Ze Art

[Tietäjä]

So there's been this public discussion regarding music and art. Well, more specifically, they've been bickering about what sort of music is art and what isn't. The music students (read: the geeks that play piano in some acadamy they call university) and other art people (those who draw amazing expressionist dots on paper, post it to the museum of modern art and call it stunning post-modern impressionism) are ferociously standing by their claim that pop music, jazz music, rock music, or any other music spite "classical" music isn't art, but entertainment. In fact, they're going long enough to argue that what actually makes art, is the design intent. If the music is designed to be art, with the idea that the bottom line is to create something which vaguely fills some deeper description of art in concencus of beauty and magnificence, the music is art. The rest of the music is, to them, just trash, and definately not art. In this argument, they feel they're underlining that only classical music is true art.

The Jazz Empire strikes back. The old grey jedis of the Miles Davis school, came then with the response. They feel that jazz is equally artistic to music played by a symphony orchestra. With their logic, they are willing to give up that symphony orchestras and old men with sticks are able to produce musical art, but jazz is equally art. The classical students are fiercely denying this claim, stating that jazz is just another form of popular music. The popular/rock/trash metal fanboys now feel insulted. Their form of art (or satan worship) isn't recognized as art, but as trash. They come up with this strange claim that pretty much any music is art by default. Of course, the Jazz fanatics are denying this because they feel jazz is far superior to the rest of the bunch, and the classical musicians are standing on what seems to be the highest horse of them all, passing judgement what they feel is down.

What's very ridiculous about this claim is the origin of whatever is usually defined as art. Before this modern day morons, nobody was producing art on the sole purpose of merely producing something artistic. The classical wannabe-hotshot Basel-whatever-university student went long enough to quote some long dead mastermusician saying something along the lines that art, musicswise, is the sort of music normal people don't understand and can't enjoy because it's too complicated. No, no, really. The Sixtine Chapel's ceiling wasn't painted just because someone wanted to create art. It was a tribute. Shakespeare didn't write his plays just because he wanted to bring people intelligent and complex art. What I'm trying to say, is, that isn't the whole bottom line of the art thing that people enjoy what they perceive? Societal, philosophical, or whatever thoughts can be added below the surface or complex patterns can be built for the more observing perceptants to notice, but the bottom line is for people to enjoy what the experience. Isn't this the bottom line in entertainment too? What makes classical art so much better than "modern" (art?) "entertainment"?