[Polymath]

Lately I've been trying to figure out why I put music so far above other forms of art. It's not that I find nothing redeeming about poetry or literature, but I don't get anything from it that's worth the time spent reading it. I always opted for the sparknotes even when assigned "great," famous books, after testing out a few pages, of course. A few hundred in the case of the Odyssey, the first novel I was assigned to read in college, and it was one of the most boring experiences of my life. If you turn literature into a movie it becomes a bit more entertaining, but I still only watch a movie every couple of weeks.

When it comes to painting, drawing and sculpture, I usually only admire the stuff that's based off of landscapes, people, structures etc. rather than the stuff that actually reflects abstract human creativity. It's more an admiration of the skill required to make realistic reflections of nature than of the art itself, really. Huge exception for M.C. Escher, but it's his mathematical style. I like art with mathematical beauty, but it's not so mainstream, and I could definitely survive without it.

But music... take that away and I'd be very bored indeed. Does anyone relate or have any insight on this?

[rahdam]

I like music because it makes me dance.
For me, music is art that allows me to create my own art.

[Plane Stress]

I do like other art forms including literature and painting/drawing, so I can't quite relate, but music is different because it is something I can enjoy while doing other things.

An interesting thing about Music is that being able to listen to music whenever you want is a very recent development... portable music players are what, 30 years old at the most? Audio players in general aren't more than 100 years old.... whereas books have been around for a long time as a form of entertainment. Makes you think about what life was like a hundred years go, or even 50 years ago.

[Mozzes]

I don't consider most music I hear to be art.

[Orion79]

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't consider most music I hear to be art.

I guess art is very subjective.

Everybody enjoys music, even if they don't appreciate other forms of art. It provides a nice distraction when you're tied down with mundane tasks.

I'm curious to know how all of you would define art. I believe artists have something in them that drives them to create. Like a need or a strong desire. So art is just the end result of that drive.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Orion79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I guess art is very subjective. Everybody enjoys music, even if they don't appreciate other forms of art. It provides a nice distraction when you're tied down with mundane tasks. I'm curious to know how all of you would define art. I believe artists have something in them that drives them to create. Like a need or a strong desire. So art is just the end result of that drive.

The best way to examine (note that I don't say "answer" here; this is intentional) this question is to analyze the artists that directly analyzed "art" and what "art" is. A big group of artists like this was the artists involved with the Dada movement in the early 20th century, and perhaps the biggest Dada artist was Marcel Duchamp. Basically, having already made works that people accepted as "Art" (the capital A is intended), these artists then proceeded to make works that specifically made no sense...and then called them "Art." They didn't actually "mean" that the physical work itself was art (at least that's how I see it) but the meaning behind the work WAS, to them, art; the idea of critiquing the art world from within the art world (and thus simultaneously critiquing the work itself) was of interest, and the kinds of subtle insights that you get from studying these works help to refine your definition of what art is.

In the end, though, that definition is yours and yours alone; to quote The Story of Art, "There is really no such thing as Art. There are only artists."

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Plane Stress To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An interesting thing about Music is that being able to listen to music whenever you want is a very recent development... portable music players are what, 30 years old at the most? Audio players in general aren't more than 100 years old.... whereas books have been around for a long time as a form of entertainment. Makes you think about what life was like a hundred years go, or even 50 years ago.

I've been thinking about this lately.

What I think is that this development has in a way "devalued" music by making it so easily accessible (anytime, anyplace, no matter what). (This goes for a lot of things, today.) Obviously it is also enriching and expands your horizon, but we cannot compare our experience of music to that of someone in the time when music was a rare treat (with ritual connotations to boot).

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't consider most music I hear to be art.

That's because most of what you involuntarily hear* is commercial "music", which is in the first place a product to be sold. The demand comes first and formulas are used to satisfy it. Actual music is when someone has an impulse to create something, then creates it, regardless any market.

(*As it is fucking everywhere. Every fucking where.)

[Mozzes]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's because most of what you involuntarily hear* is commercial "music", which is in the first place a product to be sold. The demand comes first and formulas are used to satisfy it. Actual music is when someone has an impulse to create something, then creates it, regardless any market. (*As it is fucking everywhere. Every fucking where.)

My comment was intentional hyperbole. Yes, there's commercial music and true music as well as there's commercial art and true art. I don't agree with elevating music above other artistic media though. I'm actually fond of bands which fuse music with visual arts like Tool and The Butthole Surfers.

And I agree that the proliferation and easy accessibility of music may devalue it. It seems like these days people hear a lot of music but they don't actively listen to it. It just becomes white noise in the background of their lives.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't agree with elevating music above other artistic media though.

Sure. I thought you were saying music isn't art at all.

[lancelot]

Music is something you can do by yourself, or with friends and family. My older sister had a boyfriend who was a musician, I think that's why I became interested.

[Rohsiph]

	Originally Posted by Polymath To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you turn literature into a movie it becomes a bit more entertaining, but I still only watch a movie every couple of weeks.

What this sounds like to me is you demand the art you consume to unveil itself immediately. Hopefully that's a simple and wrong assumption, but I've met enough folks claiming the same predilections to convince me the diagnosis is at least sometimes right.

Literature, and poetry especially, asks its audience to contemplate. Turn over the lines, figure out how the language says more than the surface meaning. Subtext.

Of course, there is also subtext in movies and music. But the subtext in film, except in a few off-the-beaten-path 'Art' films, still unveils itself much faster than anything in literature I'm familiar with.

I wonder what you make of live theatre? I'd like to hear about that before saying anything more about your particular view.

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And I agree that the proliferation and easy accessibility of music may devalue it. It seems like these days people hear a lot of music but they don't actively listen to it. It just becomes white noise in the background of their lives.

This is the only way I can understand the prevalence of ridiculous bass-boosters in cars around college campuses that can be felt, almost like earthquake, three goddamned blocks away.

There's nothing melodically interesting, nothing subtle, no counter-point, no thematic involvement or historical anchoring whatsoever in 99% of the 'popular' music I hear these days . . . it's devastating.