My GOD!
You people are STILL piling on me here!
Geez, at least wait for me to get back, what was that, like 30+ posts while I was absent and it looks like plenty are either fair objections (fair enough) constructive criticism on my argumentation technique (thanks to those folks) and piling on me about all the terrible sins of all my many posts (to which I say, who's the bigger loser, the loser or the folks who devote all this time and effort continually saying he's a loser even when he's not there? Geez, I never thought I'd have to tell anyone HERE this, everyone being so inteligent, but to this group, I can only say- get a LIFE...)
OK, with that out of the way, I got a suggestion from...someone, can't remember after so many damn posts, to be more succinct. The thing is that I prefer going a bit into too much detail than not enough generally, as you can always trim away the fat but if you start with a smaller amount of explanation and don't qualify (I try to qualify all my words and points, my being an English/Philosophy major and so I go absolutely nuts when people just throw around words or terms and don't nail down what they mean by that since quote a few phrases and terms can be taken multiple ways, just saying something's "good" or bad, for instance, doesn't cut it with me, because I think you really have to qualify such a point as those are such powerful terms in our evaluations that you'd better get them right, but I digress) but OK, I'll try to be more succinct here...after that not-so-very-succinct paragraph... ;)
OK, so here goes with the minimalist version of obiwanobiwan...
I'm not going to go point- by-point again in dealing with my objections because there's about fifty of them and I'd here typing all night (and I sometimes spend an hour crafting these things, so yeah, first of all, I really put effort into this because I believe in these conversations and like testing my ideas, and second, to all those who say I'm a troller, I'll be blunt and say a round "screw you" there because I'm not just flaming everyone or posting mindless whatevers, I actually have points and thoughts and put a lot of effort into this, and afterwards I'll generally use some of this stuff for my writings outside, so if you don't like me, hey, ignore me or don't read me or even argue back in a proper way, but don't try and characterize me as a mindless troller or attention seeker, I'll take pretty much any criticism on the cheek and then just respond, but THAT one really just pisses me off considering how much I work at this) so instead I'm going to start clean.
So here we go, nice and succinct, what I mean and all my points, and so if you've been reading here you go, if you're coming in...God help you, but if you want you can use this I guess as an entry to what I mean, though I'll add a caveat and say if you think I've underexplained a point and you're just coming in please check my previous posts here, as really I think those are better and fuller representations of my ideas.
OK, first, obiwanobiwan on Art itself:
-I hold that Art is extraordinarily important, I include film, theatre, literature, music, painting and sculpting and all that in my definition of Art, I don't know if I'd link in philosophy there, but if you want you can call that maybe a cousin, for...
-I reject fully the notion that Art's PRIMARY focus or purpose is entertainment, I find that to be not only a shallow definition of Art, but sadly the one all too many people use and recognize (which is part of my problem here as you'll see) and I believe that such a notion is detrimental (again, as I'll expand upon later.) I do acknowledge that, of course, enetertainment is a factor, just not the primary purpose, that being...
-It is my central belief that essentially life is made up of influencing forces upon forces, and if this were a regular obiwanobiwan post I'd likely have a huge block paragraph detailing in detail exactly what I mean here because this is not only the bedrock of my whole system here and elsewhere but is also really complex and cannot be done full justice with a small Cliff-Notes version here, I'm not saying this is a great idea (though of course I think it is) so everyone can put the "obiwanobiwan has a huge ego" guns away, I'm just saying the idea for me requires a lot of explaining because everything else is built on this founding idea for my system and so of course you don't want cracks in your foudation. For here I'll say that what I mean by this is that people, objects, and even thoughts and times and the like are constantly influencing each other, which produces the need for evaluation with so many things and nothing with an intrinsic value but rather an intrinsic worth; normally that right there would take a block paragraph's worth to explain, but to be succinct (or to try) what I mean by that is the idea that there is an intrinsic worth in anything that exists for existing as there is of course the possiblity it could not exist, and this works somewhat like the 1s and 0s in binary code, it's either worth something or doesn't, and yes, non-existence might have a worth but I won't get into that here because I'm trying to be succinct (God I hate this, this feels like a drive-by philosophizing and I've yet to even get back to Gaga yet!) Everything influences something else, as we happen to live on a world that is "crowded" and so as Descartes hinted at (and as I don't care much for Descartes this might be the only time I'll reference him positively) even an "empty" glass has something in it, namely, atoms of the air around it, and so we do not have the issue of the Pen in the Vacuum...which I'd go into but it'd take a long time like the rest of this and this is already a long "succinct" paragraph, so moving on...
