Philosophical Question: Art
 

Is it possible for something to be unquestionably high art or unquestionably low art since the advent of post-modernism?

Even though we can never know for sure what the artist's true intention was?

John Cage could have been lying about his music just to make it more popular in the avant-garde community. Perhaps he really set out to make pop-music but failed miserably.

Perhaps Britney Spears whole persona is very high art on her part and she is really a genious making an avant-garde piece of art- herself, the annoying pop artist.

John Cage was a smart man and Britney Spears is stupid. I don't think so.

i doubt any situation involving britney spears can properly be called philosophical.

But you never know! Britney's whole persona could be an act.

You can't dismiss Oops I Did It Again as low art!

Now this is high art, Julian:

http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=5957

what has this got to do with philosophy

britney is a performer and not an artist, she does not write her own music. please find a real example

Everything terminal velocity, everything.

Why?

Simply philosophy.

You could say she is a performance artist.

Andy Warhol didn't paint a lot of his own paintings.

I fail to see any legitimacy in your argument.

If you want another example, lets just say Bananarama or Icicle Works or Duran Duran.

not a good enough answer for me. what does it have to do with philosophy

People have a certain philosophy about art, a certain philosophy about taking a crap, a certain philosophy associated with everything. Philosophy has as much to do with God and existence as it does art and taking shits.

are you talking actual philosophy or bedroom philosophy

The Cage assertion must be bunkum. He sets out his ideas incredibly lucidly - the question is not whether he was a 'secret fraud' but whether YOU consider him a fraud. If you consider him a fraud, then you've got an argument from my quarters, but if you don't, all is well.

The Britney question is difficult - I have a strong feeling that, while the structure of pop music is resolutely unsophisticated, having had only minor variations to verse/ chorus/ verse and the circle of fifths since the 40's, the 'subtlety' and 'nuance' that we find in Beethoven's composition is displaced (a postmodernist would say 'reborn') in the production. I'm pretty certain that 'production' isn't quite a criterion which defers structure, that is, the 'avant-garde' production of Justin Timberkins, Britters or the Beach Boys and the Beatles is not quite substantive enough to qualify it as an 'ars nova'.

I'm not entirely sure we've seen the advent of post-modernism, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Suffice it to say, I enjoy some post-modernist writers, but I rarely agree with their philosophies to any significant degree. In fact, I have been known to speel torrents of venom at the mere mention of Baudriallard.

Hello, faintly inarticulate post.

*Edit: Didn't actually answer the question - the qualia of high and low art haven't really changed that much. It's not really a question for me, I don't have a problem enjoying high or low art. I think the division is troubled but ineffably there, but I don't have a problem enjoying Schoenberg or, say, Happy Hardcore. The division exists as a conversational shortcut for me, each side has its implications and suppositions, namely that 'high' is generally more cerebral, and is enjoyed by the criteria that that invokes, whereas 'low' is somewhat more base, more visceral. There is only really an issue if one appreciates only low art, although most 'pure' high art appreciators tend to be cuntrags.

Oh, I don't think John Cage is a fraud and I think Britney Spears is a dumb whore who makes shitty music. I love his stuff. I was just using it as an example.

What I want to know is how people feel about this question

Is there anything that is unquestionably and universally in bad taste?

I want to say flanged guitars in post 1970's music. But I just can't because I know I'm wrong.

Pop music that tries hard to be 'intelligent' and sells is proof enough that bad taste still exists.

This thread is pointless because I can't escape the socratic logic upon which I founded it.

Because you can't? That's a bit of a silly thing to say, surely?

No, of course I can't, but I don't think you have dominion over Socratic logic, I think that's up to your detractors to decide.

Your initial statement relied upon an understanding of post-modernism, High vs Low art and two practioners of 'music'. In that, post-modernism needs to be defined, the argument of high vs low needs to be stated, and we can start batting about with particulars afterwards. Somewhere later on down the line we might be able to decide whether the logic of your assertionstatement is Socratic, I think it's a bit defeatist to assume that to be the case without even playing the game.

