'm artistically inclined despite knowing nothing about art
If you want to understand art then go actively learn about it and stop being a retard.

>>69541077
>>69540863
>browses RYM once

>>69543061
>You are misunderstanding my explanation and apparently on purpose. The music being made and the reason it is being made are inhibited by an additional requirement of being marketable and adhering to genre tropes and all sorts of other variables. An artwork cannot have superfluous nonsense like that distracting from its intended reading.
Yet the classical artists had to bend to the wishes of their peers and also patrons. Even Anish Kapoor had to bend to the wishes of operationability.

Art can coexist with commercialism, especially if commercialism is intended by the artist.
>I'll project over your explanations and try to argue while never making a point because I want to claim I'm artistically inclined despite knowing nothing about art
If you want to understand art then go actively learn about it and stop being a retard.

>>69543108
>the classical artists
You do understand that they weren't 'artists' and the term didn't exist back then right? They're talked about as the foundations of art - if any of their works was presented today it would be laughed at.

>Art can coexist with commercialism, especially if commercialism is intended by the artist.
What are you talking about?
There are works made based on commercialism, there are works made that are also sold. There are no works made that compromise themselves to adhere to random unrelated industry standards for radio play.

Why are you pretending to understand this subject? Why did you start arguing about something you know nothing about? I find it amusing, personally, but I get the strangest feeling that you're actually an idiot who actually thinks a complete lack of knowledge on a subject makes you an expert.

>>69543185
>You do understand that they weren't 'artists' and the term didn't exist back then right?
The earliest surviving writing on art that can be classified as art history are the passages in Pliny the Elder's Natural History (c. AD 77-79), concerning the development of Greek sculpture and painting.[5] From them it is possible to trace the ideas of Xenokrates of Sicyon (c. 280 BC), a Greek sculptor who was perhaps the first art historian.[6] Pliny's work, while mainly an encyclopaedia of the sciences, has thus been influential from the Renaissance onwards. (Passages about techniques used by the painter Apelles c. (332-329 BC), have been especially well-known.) Similar, though independent, developments occurred in the 6th century China, where a canon of worthy artists was established by writers in the scholar-official class. These writers, being necessarily proficient in calligraphy, were artists themselves. The artists are described in the Six Principles of Painting formulated by Xie He.[7]

>There are works made based on commercialism, there are works made that are also sold. There are no works made that compromise themselves to adhere to random unrelated industry standards for radio play.
What if it isn't a compromise, and the artist wants to do that? Then it's art

Why are you pretending to understand this subject? Why did you start arguing about something you know nothing about? I find it amusing, personally, but I get the strangest feeling that you're actually an idiot who actually thinks a complete lack of knowledge on a subject makes you an expert.

>I don't get so everyone must just be pretending to like it
Oh boy this thread again

>animal collective
>avant-garde

top kek

>>69543239
>If I google something and paste a paragraph it's an argument
>something written about craftsmen and artisans is the same as the birth of the term Art because of some random paragraph written by a historian.

>What if it isn't a compromise, and the artist wants to do that? Then it's art
Something can only be art based on what it is, rhetorical questions aren't an example.

I literally work in art, I know this stuff - it;s my job. Stop bothering me with your incessant shitposts based on half-information you gathered from the mish-mash of lectures you got studying humanities before dropping out to lurk on 4chan and sperg out over the foundations of your fragile personality being questioned by a factual observation.

>>69543325
>>If I google something and paste a paragraph it's an argument
Oh you didn't read it? Try it.
>Something can only be art based on what it is
There are a lot of examples of this. You are dodging the question. Now answer it.

I literally work in art, I know this stuff - it;s my job. Stop bothering me with your incessant shitposts based on half-information you gathered from the mish-mash of lectures you got studying humanities before dropping out to lurk on 4chan and sperg out over the foundations of your fragile personality being questioned by a factual observation.

>>69540863
I love The Red Krayola but they just made whacky but fairly conventional psychedelic garage rock for half that album and told people to make random noises the other half, not exactly an avant-garde masterpiece

>>69540951
There's not a single song on STGSTV that you can consider pop music without looking like a retard. The fact that you literally just called an album with harsh noise in multiple songs a pop album shows how disconnected from reality you are.

>>69543396
>Oh you didn't read it? Try it.
>Oh, I did just get this off of a wiki and paste it in but I have no way of trying to defend my doing that so I'll write some gibberish

>You are dodging the question. Now answer it.
You didn't ask a question or give an example. There are now broad strokes that auto-qualify additional endevours as works of art.
Something is art based on what it is. It is case by case. If you read my posts you wouldn't need that re-explained to you, if you knew anything about art you wouldn't even be writing nonsense like that.