-The whole point of all of this is that with everything constantly influencing and being influenced, as the density of influencing articles is so great that, again, we don't have a case like a Pen alone in a Vacuum, and so essentially we have a continual process of creation and impression- and this is, to be VERY loose with a metaphor and not qualify because I'm trying to go fast and succinct here, like Art, with everyone and everything being at least partially "The Artist" and partially "The Art" of everything, which is a colorful way of essentially again stating that forces are influencing forces, and this is of importance because...
-In the wake of this we find a remarkable indistinct world; even taken on a strictly human level, we simply are not all very distinct, it's a huge identity issue, and for an example (albeit a loose and potentially problematic as I myself don't know how much I like this as an example of what I really mean) take to heart that image we all have of, say, a 1984-esque office or so, you know the type, where there's like ten thousand cubicles and everyone looks exactly the same in their white sork shirt and black slacks and tie and totally indistinct...for the Trek fans, think of a Borg Cube for another sort-of example, and you get what I mean by a problem with distinction and personal identity, and as most of us would llike to think we "matter," the idea of us being mostly indistinct and lacking a personal identity like that huge office-of-cubicles or the Borg Cube raises a problem which may be combatted by...
-The Artist, and here is where point of that term and Art come together. Indistinct people and things, like the Cubicles or the Borg Cube, generally have a lack of individual creation and impression among the populace there, namely, even if you would say that the Borg accomplish something as that monolithic whole, still the individuals are lacking in accomplishment, and thus for identity and distinction (to the point they just number themselves, "Third of Five," "Seven of Nine"...pretty much showing how indistinct and identity-less they are) we need invidual accomplishments, creations, ideas, and impressions upon previous ideas. Again, using the metaphorical terms of Art and Artist, those lacking distinction or personal identity become mostly just "part of the Art," so to speak, with no real artistic presence (again, "The Borg," we don't have a thought of any idividuals/"Artists" creating like a Kirk or Spock or Picard, just "The Borg," and so as a whole they matter and as individuals they are just part of the Art, just part of the whole with no real influence and thus no identity outside that) and then you have the "Artist," who is influenced by outside forces, as all artists are, but also is able to actually shape and create his own ideas and creations and thoughts, again, "main ccharacter status" aside, we can distinguish the Crew of the USS Enterprise as individuals because they have individual ideas and thoughts and have accomplished their own things (even Uhura and Chekov have had their episodes where they've done something to stand out and got to do something of importance or had a unique or significant idea or action) and so we can see them as being just as if not more influential than they are influenced, ehnce "Artist" leading to...
-A great many who suffer do so because they are merely part of the Art and lacking in distinction and identity, and so it should be the goal of all to either be Artists (meant thus far only in the manner described above and not applying to "art" yet) and take control and develop a distinction through individual actions and creating and impressing ideas, and so we FINALLY, with that out of the way, come to...
