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.