A Nice Documentary on Noise

[cloak and dagger]

1. What you said above isn't really how things work. Like any other medium, art has communities with lots of people involved. If you make something subpar with no meaning and invent a halfassed meaning, it's going to come off as halfassed. Artists have to present and talk about their work all the time, so just saying one line about it and fucking off isn't going to cut it.

2. That does make you an artist, just a shitty one (unless of course there's a deeper meaning to the whole exercise).

So are you saying that the story or meaning behind the art is more important than the "art" itself? Or that the meaning is what actually turns a turd on my lawn from just a turd to a work of art? It might look like a turd to you, but if I can lecture you on how it is representative of my life experiences it's now considered a work of art?

I've only read over the stuff in this thread and I find it pretty interesting. I find the noise they're making to be pretty annoying and pointless, as are some of those pictures VirtualMark posted. However that's just my opinion, and if these things are somehow their means of expression than who am I to say it's not art. As much as i'd love to do just that

The story or meaning behind the art is a major part of what makes art, art - it's one of the fundamental characteristics of the medium. Separating the meaning and the aesthetic aspect is completely the wrong thing to do, as it's all part of the same package, the same way historical artifacts have value (both monetary and cultural) and aren't just "really old things." That's the problem with posting a picture of a bed and saying "this isn't art." You'd be correct, but only in the sense that it's just a picture of art, since you're not being exposed to the full piece, but only part of it. The point of art isn't to make you think how pretty a picture looks or how skilled someone is. Of course aesthetic appeal is the point of SOME art, but not art itself on a fundamental level.

Your attitude is the correct one in my opinion. As I said before, art should always be criticized, but those who criticize should also be prepared to defend those criticisms; it's just how having an opinion works. But in claiming that something isn't art, the onus is on you (not YOU literally) to prove how it isn't art.

[JBE]

1. What you said above isn't really how things work. Like any other medium, art has communities with lots of people involved. If you make something subpar with no meaning and invent a halfassed meaning, it's going to come off as halfassed. Artists have to present and talk about their work all the time, so just saying one line about it and fucking off isn't going to cut it.

2. That does make you an artist, just a shitty one (unless of course there's a deeper meaning to the whole exercise).

So are you saying that the story or meaning behind the art is more important than the "art" itself? Or that the meaning is what actually turns a turd on my lawn from just a turd to a work of art? It might look like a turd to you, but if I can lecture you on how it is representative of my life experiences it's now considered a work of art?

Isn't it though? I mean it's been said that art is about expression. So in that sense, the story behind the art is just as important as the actual art. Without it, is it still art?

Lets take that Malevich painting that was brought up in the thread earlier. It's nothing more than a black square. That's it! Is a black square art? I would like to think that alone, no it's not art. However, it's the book that he wrote later on where he talked about his inspiration and the expression behind that black square that really made it art. And the reason behind that was because now people understood it. Before the book it was just a black square, after the book it's art. So tell me.....is the meaning behind the art more important, or at the very least, as important?

Lets go ahead and take a look at that painting by the way.


The interesting thing about this, is how much this has made me realize that art can be about how good of a liar you can be. Which is an interesting thought.

[Huts]

The story or meaning behind the art is a major part of what makes art, art - it's one of the fundamental characteristics of the medium. Separating the meaning and the aesthetic aspect is completely the wrong thing to do, as it's all part of the same package, the same way historical artifacts have value (both monetary and cultural) and aren't just "really old things." That's the problem with posting a picture of a bed and saying "this isn't art." You'd be correct, but only in the sense that it's just a picture of art, since you're not being exposed to the full piece, but only part of it. The point of art isn't to make you think how pretty a picture looks or how skilled someone is. Of course aesthetic appeal is the point of SOME art, but not art itself on a fundamental level.

I can 100% see where you're coming from with this I guess it's just difficult to grasp the whole abstract art thing, since I feel that's the only type of art that needs explaining. I can listen to a band/rapper/producer or see a painting/graffiti and not have any qualms with classifying it as art, whether I find it appealing or not. When I see what looks like a picture of my room or something I could replicate with no training or practice what so ever and know all I need to do is back it up with a story as to how it "speaks to me", it makes me

[wub]

My first ever trip to the Tate when I was younger, I remember seeing this;



It's a piece by Salvdor Dali - old school bakelite phone with a plastic lobster on top.


I remember saying "I could do that", and getting a response from our guide of "Yes, but you didn't".

[Huts]

touche

[VirtualMark]

There really is no hope for you in this discussion.

yes. i didn't say that too well. basically what i mean is that some of these works are easy to imitate. i still think painting a white canvas or black square is nonsense. theres not much thats going to change that. and nobodies even commented on the fact that one artist sold cans of shit for thousands of pounds. is shitting in a can art? apparently so, according to some people. i don't like to go with the herd tho, and totally dismiss this sort of nonsense.

i will also point out the dictionary definition of art:

art/ärt/
Noun:

1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.


i think i've said enough anyhow, you all get my point. some agree some disagree, thats life. i get what you're all saying that its art even if its bad art, which is true i guess. i just don't have any respect for it. theres plenty of old paintings that i don't like(such as the mona lisa, i find it really dull and dont' really get why its so highly thought of), but i respect the skill needed to create such a piece, and do consider them art. its far beyond what i could do and takes years to learn. but i'm pretty sure i could paint a black square, or put a lobster on a phone, and its stuff like that i find pointless.