-Art in the sense it is generally meant (now leaving that metaphor above and switching to the common use of the phrase) is a prime medium of creation and impression of ideas, perhaps unmatched by any other area. Politics and Military Ideals and Craftsmanship are all important and can make one distinct and are not art (though I'm tempted to actually throw the last of those in there with the other things I call art, I mean, if sculpting counts, why not the fashioning of a fine sword or gun or a great monument?) but Art is a prime medium (I won't say THE prime medium lest there be a backlash and that might not even be correct anyway) for the creation and impression of ideas, and (caps ahead!) THAT IS ART'S FIRST AND FOREMOST FUNCTION- THE CREATION, IMPRESSION, AND EXPLORATION OF FEELINGS, THOUGHTS, AND IDEAS CONVEYED THOUGH A CERTAIN GENRE'S DEVEICE. If done well, then yes, entertainment and pleasure follow from this and is often an important aspect of Art, but, again, I contend, to use Hamlet for the umpteenth time (I do overuse Shakespeare and, for that matter Nietzsche a lot, but I do that because I enjoy their works, agree with their styles and ideas to a great extent, and I grasp them best out of anyone in their respective fields, I read constantly so I grasp and know a LOT of artists and philosophers, but I like to use those two a lot because, hey, you write what you know, and I know them best, so it's only natural if I'm going to use argumentation I'll want my most reliable "guns" there, so to speak) that the play isn't enjoyable and doesn't exist solely to see a lot of cool scenes and speeches and stabbings, but that there is so many ideas (I won't go into them here, that'd take it's own forum post just for Hamlet alone...I'm a Shakespeare student and actually might end up teaching this someday, considering it, and I've writen 35 page+ papers on this stuff, so yes, could go on all day about this...but I won't here, so if you want me to elaborate what I mean by "ideas in Hamlet" I'll be all to happy to do so, just say the word...just be forewarned that'd probably be the biggest forum post ever, verbose me talking about his favorite playwright and his absolute favorite play if not piece of literature overall) and so Art is not merely for pleasure, that's a happy by-product and often what needs to be used in order to get projects into the open as artists need to eat, after all, but it is the meaning and ideas, that idea of creation and impression of individual ideas, that is most important in art, without it it's just...
-Lower Art. This is what I mean in my division of works of Art into Higher and Lower, that is the big decider; this is partially my idea and partially...well, a piece borrowed from Mill's Utilitarian idea of Higher and Lower pleasures, and part fron the Aristotilean idea that "spectacle" is, in fact, a legitimate form/aspect of art, and so yes, Playboy counts as art...but as plot, theme, and character all matter far more, I assert using this idea of Higher and Lower Arts that Playboy is a Lower Art, focusing on entertainment and spectacle solely or, if you want to defend it (don't look at me, I'M not defending it...if you like pron knock yourself out, I don't think it should be banned, but that doesn't mean I still don't think it's Lower Art and really garbage...and with the Internet kind of pointless) and something like "Hamlet" or, to show I'm open-minded and not white-bred here, "A Raisin in the Sun" are examples of Higher Art. Now, if you REALLY want to object to this idea, that art like Playboy is a bit lesser, given my deifinition of art and just as art overall, is on the same plane of artistic merit as "Hamlet" or "Of Mice and Men," then go ahead- but frankly, I think that's a losing argument.
-And so we FINALLY GET TO GAGA! WHEW! Now, to begin, I do think her singing voice is just flat-out awful...I know some of you like it, but frankly, I really don't, and even if I dislike someone's style I can appreciate their vocal ability- and I jsut think she's a terrible singer, I'm sorry. Now, on a subjective level I can factor that in, and as absolute as my concepts may seem, they are all built on the idea that essentially all of them are subject to change should the conditions under which that definition and need for art change...and if I wanted to go into half a page of more of my rambling metaphysical ideas that really even I'm still trying to polish I could do that, but really no one wants to and I'm still struggling to be as succinct as I can be (and I'm really trying here, I'm now past the hour-ten minutes mark writing and editing and re-writing this thing.) So I'll suffice it to say that while I don't like her voice and find it technically horrible, and I do have to factor that into my appraisal of her somewhat (she IS a singer, I DO have to sort of consider how I feel about her singing to evaluate her art, after all) I'll let that stand by itself as a noted objection, not harbor on it, and delve into the rest...
