noise isnt art
 

i have more to say than noise isnt art but the title seem suitable. Im having a discussion on a myspace poetry forum about how when a poems title doesnt fit the poem it misguides the reader and makes the write seem that he doesnt know the certain meaning of the text. Any way this chick just keeps saying the title doesnt matter and that its the poem that does the talking. Now I know this is true for most people, if you see a poem titled for john, are going to read it? prob. not. But Im leading to the noise thing.

so then it comes to expression and i then said I guess my poetry isnt art because it contains no personal expression. but now here comes the noise. most recorded noise cant be art because how does distorted frequencies portray self expressionism in anyway. I can see live noise in some cases because your in the act of creating with some level of emotion of feeling.

i dont know if you have to be registered to read it but heres th elink to the topic at hand:

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entry ID=16126135&groupID=100006809&adTopicID=19&Mytoken =C985054A-144C-513D-6B06D48D3E8098BA44934336

noise is art if it contains form, if there is no formal structure then it is just noise. for example if you listen to outrios 2 on atavistic the music has a definite form but it is complete noise. if there was no form this would not be listenable. for example pendulum music by steve reich contains form to a certain extent because his choices when he freed the microphone to start its motion was a choice about the rythmic patterns that may evolve from when the microphone is released. and what is the definition of art, take marcel duchamp's fountain where he placed a urinal in an art gallery. is that art? the act of placement was the art the piece of could have been replaced with any domestic product. art is not necessarily about self expression it is also about challenging the ideas about how people in the world think, which is what duchamp did with that particular piece. is silver sessions for jason knuth a piece of art, how do you describe that cd, what is it if it is not art, sonic youth are artists, they created the silver sessions, the silver sessions is noise with little form apart from the room harmonics which is interesting in itself? ill contradict myself slightly there as i write from the top of my head.

i don't really have any answers, just questions but id like any opinions on this...

i certainly see what your saying, i dont anything can reall ybe answered until theres a deffinite deffinition for art. i just consider art as some form of expression. im fine with writing poetry that isnt considered art anyway. id like to hear some more opinions.

art is the way in which we look at ourselves as humans throughout history and when you go through the palimpsest of art it can tell us alot about how we are as an entity on this planet.

true, art reflects history and history reflects art.

I think it all depends on the context, as wishy-washy as that sounds. The difference of noise made by someone just standing at their shoes onstage has a different feeling as opposed to someone who is making noise and thrashing about on stage.

Noisey music is cool, but the endless drone of feedback with no rhythm is just dull. There are some who will call me a poser for this i assume.

i guess i just cant consider non expresion structured textures an dwords art, and thats all i do! FUCK! IM NOT AN ARTIST! ahaha, i dont know, i think ill say any form of sound and literature is ART.

Art is whatever you say it is. "What is art" is a boring question. "What is good art" is much more interesting.

Also, you need to let go of the idea that art has to involve self-expression. This is a romantic idea that popular culture has latched onto. Rock music, in particular, has pushed the idea of the romantic artist to an extreme.

yeah, its true. i grasp this concept firmly. I ll get rid of it after some time.

Who's to say what is and isn't art.I mean is something "art" just because you hang it on a wall ?

So, we have to make value judgements to decide what's art and what's not? I think we're confusing issues.

Art is all in opinion, if I see something as art, it is art to me, if you see the same thing as noise, then it is noise to you.

Anything and everything can be art, but it is not art to everyone.

Why does art have to be determined by the intentions of the artist? Doesn't the audience have any say in the matter?

Maybe I consider the chirping of the birds or the rumbling of a train on the tracks to be art, even if the "artist" has no such intention.

!!! Someone that gets it !!!

Now if nobody witnesses a spectacular event, like eclipses on jupiter, is it still art? To me it is, because I know I would find it amazing even if I never saw it, whether you see Chaos as the creater or God.

Beauty lies in the eye......

art is gay

You like that word today, eh B-D?

noise, like music, is art

but i hate it when people apporach it or interpret it as some big artistic statement and make it pretentious; it loses the fun in it

yeah all these threads about homosex got me thinking

gay, isnt that such a great word?
say it with me
gay

sorry if you take offense

according to wikipedia
Gay can be used as a nonspecific derogatory comment towards a person or object. As a term of abuse it is widely used by adolescents.

When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the term gay is pejorative. The derogatory implication here is that the object (or person) in question is "cheesy" or kitsch. This usage has its origins in the 1980s, when homosexuality had already become mainstream but was still taboo. Beginning in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s the usage became common among young people, who may or may not link the term to homosexuality.

I say it a lot. Probably too much.

I also like the word FAGGOT.

noise isnt art
but is art noise?

No.

Art and noise are both gay though.

is it, or is it not???

It most certainly is... and it changed the face of 20th century art.

art that doesn't involve self-expression is normally boring as hell though. or interesting in a purely technical or academic way, i.e. alvin lucier or that guy who's name i forget who hung a curtain down the centre of guggenheim. once the point has been made the work becomes irrelevent.

or this:

if the work, ie the cutain in the guggenheim is irrelevant why was it bought up in the topic? you have given it weight by using it to refernce your argument, hmmm paradoxical.

why would you be called a poser? we all have opinions and they are all valid.

Some people think AC-DC is art, I think its noise. Some people think John Cage is noise, I think it is art.

good thread about noise:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/...page number=1

i didn't say it was irrelevent, i said it is boring. take for example Alvin Lucier's I Am Sitting In A Room, once you've heard that once there's no need to listen to it again as it is barely music and more just demonstrating a point about the physics of sound. And that's what that guy at the guggenheim (or maybe it was at MoMA) was doing, demonstrating a point about the use of gallery space. Once the point has been made what is interesting about a stripey curtain?

I was thinking more like Bach or Stravinsky. I don't think they're boring. I wasn't really talking about conceptual art, which I also find boring once I get the point they're making.

It seem's to me that the whole separation between art that is expressive or not or art that is EMOTIONALLY expressive or not is meaningless abstraction. The fact is that anything produced by an individual affects AND reflects ones environment or AUDIENCE if you call it that. Because identity is also reflected and informed in the same way. Since art is a cultural phenomenon it depends on defenition.

or maybe the point is being missed, like in Cage's 4'33 it is more about the audience experiencing a silence in which they may begin to think about and question things that they have not done previously, so this can be effective to numerous audiences and not just the one from the origianl performance.

Cage never intended 4'33 to be silence - audience noise, the sound of the performer doing things - that's what the piece sounds like. Coughing and rustling and whatnot.

But once you get the idea, there's no reason to listen to it more than once, or even once. It's conceptual, and boring as art, like T&B said. Cage wrote a lot of good actual music though.

who said somthing conceptual or intellectual is more pleasurable or valuable than an expression of self that is visceral or emotional?

once you know what an orgasm feels like there's no reason to have one again?

haha, i just find it awkward that anything man creates can be art. does this mean stop signs and traffic sings are art? or maybe they're not because they were not intened ot be art. but then if some takes of a photo of them, now they are art...

sure any symbol is an expression of something beyond the self and can be art. But it does depend on definition. A stop sign is a symbol but not necicarily art because the dominant definition of that symbol is one of utilitarianism which is not transcendance but acknowledgment of a neccesity for order. A stop sign is not generally created for its value "in and of itself" but by re-labeling it through an artistic lens, a stop sign can become a reflection on the frustrating nececity or banality of order, or any other countless things.

by silence i meant performance silence not environment silence, silence is only a concept on a planet with an atmosphere, and is something only those who have travelled into space have experienced, the clostest we can get is in an anaechoic chamber