# Ultra snobism in avant-garde can be foolish & should be disca i dont get it just read



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

*Ultra snobism in avant-garde can be foolish & anti art, dont get it just read*

There a classical composer , that made a symphony of toilet ffflushing all togheter, whit different tone, that so snob and , whiteout purpose , yet some people bought it.

Worst in non classical music, i guy into noise put out a band called sleep Pill, he would go to bed and record himself ssleeping and amplifiiied it... that iis so dumb.What next recording there farts and put up an album an says it's artsy or real art, that B.S

I like good & real avant garde not Snobism desguised has avant-garde, and in the proces how come some buy there works,, are thhey dumb a(word), or so snob and find iit cool...

Please i dont get this part of Avant-garde, but i love real avant garde see?

:tiphat:


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Freedom of expression I think its called but I like Dusty Springfield, so what would I know..........


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Some people think it makes them appear as an intellectual and others genuinely like this stuff so there is no accounting for taste.
Hey Roger I like ABBA.


----------



## RogerExcellent (Jun 11, 2018)

Dan Ante said:


> Some people think it makes them appear as an intellectual and others genuinely like this stuff so there is no accounting for taste.
> Hey Roger I like ABBA.


cool join the Club


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

How can you conclude that they're snobs? It's dumb, but you didn't give any information that suggests they think they're smarter/better than others because of what they did. It seems like the definitions of "snob" and "pretentious" have been misconstrued on this website and use to refer to anything a person doesn't like.


----------



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

* It seems like the definitions of "snob" and "pretentious" have been misconstrued on this website and use to refer to anything a person doesn't like.*

Your right fred snob and pretencieous two thing different two meaning.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Perhaps an intellectual pretentious snob


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I'd just use the word dumb!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> Some people think it makes them appear as an intellectual and others genuinely like this stuff so there is no accounting for taste.
> Hey Roger I like ABBA.


I for one prefer BLT to ABBA


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I for one prefer BLT to ABBA


I knew you wouldn't be far away, BLT is that the 'Bulgarian luscious tarts'


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> I knew you wouldn't be far away, BLT is that the 'Bulgarian luscious tarts'


Yes, that will do . Pst has something to do with Jack Bruce........................


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I dunno. I think there's a place for all sorts of 'music'. I've seen and heard some truly weird stuff over the years. My mate once invited me round to his house to hear a new industrial album he'd bought on import for £17 (a lot of money for an album back in 1986). We sat and listened to the first side which consisted of a man hitting a tin bath with a hammer every 2 or 3 seconds. This was occasionally I interrupted by another guy throwing random bits of scrap around the warehouse (where it was recorded). After 20 minutes of this torture he asked me if I wanted to listen to side 2 of the LP. I declined. He later told me that side 2 consisted of the same man scraping around the tin bath with an iron bar whilst his mate set off fire extinguishers and randomly turned a drill off and on. I never knew if my mate genuinely liked it or played it just to get rid of us.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I think that people should be able to create and enjoy whatever kind of art they want. Thinking otherwise is the _actual_ definition of pretentious snobbery. If there is evidence that an artist or people who enjoy the art are _actually_ pretentious snobs, that's a completely different story, and it still doesn't stop someone from enjoying the art in a way that is not pretentious or snobby. Calling an artist, their art, or people who enjoy it "pretentious snobs" just because you don't like it is what an _actual_ pretentious snob does. Simply creating or enjoying art is not inherently pretentious or snobby in any way.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

People can create and enjoy what they want, but I'd draw the line at it automatically being called "art" or "music". _Artifice_ perhaps in some cases, because you know a lot of people are still lazily aping the Marcel Duchamp approach. Not so much _avant-garde_ as _après coup. _It's getting a bit old now.

I don't condone writing-off something without listening to it first, but I think we're still entitled to offer a fair critique from some aesthetic perspective. The view that something is worthwhile because a person declares themselves an artist and their output art does not persuade me very much.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> People can create and enjoy what they want, but I'd draw the line at it automatically being called "art" or "music". _Artifice_ perhaps in some cases, because you know a lot of people are still lazily aping the Marcel Duchamp approach. Not so much _avant-garde_ as _après coup. _It's getting a bit old now.
> 
> I don't condone writing-off something without listening to it first, but I think we're still entitled to offer a fair critique from some aesthetic perspective. The view that something is worthwhile because a person declares themselves an artist and their output art does not persuade me very much.


What are your definitions of art and music? Does it include needing to be enjoyed by you? My definition of art is a physical expression of ideas, and music is art made with sounds. My definitions don't imply that all art is good and should be enjoyed by everyone. Whether or not art is good or bad has nothing to do with pretentiousness or snobbery, and disliking something certainly does not affect whether or not an artist or work of art is pretentious or snobby, and for someone to imply that it does is what makes someone a pretentious snob.

I wouldn't consider things like Duchamp's "Readymades" and 4'33" to be art or music, because they don't represent ideas and don't involve creativity. Things like that seem appropriate to call pretentious, but it's still not enough information to call it snobby in and of themselves.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> What are your definitions of art and music? Does it include needing to be enjoyed by you? My definition of art is a physical expression of ideas, and music is art made with sounds. My definitions don't imply that all art is good and should be enjoyed by everyone. Whether or not art is good or bad has nothing to do with pretentiousness or snobbery, and disliking something certainly does not affect whether or not an artist or work of art is pretentious or snobby, and for someone to imply that it does is what makes someone a pretentious snob.
> 
> I wouldn't consider things like Duchamp's "Readymades" and 4'33" to be art or music, because they don't represent ideas and don't involve creativity. Things like that seem appropriate to call pretentious, but it's still not enough information to call it snobby in and of themselves.


