Ask HN: Is fine art really better beyond requiring a higher attention span?
I was just wondering HNs thoughts on this. There are things we all consider "fine art" - classical music, opera, paintings, etc. The common theme seems to be that they don't offer instant gratification and are designed cleverly. My question is whether anyone can use reason to say it is objectively better than other forms of art, like a Britney Spears song, etc. Alternatively, if there is no way to to prove something like art is "better", I would be interested in knowing evidence that studying a "fine" art is better for your development as a successful human being than other art.
I've found an advantage in my exposure to the arts through being able to relate to educated people better, and also learning very educational things like the theory behind music, but I imagine I could have learned that from the professionals behind pop music as well.
12 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadThere is a gentleman called Theodor Adorno, and he wrote some very interesting coverage of the area, and influenced a number of important aestheticians. Definitely worth checking out.
Then we have some crazy music like Gesualdo - his music is quite frankly bizarre to some modern ears (those who have't been exposed to much 20th century music, anyway - I love it). A great film on this by Herzog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_for_Five_Voices
IMOP "better" art is art that pushes the medium and makes people who consume it think or feel differently than they did before they consumed it. The more derivative the work, the less impact it makes on both pushing the medium and on the way we think.
In order to change the way people think and feel, it requires that the consumer of the art invest some effort in understanding it. The payoff to the consumer is they gain a new insight or feel the artist's conveyed emotion.
Pop music is not considered "better" art because it is often formulaic and designed to sell albums. Being derivative it often does not break new ground artistically. It's easy to consume (listen to) because we know what to expect musically. It's sorta' like comfort food. Listening to music that is ground breaking can often be difficult the first few listens, but then you get an "ah ha! Yes!" moment, and as your ears and brain realize what's going on, it becomes enjoyable. Then, other musicians copy it, make derivative versions that push the concept a little bit further, and you have a new genre.
There ya' go. My layman's answer. ;)
My guess is we see classical music as better because we only listen to the great composers, we don't get to hear that period's Biebers, Ke$has or Britneys. Would you call Puccini's music shallow, "cheap", ear candy ? His contemporaries did just that.
No, it wasn't.
One of the comforts in being human is our ability to take pleasure in ideas. The vehicle for this doesn't need to be "fine art" by any means, but it helps to read/watch/listen to the same sorts of things as other people if you want to understand them.
http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html