-First, again, how do I define Higher and Lower Forms of Art? With my idea above with the J.S. Mill/Aristotle influences in there, as well as that Artistotilean idea of spectacle being a fine agent of art, but the meagerest one. Do I think Gaga has spectacle, and if so good spectacle? Yes and, while I myself don't like it, for what she's going for, yes. After all, to go back to a previous example, Playoby's really all spectacle, but porn generally has that be a focus (and I'm not implying Gaga's a porn star, so again, put away your guns, people...and rlumley, since you posted quite a bit on this I seem to recall, fine, I still think she acts like a crass slut, but no, as I cannoy produce evidence she has engaged in the activities necessary for that qualification I can't, as you pointed out, qualify her as such, so yeah, consider that a retraction of sorts, I just meant it loosely and not as a formal charge, but it still...) so for Playboy's genre, it is a good example, as that genre requires plenty of sexual spectacle and Playboy gives that. Pop music requires plenty of dancing and lights and all the rest of what you can imagine, and there, yes, Gaga delivers, she meets that, so if you want to call her a good pop star on the basis of her meeting the requirements of the pop genre, then fine, I will readily condede and even agree to that point, as that's not my main issue. What is would be...
-The idea that we can take Gaga as HIGHER Art. We've already seen that she succeeds as Lower Art, but Higher Art, in both Aristotle's and my definitions, requires more. Remember those requirements of art before, which Aristotle enumerated- plot, characters, theme, spectacle. We have granted spectacle. The other three seem LACKING. If you want to call that "unfair" as music "doesn't have plot and characters the way theatre and literature does," I again point to musicals, opera, and, to keep with my Beatles references as I honestly think they're an example of how mainstream music can be meaningful and meet these requirements for Higher Art, "Eleanor Rigby." In that song we have a girl and the people and the Father McKenzie characters, we know what happened, and there are definite themes. This is not simply a love song or a breakup song or a happy song or something like that. Now, that probably just sparked a major lightbulb in the Gaga defender's minds- "Her songs have plots and stories, too!" I would disagree, but that hasn't gotten me far, so I'll let my disagreement stand as one resonse, and for another state that even if you want to allow that she has these, execution stil matters, and then at THAT we have the greatest stumbling block, that being the one of Evaluation by Comparison. Just as John Stuart Mill says that you must evaluate pleasures to determine which is best and which are, then, Higehr and Lower, so too must we compare art works to decide which get to come into Higher and Lower, and here comes one of the biggest blows to Gaga- even if you wanted to be generous and grant her the four needed requirements for Higher Art (and I'd object there as I've already stated because I really don't think that's true), even allowing those, for her to join that which we call Higher Art, she would have to be able to be evaluated as both an artist and have her work evaluated against those already "in" Higher Art. To put it another way- for Baseball there is a Hall of Fame, and to get in, either via the writer's or player's vote, the candidates must be judged against those in and out of the Hall to see who's worthy and, needless to say, if someone doesn't match the level, statistical or otherwise, of the enshrinees, he doesn't get in. For the most simplistic example possible (and I regard Art far more than this, this is just a really simple example so don't jump on me for how this sounds a bit silly) I would ask you to imagine those in "Higher Art" (and obviously there are a few that pretty much everyone can agree on, like them or not, like Shakespeare or Mozart or Michaelangelo...the painter, not that turtle-like thing) and then condier Gaga against them. If you can honestly give me an example of Gaga or her work matching or exceeding someone in that Higher Art Hall of Fame (again, a playful and not-serious title so don't jump on me saying "obiwn's idea is just s silly Hall of Fame for Art!") based on the qualifications, then please, let me know.
And so I conclude (finally) that Gaga is a master of Lower Art, maybe, but not at all Higher Art.
And now this took about an hour and forty five minutes, it's 12:08am my time and I have eaten now for over 24 hours due to stuff, so please excuse me while I go make a ridiculously big Midnight Snack Dinner.
The End (?)
What did you guys want to be when you grew up.
)
)
)
)
)