Thread is now about Holist.

[AFK]

The "starving" angle is bunk.  Obviously artists can make significant money, especially when their vision resonates with so many.  That's what happened to Nirvana.  It was ugly and jagged but it had a heart that grabbed a lot of people.  By that same token, something can generate big bucks but be completely soulless. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The "starving" angle is bunk.  Obviously artists can make significant money, especially when their vision resonates with so many.  That's what happened to Nirvana.  It was ugly and jagged but it had a heart that grabbed a lot of people.  By that same token, something can generate big bucks but be completely soulless.

And the difference is defined as "whomever RHWN likes, but certainly can't be left up to the general public, much less kids or anything.  Damn kids.  Damn them and their hooligan music."

[AFK]

People can like whatever they want to like, obviously.  That isn't up for debate. 

[AFK]

I mean, my daughter was a Miley Cyrus fan, still has a poster on her door.  I would never begrudge her of that.  But I'm also not going to sit here and call her music 'art'.  Not everyone has to be into art when it comes to music.  There will always be an audience for mindless party music.

[LMNO]

Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

So once again, Tinpan Alley and Motown are inauthentic.

[Don Coyote]

I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

That I take as a valid suggestion that I shall have to consider carefully.

Except what about all the music that I consider to be authentic but hardly ever listen to because it doesn't say anything to me, subjectively?

But I don't mean that as a rebuke, you may still have a point there. There may be some sort of overlap.

Starting to think my original assessment "authenticity is meaningless" is completely accurate.

I agree,  but then again I think "art" is meaningless with regards to classifying cultural artifacts.

I don't.

Art is something that people create or obtain, at least in part, to make life more than a set of work equations.

I don't disagree with you but at same time I in a way do. which sounds really shitty and pretentious. I'm going to respond to this more fully when I get home

[AFK]

Let's just turn this around.

An artist or band does it purely for the love of it.  Does this mean that what they produce is authentic?

Yes.

A band that sits there and churns out assembly line pop to please their corporate masters is not.

It's the difference between artisan cheese and a Kraft single.

So once again, Tinpan Alley and Motown are inauthentic.

That's a far too broad statement so I'm going to say no, broadly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

How do you determine that? Do you have an authenticity-meter that allows you to scan their motivation-waves?

It's a "great and happy coincidence" that you spending 14 hours bent over a torch = income.

Holy crap.

You know, I decided to just look past that, because I realize that most people don't get it. They have no way to grasp that making art is a learned skill that takes years of dedicated labor to master, and that selling art is a business. To be a self-supporting artist first you spend years learning your craft and learning how to insert your own vision and psyche into your craft, and then when you're good enough to maybe get paid for it you have to start learning how to run a business, which is far more work than most people think. And most of the time the first few years are a clusterfuck of unpaid taxes, disappointed customers, and bad bookkeeping, because most artists don't go to business school first.

It's definitely not a coincidence. That is one thing that it is absolutely not.

Well, I would agree with you here, but two experts on this very board have postulated that it's not really "art" since you have in fact managed to make it commercial to some degree.

See, I dick around with writing.  I don't get paid for it, and I do it whenever the mood takes me.  This qualifies me as an artist.  You do it on a schedule, to meet deadlines, and to make money on it.  You may still be an artist, but you're not as authentic as I am, because, well, YOU PUT TOO MUCH WORK INTO IT. 

Whereas I, with my dabbling and my dilletante behavior, am an ARTISTE, and I got authenticity dropping out of EVERY ORIFICE.

You know, it made me feel icky writing the above, even as a satire.  And it occurs to me that the sort of person who would say such a thing SERIOUSLY are the sort of people who sneer at successful artists because THEY CAN'T DO ART, and it bothers them that other people CAN, and to make it WORSE, some people actually make MONEY at it, which implies they're REALLY GOOD AT IT, which makes them feel even WORSE about the whole thing.

Oh hey, here now I think you've hit upon something that explains almost everything about people who strive to tell other people what really is and what really isn't art.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh hey, here now I think you've hit upon something that explains almost everything about people who strive to tell other people what really is and what really isn't art.

It also has to do with just shitting on people as a dominance thing, I think.

Sometimes it doesn't pay to look too closely.

[Dildo Argentino]

Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

So essentially, you have no cogent counterpoint? Because I have seen people nail Roger with a cogent counterpoint.

[Don Coyote]

well fuck me.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm sure I've said this before but I'll say it again. Art is not a creative act. Art is an exchange. A painting isn't art in and of itself. It only becomes art when I see it. Art is as much my reaction to Beethoven's 5th as much as it was the deaf guy writing it or the London Philharmonic recording it. It isn't art until the the whole cycle is complete, from the first chip of the sculptors chisel, to the tourist snapping a photo of it.

Good or bad, authentic, derivative, garbage... these are all subjective judgements. Perfectly valid but only in the eye of the beholder.

[AFK]

Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I can see the pattern now, and this is how it goes:

I attempt to articulate a line of thought that is tentative, hard to express and complex. At my first attempt, you decide for good what my view is, and if it doesn't obviously agree with your views, you go to work: you simplify and distort it until it fits one of your pet hates quite well, and start shitting on it. Copiously. With great diligence.

This then helps others to simplify, distort and misunderstand in like fashion. I wouldn't call it mind lazors at all: it's just being obnoxious, loud and extremely fucking entitled.

Nowhere in this fucking thread did I propose to tell anyone what is art and what is not. Neither did I say that inauthentic music isn't music. Neither did I say that getting paid for it makes it phoney. I attempted to outline a use for the concept of authenticity, which you had discarded with flair, in a stylish but shallow manner. And I fucking began my first utterance (after simple praise, which is, of course, alright with you) with the words "For me, subjectively".

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

Think about it or fly off the handle straight away like you do so well, I don't give a flying fuck.

Or fucking kill me.

I'm off for the day, and it's almost 8 here. Will be back in about 22 hours, I guess.

You noticed that too eh?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger, for a likeable fellow, you can be a nasty piece of work, you know.

I think I see the disconnect.

I put it to you that this behaviour may have quite a lot to do with both the recent ingressions of ennui you have suffered ('What Next?') and the deteriorating quality of discussion (mundane chit-chat, swearing for laughs, funny GIFs and tubes) you have also lamented not so long ago.

I am the cancer that is killing PD.

I realise that you enjoy doing this a great deal (it is one of, if not the major source of enjoyment in your life), but your addiction to the feeling of superiority (which some people on this board share with you to various degrees - it is unclear whether they caught/learnt it from you or developed it independently) is robbing this board, this entire community of people, of open-ended discussions actually leading to anything fundamentally new, rather than just processing external events until they confirm the received wisdom. Largely yours. Monotonously. Boringly.

Well, that didn't last long.  Too bad.