stitch626 wrote:Music is a subset of art. Just like painting, sculpture, theatre, film, literature, photography, dance, sketching/drawing, and in some opinions, architecture (example being the Taj Mahal). They are all a part of art.
Sionnach Glic wrote:I'd say that music can be considered an art just as much as movie-making or painting. It's just designing sounds rather than images.
Fair enough. Conceded.
Lighthawk wrote:Wow, DÃ©jÃ vu. Didn't you already make that claim and I responded to it?
You did, and I'm refuting your responding assertion.
Ah, I thought so. Seriously, do we really need to keep going in circles with this? Your reasoning is flawed. Just because one thing has certain qualities does NOT mean that anything else that also has those qualities is in fact the same thing.
Then be more specific. If you believe that the definition of art requires more than the expression of thought and emotion then say so. Until then my point that your definition includes terrorism is accurate.
So? If someone puts together lines and blocks of color in such a way that is appealing to look at, that's art for me. Now if someone just rips off and copies someone else's lines and and blocks, that's a different matter. Just because anyone could have made the original doesn't take away from it's appeal.
If it's pretty to look at, but requires no particular skill to produce, then it's merely decoration.
Of course not, but that simply makes it emotional, or aesthetically appealing, or worthy. The same is true of a sunset, or a flower, or someone saying they love you. That's not art.
None of the those example are human creations meant to be art though, although they have all been used as the basis for art.
It does, however, amply prove that "art" and "looks pretty" are not synonyms.
You say "yes Seafort, you're right, I apologise for ever questioning you".
Or I could tell you to f**k off with a rusty knife. Guess which is more likely?
The former of course.
*snip music stuff
As I said above, music stuff is conceded.
How about you tell me what you think art is, something you have yet to bother doing.
I see you haven't bothered reading the thread properly.
I, on the first page, wrote:Art requires two things: 1) it's aesthetically pleasing (this is a matter of opinion, as you say) 2) it requires skill.Lighthawk wrote:art doesn't have to be pleasing at all, it can envoke disgust, distaste, sadness, whatever. Good art has an impact on the people who see it.
Fair enough, amend the first requirement to invoking an emotional reaction by visual means.
Given recent changes, that latter description can be further amended to "by visual or auditory means".
Missed the point of me asking what the point was, funny.
You asked which point I wanted proof for. I told you.
Just because something was done with a great deal of skill doesn't mean it's art. If it doesn't provoke any feelings, it's just a well done image.
See the description above.