3 ms·
To be clear: I have spent the years to memorize and be able to perform a few Beethoven sonatas (not to mention the years required to even get to that point). I
by pseudocomposer 1y ago
To be clear: I have spent the years to memorize and be able to perform a few Beethoven sonatas (not to mention the years required to even get to that point). I can also play them drunk (though not as cleanly, and wouldn't do that in any paid/professional performance situation). I literally did this sort of thing for a living before deciding to use my CS/Math degree to be able to better provide for my family (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlatane/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonlatane/).
And none of that makes Beethoven "better" than Chappell Roan. Because there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is.
On the other had, your inability to correctly spell the name of an influential contemporary artist, with 40+M listeners per month, replying to a comment that did correctly spell her name, is a pretty objective reason to not trust anything you have to say about art (or, perhaps, much else, at least until you address whatever underlying issues/pathologies have you thinking this way).
Perhaps this will offer you some perspective: back when I did music for a living, I often did think this way. I thought most contemporary music was trash if it didn't offer the harmonic or contrapuntal complexity of classical, or even jazz. Really, being a young man from a poor background, I believe it was more a survival instinct (trying to gaslight myself and others into measuring me as "good enough" for gigs). It nearly ruined music for me, though. It required me being dishonest with myself about what I really enjoyed. Letting all that go has been a multi-decade process, and it's made me a much more well-adjusted individual. It also applies in many ways to the software world (as long as you stay out of Google-/Meta-/Oracle-type bigtech misery-inducing rat races).
- citizenpaul 1y ago> there is no objective assessment of "better/worse"ness in art. That's not how art works, or what art is. You've been fooled by the rent seeking class.
- nine_k 1y agoThere's art that moves you, or does not move you. That's the measure that matters most in your unique and finite life. You get to choose for yourself what to spend your time on, objectivity be damned.
- crq-yml 1y agoPrecisely the opposite. Rent-seekers eagerly invite comparison for purposes of valuation, and push the lens of art towards technical and political measurements. When a work is incomparable in the way in which it achieves verisimilitude it is escaping this system.
- citizenpaul 1y agoYou are basically talking about the part where the system is so broken or rent captured that the only way out is through the bottom. Sure, but that doesn't make it good automatically.
- mathgeek 1y agoAgreed here. Every time my kids bring up tier list rankings I have to again explain this to them.
- dbalatero 1y agoIs there an article (so you don't have to write an essay) that explains what you mean here? I don't think I'm familiar with the short hand point you're making here. I understand the terms rent seeking and familiar with the argument made in the quote fwiw.
- bccdee 1y agoAre you honestly tell me that you would let someone correct you on a matter of taste? That an authority could tell you, "no, you're wrong for enjoying this piece of art. It's bad and you ought to dislike it," and you would obey? If so, you're a dupe. Trust your own taste. That's the first step to connoisseurship.