The whole "I'm so grown-up, I'll mimic the other guys posts to look smart" thing is pretty sad, too. If you do it again I'm writing you off as someone who tried to argue, lost and decided to go down the "I'm only pretending to be retarded" thing to save face despite being anonymous behind a computer screen. Fucking pathetic, lad.

Are you actually going to make a point ever or are you functionally retarded?

>>69540943
>I soubt you know what "experimental music" is, by the way.

I KNOW you don't know what experimental music is considering you just listed those as non experimental to be a pretentious faggot trying to be superior.
Sorry honey, just because it was a big album doesn't mean it's not experimental or avant garde. Now fuck off to your kitchen.

>>69541077
>wl/wh
>this heat
>faust
>fishmans
>ornette coleman
>cardiacs
>FUCKING JOHN COLTRANE

>>69540848
Only ones on that little chart that can be considered wacky are TMR and maybe Meet The Residents though. Not to mention that outside maybe Bish Bosch, the rest are fantastic works.

>>69543498
>Oh, I did just get this off of a wiki and paste it in
Non sequitur.
>You didn't ask a question
See "What if it isn't a compromise, and the artist wants to do that?"
Do you not know what a question is?
>If you do it again I'm writing you off as someone who tried to argue, lost and decided to go down the "I'm only pretending to be retarded" thing to save face despite being anonymous behind a computer screen. Fucking pathetic, lad.
You're going to do it anyways, no matter what i say. You don't address any of the holes in your logic, nor do you give any citations to your wild claims.

>>69543577
>I can paste as many random wiki paragraphs as I want without context and never explain myself when they are argued against!
>I'll ignore all your points and explanations unless you write "good job, very correct" because I can't engage in a discussion and only accept circlejerking over my hot opinions as proper discourse

>You're going to do it anyways, no matter what i say. You don't address any of the holes in your logic, nor do you give any citations to your wild claims.
You literally haven't made a single point and just made half-statements about nothing. I'll give you a last chance to actually make an actual point before I finish laughing at you.

>>69543677
>>I'll ignore all your points
I addressed them

Why are you ignoring mine?
>You literally haven't made a single point
See >>69542634

All your retorts are just
>it's not because I say so!
Feel free to provide an citations for your assertions. Your (false) claim that you work in the arts is laughable and not enough

File: 1480916771097.jpg (46KB, 438x509px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 438x509px

>>69541077
>>69541166
>>69543082
Why are ya'll so desperate to hate weird music and the people who like it? Like, to what end?

>>69540863
>literally just retitling the poseurcore chart
>false flagging this hard

>>69543744
You've not addressed anything. I addressed your "all things made is an art XD" post and explained why that's bullshit and you have not presented a proper counter-argument but instead pasted a random paragraph out of context from a wiki and made some half-statements about nothing.

>All your retorts are just
>>it's not because I say so!
Except I explained myself and discredited your complete lack of an argument and your only response was a series of ironic shitposts refusing to defend your lack of a point because you don't know how to.

>Your (false) claim that you work in the arts is laughable and not enough
>the arts
No, I work in Art. Not 's'. And supplying evidence would, in effect, eliminate my anonymity so I'm obviously not doing that.
If you want proof of my actual point then go read up on Art because what I wrote is a factual and obvious to anyone who knows anything about it.
Unfortunately I don't keep citations for commonly known things at hand, since I expect a certain level of intelligence from people, but I'm often surprised by the likes of you proving that 'the information superhighway' is not a fit nickname for the internet.

>>69543955
>If you want proof of my actual point then go read up on Art
>but don't tell me about it because I'll just call it random half-statements about nothing.
lol

>>69543955
what exactly keeps music from being art?

>>69544013
>posting out of context paragraphs about Greek scholars and rhetorical half-questions is an educated an knowledgeable example of art
(you) are a pretty remarkable find, the fact you can almost properly form sentences without a proper functioning mind is incredible! Does 4chan have an anonymous AI like Netjester from 420chan now?

>>69544072
I already answered that. The thread is for reading - if you want a private tutor you can pay me.

>>69544099
You are an idiot.

I won't be talking to you anymore.

Goodbye

File: ZlPpDck.jpg (218KB, 1920x1080px)

218KB, 1920x1080px

>>69543955
>>69544099
itt: brainlet, pseud, dunning-kruger poster child

t. enlightened individual

>>69544154
>I'll finish with another ignorantly ironic shitpost
At least you're consistent

File: Whoa Nigga!.jpg (78KB, 643x820px)

78KB, 643x820px

>>69544099
>I already answered that. The thread is for reading - if you want a private tutor you can pay me.

