This is a distinction that I think needs to be made. We're always getting into arguments about whether ______ is a good band, or is a real band, etc. But just because someone is a good musician doesn't mean that he or she or they are artists.

Just because someone can paint a picture doesn't mean that they are artists.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Technical skill at an instrument or at singing or even at songwriting does not make someone an artist.....being artistic is about having vision to see things that others might not see.

A band could be perfectly good - in terms of being able to play their instruments well, and still not have anything important to say.

Does anyone get what I'm saying?

Ok, I'll bite . . .

I agree. Just because someone has an incredible vocabulary doesn't mean that they could sit down and write a bestselling book. Same thing goes for musicians.

And if we compare them to great artists:

How do we know that Picasso's peers didn't trash his work? There could have been a bunch of painters standing around with their arms folded saying, "He's not that good." or "I could have done that portrait waaaay better than that." Or maybe they said things like, "This guy needs anatomy lessons -- quick!" or "He's not bad but he'll never be as good as Michaelangelo."

I guess my point is that Picasso could have been the "Drowning Pool" of the renaissance. Better, more technically proficient painters might have taken turns bashing him, but in the end, when the dust cleared his work was left standing. I don't believe it was because his work was better than everyone else's. I believe it was because it touched people on some level that caused his legacy to endure.

And that is what I believe true art is all about.

IMO, people who think this way either admire artists and romanticism the concept of artistry way too much, or see themselves as artists and hold a great deal of disdain for their peers.

Err, and the last poster there might want to next time choose an analogy that makes some chronological sense.

Quite frankly, I think this threadcrap is pretty funny. IMO I think that people who come along and try to dump on a point like this must think that they are qualified to be an anyalist. It's almost like the writer is so in tune with the world and everyone in it that they believe that they are qualified to give their condencending opinion about people they have no idea about. *wink*

The truth my naive friend is that you are just that . . . naive.

As far as chronological sense, I believe that Michaelangelo came before Picasso. Kinda like Hendrix or Rhoads came before Mark Tremontti. Either way, I KNOW you got my point. I think you just felt like being a prick. -- But of course that's only a guess.

IMO, people who yell "threadcrap" to a differing opinion and make a sarcastic reply should just mind their own business when the person isn't talking to them.

And yes, Picasso missed the Renaissance by about 400 years.

Um, I know he missed it, but thanks anyway. -- *chuckle*

~Cheers~

I agree, Ziggy. I've always felt that way. I hear some guitarists who play insanely fast solos and basically show off, but there isn't any feeling behind it. Yngwie Malmsteen comes to mind. I've sat through a couple of his albums, and I just got the feeling that every song was a showcase for his (admittedly good) virtuoso guitar stylings. But for me, if the song isn't there, the fanciest playing in the world won't save it. Yngwie is a musician, not an artist

As for songwriters, Diane Warren instantly popped into my head. She's a songwriter who writes tunes for others (Aerosmith's "I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing", and many many more), and with every song it's like she's trying to hit the ball out of the park. When you focus on writing nothing but hit singles, that leaves little room for trying new things and expanding your horizons. For songwriters like her, the bottom line is: "Will the public buy it?" "Is the chorus catchy enough" "Should I rewrite it to suit the proper demographic?" There's no art in that. Strictly commerce. But then, for the music industry, it's always been business first.

This is what I've always felt about people like Britney Spears, N'Sync and other bubble gum types: If those are indeed their real voices, then I think they have some actual talent, they're just being held back by sub-standard material and of course, the hype machine.

I think it would be interesting to see somebody like Britney to crash and burn, and then release an album a few years later on some underground label without all the hype, where she actually does some strong material and is over-engineered in the studio. I wonder if the critics would actually give her a chance?

Alright settle down people. No need to argue in my thread.

I'm not sure about the 'Drowning Pool' referance, HighSpeedOnIce
....since they obviously suck so very bad but anyway...


I think one of the biggest differences - to me - is who the musician is writing for.....if a musician is writing for themselves I think they have a better shot at being an actual artist. Whereas musicians that are just trying to make a hit record, to get famous, or to just make money - will usually fall short of being artists.

That's not to say that artists have to not be after those things too, but I think that the actual creation of something has to come first in their minds.


I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Aghama - can you explain more?

I do admire artists - they can do things and say things that I can't even approach. I don't really see myself as an artist....I'd like to be maybe, but I'm not. disdain for peers? maybe a touch

I gotta be honest here. Personally I think Drowning Pool sucks too. I only picked them because they've taken a beating lately. I know popular opinion is that they are terrible band. But I thought they would make a good example of the slaps that a fairly successful artist could take. But, alot of people do like them for whatever reasons and that's cool with me.

This "art v. Art" debate is a relatively recent phenomenon. Artists from Shakespeare to Mozart to Hitchcock to the Beatles tried to reach the biggest possible audience without worrying about whether their work would receive the imprimatur of "high art" or some such nonsense. It just so happened that they had the talent to create great art, but yeah, it was also about fame and money. Whereas lately it's become fashionable to assuage the egos of the commercially unsuccessful by labeling them "true artists" and their peers "craftsmen" or some similarly condescending term.

Of course not everyone who picks up a guitar or a brush or a pen has something to say; I'd say that most don't. But art should be judged on its own merits, not on the commercial aspirations of its creator. Here's a shocking fact: That indie movie you felt so good about seeing at the art house is, in its own way, trying to maximize its audience as much as the latest studio blockbuster. Yes, it has a smaller niche -- but within that niche it tries for all the viewers it can get.

Who are the artists who don't care about the size of their audience? They're the ones who paint pictures and hang them in their den, or who write songs and never record them. The act of putting out a product (there's a word that'll piss off the connoisseurs) implies that you want people to be exposed to it. Yes, Van Gogh only sold one of his paintings -- but it wasn't for lack of trying.

There is good art and bad art; seeing as how one can make those distinctions, I see no need to make the word "art" itself a quality judgment.

Fantastic post!

-matt

I disagree.

I could, but dork's last sentence wraps up how I feel nicely. I think people just give the concept of "art", and indeed the word itself, way too much gravity.

Kind of an aside, here's an interesting thread on the issue art:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=219723