[wub]

i'm pretty sure i could paint a black square, or put a lobster on a phone

Yes, but didn't. And therein lies the crux of the matter.


I feel like we're going around in circles here a bit, so maybe agree to disagree? Art is all subjective anyway.

[VirtualMark]

I feel like we're going around in circles here a bit, so maybe agree to disagree? Art is all subjective anyway.

yes i think thats perhaps a good idea.

[cloak and dagger]

i will also point out the dictionary definition of art:

art/ärt/
Noun:

1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

skill
Noun:

1 obsolete : cause, reason
2 a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance
b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks
3 : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability <language skills>

[Mad_EP]

To all the people who are criticizing the majority of modern art by saying "I could do that"...


...let me ask you this: Do you sample? Or did you actually physically perform the drums on a drum kit, play the bass line on an double bass, play all the keyboard bits live (instead of using a piano roll)? Did you perform them all in time naturally? Or did you have to use the quantize grid in your DAW? Did you programs each of your synths from scratch, or did you use presets (including the tweaking of an existing preset)? Did you use proper hardware outboard or did you use plugin reverbs and compression that allows one to save their settings? Are you able to perform your music live all in one take? Or are you just letting the computer do most of the work for you...

Just saying - cos it seems a lot of electronic musicians get defensive about such issues when live instrumentalists make some very similar sounding criticisms, that by relying on technology "Is it really music"? and "Any child could just cut and paste on a DAW" etc etc

[Electric_Head]

To all the people who are criticizing the majority of modern art by saying "I could do that"...


...let me ask you this: Do you sample? Or did you actually physically perform the drums on a drum kit, play the bass line on an double bass, play all the keyboard bits live (instead of using a piano roll)? Did you perform them all in time naturally? Or did you have to use the quantize grid in your DAW? Did you programs each of your synths from scratch, or did you use presets (including the tweaking of an existing preset)? Did you use proper hardware outboard or did you use plugin reverbs and compression that allows one to save their settings? Are you able to perform your music live all in one take? Or are you just letting the computer do most of the work for you...

Just saying - cos it seems a lot of electronic musicians get defensive about such issues when live instrumentalists make some very similar sounding criticisms, that by relying on technology "Is it really music"? and "Any child could just cut and paste on a DAW" etc etc

I`ll punch anyone in the chops if they tell me that.

[GV1]

The definition of art in any dictionary is just one persons (or a collection of peoples) definition. I wouldn't rely on a dictionary for a solid definition of something that's so personal. Ask 1000 artists what their definition of art is and they will all give you a different response, and if they don't most will say "It's personal expression", yet I don't see that definition in the Oxford.

Skill is another funny one. Skill is developed. Dedicate your time to something long enough, with enough passion and you'll become skilled at it.

This whole noise debate is silly now. Noise creators are unlikely to load up a VST randomly move a few knobs and go WOW LOOK AT ME. Most are into circuit bending, or understand synthesis to create the noise they want to hear. They are expressing themselves, and creating noises that are personal to them using their skill.

Some of the best art is created by people that do what most wouldn't dream of doing. It does not matter how they achieved it. Like it or not, it's art.

[GV1]

Also, to add. I work on an MPC, and I sample a lot. Do you know how many musicians will swear blue that what I'm doing, and what others have done since the 1980's (foundations of hip hop), is not talent or skill. I've had so many debates over this.

I was in a studio the other day with some well known faces and I dropped a CD of some of my hip hop beats I created on the MPC. To see the smile on peoples faces, and to see heads nod, and the pat on the back, shows me my "MPC music" is more than just randomly sampling vinyl and hitting a few pads. Yet if I showed it to some of the debaters I've had arguments in the past they would laugh and come up with all sorts of defensive points and arguments.

The same really applies here. Does it matter how something is done? If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. That's all there is to it.

[cloak and dagger]

I think we should all just join together on the idea that Madonna isn't art, no matter how much I fucking love Like a Prayer.

Not that Madonna isn't art, but I just have this personal thing against Madonna, don't ask, I don't really know why.

[Electric_Head]

like a virgin is the one

[Electric_Head]

I`ve only watched 20 minutes or so but I haven`t heard any mention of Merzbow.

[Mad_EP]

I`ve only watched 20 minutes or so but I haven`t heard any mention of Merzbow.

Yeah - my main beef with the film is not about the integrity of the content.. but rather the massive artists that they missed.

[paradigm_x]

ugh



im actually speechless.

dubstep is far more derivative than anything 'noise' related. particularly that made on cracked daws and vsts....

it is pointless trying to discuss tho; seems screaming tantrums that "it isnt art" trumps all. Why does it get you so riled Mark?

[GV1]

ugh



im actually speechless.

dubstep is far more derivative than anything 'noise' related. particularly that made on cracked daws and vsts....

it is pointless trying to discuss tho; seems screaming tantrums that "it isnt art" trumps all. Why does it get you so riled Mark?

Gotta agree here.

Also, for those that know about sampling noise, and creating noise, will also know it's actually an important part of Dubstep, Drum and Bass, Punk, Metal and lots of other genres. There is a world outside the box, even if you can't see it.

[JBE]

I`ve only watched 20 minutes or so but I haven`t heard any mention of Merzbow.

Yeah - my main beef with the film is not about the integrity of the content.. but rather the massive artists that they missed.

If I'm not mistaken all the people featured in the documentary were either Portland natives or live in Oregon. It didn't seem like a very heavily budgeted documentary, so they probably just stuck with what they could get within an area that they knew had a still heavily active "Noise" scene.