Why does having "too many" soft synths bother me?

[Gamma-UT]

And so?

The implication was still there.

Only for the purpose of making an argument. Who Cares If You Listen? is not an invitation to ignore Babbitt's music.

That is the rub. The point I am getting at was that you should not "need" someone else to call your work Art. Want. Yes. Need. Not necessary...

Did anyone say that?

[aciddose]

You're being totally arbitrary though.

How many people need to "get it" before it becomes "art" ?

If one is not enough, are two? Three? Five? One hundred?

I don't hinge my definition of art on this kind of in my opinion entirely silly thing, a noodle really. It seems very shallow.

If one or two people are enough, does it matter who those people are? Does the worth of a work change depending upon your personal opinion of the qualifications of the judge of that work?

It's all hollow.

[Gamma-UT]

You're being totally arbitrary though.

How many people need to "get it" before it becomes "art" ?

If one is not enough, are two? Three? Five? One hundred?

I don't hinge my definition of art on this kind of in my opinion entirely silly thing, a noodle really. It seems very shallow.

If one or two people are enough, does it matter who those people are? Does the worth of a work change depending upon your personal opinion of the qualifications of the judge of that work?

It's all hollow.

You're the one pointing to WIkipedia pages apparently about the philosophy of art. Try some Adorno or for something a little less heavy going, Arthur Danto (from the page you, oddly enough, linked to): "the status of an artifact as work of art results from the ideas a culture applies to it, rather than its inherent physical or perceptible qualities. Cultural interpretation (an art theory of some kind) is therefore constitutive of an object's art hood."

They don't mention numbers by the way so I'm not sure why I should.

[aciddose]

I've never heard anyone mention numbers at all. You have mentioned numbers, you've said both that zero and one are less than that required for a work to be considered art.

This is where your definition becomes completely arbitrary.

How many does it take?

[whyterabbyt]

Art is an emergent thing, not something you define ahead of time and build to exacting specifications.

Something built to exacting specifications is something different, that is business, not art.

That's quite an ignorant view of how artists work, IMO. It reads more like a justification of ones own preferences than a cogent and informed assessment of how other artists work.

Whilst Im quite in agreement that work undertaken purely for commercial gain is usually seen as inextricably at odds with the concept of being am artist, I completely disagree with your claim that undertaking a creative act for its own sake is the sole defining factor in something being art, and the significant factor that you have omitted is exactly 'something you define ahead of time'.
You seem basically to be saying that 'concept' or 'idea' are the opposite of art, and that is fundamentally untrue. I can only assume you either dont know many working artists, or have failed to understand how they create in your rush to place yourself, not just as one of their peers but above them, and those around you... 'the only one who understands artistic expression'.

FWIW, the monstrously deluded arrogance in that statement alone is enough to undermine your entire thesis. Given that Ive never ever seen one iota of actual imagination in your posting beyond the absolutely literal, I can only assume that that level of belief in yourself is entirely down to an absolute failure to comprehend the nature of it; a blind man trying to claim authority over colour.
Of course, among fledgling artists, the belief that you and only you are enlightened enough is hardly rare, but its rarely a direct indicator of actual talent. In my experience, what tends to be indicative of talent is the willingness to explore and exhaust an idea; quite literally defining something ahead of time and building to exact specifications.

[trimph1]

@Gamma-UT.

Babbit did do a lot of concerts as well as record a lot of material but that does not mean it was all that easy for him. Besides, he did get a lot of grants and such for his work.

As to the need vs want thing. No one directly said it but the idea that one "needs" approval for the thing to be called Art is. Look at how this thread went ...

My own take is that, being a folk art collector, I find many folk artists did see their work as something akin to art. But not many did. I could go on about some folk artists just had to produce their work because of an inner drive to do such and it took many decades before anyone called their work Art.

Eh...classic KvR thread....totally off course...

[Gamma-UT]

I've never heard anyone mention numbers at all. You have mentioned numbers, you've said both that zero and one are less than that required for a work to be considered art.

This is where your definition becomes completely arbitrary.

How many does it take?

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

I think you can derive a satisfactory answer from that, although you might have to account for the creator not thinking it's art.

[aciddose]

Art is an emergent thing, not something you define ahead of time and build to exacting specifications.

Something built to exacting specifications is something different, that is business, not art.

That's quite an ignorant view of how artists work, IMO. It reads more like a justification of ones own preferences than a cogent and informed assessment of how other artists work.

