Philosophy Now Forum

Probably, but I'm not sure its irrelevant as from your perspective we don't appear to be able to explain why Beethoven is considered the greater musician nor why art galleries are not full of the works of four year-olds? My take is that Aristotles aspects appear to explain that its because there are criteria for what makes things works of art and why some are considered 'better' than others and I think it probably underlies your standard as well but I am just guessing. Now personally I agree with your viewpoint that art is what I say it is but I have the idea that its 'better' art if others agree in their subjective judgements with me and demonstrate this by exchanging something for it, be it time or money. Whereas your view appears to have a problem with explaining such things?

Interest in how others think mainly, as to me a screaming motorcycle engine is music to my ears and by your definition it is but I'm not sure that many would qualify it as music. So whilst I think that Mungo Jerry's In the Summer Time is better music than any Beethoven I've heard I could accept that on Aristotles criteria its not. Whereas your view is that they are equal pieces of work and there are no such criteria. So I'm interested in how, if we accept the idea that its just subjective, we could differentiate such works or is it that we can't? If so then I'm interested in why we appear to do so or would you say that you understand no difference?

It's pointless arguing with you if you are going to mis-represent me. - Didn't mean to, it was just what I understood of your idea that its your subjective standards that define what art is. Not sure we're arguing as I pretty much agree but just want to understand what these standards consist of, if not criteria that can be consider intersubjective given that we appear to not judge works of art equally?
Mungo Jerry and Beethoven are both music. That does not mean I can't have a preference.
MJ gives me a feeling of nostalgia for my early teens, and would not be without him.
But Beethoven's Seventh is an unparalleled masterpiece in its genre. If I had to choose between "Alright, alright, alright" and the 7th for my desert Island Discs then Mungo Jerry would have to be left behind. - But how are we judging Beethoven as such? Me, I will be having In the Summer Time at my funeral and Beethoven not a chance.
I love the burble of my Harley but would not call it music. I have my criteria. Music is a thing that has to be capable of performance. - Do you mean "performance" as someone doing it or as being performed for others?
If I percussively twist the throttle on my bike then a form a music is made. But I reject some extreme forms of electronic dance music as it is not performable per se. It is beyond human tolerance of speed of rhythm. We all have our standards. And I don't really give a rat's arse what Aristotle thought - he probably never heard any decent music anyway. - Now who's saying idiotic things. " electronic dance music" fits the E state of human tolerance perfectly. Shite without it mind.
I think giving a special reserved place for "culture" (in the sense of elite or high culture), is a mistake. The mistake is that some of the audience falls into the trap of pretending to like obscure Opera, when they would rather be listening to popular classics or even rock. The same mistake is being made in art - but the crime is much worse. High modern art panders to the most mean and mediocre tendencies of cynical so-called artists, who are quite happy to believe in their own myths. - Interesting but I don't see how this arose?

Price will never represent art or music. - Maybe not but it pretty much reflects how people value it, Beethoven has made a mint compared to Mungo.