Good lord man. No, it doesn't mean 'everything according to my tastes or whims'. Remove 'dislike' from the equation in your reply to me because I did not indicate this at all!
When you write:



Fredx2098 said:


> My definition of art is a physical expression of ideas and music is *art* made with sounds.


You are defining art _with_ art. It doesn't tell us how it becomes art or why. A physical expression of ideas could be writing an opinion on a wall in a public place (some will call that 'art' others vandalism). It could be an invention, an act. I still think there should be intention, but even then without making some kind of audience connection no 'art' is happening. _Art_ is surely communication, the things, artifacts what-have-you are just acts waiting to become 'art'.

There _is_ a lot of pretentiousness in art; in existing ideas (e.g. cheesy landscapes) and in new experimental ideas and it is perhaps necessary to generate some gems. That's not a problem for me. What is a problem for me is the manic defence of every last piece of 'new art' on principle. It's not all marvellous stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

Interesting debate... well-reasoned... well-spoken... thoughtful analysis... if only I could find a way to work in a poll it would be the perfect thread! -


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Good lord man. No, it doesn't mean 'everything according to my tastes or whims'. Remove 'dislike' from the equation in your reply to me because I did not indicate this at all!
> When you write:
> 
> You are defining art _with_ art. It doesn't tell us how it becomes art or why. A physical expression of ideas could be writing an opinion on a wall in a public place (some will call that 'art' others vandalism). It could be an invention, an act. I still think there should be intention, but even then without making some kind of audience connection no 'art' is happening. _Art_ is surely communication, the things, artifacts what-have-you are just acts waiting to become 'art'.
> ...


You seem to have misunderstood everything I said. I'm not defending anything. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that "art" doesn't have a positive connotation. Art can be good or bad, and a person, not necessarily you, can't say that something isn't art because they don't like it.

I defined a subset of art using the word art after defining the word art. If someone expresses ideas with vandalism, that's definitely art. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, but someone else could enjoy it.

I don't agree that something requires an audience to be art. I don't know where that idea comes from. That seems like a really sad and cynical way to think of art. It seems like you're conflating the concept of "art" with the concept of "popular art that is generally enjoyed".


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

deprofundis said:


> There a classical composer , that made a symphony of toilet ffflushing all togheter, whit different tone, that so snob and , whiteout purpose , yet some people bought it.
> 
> Worst in non classical music, i guy into noise put out a band called sleep Pill, he would go to bed and record himself ssleeping and amplifiiied it... that iis so dumb.What next recording there farts and put up an album an says it's artsy or real art, that B.S
> 
> ...


Some things you just have to leave by the side of the road. Don't stop to check it out, just keep on driving.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

"Art" is whatever is created by an "artist" (i.e. composer, painter, sculptor, playwright, author, etc.).


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> You seem to have misunderstood everything I said. I'm not defending anything. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that "art" doesn't have a positive connotation. Art can be good or bad, and a person, not necessarily you, can't say that something isn't art because they don't like it.
> 
> I defined a subset of art using the word art after defining the word art. If someone expresses ideas with vandalism, that's definitely art. That doesn't mean I enjoy it, but someone else could enjoy it.
> 
> I don't agree that something requires an audience to be art. I don't know where that idea comes from. That seems like a really sad and cynical way to think of art. It seems like you're conflating the concept of "art" with the concept of "popular art that is generally enjoyed".


No, I didn't misunderstand anything. You certainly are defending something or there would have been no need to post. You have a position, some of which I happen to agree with, some I don't. This is fine.

In your original post to which I responded there was no definition of art, just a tautology or I wouldn't have bothered taking my time to answer it. I think it's a perfectly okay response for someone to say something isn't 'art-worthy' and that they don't like it. Note that I don't say 'because' they don't like it. That is an assumption so very quickly made. There are plenty of things I happen to dislike, but think are important or useful or 'art' and also things I like which aren't so important in the scheme of things.

These dismissals may well be rash, but as you said already art can be good and bad (who decides?) and I am not waiting for so-called expert opinion to decide this for me and neither should anyone else. If someone has not even bothered to give something a hearing or learned about about it before dismissing it then I'm okay with their opinion being dismissed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I didn't understand serial music at first, but after studying about it in theory books, I finally understood how it was constructed and what they were trying to do. Now when I listen to it, I hear it in greater depth than I assume an uninformed person might, especially when they make sweeping statements about their dislike or incomprehension of it.

No, they are not stupid, they are just uninformed.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> No, I didn't misunderstand anything. You certainly are defending something or there would have been no need to post. You have a position, some of which I happen to agree with, some I don't. This is fine.
> 
> In your original post to which I responded there was no definition of art, just a tautology or I wouldn't have bothered taking my time to answer it. I think it's a perfectly okay response for someone to say something isn't 'art-worthy' and that they don't like it. Note that I don't say 'because' they don't like it. That is an assumption so very quickly made. There are plenty of things I happen to dislike, but think are important or useful or 'art' and also things I like which aren't so important in the scheme of things.
> 
> These dismissals may well be rash, but as you said already art can be good and bad (who decides?) and I am not waiting for so-called expert opinion to decide this for me and neither should anyone else. If someone has not even bothered to give something a hearing or learned about about it before dismissing it then I'm okay with their opinion being dismissed.


I'm trying to defend people from being called pretentious snobs. Those words refer to a person who thinks they're superior to others who enjoy things that they perveive as "lower," and I haven't seen anyone on this website use those words and back them up with a shred of evidence. Every use has been an ironic use, because it's used in a pretentious snobby way.

And I defined art as "a physical expression of ideas," then I defined music, which is a type of art, using the word art which I defined.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------