File: 1456229526302.jpg (25KB, 416x304px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 416x304px

>>69544154
>>69544196
i love it when other people make fun of the people i want to make fun of

>if it's 3 minutes long and has a chorus, it can't be art!
Embarrassing

>>69544182
>>69544236
>Some guy posts a comprehensive reply to a pseudo-intellectual retard
>Shitposter replies
>Guy gives a comprehensive answer
>Shitposter posts a load of half added nonsense arguments
>Reaction image faggots side with the retard
Always high quality discussion here on 4chan

>>69544334
>if I don't agree with it, it's half added nonsense arguments
That's why we just post an image. There's no use arguing against people who don't defend their stance logically

File: s4wA4Pi-compressor.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>69544334
>>69544385
i honestly don't know who's who, but i think the greek paragraph guy is the winner

:^)

>>69540848
>stgstv
>whacky nonsense

No-taste pleb detected

File: Untitled.png (13KB, 501x313px)

13KB, 501x313px

>>69544334
:^)

>>69544385
>Not realising that was a typo
>Being this fucking ignorant
There was nothing to agree with. One guy explained something and the other one made a statement and backed it up with a paragraph that is completely unrelated and out of context entirely and then refused to acknowledge anything afterwards.

I'm going to assume you're all that same guy samefagging because I'm not comfortable browsing a board with so many retards on it.

>>69544491
>One guy explained something and the other one made a statement and backed it up with a paragraph that is completely unrelated
The paragraph was about the history of art criticism, in response to the other guy's comment that "art" is a recent development.

Read the thread before posting.

File: leffen.jpg (12KB, 192x192px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 192x192px

>>69544491
if everyone is retarded but you, chances are...

>>69544444
checked

>>69544523
Guy who wasn't shitposting here.
That paragraph is from a wikipedia article (so already and obviously not a valid source) about 'art history'. Art history includes things that predate 'art' as an idea. The word art isn't Greek, they were writing about something which was later enveloped into the idea of art as part of its foundation and so that entire paragraph was already written off with the bullshit about 'classical masters'.
Common sense goes a long way.

>>69544523
>One guy pasted something from Wikipedia bso he's right
(You)

>>69544569
... that I'm on 4chan

>>69544614
>(so already and obviously not a valid source)
Why not? That quote had three different citations itself, all valid sources.

File: Untitled.png (23KB, 538x367px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 538x367px

>>69544649
:^)

>>69544614
>Guy who wasn't shitposting here.
Taunting people that you know more about art than them, without really saying anything meaningful, isn't shitposting?

>>69543061
Hampus?

>>69544692
Yeah it has citations because some of what is written is factual, but the bulk of the paragraph is a paraphrased mess. And you're ignoring the actual explanation in my post - that the idea of Art had not yet existed and the inclusion of any of that as part of a history of art is in the role of a foundation after-the-fact.

That entire copy/paste job was also accompanied with absolutely no follow-up argument, it was literally a random paragraph pasted in lieu of an argument because the guy had no idea what he was saying.

>>69544758
>Taunting people that you know more about art than them
Yeah, because when someone argues at you incessantly and with a blatant lack of knowledge on the subject you should commend them and not call them out, of course.
I made my 'meaningful' post and that guy shitposted at me.

>>69544444
Those digits don't lie.

>>69544707
At least you're a fun poster and not a retard like the rest.

>>69544794
I googled Hampus and got an Ice Hockey player. I'm not him, no.

>>69544800
>the idea of Art had not yet existed
[citation needed]

>>69544861
>The English language and a practice of art that begin after the Renaissance (once literacy levels increased and creatives no longer lived off of a Church wage and needed to work on behalf of themselves) were going on in Ancient Greece
I don't see any need for a citation

>>69544905
You made a claim that classical artists didn't see it as art.

You'll need a citation for that.

>>69544923
>Meaning "skill in creative arts" is first recorded 1610s; especially of painting, sculpture, etc., from 1660s.
source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=art
The Renaissance had ended by then, pretty sure.
Just a quick google, since you're too lazy. And that's only the beginnings of the idea of art, not Art as it is today. We're miles digressed now.

>>69545004
That just means that specific term "art" came into use at that time. The concept of it surely existed before hand. Haven't you read the Iliad?

