Considers music to be an art form

>considers music to be an art form
>judges it exclusively from the point of personal enjoyment like it is an entertainment form
Why do so many people do this?

penis

Same reason most people consider art an art form. They'll hate Jackson Pollock, No.5 but love The Starry Night. Both are critically acclaimed "masterpieces" but most people judge out of personal enjoyment

You know, that's a good point.
You think the difference between entertainment and art (if there is such a thing; I guess the better distinction is: art first and entertainment second, or entertainment first and art second) is the criteria upon which they are judged?

Because art is about expression and emotion

>Art can't be entertaining

he literally didn't say that

Red pill: Most don't listen to music as an art form, especially people on this board.

>like it is an entertainment form
there is musisc that is music, and there is music that is entertainment

There is also music that isn't music.

If you judge artistic expression or partake in it for any reason other than personal enjoyment, you are a fucking kook

>If you judge artistic expression or partake in it for any reason other than personal enjoyment, you are a fucking kook
You're literally vindicating dumb 10 year olds who hate Shakespeare and thinks he sucks because it's boring to them. You're vindicating normies. Stop.

nigger literally what

Whats wrong with thinking shakespear is shit? Or boring?

I like shakespear, I just dont understand why you think its such a crime to dislike him, or find his stuff boring.

>doesn't define art
what did he mean by this?

Oh, you can think Shakespeare is boring, that's fine, but
>If you judge artistic expression or partake in it for any reason other than personal enjoyment, you are a fucking kook
this defends narrow-mindedness and dismissal of works which have merit to them on the mere basis that they aren't fun for you.

it's a perfectly fine way of looking at art. do you think everyone has to respect a piece of art, merely because everyone else does? that seems silly. i'm not gonna say that it's unacceptable to judge music based on anything except personal enjoyment like the other guy, but i think viewing stuff based on personal enjoyment is just fine. there's no fixed, objective way of looking at art.

>do you think everyone has to respect a piece of art, merely because everyone else does?
I never said that.
> i'm not gonna say that it's unacceptable to judge music based on anything except personal enjoyment like the other guy
Which is what I was arguing against.
>i think viewing stuff based on personal enjoyment is just fine.
I'm not saying that personal enjoyment is wrong, or that it shouldn't factor in at all, but when using it as your only criterion for judgment, it gives you a very limited scope when it comes to art, because you end up only appreciating and recognizing as good what is immediately obvious to you. Ever had an album you dismissed earlier, only to later realize it's a really good album, and you've been missing out on it this whole time? Saying something is good because you like it is one thing, but saying something is bad because you don't like it is a whole other, very separate thing.
>there's no fixed, objective way of looking at art.
This is a meme I've seen people repeat pretty often on Sup Forums, and it's something people who say it are pretty convinced about and have trouble dealing with counterarguments against it.
William S. Burroughs has a good quotation about this one (which I'm lifting off Wikipedia for the sake of convenience): Critics constantly complain that writers are lacking in standards, yet they themselves seem to have no standards other than personal prejudice for literary criticism. ... such standards do exist. Matthew Arnold set up three criteria for criticism: 1. What is the writer trying to do? 2. How well does he succeed in doing it? ... 3. Does the work exhibit "high seriousness"? That is, does it touch on basic issues of good and evil, life and death and the human condition.
Basically, taking that radical subjective view of art for granted misses a lot about art. It dismisses content for preference. Art might be experienced subjectively, but there are very much objective things you can say about it.

art is entertainment

You can make objective statements about art but it is ultimately pointless because everyone's experience with an artform is a personal journey. Checking to see if it ticks x y or z boxes might be helpful to some people though. Additionally many times when people declare something "objectively" good its simply their opinion that theyve gussied up to seem objective.

This literally just boils down to >is music subjectively good or bad, or can it be objetive?

Shit thread.

>You can make objective statements about art but it is ultimately pointless
No, it's not. For example, pointing out that someone's drum playing completely misses the beat due to the lack of the player's skill is very much an objective thing, and is not pointless. Unless you want to argue that the difference between a first-time drum player and Tony Williams is just subjective opinion and represents no objective differences (which would be wrong).
>many times when people declare something "objectively" good its simply their opinion that theyve gussied up to seem objective
You're right. But that's not what I said. You can talk about objective things about art that affect its overall quality without pretending that your subjective opinion is objective. You can, and should, however, have your subjective opinion on art take into account and be informed by objective qualities of that art, as opposed to ignoring those objective qualities altogether to only focus on your preferences (which, again, is what I was arguing against in the first place).

>You can make objective statements about art but it is ultimately pointless because everyone's experience with an artform is a personal journey.
You are going down the "literally nothing matters" subjectivist brainfart route which is the intellectual equivalent of playing around by smearing shit on the floor like a toddler. There are overlapping systems of values and beliefs that make society function and among those is out collective understanding of artistic canon. Individualism has absolutely no place in this discussion.

Smart Satan.

I see your point. I suppose I'm trying to say that objectivity has an upper end as far as judging art. There are tons of bands that might have all their ducks in a row as far as the technical aspects that I don't like for whatever reason and that is far more important to my experience and relationship with that piece of art than if they hit every note or the chord progession or whatever your metric is.
Objectivity has a place but as far as determining if something is art or not it is a waste of time because no one actually judges art based on these "objective" criteria unless they are so far up their own asses they can't even experience a piece of art anymore.

this is a garbage fucking thread
like this piece of music? then to you its good music
don't like this piece of music? then to you it sucks
its not that fucking complicated god damn you people are retarded snobs

lmao le epic "I only understand thing from a urface level therefore that level is all there is because I'm an infallible being" reductionist post
habb an upboat :D
Λ
I
(this arrow for u it upvote)

the fuck are you on? lay off the fucking crack you brainlet nigger, not everything had to be a complicated buttfuckery of >muh objectivity
i guarantee you your iq is lower than your height in meters

Wow very good post have a (you)

Go fuck yourself you absolute shitstain. You know nothing and you are nothing.

What music would be in the middle?

>You can make objective statements about art
lol no you can't

yes you can
"this is a painting"
"this is a musical piece"
see its easy

I can say a painting is blue or this is so many decibels etc. How is that not objective?

People do that everywhere

"critics", do you know why that job exists?. books, movies. Even contests

...

this is the most narcissistic thread i've seen in a while. utterly aimless.

how is a painting decibels? they dont make noise

this is the only good post in this thread
underrated

ITOATS

...

im onto you
i know that paintings cant make sound
i may be dumb but i aint stupid

JOEY FARTHARD

Some sort of jazz, probably. A lot of standards are based on folk songs, but there's also a fair amount of sheet music and academia surrounding the genre too. To top it all off, jazz is still distributed through the popular music market.

music is not art its something to vibe to man

/thread

Take a fucking Phil 101 class lmao

That is exactly what he said.

im a truck driver in my 40's