By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath said:
mirgro said:
.:Dark Prince:. said:

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

You are right in saying that art stimulates an emotional or intellectual response, however where you are wrong is assuming that you can define what will cause that response for each person. That's the bit thats subjective. So yes, as much as I hate Lady Gaga's music to somebody it is art, it stimulates emotion or perhaps even the intellect (though god knows how).

Art is subjective because what causes one person to feel something, does not always cause somebody else to feel the same thing.

The emotional part yes, however the intellectual no. If Lady Gaga stimulates someone intellectually then they are either very young, very uneducated, or have not seen much of the world at all. It has nothing to do with subjectivity and everything to do with what experiences you have had before, or what one's mental capacity is. In fact, if anyone is intellectualy stimulated by Lady Gaga, it says infinitely more about them than it does the song they are listening to.