 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 275 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Allright, this may come of as a little wordy, but my point is still that quality is determined according to purpose. ________ "No, a good quality banana is one that has been properly grown or something" - DM But "properly grown" is an appearance, and still only criteria. A banana could as well be bad quality, irrelevant of factors, such as growth (appearances). "Properly grown", "not brown", etc, etc, are all premises for a quality banana, but are not qualities in themselves. How could the purpose of a thing NOT determine its quality? Quality is dependant on function, but function is not dependant on quality. 'Quality' is an evaulation of a concept. Can you separate a quality of a thing from the thing's purpose or function? Death metal is bad bed-time music for a child. In that sense it lacks quality as being bed-time music. It does not fulfill its purpose. As being only music (for the sake of enjoyment), it has another quality, and is evaluated according to taste. There is no inherent quality in objects, it is attributed according to its purpose. "You're mistaking quality for essence." - DM Yes, perhaps. However, whereas you assume essence to a thing, I do not. An essence, or principle of a thing, is its function, its functioning is nothing but principle. They are aspects of the same thing. You assume an inherent quality that can be measured, and worked on. I find no such basis. No matter how many time you break up an object you only find surfaces and textures. The inside of a cup is only an outside inside another outside. 'Quality' is, as mentioned, an evaluation of a concept (surfaces, or sounds) of a percept (hearing). If selected music experts could determine factors that would imply quality in a piece of music, then quality is an evaluation - only determined by a larger group. These people would have their own preferences of what they find to be quality. Function: A relation where one thing is dependent on another for its existence, value, or significance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They're ideal, That's the problem. In real life whenever the state has lists of prescribed and proscribed art it's an abomination like North Korea. Quality, in its most general form, is a structural concept. All you're doing is playing definitional games - limiting "quality" to mechanical aspects rather than recognizing quality as a larger and more complicated psychological and emotional relationship between the subject and object. But your definition of quality and your relationship to things which you perceive to be of high quality are also complicated and problematic whether you consent to recognize it or not. Failure to actually know why art and craft are different (and why they're not) is endemic to almost all of society, IDMer or not. No. Most people simply like what they like because they like it and don't become fetishists of craft the way fanboy subcultures do - whether the craft is comic books or fussy, overwrought IDM. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Your definition of quality is quite good. It's a structural definition, saying nothing of its specific contents in a referential use of the word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this crud is utterly impossible to read |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"What sets them apart (or, more generally, what separates music from all other things?)." craftsman has a known objective - to fix ones house. food has a known objective - to fill ones stomach. music/art has 'uknown' objective, as everyone perceives it in a different way..or something |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The thing about art vs. craft is that art is primarily dishonest and craft is primarily honest. You go to a play or a movie wanting to escape into the illusion. With craft, if the "quality" is illusory, like gold plating on a cheap piece of jewelry, you feel cheated." The biggest problem with that description is that you're disregarding quite a few people when you write off art as some kind of escapism. There's little evidence to suggest that people primarily use art to escape daily life. Some times it may be for the aesthetic experience, other times it may be for some other intellectually stimulating experience, neither of which need to be escapist. You're also, once again, making it all too black and white. You make it seem as if Velvet Underground is good because they're not quality, effectively excluding quality from the notion of good (at least when it comes to music). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Heh heh, I think DM wants to invent an "art pill" that will fullfill the recommended dietary allowance of art, like how they thought we'd eat food pills in the future while flying around in jet packs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how long is this macho psyche shit going to last? the field is a chill mindset of music. this is an abomination. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
