Is pop music "art"?

[azzaman333]

Depends on the pop music in question. I'd be extremely hesitant to refer to someone like Nicki Minaj as an artist, but would have no qualms calling someone like Gotye an artist.

 

[Hygro]

Depends on the pop music in question. I'd be extremely hesitant to refer to someone like Nicki Minaj as an artist, but would have no qualms calling someone like Gotye an artist.

Ok, but two questions:
1) what distinguishes one as art and the other as not art?

2) what do you consider "Nicki Minaj"? Are you referring to the woman herself, or to the music that bears her name? If the former, then why does it matter if she is or is not an artist (and what distinguishes that?) and if the latter, referring back to question one, what makes a Nicki Minaj named recording not art?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The tacky spelling of her name hardly instills confidence for starters

 

[Hygro]

I'm not sure how that's even remotely relevant. I calculate with 82% confidence that conversant is making a joke

 

[aelf]

I did consider this, but after giving myself a very broad definition of communicate, elicit and for good measure, emotion I was kinda satisfied that it was a fair benchmark. I'd actually be quite interested to hear other ways in which you think art "functions".

There can conceivably be certain kinds of art that are explicitly trying not to elicit emotions. Brechtian theatre, for example, employs the verfremdungseffekt in order to create didactic theatre that is meant to teach and not to elicit emotions, though in practice emotions are elicited with or without the explicit intention to.

I don't wish to be a functionalist here, so I won't try to come up with a list of art's functions. I shall be content with criticising other people's conceptions of art

And yeah, I hear you about artistic intent. But it probably is a requirement. As beautiful as a spectacular sunset or a little kid playing with a puppy is, it's not really art. I can't really imagine a human unintentionally coming up with great art either. When it appears to be the case that's just nature at work too.

I think it's considerably easier to agree that art needs to have (an) author(s). However, it is a lot trickier to claim that the author(s) must have had artistic intent when creating a thing before it can be considered art. From your example, a child playing with a puppy tends not to be considered art simply because it does not receive enough public exposure for such a consideration to even arise. Let's say a child is playing with a dog while being surrounded and watched by a crowd of people who are amused. Can that not be a piece of performance art? If this were to happen a few hundred years ago, would it not be conceivable for the child to go around, cap in hand, asking for some coin for the entertainment provided?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Before I start grabbing the sword and shield...

What would be accomplished if we found that pop was or wasn't art?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

How has no one posted this?


Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

Before I start grabbing the sword and shield...

What would be accomplished if we found that pop was or wasn't art?

Art has intrinsic meaning or value. If pop music is art than it has intrinsic meaning or value, to whatever degree. If not, its meaning or value is far more commercially dictated.

Can we live an aesthetically enlightened life if our choice of music lacks aesthetic value?

Rhetorical question, though you can answer it. But I think it matters if it's art or not, depending on your definition of art.


Edit: at IdiotsOpposites also this
Link to video.

These videos can be used by both sides of the debate for whether or not its art.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Brechtian theatre, for example, employs the verfremdungseffekt in order to create didactic theatre

Well obviously

I think it's considerably easier to agree that art needs to have (an) author(s). However, it is a lot trickier to claim that the author(s) must have had artistic intent when creating a thing before it can be considered art. From your example, a child playing with a puppy tends not to be considered art simply because it does not receive enough public exposure for such a consideration to even arise. Let's say a child is playing with a dog while being surrounded and watched by a crowd of people who are amused. Can that not be a piece of performance art? If this were to happen a few hundred years ago, would it not be conceivable for the child to go around, cap in hand, asking for some coin for the entertainment provided?

Nice. I totally agree.

 

[kochman]

I've debated over the years whether pop music is art or not. It begs a lot of questions: what is pop music; what is art; is artistic merit a yes/no dichotomy, and if so, is some pop different from others; are art and entertainment distinct categories, and if so, what's pop's role in either? And so forth.

I'm curious what you all think before I wade into the fray with my bam-hammer.

It is art...
But so is kids using crayola's to draw boogers.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Edit: at IdiotsOpposites also this
Link to video.

These videos can be used by both sides of the debate for whether or not its art.

One thing's for certain, though. If pop music is art, then pop artists are by and large plagiarists.

 

[Hygro]

It is art...
But so is kids using crayola's to draw boogers.

I like that.

But logically I'm not so sure it holds up. It holds if you are discussing perceived simplicity or if you are discussing a subjective take on the quality of both. But the degree of practice, expertise, state of the art tools, teamwork, and immense subtlety that goes into pop music puts it at the opposite end of a person brand new to an artistic endeavor, working solo with no audience in mind, using the most basic entry level tools, with absolutely no subtlety whatsoever.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I like that.

But logically I'm not so sure it holds up. It holds if you are discussing perceived simplicity or if you are discussing a subjective take on the quality of both. But the degree of practice, expertise, state of the art tools, teamwork, and immense subtlety that goes into pop music puts it at the opposite end of a person brand new to an artistic endeavor, working solo with no audience in mind, using the most basic entry level tools, with absolutely no subtlety whatsoever.

Subtlety? In pop music?

Are you and I thinking about the same kind of pop music?

Story of a pop song: <singer> <is/is not> in love with a <girl/boy> and wants to do things with <him/her> that cannot be described on a family friendly forum.

EDIT: Yes, that's an overgeneralization. That's all I ever hear on the radio though.

 

[Hygro]

IdOp, yes, subtlety in pop music. And I'm talking straight up the same Nicki Minaj songs that Azzaman doesn't consider art. Even those tracks have immense subtlety. I would elaborate but I'm waiting for Azzaman to answer my questions.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Story of a pop song: <singer> <is/is not> in love with a <girl/boy> and wants to do things with <him/her> that cannot be described on a family friendly forum.

Well that's been a pretty familiar artistic theme well before pop music arrived. But seriously, saccharine pop may be like this but I think that's too strict a definition of "pop"

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Well that's been a pretty familiar artistic theme well before pop music arrived. But seriously, saccharine pop may be like this but I think that's too strict a definition of "pop"

My main problem is that I hear it everywhere and it's more annoying than any four chords. Pop songs that aren't about love, I've noticed, are usually really good.

*My definition of Pop song is anything that makes it on this "Top 40" list I keep hearing about.

 

[Hygro]

My main problem is that I hear it everywhere and it's more annoying than any four chords. Pop songs that aren't about love, I've noticed, are usually really good.

*My definition of Pop song is anything that makes it on this "Top 40" list I keep hearing about.

Link to video.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Art has intrinsic meaning or value. If pop music is art than it has intrinsic meaning or value, to whatever degree. If not, its meaning or value is far more commercially dictated.

Can we live an aesthetically enlightened life if our choice of music lacks aesthetic value?

Rhetorical question, though you can answer it. But I think it matters if it's art or not, depending on your definition of art.

Aesthetically enlightened life?

I'm just not sure I understand the purpose of it, and "aesthetics" and "enlightenment" don't make the most logical couple in my mind.

I don't mean to sound brash at all. I'm confused and will ask questions until I'm not.

 

[Hygro]

Enlightened would be to be filled with light, intended in this context to illuminate understanding or truth. Aesthetically enlightened would mean to then have illuminated that which is aesthetic in... connotatively... an aesthetically significant/superior/sufficient/whatever way. You could say it's a spiritual thing. Or not.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm confused and will ask questions until I'm not.

Just to be safe, put Traitorfish on ignore temporarily in case he makes an appearance