ITT: Facts

>Music seems to be the only art where we accept this. If we found out Picasso didn't painted his work from a stencil he didn't create, they instantly lose their appeal.
Did Picasso create his own brushes?

He didn't

>If we found out Picasso didn't painted his work from a stencil he didn't create, they instantly lose their appeal.
So does that mean cover songs are automatically void of artistic merit?

>Did Picasso create his own brushes?

False analogy. Hendrix didn't make his own guitar, either.

A more sensible comparison really is collage to painting.

Samples arranged (in this case, cut outs from magazines, newspapers, etc) vs. the actual thinking up of your entire concept and physically having to execute it (painting an original work).

I mean,

>A more sensible comparison really is collage to painting.
Not really, since collage is a valid art form.

Try again

>I mean,

>So does that mean cover songs are automatically void of artistic merit?

I would say they have more performance merit than artistic merit, if said artist knocks out an amazing cover.

End of the day, though, an artist isn't typically celebrated for their covers. You think the Beatles go anywhere if they stuck covering Duane Eddy?

I'm talking about technique. Obviously DAW produced music is "art." A teenage girl writing bad poetry is also art.

>Kids are painting in kindergarten

Yeah, and look how shitty it looks compared to the same little kid making something out of pre-cut samples.

Pretty much anyone can do pic related in the above (yeah, the arrangement is clever). Comparatively speaking, there's only a few people who can actually paint and not have it look like a by numbers job.