>>69545143
I haven't. Again, I'm not born of the humanities, I work in Art (and only read, watch and listen to things that are relevant to my practice at a given time). The Greeks may have had something along the same lines and it surely coloured the foundation of the idea of 'art', but 'art' is entirely European, hence it being the same across all the languages where it is the dominant creative philosophy, and I assume is largely influenced by Descartes, more so than the Greeks. I haven't read Descartes so I'm not sure, but he had a lot to do with the idea of the object (iirc) and that is central to the idea of an artwork so I'm confident enough to state that.

Like in Japan and China what is often translated as 'art' is from an entirely different philosophy again and is a different thing. That's also why so many people throw around the word so horribly here - because they watch fan translated animes and develop a misunderstanding of the word 'art' from culturally mismatched terminology.

We've strayed pretty far off topic from 'Avant-Garde Music', so I'll pull it back in. Some of it could be argued to be art, a lot of it shouldn't be. I'd be receptive to Trout Mask Replica getting the nod, which it probably already has, but more from bias than anything else.

>>69545309
>I'd be receptive to Trout Mask Replica getting the nod,
But you said if it was made to be sold, it can't be art.
>I work in Art
What do you do?

>>69545360
>But you said if it was made to be sold, it can't be art.
I didn't say so much, I said recorded music is typically watered down for the marketplace and entertainment and superfluous elements like that prevent them from being a deliberate work of art. it doesn't mean every single record is guilty of that. I like to use Julia Holter's 'Loud City Song' as my easy example of an album that could easily be classed as an artwork - it has a concept and portrays it wholly and effectively. TMR would be largely biased, I haven't listened to it recently enough to have a good argument for or against though.

>What do you do?
What do you mean? I... Have ideas and then I try to present them as best I can in whatever way/with whatever media I figure makes the most sense. There's a lot of unachievable ambitiousness in there as well. I can't risk the anonymity though so that's as good an answer as you're getting.

>>69545475
>I didn't say so much, I said recorded music is typically watered down for the marketplace and entertainment and superfluous elements like that prevent them from being a deliberate work of art. it doesn't mean every single record is guilty of that.
So you are saying intent of the artist (being restrained by commercial reservations) is the determining factor of if it's art or not?
>What do you mean? I... Have ideas and then I try to present them as best I can in whatever way/with whatever media I figure makes the most sense. There's a lot of unachievable ambitiousness in there as well
So... you are an artist?
>I can't risk the anonymity though
I didn't ask your name, did I.

>>69545567
>So you are saying intent of the artist (being restrained by commercial reservations) is the determining factor of if it's art or not?
It's simply a matter of whether or not a created thing specifically is made to get something across to the viewer/(in this case listener) - like just get something exact across (something that could not be better communicated in any other possible way). A work of art says something that could not be said otherwise, generally speaking. That's the approach, anyway. Often you'll make something and a month later find a weird Asian film from the 70s that got your idea across better.

John Cage is accredited as an artist, I'm pretty sure. If you want a precedent in music. There are a few guys. Generally speaking the pursuit is more so in entertaining and so it is released as an album. Same way George Lucas isn't an 'artist', he's a director.

>So... you are an artist?
I don't like that word and only an arsehole would use it on themselves. I find that the only people who call themselves artists are guilty of having never made a work of art. Personal experience wise it's been true at least. I find it akin to 'racist' or 'sexist'; that it describes someone who discriminates and acts dangerously towards the well being of art. I meant to do a funny project on that and feminists as well, I might try that out in 2017.

>I didn't ask your name, did I.
It's almost the same thing, I'm pretty distinctive.

I've started falling asleep so I'm not sure how much sense I made there

>>69541080
>>69541099

You think you are going to convince an obvious moron by posting legitimate great suggestions?

So naive....

>>69544099

The weird thing is you're correct, but you make your arguments so poorly that it's literally impossible anyone could get what you are saying without already being familiar. You are relying on your own sense of rightness and confusing it for having made a compelling point and expecting everyone else to just believe you based on unverifiable claims about your credentials.

Again, I know what you are saying and you are actually correct, but you are quite literally fagging out so hardcore that you come across like a drooling idiot.

>>69545942
>It's simply a matter of whether or not a created thing specifically is made to get something across to the viewer/(in this case listener) - like just get something exact across (something that could not be better communicated in any other possible way). A work of art says something that could not be said otherwise, generally speaking. That's the approach, anyway. Often you'll make something and a month later find a weird Asian film from the 70s that got your idea across better.
OK but can you do that while ALSO working in the paradigm of a pop music structure? For example, Olivia Tremor Control's "A Peculiar Sound Called Train Director"
>>69545942
>I don't like that word and only an arsehole would use it on themselves. I find that the only people who call themselves artists are guilty of having never made a work of art. Personal experience wise it's been true at least. I find it akin to 'racist' or 'sexist'; that it describes someone who discriminates and acts dangerously towards the well being of art. I meant to do a funny project on that and feminists as well, I might try that out in 2017.
Do you work in audio, visual, sculpture or film?

