2 ms·

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. Fi

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh as focused on creation rather than performance. Sure, you can play those pieces. But could you have composed them, or pieces of similar quality, from scratch? Could Limbaugh have?

bllguo 9y ago
1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
scarecrowbob 9y ago
Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

2 ms·

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear. I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. Fi

by will4274 9y ago

bllguo 9y ago
1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases. 2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.
scarecrowbob 9y ago
Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best. And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.