3 ms·
I don’t know how you could possibly objectively claim that pre-modern western art is “exponentially better.” Are The Beatles not as significant as Mozart?
by BolexNOLA 6y ago
I don’t know how you could possibly objectively claim that pre-modern western art is “exponentially better.”
Are The Beatles not as significant as Mozart?
- heisbsissi 6y agoIf you read his comments, you can definitely see why he can make lousy comparisons like that. He's miserable, looks up to murdering thugs, thinks all women are money thirsty whores. Is it any surprise that he would think the past is best regardless of anything you might point out. Incel culture is strong here too, weird how that dang guy does nothing about that while being a near fascist about supposed policy violations.
- corty 6y agoUltimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy. While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
- BolexNOLA 6y agoI don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound. Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
- hodgesrm 6y agoFalco expressed one of the definitive opinions on this question in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVikZ8Oe_XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVikZ8Oe_XA. ("Rock me Amadeus.")