TMR is ass
Faust grew on me in 3 listens
Never listened to Machine Gun
Bish Bosch s shit
STGSTV never grew on me past the first track
Didn't listen to MTR more than once.

>>69546369
>The weird thing is you're correct
No he is literally wrong.

The definition of art is
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Hence any music is art since it is a creative arrangement of frequencies meant to be appreciated. Just because he doesn't like Taylor Swift or whatever doesn't mean it's not art.

>>69546369
Hey, hold on! I made my first point pretty comprehensively and was argued against. If that someone had any right to argue with me then it would be a given that they'd already understand enough for what I wrote and the way in which I wrote it to be perfectly adequate. I'm absolutely aware of my complacency in that respect but I approached the argument within the pretense offered by my opponent. It's justified given the context, as far as I remember.

>>69546389
>OK but can you do that while ALSO working in the paradigm of a pop music structure?
Entirely possible, but that doesn't accredit everything else recorded with the label of 'art'. I can't remember Olivia Tremor Control specifically, but you could sub in John Maus for a handy and effective example. Similarly 'Fountain' is a seminal artistic work, but not every upside-down toilet is art by extension.

>Do you work in audio, visual, sculpture or film?
That's my least favourite question. I work in ideas. Whatever makes best sense as per the idea I use. As a result my production quality can often be quite.... Bad, but that's often integral to the work so it works out anyway. That's a common approach these days anyhow. I can weld, produce 32gb electro tracks and datamosh and do it all as part of the same thing.

>>69546534
>I'll ignore these people who have a working understanding of art because I read my pocket dictionary and am therefore the authority here
(you)

>>69546534

Anybody who brings a dictionary definition into a discussion of anything remotely complex is an absolute moron.

You just showed me that you don't know how dictionaries work any more than you know what art is. I am just addressing that other dude because he really severely failed to make his point, but frankly the rest of you are a joke and he is just an annoying faggot, but one who actually does know some things.

>>69546619
dic·tion·ar·y
ˈdikSHəˌnerē/
noun
noun: dictionary; plural noun: dictionaries

a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

>>69546616

I would say you drew the outline of your point well enough that someone with a passing familiarity with art or just general thinking would grasp it, but the burden here is stricter because you are talking to people who hivemind themselves into an aggressive ignorance.

>>69546616
>Entirely possible, but that doesn't accredit everything else recorded with the label of 'art'.
But it shows that not all music made in a commercial context is not art. Something can have an artistic message while still being commercial. Thus that rubric is flimsy at best.

>That's my least favourite question. I work in ideas. Whatever makes best sense as per the idea I use. As a result my production quality can often be quite.... Bad, but that's often integral to the work so it works out anyway. That's a common approach these days anyhow. I can weld, produce 32gb electro tracks and datamosh and do it all as part of the same thing.
The more you describe what you (don't) do, the more it's obvious you don't work in the arts.

>>69546703

Yeah, right. The dictionary proves the dictionary knows everything.

Aren't autistic people supposed to be kind of smart?

>>69546740
How is that definition of art wrong? Can you do it better?

>>69546703

How do you have the internet when your understanding of language makes it clear that you live some time before the 1950's?

Guys don't worry I got you all covered. I'm working on a solo clarinet album where I have a microphone spinning around in the middle of a hall and I walk around it at a distance in the opposite direction, with the speed of the spinning and my walking increasing incrimentally. Trying to create the sense of the music surrounding you. Spatial music gets neglected and I'm trying to fix that.

And no I will not link my bandcamp.

>>69546761

If you need complex ideas reduced to single sentence explanations you are either a literal child or a retarded adult.

>>69546715
>the burden here is stricter because you are talking to people who hivemind themselves into an aggressive ignorance
I'm aware. I actually found a great thread on my first time back on /mu/ after a year or so away a few months ago where I made the same point but properly and it was loads of fun and within 3 weeks I'd made the same points again in other threads and noticed the average intelligence of the posters getting lower and lower every time. I may be guilty of wanting to make my argument but knowing how pointless it ultimately is so half-assing it.

