pc issue of the day pt. 4:33 isn't music

DwnWthVwls · 07-06-2015, 05:47 PM

Art is only open to interpretation when the artist hasn't confirmed what kind of art it is supposed to be.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 07-06-2015, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

I don't really care: just stop telling me I can't detect humour or sarcasm when, when applied to you, this can be literally impossible at times.

you're missing the point, th. the fact that it was intended as a joke by the artist is what makes it a joke. whether or not it contains any actual humor is irrelevant.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 05:52 PM

so if I just made a fart noise and said it was a joke you would laugh?

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Because it's not up to the listener to decide what the piece is. You're free to your own interpretation, but if you go around saying that Jaws is a film about aliens and Spielberg comes and shuts you down on it, your interpretation is wrong. You can still hold onto that interpretation, but since you didn't create it, it's not your place to say, especially after being told otherwise.

But if Spielberg believed that he had been abducted by aliens, and subconsciously made Jaws into an expression of his trauma at the hands of the aliens, then even if he told me I was wrong, that wouldn't mean I necessarily was.

Likewise, if John Cage wants 4'33 to be interpreted as music, but I find that his reasoning doesn't add up, then shouldn't I also be able to contradict him?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 07-06-2015, 06:04 PM

^no. artists are like a delicate endangered species that we mustn't disturb with facts or logic. otherwise they aren't free to create and then they go extinct and global warming wins

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 06:06 PM

^Since when is art based in facts and logic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

But if Spielberg believed that he had been abducted by aliens, and subconsciously made Jaws into an expression of his trauma at the hands of the aliens, then even if he told me I was wrong, that wouldn't mean I necessarily was.

Likewise, if John Cage wants 4'33 to be interpreted as music, but I find that his reasoning doesn't add up, then shouldn't I also be able to contradict him?

You could contradict him, but his opinion would still outweigh yours.

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

You could contradict him, but his opinion would still outweigh yours.

Would my opinion outweigh Spielburg's anally probed one? I should think so, since my interpretation would more accurately reflect his work than his own.

If I can potentially interpret a piece of art more accurately than the artist themselves, then your entire notion of not being able to contradict an artist is invalid. Ergo, if I want to tell John Cage that his music isn't music, then I'm not automatically wrong.

**Frownland** · 07-06-2015, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Would my opinion outweigh Spielburg's anally probed one? I should think so, since my interpretation would more accurately reflect his work than his own.

If I can potentially interpret a piece of art more accurately than the artist themselves, then your entire notion of not being able to contradict an artist is invalid. Ergo, if I want to tell John Cage that his music isn't music, then I'm not automatically wrong.

Well to be fair I'm going off of the assumption that Cage wasn't abducted by aliens and pairing that with the fact that Cage can back up his side. I believe that having created the art, his opinion on what it stands for and what it is holds the most water. You are still free to have your own interpretation, but in the grand scheme of things it won't be able to trump the artist's.

The Batlord · 07-06-2015, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Well to be fair I'm going off of the assumption that Cage wasn't abducted by aliens and pairing that with the fact that Cage can back up his side. I believe that having created the art, his opinion on what it stands for and what it is holds the most water. You are still free to have your own interpretation, but in the grand scheme of things it won't be able to trump the artist's.

It may very well, but that doesn't mean you have to accept his interpretation as gospel, or that it is inherently correct. He might believe that vaccines cause autism, after all.

YorkeDaddy · 07-06-2015, 06:36 PM

The tacos I had for dinner today are music

And you can't debate that because I said so and I'm the one that had the tacos.

^^ genre-bending musical masterpiece

Now kiss my feet Frownland

07-06-2015, 05:52 PM	#123 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	so if I just made a fart noise and said it was a joke you would laugh? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

07-06-2015, 06:04 PM	#125 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	^no. artists are like a delicate endangered species that we mustn't disturb with facts or logic. otherwise they aren't free to create and then they go extinct and global warming wins