Before we can answer this we have to ask ourselves what is art? Art in the broadest terms is used to describe a particular type of production generated by human beings. What we can say is that the impetus for art is no doubt creativity. A more specific definition would state that art is that which is made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind or spirit. When we talk about music, it is often described as an art form that involves organised sounds and silence. It is expressed in terms of pitch (melody & harmony), rhythm (tempo & meter) and the quality of sound (timbre, dynamics etc). So from this perspective l guess you could say that yes music, whether it is popular music or not, by definition can be considered art, unlike Adorno who puts a production line thesis on popular music.
To a certain extent l agree that popular music can be considered art, as someone has creatively composed and sang that music, however it is hard to know where to draw the line. Do you only say that music genres like classical or art music can be considered art because western Europeans became very interested in the in the ancient classical style, which was imitated by many artists, sculptors and architects, and popular music can not be considered art because it is only seen as music which has been a top seller. In both occasions somebody has made that music and whether or not it has been a success or not, creativity has put in to it, and at times talent!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Another thoughtful and well constructed post. Perhaps you could have elaborated a little on Adorno's charge of mass production and perhaps mentioned Gendron's counter to it, as this would have given your argument a little more depth. However, overall you have approached the question in an organised and critical manner.
Post a Comment