>>69546738
>But it shows that not all music made in a commercial context is not art. Something can have an artistic message while still being commercial. Thus that rubric is flimsy at best.
That was more an example of something inhibiting the integrity of a work and impeding it's validity as art than a universal thesis. Warhol's work was commercial at it's core, you know? Superfluous stuff, anything that distracts from the message can disqualify its classification.

>The more you describe what you (don't) do, the more it's obvious you don't work in the arts.
Well I don't work in the arts, I work in 'art'; I show in galleries, etc. I make the things and the crowds arrive, we all drink wine and chat and then write shite between shows.

>>69546831
>>69546786
>I have no argument
Thanks for playing

>>69546925

Yeah, makes sense. I'm out of here because I really don't have the energy to give a shit about people who use dictionary definitions as arguments.

I wish you well.

>>69546925
>something inhibiting the integrity of a work and impeding it's validity as art
How do you gauge the integrity?
>Well I don't work in the arts, I work in 'art'; I show in galleries, etc. I make the things and the crowds arrive, we all drink wine and chat and then write shite between shows.
Do you get $$ for your showings or do you do it for free?

>>69547029
Leave. No one wants your idiocy anyways if you don't want a common ground in a conversation. Fuck off

>>69547054

I'm not the original guy you hate, I am the 2nd guy you hate who only came to talk to the 1st guy you hate for a minute.

But in theory, we could only have a common ground if you were also educated on the topic you want to discuss. It's not my fault you choose not to read anything substantive.

>>69547106
>we could only have a common ground if you were also educated on the topic you want to discuss
I am a musician.

How about you?

>>69547119

You mean like Lars Ulrich? Your opinions must be informed then!

>>69547029
See you around, anon - hopefully in a discussion with less mongoloids in it.

>>69547035
>How do you gauge the integrity?
I should be charging for questions like that.
There are two ways to look at something; subjectively (or with respect to yourself - the subject) and objectively (with respect to the object being viewed). This goes back to Descartes like I eluded to earlier. Objective analysis is essential to art-making as is critique and discussion. There's a sort of language to art-making, essentially. There's methodologies and stuff and it becomes a way of seeing (Ways of Seeing is a book you might like to read, by John Berger). Something is made to communicate an idea, if a room full of people can't read the idea then it's a failure. If the work sacrifices the fidelity of the idea for stylisation and trendiness or other superfluous elements then it has no integrity. It's all case by case, it really depends on the work and will be different every time. I used to be able to answer that question in a sentence, I need to start reading more.

>Do you get $$ for your showings or do you do it for free?
Hot tip: if you're paying in then you're not seeing any art. That's the difference between entertainers and 'artists'. Someone making art has something they want people to see while an entertainer has a product they want people to buy. You can still make money while making art though, case by case again. It's quite an open field.

>>69547213
Nope. Songwriter, play in several bands, and sound engineer.

Again, how about you?

>>69547237
How does that qualify you to speak with authority on the definition of art? My Dad is a bus Driver, by your logic he's an astro-physicist.

>>69540877
>Grim - Folk Music
>Wacky nonsense

>>69547266
to further illustrate my point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4mAMlzfjzM
>>wacky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vz5BxTcTIA

Music is intrinsically funny. I don't mean music with 'funny' lyrics, even instrumental music is funny. It's funny because it's just a lot of nonsense and noise that we've become accustomed to because it's culturally 'normal', and music that points out the absurdity of music by playing up aspects that are less mundane and more obviously funny will always be "weird". Avant-garde musicians didn't create the idea of wacky nonsense, they simply understand that all music is wacky nonsense.

>>69547264
>How does that qualify you to speak with authority on the definition of art?
Well, I'm an artist and you are not. I am more qualified than you. And less autistic apparently.

>>69547236
>I should be charging for questions like that.
You shouldn't, your answers are generally wrong
>If the work sacrifices the fidelity of the idea for stylisation and trendiness or other superfluous elements then it has no integrity
EXCEPT that often these so called superfluous elements communicate the idea, or an audience is more likely to pay attention. What of the idea is embedded in the stylisation? Can you really separate the two?

Your concept of art is juvenile at best with a very limited world view.

>Hot tip:
Hot tip: you didn't answer my question... AGAIN

Do you get $$ for your showings or do you do it for free? The fact that you won't answer shows me that you 1) are either not "work in art" or 2) get paid for it, and thus (by your own logic) don't "work in art"

>>69547518
>I'm an artist
Haha see >>69545942
>I find that the only people who call themselves artists are guilty of having never made a work of art.
Also you just said you're a musician which is entirely unrelated and if you were actually engaged with the discussion and not an ignorant, stubborn retard you'd be well aware that there's a significant distinction.
>I'm a musician and so I'm something else entirely because I want to present myself as a special snowflake.
Do you even know anything about art? Can you name more than 3 galleries in the entire world? Can you name 4 Turner Prize winners? Do you even know who the Turner Prize is named after? Did you know it existed before I posted this?

