raven4x4x
Group: Members
Posts: 1535
Joined: Jan. 2002 |
|
Posted: Sep. 03 2005, 20:28 |
|
Quote (tamas @ Sep. 04 2005, 00:19) | Although I admit, that it is difficult to measure a good piece of art, there should be some objective parameters,like complexity, depth, originality, musical virtuosity, variatons of themes, the replay value of the music. |
I don't think you've quite understood what I meant to say, either that or I didn't say it the way I wanted to. I don't mean to say that it is impossable to judge art in those ways, or that those parameters mean nothing. What I am saying is that those parameters do not necessarily make a piece of art better, because 'better' is up to the individual listener.
Here's a personal example. Take two albums: Ommadawn, and Cat Stevens' Tea for the Tillerman. Using tamas' parameters, I can say that Ommadawn is a far more complex album than Tea for the Tillerman, that there is obviously more depth, variation, virtuosity and probably more originality in Mike's work. But does that mean that I prefer Ommadawn to Tea for the Tillerman. Not at all. I find Tea for the Tillerman to me more emotive, more fun and more memorable than Ommadawn, regardless of those factors I mentioned above.
So I'm not saying there aren't ways of objectively judging art. I'm saying they don't really mean anything when compared to personal preference, emotional response and the like.
-------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all.
|