What makes a work of art good? When someone says it is good.
And to explain further: More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the
right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the
right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.
Quote:
|
This seems to approach things with the assumption that people buy music with the goal of escaping consumerism. I don't know about anyone else, but I buy music because I think it sounds good, and as long as it does I don't really care what sinister forces made it available to me.
|
I too buy music because I think it sounds good. Unfortunately, the opportunities to buy the music I think sounds good are diminishing because of sinister forces like Simon 'smarmy big pants' Cowell. I was talking about this the other day, and I believe that there is too much 'perspiration' in music these days and not enough 'inspiration'; I do not want to hear someone singing, with a 'perfect voice' the same song I have heard so many others sing. I want to hear a new song altogether. Yes, I'm clearly putting the boot into all these TV talent shows!
Obviously, all artists must 'sell out' to a certain extent - I read the other day of a band who were so 'punk' they refused to release records and eventually refused to play live apart from in their own garage. That's plainly going too far, but market forces these days all too often prevent the kind of experimentation which in the past has resulted in so much fantastic music!