You're a fucking retard, mate. Not a musician or an 'artist', a retard.

>>69547636
>Also you just said you're a musician which is entirely unrelated
Music isn't art? Of course it is
>you were actually engaged with the discussion
Well i attempted to engage in a conversation with an anon--about the definition of art--but he pussied away. ring a bell?

Tell me about the art you've made.

>>69547613
>you're generally wrong?
Wow, a blanket statement from a babby asking to be spoonfed and literally making no points. Thanks for your insight, mate.

>EXCEPT that often these so called superfluous elements communicate the idea
Yeah, superfluous elements that detract from the idea definitely communicate the idea they detract from. Great logic there.

>What of the idea is embedded in the stylisation?
What part of 'case by case' do you not understand? I gave you examples of things that can situationally happen because there's no global answer to these questions. I'm wasting my time with you.

>Your concept of art is juvenile at best with a very limited world view.
Actually it's massive and all of contemporary culture (including popular culture) came from it, so...

>you didn't answer my question... AGAIN
I did, you absolute sperglord. I show in galleries. I explained that you don't pay in to galleries. An inability to put 2 and 2 together is scary. You literally just flagged yourself as unfit to discuss this topic since you can't even follow the discussion with out hand-holding and meticulous spelling out of every little detail.

>>69540998
The original and best definition of "experimental music" is literally just music that is made with some form of chance, i.e. trying things with at least partially unknown outcomes. Your definition of dada and experimental is too similar. Dada is just anti-romantic-artfulness. Your definition of avant-garde seems correct to me. Those three albums are Dada, I agree.

>>69545475
I think most people making commercial albums actually have no interest at all in making a "work of art".

>>69547636
>Turner Prize

>>69543476
STGSTV is not a pop album because its structure is not pop-oriented, not because it has harsh noise in it cunthead

>>69547728
Oop my gf came home. I'm gonna leave you know to masturbate furiously while getting fucked in the ass at your wine drinking faggot parties.

I can only imagine how pathetic your art must be, based on how much of a pretentious autistic douche you come off as, unless it's an act.

Have fun being 19 and full of shit!

>>69541099
I can't into Robert Ashley, what's his best recording?

>>69547667
Music is Music. If it was art then we wouldn't have the word music.
>spoons are hats
Amazing logic, friend.

>Well i attempted to engage in a conversation with an anon--about the definition of art--but he pussied away. ring a bell?
That wasn't me, but he fairly succinctly explained why a dictionary isn't a critical theory essay. It's not a historical resource either. The dictionary gives condensed, paraphrased summaries of words. Art is far too complex for a sentence long summary. If you have no understanding of art then why are you trying to argue about it? Do you walk into Laboratories and tell chemists that snots are a chemical now because you decided they are?

>Tell me about the art you've made.
So you can google it and find out who I am? No thanks. I'll tell you that I've exhibited plenty, though. I've worked in audio, in video, in textiles, in print, in performance, in installation, in all sorts of media. If you were engaging with the thread and not posting hot garbage you'd already have known that.

>>69547761
>I think most people making commercial albums actually have no interest at all in making a "work of art".
Yeah, I know.

>>Turner Prize
Don't hate on me for throwing around the MTV VMAs of the art world. If he doesn't know that then he knows nothing.

>>69543082
Kek this is actually true. I just found RYM and I recognized a decent amount of these albums cause of it

>>69547833
I don't think that's true. If he's looked at many many paintings and read about art history on the internet, he knows something, maybe not as much as people that have been privileged to study it and write about it in school though.

>>69547807
>I can't argue so I'll act like being on 4chan is for losers and I'm actually a double-agent who has a 'real life'
The fact you think that's worth writing tells me you have no actual friends at all, mate.

>your art
That's not how you say that. It's 'your work'. Art isn't a tangible thing.

>pretentious autistic douche
buzzwords, great

>Have fun being 19 and full of shit!
I'm 26 an internationally recognised, it's going great.

Congratulations on being unable to make an argument, getting mad about not knowing something instead of being glad that information is being supplied to you and ultimately trying to save face on an anonymous imageboard by trying to look like a 'kewl dewd'. Enjoy being bullied by 12 year olds the 4 times you leave your house every week.