Cage wrote classical music. Spears is a singer not a song writer.

I tend to think of the philosophy of music to be the thoughts about how music affects us as a culture, physically, emotionally and mentally. This has nothing to do with the distinction between the high and low arts. Rather it posits that there is no distinction and that music (without words) is one of the most primal forms of communication. How does music affect us emotionally and why does it do this? How can a group of sounds and / or a series of sounds effect our emotions so instantaneously.

Take Cage's 4'33" for example. When this was performed for the first time some people were angered others were enlightened. Those angered believed that is was not music at all, how can silence be music. But using silence in the way Cage did created an emotive reaction whether the people new this or not.

Britney Spears' music elicits joy in some while in others it elicits anger and disgust.

If musicians are not aware of what music can do, the music will still create some sort of emotional response.

Well I believe the question, which had little to do with the credibility of Britney Spears or John Cage was whether or not one can any longer make a distinction between high and low art, and I think that the answer is: no. No definitive conclusion can be reached. I think now the standard of judgement is relative to audience: who is the art for, in what way does it appeal to them while simultaneously proving that it has a right to exist, etc. I know that last statement requires a bit more explanation but I, honestly, do not have time to offer one right now.

The formal error in SpectralJulianIsNotDead's logical argument is begging the question, petitio principii. He establishes the circular reasoning with the half-question, half-statement "Even though we can never know for sure what the artist's true intention was?"
If intention is not revealed by action, (bear in mind that some intentions require more extensive investigation than others & that some actions are not what they at first appear to be) then how are we as humans (who experience the world primarily empirically) to understand the world around us?
He knows this to be true himself, but thought that his topic may engender some debate about the nature of art as a by-product.

On a related note, just because astrophysics proves that our measurement of time is arbitrary, one can still not deny that astrophysics proves that time is a dimension save maybe on some metaphysical level where time & eternity bleed into one.

His argument would be somewhat better served if he had chosen Mariah Carey instead of Britney Spears, because Mariah supposedly writes her own lyrics.

jheii, there are plenty of valid points of differentiation between high & low art, between fine & graphic art & so forth. It's just that the line has been blurred by self-serving artists & a self-serving art crowd and also a myriad of other societal determinants in consumer culture.

And I don't have the time either. I'm determined to watch Sunday Night Football.

The Giants last drive just seemed so anti climactic to me. Almost sad.

They're not as good as the Colts in the hurry-up or endgame drill, that's for sure.

Coughlin is never gonna let them forget it all next week either. He's a real hard-ass.

It was a good one though.

1. In order for something to be considered "high-art"(for lack of better term), it has to be accepted by it's peers and majority in the art community, specifically galleries. I could only assume that "low-art" would be the rejection of art in acceptance of majority in the gallery art community. It was that way with dadaist and it's that way today. Art is always going to be questioned, so it's impossible for any art to be "unquestionable".

2. Cage had method & reasoning behind his music(use of serialism, i-ching, and various formulas, etc.). Pop music is music that is generally accepted by popular culture or most of the people. Not many Americans were into i-ching and serialism, so nah, i don't think he was just bad at making "pop music"...i think he made music to make people question "why", just like duchamp. we all know cage's reasoning and intentions, he's always explained why. avant garde is there to keep people questioning art. in order for Britney Spears to be considered "high-art", she'd have to be accepted by majority of artists, especially galleries and art dealers that determine the value of her work(they are, in the end, the ones who deems certain art as "high-art").

because the art community, galleries, and art dealers have never held her work publicly as credible or valuable, brittany spears isn't considered "high art". if britney spears is trying to be "avant garde", she's not doing a very good job cuz she's not doing anything that is questioning what is pop music because she's done very well at having her music be considered "pop" without question.