# There is a lot of ignorance on this website.



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

I will not name names, but I am consistently shocked and baffled by the utterance of some spectacularly arrogant and ignorant points of view in threads on this website, in all forums. I am not naming names, but certain people need to realize that there is no such thing as objective quality of music, or any art, and that any criteria used to judge music and deem certain pieces of music superior to others are wrong, as they are imaginary, and arbitrary. Quality of music can only be measured in terms of subjective experience, ie how much each individual person enjoys a piece of music, and not whether or not a piece has a specific form or structure. That is incredibly limiting. Objective quality of music is an illusion. Our experience of music is diluted by our senses, and warped by our brains, and we cannot feasibly proclaim the objective superiority of Mozart to Justin Bieber, as we can never experience anything from an objective viewpoint.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Too bad, eh?


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Glaliraha said:


> I will not name names, but I am consistently shocked and baffled by the utterance of some spectacularly arrogant and ignorant points of view in threads on this website, in all forums.


Agreed, but not for the reason you go on to elaborate. It's more to do with obvious lack of experience of the vast majority, and the fact that these people talk as if they have all the experience/knowledge they need to make sensible comments. I haven't seen one thread yet where I've learned anything I didn't already know which is of any interest. There are far better sources of advice/information on classical music than all the (mostly) drivel that gets splattered in places like this.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

Glaliraha said:


> I will not name names, but I am consistently shocked and baffled by the utterance of some spectacularly arrogant and ignorant points of view in threads on this website, in all forums. I am not naming names, but certain people need to realize that *there is no such thing as objective quality of music, or any art*, and that any criteria used to judge music and deem certain pieces of music superior to others are wrong, as they are imaginary, and arbitrary. Quality of music can only be measured in terms of subjective experience, ie how much each individual person enjoys a piece of music, and not whether or not a piece has a specific form or structure. That is incredibly limiting. Objective quality of music is an illusion. Our experience of music is diluted by our senses, and warped by our brains, and we cannot feasibly proclaim the objective superiority of Mozart to Justin Bieber, as we can never experience anything from an objective viewpoint.


Speaking the one who posted earlier _The 8 most perfect pieces of music ever written_ thread, but apart from that, I do _not_ want to know what would happen if Art, in general, is measured only in subjective terms; Would you consider a murderer to be an artist? If not, why?

You turn Art to be extremely irrationaly subjective which, in many aspects, is wrong.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Glaliraha said:


> I will not name names, but I am consistently shocked and baffled by the utterance of some spectacularly arrogant and ignorant points of view in threads on this website, in all forums. I am not naming names, but *certain people need to **realize that there is no such thing as objective quality of music, or any art*, and that any criteria used to judge music and deem certain pieces of music superior to others are wrong, as they are imaginary, and arbitrary. Quality of music can only be measured in terms of subjective experience, ie how much each individual person enjoys a piece of music, and not whether or not a piece has a specific form or structure. That is incredibly limiting. Objective quality of music is an illusion. Our experience of music is diluted by our senses, and warped by our brains, and we cannot feasibly proclaim the objective superiority of Mozart to Justin Bieber, as we can never experience anything from an objective viewpoint.


I don't know which planet you're living on, my fellow Australian. I certainly do not buy into the notion that "all art are good, none are bad". I agree it maybe very difficult to objectively assess quality art but yes, I do objectively proclaim the superiority of Mozart over Justin Bieber.

Let me go further. There was once a photography art session here at The National Gallery of New South Wales (Sydney). One of the art pieces was a photo of a Christian crucifix being urinated upon (the picture was a close up showing a splash of yellow urine all over the crucifix). Your very strange perception would not stand a chance in this context, would it? It was considered art.

I would also equally describe Stochausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_ and others like it as degenerative. I wonder who in the right mind would consider this as quality music?

P.S.
Go right ahead and please name the names. I doubt many of us would care.


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Boccherini said:


> Speaking the one who posted earlier _The 8 most perfect pieces of music ever written_ thread, but apart from that, I do _not_ want to know what would happen if Art, in general, is measured only in subjective terms; Would you consider a murderer to be an artist? If not, why?


I go on to explain in that thread that they are the pieces which affect me the most. I used the word "perfect" emotively.

And yes, a murderer is an artist.



> You turn Art to be extremely irrationaly subjective which, in many aspects, is wrong.


What do you mean by "irrationally subjective"?


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't know which planet you're living on, my fellow Australian. I certainly do not buy into the notion that "all art are good, none are bad". I agree it maybe very difficult to objectively assess quality art but yes, I do objectively proclaim the superiority of Mozart over Justin Bieber.


Art is neither good nor bad. It just is.

I can argue that Justin Bieber is superior to Mozart.



