Are metal heads just hipsters in black?

[Norris2k]

Psychotic said:

Norris2k said:

Art is done by artists, right ? What kind of artist would just copy something old, improve it here and there, change the names, whatever, and claim that's art and that he got an objective "better" version ?  He would not be an artist, it would not be art, and then, it would not be a better art. You can't distinguish art from innovation, that's right. And I would say you can't dissociate art from the artist, art from the history of art. And that's not just what I'm saying, what some kind of "references" or "clever" people are telling, or even what artists are thinking : that's what art is, that's how it's evolving, growing, created. Why do you think in 140 years someone didn't just came up with an improved version of "impression soleil levant", with better color or whatever ? Would anyone say "yeah, the color is better, that's better art" ? That's what you fail to understand, you reject the idea that someone decides what art is, what is good or not, and to go against this system of value, you need to make it a product, that don't have history, that don't have an artist, that doesn't include notion of inovation or personnality, that don't even have to be artistic. It's just pepsi versus coke, you decide. To put it simple, to go against the inequality of an authority on art, you need to fail, or genuinely fail to understand what art is. It's not coke versus pepsi.

ART:
(uncountable) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

ARTIST:
A person who creates art.

I think the re-written Hamlet would pass the definition of art and therefore the computer would pass the definition of an artist (depends on your philosophical views of personhood...) All your other opinions on what art is and isn't are just that - opinion.

Maybe I fail to understand some hidden truths about art, apart from logic and reason. Or maybe you see something that's not there, because you've been trained to. How do we know?

I already explained why I disregard authority in art. I do not see any counterpoint in there... besides "you just don't understand".

Norris2k said:

Why do you think in 140 years someone didn't just came up with an improved version of "impression soleil levant", with better color or whatever ? Would anyone say "yeah, the color is better, that's better art" ?

Because people are generally biased towards originality - out of sentiment. I do not share it. It is not based on logic.

But, really, you don't understand or don't want to understand art if you believe you can fully explain art by one sentence. And even as a concept, the fact you believe that someone is so much of an authority (who is the guy ? ) that what he wrote in one sentence is an absolute and final definition, that you can't think outside of this definition, it is not only illogical and wrong, but also in total contradiction with what you are telling about authority. You reject authority, and then you follow a computer in a show, a dialogue in a movie you forgot about, and some random definition. Thousand opinions from artist, experts, their books, the general public that go to art gallery are just that, opinions (yes, it could be), but you fully comply to what some random anonymous guy on the internet told in that very simplistic sentence ? I can give you that from wikipedia, and that 2 sentences are far from enough to express one of the finest activity of humankind :

"The first and broadest sense of art is the one that has remained closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to "skill" or "craft," as associated with words such as "artisan." [...] The second, and more recent, sense of the word art as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art emerged in the early 17th century. Fine art refers to a skill used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of more refined or finer work of art. [...] The history of twentieth-century art is a narrative of endless possibilities and the search for new standards, each being torn down in succession by the next. Thus the parameters of Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, etc."

I'm not saying you don't understand, I was explaining to you with more than the following sentence : it's not just an opinion about art, that's how you can see art is created, how it evolves, how it is believed to be, how it is evaluated, what people expect from art, you can't just ignore that because "that doesn't fit the definition I just found on the internet".