Music Is Not Art

In the works of a great artist, the emotions or thoughts felt are merely an abstract result of the methods and concepts applied and perceived by a (more or less uneducated and highly selfish) audience. ... ... It is also not to say that great artists weren't thinking about the e(a)ffects of their works, but rather, that we are probably missing the point when we as observers try and relate everything to us and our understandings of things.

So, in simpler terms, you are saying that art is defined as 'beauty in the eyes of the beholder'? In this way, it is an artist's job to create something abstract that an observer can attach him or herself to emotionally or meaningfully, meaning that nothing is art without an audience.

In order to be art, the work needs to speak on a universal level. It needs to attempt a homage to the great mysteries and workings of existance, not to brain chemicals that have been irriversibly made a part of "intelligent" life. When anything becomes that subjective, it is only so far away from not existing.

So thus, humanity is incapable of true art? We cannot possibly perceive the great mysteries and workings of existance because we ARE a mysterious existance. It would take something above our own perceptions to see true art, not just things that humanity labels as art. So thus exists two types of art: subjective art, and true art. Looking at it this way, music can be art. Anything can be art, of either 'type'.

So, in simpler terms, you are saying that art is defined as 'beauty in the eyes of the beholder'? In this way, it is an artist's job to create something abstract that an observer can attach him or herself to emotionally or meaningfully, meaning that nothing is art without an audience.

Well... Not exactly. For I in no way contest that the majority of art to ever exist is lost to us. Rather, I believe that true high art has a definitive meaning outside of a feeling or an event. It should express something quite concrete and recognizable to the trained mind, but it should actually be something entirely (at least superficially) different. Yet, it does not have to be observed, because it was carved out of laws greater than it, and thus exists outside of even it's creator. In this respect, it seems like I'm talking about a principle or law, but I know that isn't quite what I mean to convey...

This might all make more sense if I say that I believe a work like Bach's "Art of Fugue" exists with or without Bach. In fact, like a mathematical equation or law, it is only a human representation of an already existing and observable natural principle, and is thus probably not even exact (but as close as any human can ever achieve). This, of course, is purely my own opinion, and has no real evidence to support it that I know of. Also, I shouldn't go further before making clear that I am of course talking about High art.

I also don't know that getting attached to a work is the high artists intent. That part seems to be something that will automatically happen once you understand it (or think you understand it), and isn't really the artists goal. Though this is certainly true of some normal artists. Rather, the great artist attempts to imbed in his works fundamental workings of things larger than themselves. "Lessons that will always be learned" type dealy. In this way, all high art may just be theory, not unlike a math formulae. Though unlike math, a work of art is a product, an effect unto itself; not just an attempt at explaining something, but a product with a greater meaning. But not a meaning that is subjective or personalized, something that can be (more or less) assuredly recognized. Just my 2 cents of course.

So thus, humanity is incapable of true art? We cannot possibly perceive the great mysteries and workings of existance because we ARE a mysterious existance. It would take something above our own perceptions to see true art, not just things that humanity labels as art. So thus exists two types of art: subjective art, and true art. Looking at it this way, music can be art. Anything can be art, of either 'type'.

Possibly. Once again, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe you're right; I do personally like the idea of humans not being able to create true art, but I'd also like to think that at least some of our great works get some respect from the cosmos (so to speak). Maybe human art is merely approximate imitation of some sort of "ultimate" art. That would be sweet.

And just to get back on topic, my response to the initial question remains: nothing is inherently art, but anything can become art.

Since no one seems to have really mentioned it yet, I should like to say that it is my belief that nothing is inherently art, yet virtually anything can become art. That is to say, a musician makes music, a painter paints, a sculpter sculpts, yet none are nessesarily artists. Similarly, a carpenter may achieve great feats of art with nothing more than a standard piece of bedroom furniture.

The qualifier is the tricky part, and I obviously have no more authority than anyone in trying to define it. Yet, I've always felt that it has to do with the inner workings of all things in relation to the ultimate reality (whatever it may be), rather than the human need to express oneself or feel emotions.

That is why all great and lasting works of art deal only superficially with such matters, while those focused on them generally have a limited shelve-life. In the works of a great artist, the emotions or thoughts felt are merely an abstract result of the methods and concepts applied and perceived by a (more or less uneducated and highly selfish) audience. Of course, this makes little sense today, in an age where it's not only perfectly acceptable to think about your childhood pet when listening to Mozart, it's recomended. It is also not to say that great artists weren't thinking about the e(a)ffects of their works, but rather, that we are probably missing the point when we as observers try and relate everything to us and our understandings of things.