: ) anyhow, i hope dm can prove or explain how the quality of music can be determined. because so far he's only been telling us how we can't tell a difference between art and craft. and i would really like to know what's with quality in art as many people tend to use these two in relation constantly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Of course all art is escapism. It takes you out of yourself. It takes you to new places. That doesn't mean that it's trivial like an action movie. It can have deep significance like shamanistic animal dances, religious mystery plays, Greek tragedy and suchlike. If art has no power to transport, to make you forget the pain in your back and the weeds in your yard, and make you think of other things, it's inert and worthless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, but didn't I say that appearances often point to other things? This doesn't mean that appearance is that thing, but stuff like huge rusty nails sticking out of your house is a sign of bad quality. What do you mean by "only criteria?" What's the "only" part of it? "How could the purpose of a thing NOT determine its quality?" Because it determines the being of the thing. The quality of the thing will be aspects of the thing, which, through being aspects of th thing, relates to its purpose, but it is in relation to the thing (and other things like it), and not the purpose, quality is decided. "Death metal is bad bed-time music for a child. In that sense it lacks quality as being bed-time music. " No, it just isn't bed-time music. Nothing to do with quality; high-quality heavy metal could still be bad bed-time music because heavy metal isn't bed-time music. "An essence, or principle of a thing, is its function, its functioning is nothing but principle." The essence is all those things that are so that if you take them away, the thing is no longer the thing it is. It's a theoretical tool. "You assume an inherent quality that can be measured, and worked on." No, it can be observed, not necessarily measured. Hence how doggy's argument was a straw man. "No matter how many time you break up an object you only find surfaces and textures." You don't have to break it up for it to be surfaces and textures, and yet, what you normally perceive is the thing as the thing it is, and not its surfaces and textures. Also, even when you break it so that it isn't the thing it used to be, it'll more commonly be perceived as bits and pieces of that thing, or a pile of rubble or something, and not surfaces and textures. "'Quality' is, as mentioned, an evaluation of a concept (surfaces, or sounds) of a percept (hearing)." No, it's an evaluation of the quality of the thing, whatever that may be in regards to the thing it is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even after all this bullshit I'm still right. Music is good if you like it. If you like it, that means there is some quality to the music that you like. Whether or not something is "quality" depends on the person doing the listening. Any arguements to the contrary are wrong! End of story, I've won this arguement!! I won teh interwebz!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think DM has the disagreement syndrome. has to argue with everything, it's like a pseudo-nihilism, except everything matters and has to be pointed out, but I found the outlook just as bleak. I'm not even going to worry if what I've said has holes in it he can tear through with his amazing education. This post will be ignored in the argument of quality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"No, it just isn't bed-time music. Nothing to do with quality; high-quality heavy metal could still be bad bed-time music because heavy metal isn't bed-time music. " why it isn't bed-time music though? im sure there are people who can only get to sleep when they put some death metal music on. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
like my old roommate. it was lullaby music for him. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You make it seem as if Velvet Underground is good because they're not quality VU is recognizable as high quality music because of the effect it has on listeners. "Quality" in the factory assembly line, quality assurance sense you mean is irrelevant. Do you need a little stamp on your art that says "inspected by #403"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"In real life whenever the state has lists of prescribed and proscribed art it's an abomination like North Korea." Yeah, but why is it an abomination? Why is it not an abomination that building regulations forbid you to build a building that is so high that it will collapse on itself while it apparently seems to be an abomination that you do the same with music? I also never said anything about prescriptions or proscriptions, btw. "All you're doing is playing definitional games - limiting "quality" to mechanical aspects rather than recognizing quality as a larger and more complicated psychological and emotional relationship between the subject and object." No, I'm just delimiting quality as something different from "I like this." That is also the case in many cases where art isn't concerned, and I'm, once again, challenging your perception of art as some special thing different from the crafts. And you still fail to mention an actually relevant distinction between art and all other things, one that doesn't already take itself for granted. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ha ha, I have a friend who's a death metal singer who can only sleep when he turns on an incredibly noisy clanking grinding electric fan. I think it drowns out the tinnitus. Or the murderous thoughts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seemingly without knowing it, you've actually stumbled upon something important, but I fear it's still a case of "so near, but yet so far." It isn't as much the "having an objective" part of it, as art can also have an objective; many artists are trying to say or do something with their art. Many modern artists, for instance, have clear goals towards exploring or criticising some concept or part of society, and it should also be said that in many cases, they accomplish their goals. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Truth is Great and Shall Prevail |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"so far he's only been telling us how we can't tell a difference between art and craft" That statement is both true and untrue. It is untrue if you look at it like I'm saying there absolutely isn't a distinction, but it is true if you look at it like I'm saying that you don't know what it is, and that it shouldn't really be hard to find. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And you still fail to mention an actually relevant distinction between art and all other things, one that doesn't already take itself for granted. You seem to be asking why people make distinctions between things that are different. I can't help you with that. Will Norwegian health insurance pay for you to consult a licensed epistemologist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Of course all art is escapism. It takes you out of yourself. It takes you to new places." No, I'm sorry, but that's an empirical statement, and it isn't really supported by research (would it help to cite articles?), nor by my own experience, and I bet you'll find in your own experience that it even doesn't always hold true for yourself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, but in the example it isn't bed-time music. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"VU is recognizable as high quality music because of the effect it has on listeners." That's more of a measurement of market response, and not necessarily something that comes into play as constituting quality in the context of music. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why don't you just reveal what it is? that would bring the whole debate to an end wouldn't it? "You seem to be asking why people make distinctions between things that are different. " i loled at this : ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but isn't that the point of it all? music can be 'used' in many different ways, while a nail in a chair will only hold two pieces of wood together. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I recognise that we make distinctions between things, but, if you read my posts, you'll see how I'm asking why art is so special that it isn't like any of the other things, not subject to the concept of quality. In other words, if you're stating that it is different (something more), you have to actually argue for it. This requires you to think about it, and not only rely on your already established, but unsubstantiated, belief that it is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That would kind of defeat the point of you using your brain to think, wouldn't it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Music and other forms of art are abstract. The enjoyment of them usually depends on some form of emotional response from listening/viewing the piece of art. Since that emotional response depends on a lot of things, including life experiences, etc, the views of different people on a single piece of art are all going to be quite different. Since the things that help a person make a judgement on a piece of part are so different from other people, how can we select certain songs or paintings and label them as quality while others aren't? The Beatles are considered quality music, yet I'm not a big fan. Does that mean my music tastes suck and I can't appreciate quality in music? No, it just means my opinion of what quality is is different. Non-art things like chairs, cars, food, etc, are more concrete. It's easier to say a certain chair is of high quality because you can more easily measure it. But still in these cases quality will depend on peoples life experiences. Say you have a mercedes and jaguar. How do you choose which is of higher quality? It will still differ between different people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What do you mean by abstract and concrete? Is music a concept, each tune a mental representation of something that doesn't have a concrete referent in the world? Are the "non-art" things concrete, not having abstract relations to one another, being bound together by being of the kind of thing that it is? "Since the things that help a person make a judgement on a piece of part are so different from other people, how can we select certain songs or paintings and label them as quality while others aren't?" Because quality isn't a subjective concept; it isn't a taste judgement. Think of how you use quality in any other setting, and give reasons for why you can't use it in an art setting. What sets art apart? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
eh..sorry i see it clear, intention is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not too far from the truth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can you explain what makes one sound of better quality than another? it isn't hard to determine why one roof is better than another - if it leaks it is defintely of lower quality. but how can you apply that to sound/music/art is beyond me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just don't see how you can say that you an apply ONE view of what quality is to music. Most people here don't like pop music, but pop music is liked by most people in the world, so what does that mean? Does that mean that most people in the world have bad taste in music? Or does it mean we do here at this site (I like pop music though)? What quality is depends on each person. Certain things in the world have more of a consensus about what makes quality, because they're more concrete and easier to judge. Say you're looking for a paper weight. You have an iron paper weight vs a cardboard weight. Which is going to do it's job better? Obviously the iron one will, and all people are going to say that. It's clear here that the iron paperweight is of higher quality. Art on the other hand is not so easy to judge. Art is abstract and each persons judgement of a piece of art will be based on their personal experience, which means everyone will have different responses. How can you say there is one general view of quality? I think quality is ALWAYS a matter of personal opinion, but certain things more easily promote one general consensus rather then others. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"can you explain what makes one sound of better quality than another? " There are many likely candidates for that. There's purity, likeness to source, etc. Can you explain why music shouldn't be subject to the concept of quality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why is the purity of a sound a sign of it's quality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I just don't see how you can say that you an apply ONE view of what quality is to music." I just don't see why it should be impossible to apply the concept of quality to music. "What quality is depends on each person." No, that's taste. "Art is abstract" Again: What is abstract? "each persons judgement of a piece of art will be based on their personal experience, which means everyone will have different responses." Firstly, that goes for most, or, at least many, things, many of which aren't art. Secondly, that is about taste, not the concept of quality. Why shouldn't we be able to apply the concept of quality to art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm asking why art is so special that it isn't like any of the other things, not subject to the concept of quality. I've already said that it's subject to the concept of quality and described the criteria for recognizing that it is of high quality. I don't understand why you insist on judging art and refrigerators by the same criteria. That's more of a measurement of market response, and not necessarily something that comes into play as constituting quality in the context of music. But I don't like VU because other people like it. I like it because of the effect it has on me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think your definition of art is outdated. There's no difference between craft and art as you understand it. But actually, art is never crafted, art has nothing to do with craft. Art is found, interpreted as such. Art has no purpose or no meaning outside of art. It's not sacred or anything, it just is. A banana can be art if you want. A painting can be craft if you want it to fit your living room colour scheme. Wanting a painting to fit your living room colour scheme can be art. Techno music can fail as a craft if it is unable to make people dance. It can never fail as art because there's nothing to fail at. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, it's a likely candidate. The reason could be something like that the sound then more accurately represents what it is supposed to represent. This would make it a better quality sound than another, less clear, version of the same sound. Why shouldn't we be able to apply the concept of quality to art? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I've already said that it's subject to the concept of quality and described the criteria for recognizing that it is of high quality. I don't understand why you insist on judging art and refrigerators by the same criteria. " I don't. You don't judge the quality of art by relating its ability to keep things refrigerated to the same ability in refrigerators. They are different things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is sound supposed to represent? "Why shouldn't we be able to apply the concept of quality to art? " i already answered that quite a few times. art is a way to subjective discipline for that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"There's no difference between craft and art as you understand it." Well, no, there definitely is a difference the way I see it, but there doesn't appear to be one for everyone else in here; they just believe there is one, but they do not know what it is. After that, you are, like tolst, actually very close to the issue at hand, but the essential distinction is still lacking (note, however, that I am not looking for one single, already determined, essential distinction, but rather (any) one that actually is a real distinction). The question remains: What sets art apart? It can also be asked in reverse: What sets craft apart? There are also other formulations, and you can ask what other kinds of things there are that could set themselves apart from these kinds of things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"what is sound supposed to represent? " Whatever the sound is supposed to represent. That will depend on the sound. "art is a way to subjective discipline for that " No. First of all, that's about taste, not quality, and secondly, art is intersubjective, and certain features of art seem to be more or less universally appealing to us, making them quite reliable predictors of what art will be enjoyed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah, you can argue all you want, but you're wrong here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"and certain features of art seem to be more or less universally appealing to us, making them quite reliable predictors of what art will be enjoyed." so britney in that case is quality and autechre isn't? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heh, I hate having to resort to the immature reply, but come on now this discussion is a bit rediculous. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't. You don't judge the quality of art by relating its ability to keep things refrigerated to the same ability in refrigerators. They are different things. A piece of conceptual art could involve keeping things refrigerated or failing to keep things refrigerated. So the physical craftsmanship of the refrigerator-as-art could be either of good or poor quality depending on the intent of the artist. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Art is found, interpreted as such. Precisely - it's more about perception and relationship than about definite qualia in the art-object. Art has no purpose or no meaning outside of art. If it's the kind of academic art-world art that's little more than a physical crystallization of a manifesto, then yes. But art can involve the whole person intellectually, emotionally and spiritually as well. As a shameless romantic I prefer that. It needn't be overtly romantic art either. I was profoundly affected by a work I saw in Madrid that was little more than a slash in a plain white canvas. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
