|
DJ is NO SKILL ??? (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You're an idiot. |
lol, that's not because you are not in agreement with my point of view that I am an idiot. The debate between SMC and I was peaceful and quite interesting so far.
Don't agress people like that.:)
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
* A singer (or vocalist) uses his or her voice as an instrument.
* An instrumentalist plays a musical instrument.
* Both singer and instrumentalist can be improvisers, who create real time music.
* Composers and songwriters write music.
* A conductor coordinates a musical ensemble.
Which one of those is NOT "a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art"? |
As I said in my previous post, an instrumentalist is likely to make something not deemed to be an art. But that's just point of view.;) |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
An instrumentalist can be a simple technician for me. For instance, I don't consider the sound engineers who create the instrumental parts for rnb/hip hop as artists, because they are like artisans. |
They write, arrange and produce the instrumentals for rnb/hiphop. If they're not musicians then nobody who creates instrumental electronic music is. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
They write, arrange and produce the instrumentals for rnb/hiphop. If they're not musicians then nobody who creates instrumental electronic music is. |
For me, the work of an artisan involves an economic interest and an artistic dimension, while the work of an artist is not involved in its principle, even if it can also be integrated in the economy. |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
For me, the work of an artisan involves an economic interest and an artistic dimension, while the work of an artist is not involved in its principle, even if it can also be integrated in the economy. |
So if Dr. Dre gave away his beats without making any money they would turn from non-music into music? |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
So if Dr. Dre gave away his beats without making any money they would turn from non-music into music? |
I didn't say that an artist shouldn't make money! If Dr Dre makes his music only for aesthetic value, so yes he is an artist for me, even if he sells 12 millions of his . But if he makes it only to make money, he is not an artist for me.
Edit: as for the original discussion, a bedroom dj who wants to learn djing because he will get rich is not an artist, while some outstanding guys like Cut Chemists, DJ Shadow, etc. are pure artists.
Edit #2: but what is for you an artist? |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
I didn't say that an artist shouldn't make money! If Dr Dre makes his music only for aesthetic value, so yes he is an artist for me, even if he sells 12 millions of his . But if he makes it only to make money, he is not an artist for me.
|
So, if art is the work of an artist and the intentions of a person decide if he is an artist or not, that means that you would have to know the creator of a piece of music or maybe even be that person, in order to conclude if what you are listening to is art or not. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
| Interesting how one of the dumbest threads ever turned into an art debate. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
So, if art is the work of an artist and the intentions of a person decide if he is an artist or not, that means that you would have to know the creator of a piece of music or maybe even be that person, in order to conclude if what you are listening to is art or not. |
Yes, you can argue too that the industrial design of the 70s should be considered as an art, as well as the 'ready-made' pieces like the Duchamp's toilet! But I don't like the era of our postmodern relativism, where everything is art, and everybody can be an artist.
There are 2 possible explanations to understand these mutations of the artistic activity:
1/ This is the end of Art, that is to say that the modern art is only a masquerade. Art has proven its own autodestruction.
2/ The nihilism of the modern Art has reached the limits of the objective representation, ie that Art has reached its historical bound. That's exactly what Hegel said: the question is no more "What is an artwork? but rather "Why do am I an artwork?". The contemporary period sees for a bunch of decades the end of Art. It doesn't mean that there are no more artworks, but that Art has reached such a level of autoreflexion that it has became philosophically "adult".
So, it is because we see something as artistic that it becomes an artowrk. |
|
|
| calmlikeabomb |
there is no right and wrong in opinions
"Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty."
-David Hume |
|
|
| nikhil chinapa |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
Interesting how one of the dumbest threads ever turned into an art debate. |
True that... they ruined a perfectly idiotic thread...
Can we PLEASE go back to "...TIESTO is an Olimpic playing trance mover..." It was more fun that way...:tongue3 |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Yes, you can argue too that the industrial design of the 70s should be considered as an art, as well as the 'ready-made' pieces like the Duchamp's toilet! But I don't like the era of our postmodern relativism, where everything is art, and everybody can be an artist.
|
Why not? Nobody forces you to like what others think is art or even to agree on that it is art.
| quote: |
There are 2 possible explanations to understand these mutations of the artistic activity:
1/ This is the end of Art, that is to say that the modern art is only a masquerade. Art has proven its own autodestruction.
2/ The nihilism of the modern Art has reached the limits of the objective representation, ie that Art has reached its historical bound. That's exactly what Hegel said: the question is no more "What is an artwork? but rather "Why do am I an artwork?". The contemporary period sees for a bunch of decades the end of Art. It doesn't mean that there are no more artworks, but that Art has reached such a level of autoreflexion that it has became philosophically "adult".
|
The thing is that this analysis of the evolution of art, however reasonable it may be, does not tell us anything about what art is.
| quote: | | So, it is because we see something as artistic that it becomes an artowrk. |
True, but that kind of contradicts your position. |
|
|
| Soeder |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
Music is an art, so a musician is necessarily an artist. You are contradiciting yourself. |
I draw beard on peoples face in Magazines, but i actually don't consider myself as an artist. |
|
|
|
|
