Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it." — ENOAH
Except for the individual singers, the overall "show" does not seem to be "experiencing" emotions in the production, which it wishes to express. — ENOAH
Or perhaps people think pop music period is not art. But I would say I have drawn more aesthetic value (and certainly more "feelings") from blues, jazz, rock, r & b, rap, than I have from sculptures and paintings in my life time. — ENOAH
Didn't mean nothing by it. — Outlander
It's not the show that would experience emotions but the artist, perhaps the producers or writers, — T Clark
...is Collingwood the convention in Aesthetics? — ENOAH
I suspect that Idol could be seen as a type of art in its own right - in the genre of realty TV (whatever one may think of this). The music/performances are incidental. The show is about telling stories of people struggling against the odds to follow their dream. It's carefully crafted and built to follow certain emotional arcs. Perhaps it is kitsch, which certain purists might argue precludes it from being art. I would argue there is good and bad kitsch. And the line between kitsch and art may be irrelevant. — Tom Storm
Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be. — T Clark
I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings. — Vera Mont
What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production. — Vera Mont
It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. — Vera Mont
But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. — Vera Mont
So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm
Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this? — Tom Storm
My sentiments exactly! — Vera Mont
Well, the mice go for the cheese in the trap whether it's fine cheese from France or it's Velveeta. Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). — BC
Pretty much. "The Arts" is a very broad classification of enterprises. Some of the products that are categorized under that heading, I don't consider art.But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ? — ENOAH
Not really. 'Good' and 'successful' are not synonyms. Some of the best television programs I've seen either didn't make it to a second season, or were ruined by a change of direction to make them more successful."Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. — BC
The masses must prefer Velveeta (or even caca) or they would support PBS.Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca. — BC
No. It's true of reality shows that feature performances by non-professionals. Talk shows, news magazine shows and comedy shows are in their own categories. Scripted fictional stories are another category. That one can be considered under the art form Cinema, and judged by the same criteria as Woman of the Dunes and Howard the Duck.Isn't that true for most programs? — BC
That's only because modern media can produce entertaining art and artistic entertainment.Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. — T Clark
So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm
Yes! — Baden
It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either. — Baden
They both are abstract expressionist, but De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears. Nevelson's assembled objects then painted them black. — BC
And this is presented with great skill and human understanding. Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. All this filters down and changes us. And we need to change. This is why we need artists and this is why art is "special". — Baden
I'm just pointing out that that's you're choice - you don't have to argue with anybody if ads are art, you can talk about the other stuff you said was more important anyway.
You could literally do it now. That guy that said a McDonald's ad was art... you could literally have the discussion you said was more important, right now, with him. The wishy washy definition of the word "art" isn't the thing stopping you from doing that. — flannel jesus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.