Music and art

[patchouli]

1. Is all music a work of art?

More questions to come.

[Ichthus91]

I would say that this question is dependent on the definition of art.

So, given these premises:
1.) Art is the products of human creativity (according to WordNet Search - 3.0)
2.) Music is a product of human creativity.

So from this we can conclude that music is art. However, premise #2 is debatable and some might say "Some music is a product of human creativity". An example of music not coming from human creativity would be a computer program designed to create pseudorandom patterns of various tones in such a way that the sounds are organized. Another example would be a person picking up an instrument. They then start with any note and then play another note proceeding the first. If the 2nd note doesn't sound pleasant to the ear in relation to the first then the person tries another note instead. The person does so until there is beautiful organized sound (possibly tries random dynamics and such afterwards). So, if the real premise is "Some music is a product of human creativity" then we can conclude that some music is art.

[Sympathypains]

I would say that the traditional criteria of music being art relies on the motive of the artist.

A true artist can have the motive to make money. As Peter Gabriel said, if you aren't concerned with making money, than you won't mind playing to an empty room.

But there is some line that gets crossed when the motive is virtually to do with art and all to do with money, fame, attention, sex, getting back at your parents or people that called you a loser in school, than at some point it becomes less art and more commerce or egotism.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Sympathypains

But there is some line that gets crossed when the motive is virtually to do with art and all to do with money

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

[Sympathypains]

Originally Posted by Aedes

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

I'm sorry didn't you just contradict yourself?

You asked how can we know the motives, and then told me what Mozart's motives were. Apparently you do know the motives, at least in this instance, so perhaps you could tell us how you know the motives.

Regarding my statement, you should have left in the disclaimer sentence one before the quote. Yes making money is a motive, or in many cases one can not make the art. The piano Mozart played was payed for with money most likely, as is most people's instruments, practice spaces, and studio time, but as I said there is a line that gets crossed. The more it's about money that is not just there to sustain the artist and the art, generally, but not absolutely it is less art and more commerce. The inverse is also true. It is not one or the other, it is a matter of degree.

How can we know intentions? We can't 100%, but the more experienced, the more intuitive you become. Just like the more times you have seen someone chatting someone up, the better your guess at whether they are in it for the person, or just the sex. Whether a woman is interested in you, or your money, becomes apparent in time.

[GoshisDead]

Originally Posted by Aedes

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

Dood you can't tell me that you don't sing along with the Free Credit Report .Com Guy.

[hue-man]

If art is defined as a form of self-expression, then yes, music is always art. Whether the art is good or bad is another matter.

[xris]

So is fraudulent "art" art? I personally think a lot of so called art looses its credibility by its desire or its motives.I cant call throwing dog ship at a canvas art or spilling paint as an expression of art.
I dont know what it is but it aint art. I have seen some terrible art by amateur artists but the integrity was there, the desire to create came from a certain urge to express themselves, it was art.
Not so these over rated high society investment artist, who kid us with their unmade beds.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by xris

So is fraudulent "art" art? I personally think a lot of so called art looses its credibility by its desire or its motives.I cant call throwing dog ship at a canvas art or spilling paint as an expression of art.
I dont know what it is but it aint art. I have seen some terrible art by amateur artists but the integrity was there, the desire to create came from a certain urge to express themselves, it was art.
Not so these over rated high society investment artist, who kid us with their unmade beds.

So you're saying that there needs to be a motive for self-expression for something to be considered art? What if someone makes a mistake why making a painting and finds beauty in the mistake? They even go so far as to develop a meaning for the mistake. Shouldn't that also be considered to be art?

What about Britney Spears? Do you think that her music is art?

[xris]

Originally Posted by hue-man

So you're saying that there needs to be a motive for self-expression for something to be considered art? What if someone makes a mistake why making a painting and finds beauty in the mistake? They even go so far as to develop a meaning for the mistake. Shouldn't that also be considered to be art?

What about Britney Spears? Do you think that her music is art?

If you find something beautiful such as rain running down a window admire it but dont call it art.A mistake can be admired but if the artist claims credit then he is fraudulent.I think when Britney desired to entertain, she was an artist but if and when she performed for other reasons she lost the artistic performance.If you enjoy something it does not make it art and even if you hate it, it does not make it "not art" Its the intention and its execution...