But anyways, yeah. It is my belief that art in not subjective and that nothing is inherently art, meaning music is not, by definition, art. In order to be art, the work needs to speak on a universal level. It needs to attempt a homage to the great mysteries and workings of existance, not to brain chemicals that have been irriversibly made a part of "intelligent" life. When anything becomes that subjective, it is only so far away from not existing.

This statement borders on high intrapersonal intelligence. You essentially defined music as a form of worship to the Universe - as far as functioning humans are concerned, this is the purpose music serves to them. You are right, in saying that the mistake is to believe music represents specific, sentimental emotions, -- which is why I believe, the only true "emotion" that music is capable of -- is a love of the Universe itself.

However, it should be understood that music itself, taking the perspective outside human brains (but not necessarily outside the conciousness), is nothing more than music; the existence, or in some places merely the potentiality of sound.

When you mention uneducated, I would say the people who you are talking about are the MOST educated; cosmoplitan, rational, -- followers who have an objective opinion about everything, who "know" that the Universe has specific laws throughout its "entirety" --

Essentially everything they root themselves in is illusory, since they take a perspective there is much they will never be able to know.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that art has anything to do with ultimate reality. Because tell me now, what is ultimate reality? You have no more than a hunch, which is destined to be wrong, because the basis of this hunch would just be a giant mess of human perception. And human perception has nothing to do with ultimate truth and reality, merely with conventional truth and reality. Ultimate truth is not explainable in words, nor comprehendable as a conventional concept.

Art is merely the manifestation of the will to be, or in other words: a manifestation of self. It is human nature to create and explore, because it believes that there is a self that creation will do something good for the self.

You can't argue that somebodies answer to the initial question is either wrong or right, unless flawed logic is used.

Since no one seems to have really mentioned it yet, I should like to say that it is my belief that nothing is inherently art, yet virtually anything can become art. That is to say, a musician makes music, a painter paints, a sculpter sculpts, yet none are nessesarily artists. Similarly, a carpenter may achieve great feats of art with nothing more than a standard piece of bedroom furniture.

The qualifier is the tricky part, and I obviously have no more authority than anyone in trying to define it. Yet, I've always felt that it has to do with the inner workings of all things in relation to the ultimate reality (whatever it may be), rather than the human need to express oneself or feel emotions.

That is why all great and lasting works of art deal only superficially with such matters, while those focused on them generally have a limited shelve-life. In the works of a great artist, the emotions or thoughts felt are merely an abstract result of the methods and concepts applied and perceived by a (more or less uneducated and highly selfish) audience. Of course, this makes little sense today, in an age where it's not only perfectly acceptable to think about your childhood pet when listening to Mozart, it's recomended. It is also not to say that great artists weren't thinking about the e(a)ffects of their works, but rather, that we are probably missing the point when we as observers try and relate everything to us and our understandings of things.

But anyways, yeah. It is my belief that art in not subjective and that nothing is inherently art, meaning music is not, by definition, art. In order to be art, the work needs to speak on a universal level. It needs to attempt a homage to the great mysteries and workings of existance, not to brain chemicals that have been irriversibly made a part of "intelligent" life. When anything becomes that subjective, it is only so far away from not existing.

AMEN! :w00t:

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that art has anything to do with ultimate reality. Because tell me now, what is ultimate reality? You have no more than a hunch, which is destined to be wrong, because the basis of this hunch would just be a giant mess of human perception. And human perception has nothing to do with ultimate truth and reality, merely with conventional truth and reality. Ultimate truth is not explainable in words, nor comprehendable as a conventional concept.

Art is merely the manifestation of the will to be, or in other words: a manifestation of self. It is human nature to create and explore, because it believes that there is a self that creation will do something good for the self.

You can't argue that somebodies answer to the initial question is either wrong or right, unless flawed logic is used.

You agree with me then - in acknowledging subjectivity as the only objectivity. Like me you acknowledge perspectivism.

I said that the only way to know is by not taking any perspective - and saying that, those who do take a perspective, will miss the truth in its entirety, though the truth is this as well. I said that art has no meaning other than what humans attach to it.

Of course a functioning human's brain will give it perspective -- otherwise they will gape in awe at the living universe, unable to actually live.