> Let me go further. There was once a photography art session here at The National Gallery of New South Wales (Sydney). One of the art pieces was a photo of a Christian crucifix being urinated upon (the picture was a close up showing a splash of yellow urine all over the crucifix). Your very strange perception would not stand a chance in this context, would it? It was considered art.


It is art. And it sounds like a very interesting and thought-provoking artwork, myself.



> I would also equally describe Stochausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_ and others like it as degenerative. I wonder who in the right mind would consider this as quality music?


Anyone with an open mind can consider any work of music as being of merit.



> P.S.
> Go right ahead and please name the names. I doubt many of us would care.


And I know exactly why that is...


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Boccherini said:


> The word "perfect" is perfectly objective.


No, it isn't.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

I still wonder why did you manage to start this thread in the Non-Classical Forum...


----------



## Glaliraha (May 2, 2010)

Art doesn't have a point. It occurs naturally.

The films of Andy Warhol are not very friendly when they're compared to the films of the Disney studio, yet art they are and will remain.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

Glaliraha said:


> Art doesn't have a point. It occurs naturally.
> 
> The films of Andy Warhol are not very friendly when they're compared to the films of the Disney studio, yet art they are and will remain.


I strongly disagree. Art, or Culture, in general, should glorify men, not make an evil person.

I personally seperate any artistic creation into several echelons, while the one that is driven by instincts, "occurs naturally", is the most inferior.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I will not name names, but I am consistently shocked and baffled by the utterance of some spectacularly arrogant and ignorant points of view in threads on this website, in all forums. I am not naming names, but certain people need to realize that there is no such thing as objective quality of music, or any art, and that any criteria used to judge music and deem certain pieces of music superior to others are wrong, as they are imaginary, and arbitrary. Quality of music can only be measured in terms of subjective experience, ie how much each individual person enjoys a piece of music, and not whether or not a piece has a specific form or structure. That is incredibly limiting. Objective quality of music is an illusion. Our experience of music is diluted by our senses, and warped by our brains, and we cannot feasibly proclaim the objective superiority of Mozart to Justin Bieber, as we can never experience anything from an objective viewpoint.


Free translation:

I'm disappointed that not all people share my point of view. They all are ignorants. What fools they are thinking that they are right and all-knowing, why won't they realize that I am the one who really knows the truth? Bitches.


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Free translation:
> 
> I'm disappointed that not all people share my point of view. They all are ignorants. What fools they are thinking that they are right and all-knowing, why won't they realize that I am the one who really knows the truth? Bitches.


Well pointed.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Glaliraha said:


> Art is neither good nor bad. It just is.
> 
> I can argue that Justin Bieber is superior to Mozart.
> 
> ...


It seems to me this thread has quickly degenerated into a mud throwing exercise with no content, and that it seems to be as thought provoking as your superficial one-liner responses above. You have just done yourself a disservice, not any art that you were originally attempting to defend. (You're probably some bored Adelaide kid trying to get some attention sitting at home on a cold winter's day).

Any student studying art at college/university level say, are subject to assessment by their professors. Why then, are different academic grades awarded? Why not award all art students identical grades based on the art works they produced?

No more from me in this thread. It's about as good as that photography piece I referred to above.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

When I talk about a piece of music, I usually emphasise that it's what I think, not necessarily what others (should) think. I was guilty of heavily criticising Vaughan Williams last year & this incensed Mirror Image. It's not good when two people lock horns like that and try to convince the other that their point of view is right. It is true that appreciating all great art is quite subjective, but there are also common objective factors that come into play. I guess that, when criticising a piece of art, one has to balance the subjective & objective aspects. This is not always possible in a place like this, none of us are experts, but if you read some good books by certain scholars, you'll see that their arguments are backed up by facts. They can't just publish negative crap, because they'd be torn apart by their peers, their credibility would go down the toilet. Of course here, with the anonymity of the internet, we can talk all the crap we like. That's just how things are, but there are (I think) more positives than negatives, we don't have any members that are like the belated Mirror Image...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Well, a thread with _this_ title was not destined for a happy ending, was it?!

Several points:

1) *I've long held the view that a generalized insult to the membership, with no specific names mentioned, is scarcely any more meritorious than a specific insult to a specific member.*

2) *Disputes concerning the ideas of other members should be addressed in the threads that contain those ideas... with a specific emphasis on addressing the idea(s) involved, NOT the member(s) involved.*

3) *Members who bewail the lack of insight shown on this board generally* (yawn) * are hereby informed... nay, encouraged... that they have the option of taking their brilliance elsewhere.* 
(though, to re-work my late mother's aphorism about child-rearing to instead cover knowledge, there's a chance that "no-one is as brilliant as you believe they ought to be... not even yourself!")

Forum Guidelines & Terms of Service- linked here for easy review.

Needless to say, this thread is closed.


----------

