how does music compare to the other forms of art civilization has produced? I would propose there is 'high art' and other art forms are sourced from it. high art would include classical music (and some jazz). other art would include popular music (songs). film to me is a watered down format; there are no films as great as the symphonies of Beethoven, dramas of Shakespeare, paintings of Michelangelo, etc. of course there is nothing wrong with entertainment, but I don't believe there are (a lot of) films as good as the greatest rock albums (even if we disagree on these albums, we can agree there are some albums in the popular music canon that are magnificent). I would even go as far to declare the best classical music is perhaps greater than the best paintings (with the exception of the sistine chapel which is #1!) Music is so abstract, its the least dependent on the material world, and so for that reason I believe its the best.
jazz isn't high art lol, only someone with next to no knowledge of classical form and composition would claim this
Chase Ramirez
I said "some jazz." You don't think someone such as John Coltrane has produced something equivalent to high art? Its not classical form or composition but its greater than 99% of other popular music.
Samuel Howard
the work of Free Jazz artists is of no less value than cubism or futurism in painting and sculpture.
Justin Powell
Art is in everything and your view of it is closed and elitist.
Caleb Miller
That is simply untrue, Jack.
Wyatt Harris
>lowest art: film absolute fucking cringe
good topic, teenage OP this shit reads like a classic "le wrong generation" phase 15 year old wrote it
Henry Reed
Zero value, exactly
Asher Torres
I don't think you even understand your own idea of what art is. Or if you do, it's completely arbitrary and doesn't have a global application. Everyone has a different idea of what art is, so before discussing art with anyone you always need to come to a common ground about what it is first. Or in your case, how "arty" something is, which going by my own definition of the word is laughable because it's not something you measure. It either is or it isn't, and it's not some mark of prestige either. It's just about anything made by anyone where it comes from the heart. And what may mean a lot to me could mean nothing to the next guy, so trying to objectively value something so inherently subjective is a completely fruitless endeavour. Going by my definition, that is. If you don't agree, it's likely because your definition of what art is is different to mine.
If you want anyone to take you seriously about this, start by presenting your case for what makes something art. And how to measure the... "artfulness" of it, I guess. Simply stating one kind is more so than the other without any explanation means nothing. What are you even basing it on? No one can know. To me it just sounds like you're some kid who's assuming those are higher artforms because that's what the world has taught you to believe, and you've made this thread expecting a pat on the back for your mature opinions. Maybe it's because those genres are generally appreciated by sophisticated adults rather than the kids you're going to class with. I can tell you I do appreciate those genres but it's not because I think they're art and I'm sniffing the farts of my fellow classical and jazz appreciators, it's simply an appreciation of talent like the skill and coordination that they require, or the unique and interesting sounds that they produce.
Anyway if you just wanted to know what others consider art, you could've asked that without this cringy and baseless opinion of your own.
Carter Stewart
You need to be 18 to post on this site
Jayden Baker
Any discussion about the nature of art always seems to attract the most bitter, caustic, and pseudointellectual personalities on the board. Best not to bother discussing it here.
Jonathan Torres
are you by any chance the user AFTERHOURS in some sites? the autistic rigid thinking and the sixtine chapel stan gave you away dude
>but I don't believe there are (a lot of) films as good as the greatest rock albums (even if we disagree on these albums, we can agree there are some albums in the popular music canon that are magnificent) This is the cringiest thing you said. Rock music is lowest common denominator and I cant imagine what rock record would possibly come close to say even my top 200 films. You really gonna pretend the Beatles produced better art than Fellini or Lubitsch? You really think King Crimson puts on a better show than Haneke or Lang? Get out here.
Owen Nelson
high art: >music >literature >architecture >modern art
low art: >films >theatre >photography >boomer art (wow is that ANOTHER portrait of a nobleman!?!)
"""art""" >video gaymes >culinary arts
no, i shan't be elaborating further
Camden Ortiz
>Fellini or Lubitsch? c r i n g e Why are you even throwing the Beatles of all bands in the same sentence? What a weird comparison
Jeremiah Foster
high art: >music >film >photography
low art: >literature (boring) >theatre (lol) >modern art (wow is that ANOTHER shitty drawing of a cube?!)
Almost entirely disagree on the painting/drawing placements. "Boomer art", generally, had a much healthier balance between vivid subjects and symbolic techniques. And there were some brilliant landscapes, as well as portraits. Some of the more coherent modern works managed to develop from these roots. Literature (in the narrower sense) has quite a few masterpieces. It might take a while to explore the classics, however.