Whilst Im quite in agreement that work undertaken purely for commercial gain is usually seen as inextricably at odds with the concept of being am artist, I completely disagree with your claim that undertaking a creative act for its own sake is the sole defining factor in something being art, and the significant factor that you have omitted is exactly 'something you define ahead of time'.
You seem basically to be saying that 'concept' or 'idea' are the opposite of art, and that is fundamentally untrue. I can only assume you either dont know many working artists, or have failed to understand how they create in your rush to place yourself, not just as one of their peers but above them, and those around you... 'the only one who understands artistic expression'.

FWIW, the monstrously deluded arrogance in that statement alone is enough to undermine your entire thesis. Given that Ive never ever seen one iota of actual imagination in your posting beyond the absolutely literal, I can only assume that that level of belief in yourself is entirely down to an absolute failure to comprehend the nature of it; a blind man trying to claim authority over colour.
Of course, among fledgling artists, the belief that you and only you are enlightened enough is hardly rare, but its rarely a direct indicator of actual talent. In my experience, what tends to be indicative of talent is the willingness to explore and exhaust an idea; quite literally defining something ahead of time and building to exact specifications.

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

When something is 100% defined to meet a specific criteria with no human influence (no artist), and I admit this is a stupidly narrow definition but one I'm willing to accept, it can not be considered art. It can not be an expression of an artist if there is no artist involved.

You can obviously argue that it is a cultural expression and I feel this is a very valid definition. This is what I meant when I said art is an emergent thing. It doesn't matter where it is emergent from, if the collective cultural influence plays a part then it is certainly valid and art, although not created by any specific individual.

So it's a question of degrees of influence. My only argument would be to point out that when speaking in terms of art relative to its creator as an individual, the more influence the individual has on that work the more it can be considered a work of art from that individual. That seems obvious enough doesn't it?

As we move toward the point where the work is wholly defined by outside influences there are obviously various degrees we step through, but there is a clear difference when we cross that threshold and whether you consider it to then be "societal art" or not, it is definitely no longer art as an expression of the artist.

(Expression being the act of expressing a skill to create a work. Nothing to do with emotion or communication.)

[Gamma-UT]

When something is 100% defined to meet a specific criteria with no human influence (no artist), and I admit this is a stupidly narrow definition but one I'm willing to accept, it can not be considered art. It can not be an expression of an artist if there is no artist involved.

What happens when an AI creates something that people consider art? Is art restricted to humans. The Vogons, I understand, are a little miffed by that assertion. They should write better poetry IMHO.

[whyterabbyt]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

[crimsonwarlock]

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

But you did post it nevertheless. Some people read their statement back before hitting the submit button, some don't. The ones who don't are in most cases pretty much full of themselves, while the ones who do are (at least somewhat) able to question their own statements. Think about it

[Gamma-UT]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

I'm distinguishing between art and creation.

[trimph1]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

It comes once something is finished I guess.

[whyterabbyt]

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

granted; I only read your followup after finishing posting. Bear in mind I deliberately weasel-worded it somewhat to indicate that I was responding to a specific perception of what you appeared to mean, on the basis that I may have misunderstood.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Art is an emergent thing, not something you define ahead of time and build to exacting specifications.

Something built to exacting specifications is something different, that is business, not art.

That's quite an ignorant view of how artists work, IMO. It reads more like a justification of ones own preferences than a cogent and informed assessment of how other artists work.

Whilst Im quite in agreement that work undertaken purely for commercial gain is usually seen as inextricably at odds with the concept of being am artist, I completely disagree with your claim that undertaking a creative act for its own sake is the sole defining factor in something being art, and the significant factor that you have omitted is exactly 'something you define ahead of time'.
You seem basically to be saying that 'concept' or 'idea' are the opposite of art, and that is fundamentally untrue. I can only assume you either dont know many working artists, or have failed to understand how they create in your rush to place yourself, not just as one of their peers but above them, and those around you... 'the only one who understands artistic expression'.

FWIW, the monstrously deluded arrogance in that statement alone is enough to undermine your entire thesis. Given that Ive never ever seen one iota of actual imagination in your posting beyond the absolutely literal, I can only assume that that level of belief in yourself is entirely down to an absolute failure to comprehend the nature of it; a blind man trying to claim authority over colour.
Of course, among fledgling artists, the belief that you and only you are enlightened enough is hardly rare, but its rarely a direct indicator of actual talent. In my experience, what tends to be indicative of talent is the willingness to explore and exhaust an idea; quite literally defining something ahead of time and building to exact specifications.

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?