Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
This is exactly what I've been wondering. The argument used to support the fact that composures (like the mentioned classical ones) are more art than other music is because they're more "complicated" thus at a superficial level more challenging to create and perform. This, again, though, has nothing at all to do with the subjective experience a listener gains - which is, after all, what defines the performance on a deeper level. Now here's the anomaly. The laymen like me think that the subjective experience is what makes something (better, or subjectively more interesting) art. If I see a painting that makes me think, that invokes some feelings inside me, it's a more worthy one that another that just doesn't light up anything. On the other hand, the "professionals" define art not by the thought or experience it provokes (as these are largely subjective concepts), but by the "academic merit" or the technique, and a bunch of very vague abstract terms only "experts" understand "properly". Thus what's superficial to me is deep to them and what's deep to me is superficial to them.
.
|
I think thats an overly cynical way of viewing 'professional' critiques, and I suspect your view is being skewed by the current art establishment (which is indeed horrible). I think people who have a significant amount of technical knowledge/skill in a particular discipline are more likely to notice and appreciate the talent involved in creating something. A sculptor might marvel at the technique involved in particular statue becuase he knows far more than the layman about just how hard it was to (eg) create such a realistic looking flow in the model's hair. Someone who has done a lot of ear training and knows a bit about music theory may be more likely to appreciate the intricacies of counterpoint in a Bach fugue that an untrained listener would miss, and so on. None of this is particularly nebulous and it doesnt necessarily involve a bunch of art students sitting around and talking about how the large green patch in a Rothko painting relates to capitalist hegemony or whatever.
With a lot of current art critics its admittedly more nebulous since pieces are often evaluated primarilly based on the political views they represent rather than on their artistic merit; a 'layman' might say that a particular piece is good because it makes him feel nice, whereas a certain breed of art critic will say that the same piece is bad because it ultimately aims only to produce nice feelings rather than challenging political institutions (bread and circuses etc). However I dont think this means that 'professional' critique as a whole is worthless; you just need to look into the standards which particular critics are using to judge pieces in order to decide the extent to which their views are worth listening to. Good critique is extremely valuable imo since it can open your eyes/ears/mind to things that you previously missed.