>>69547833
Not who you're talking to, but why play the semantics game? There is clearly a way that many people use the term "art" to refer to all of the arts. Musicians and artists are not even that different in what they're trying to do.

>>69547905
>paintings
>2016
I would concede that paintings have been coming back in since 2012, but only barely and only if you stick stuff onto them. Painting has been largely irrelevant since Surrealism ended.

I wouldn't call art college a privilege either, most people I've seen come out of there know less by the end of their tenure than I did when I started.

Art is a thing unto itself. We have the internet. We can learn anything. Anyone can become an encyclopedia of Art if they have an interest. Sure there are works that I've seen in real life that will never be available online and there have been ephemeral works that will never exist again, but theory wise (which is what we're dabbling in here) an individual has no excuse when arrogantly making retarded claims about 'art' on the internet while every actual source available supports my explanations. That's largely due to my real experience and substantial knowledge on the subject.

You're dumb as fuck if you don't like ANY of it.

>>69541023
>le you're dumb meme

holy shit you're so dumb it hurts. do you even realise how dumb this is? hurrr you're not smart enough to understand le abstract sounds.

literally kill yourself.

FAUST IS THE WORST ALBUM OF ALL TIME AND YOU CANNOT PROVE ME WRONG

LE FANCY EXPERIMENTATION IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR LITERAL SHIT

>>69547990
Maybe art has always been a more personal thing than we realize. Maybe painting has never been irrelevant because of artists outside of establishments.

>>69547990
It's really cool you get to work in art. I think I actually did read the argument of you and the other guy, as I read much of the thread, but I can't recall and it doesn't matter enough to try. I'd like to experience more of those art works that are not on the internet and ephemeral. Anyways, make sure you always consider retarded claims critically!

>>69547973
>but why play the semantics game?
Let me put it to you like this.
"HTML is a programming language", "nutrtional science is physics", "carpentry is architecture", "hopscotch is sports". Are they just semantics? Why is it that Art, which is an actual thing, has to play along and get misused and misattributed? Not really fair, right? Imagine you spend your life working in towards being something and suddenly some random guy with a drumkit and some autistic manchild drawing anthropomorphised animals having sex on deviantART claim to be doing the same thing?
And imagine you take the time to explain to them the differences and the sperg out and call you 'wrong' because they decided as much. It's not semantics, it's offensive.

>Musicians and artists are not even that different in what they're trying to do.
They actually are, I gave an explanation earlier. There are examples where you're right, but typically musicians are entertainers - they provide entertainment for profit. Art is for art's sake: not for profit, not for entertainment, not even for the individual making it. It's for the sake of art.
Massively different.

As cancerous as this thread is, it's at least knocking the rust off of me. Been a while since I've had to explain anything so obvious (I am typically around knowledgeable sorts of people).

>>69548105
>projecting this hard
A-A-Are you alright, mate?

>>69548122
>Maybe art has always been a more personal thing than we realize. Maybe painting has never been irrelevant because of artists outside of establishments.
Maybe it has. It's actually impossible to really know for sure.

>I'd like to experience more of those art works that are not on the internet and ephemeral
Just keep an eye on your local galleries (not the national one, the other ones). I saw Parreno's 'No Ghost, Just a Shell' stuff in real life and it's not available online. I'd love to have seen the rest of the project but I probably never will.

>It's really cool you get to work in art
Anybody can do it ;)
This whole 'what is art' thing is central to my work so I eat these threads up. You'll see me in them pretty often.

>Anyways, make sure you always consider retarded claims critically!
;^)

>>69548114
>faust
>fancy

>>69548123
Typical musicians are irrelevant to this discussion. There have been plenty of artists throughout history who were absolutely in it because it was a thing they liked to do and they got paid, rather than because they cared about being an amazing artist.

I also think you should embrace the random guy and autistic manchild and realize that it only enriches the creative possibilities and value of art.

I think the term should be abused, so that we do not take ourselves too seriously. Just because you get to dedicate your life to it, which is awesome, doesn't mean it's more "serious" than the untrained autistic manchild who possibly puts more creativity and energy and beauty into his work than professional artists. Effort is a great quality for a work of art to have, but it is by no means what makes something great.

What a retarded thread this has turned into.

>>69548229
>I think the term should be abused, so that we do not take ourselves too seriously
That's not the issue, work can be anything at all as long as it constitutes an artwork. Being able to differentiate between what is and isn't an artwork is important though, otherwise there's no art at all. Think about it at all and that much is obvious.