Is Jurica Pađen an artist?
in Music ·
Bryan Rogers87 said:There’s no such thing as an objective yardstick. And honestly, calling someone's work "offensive" is probably one of the most foolish things you can do. What does that even mean? In my view, any act of making music is art. To create or perform music—no matter what genre it is—you have to put in the work. You need musical knowledge, you have to know how to play, compose, arrange, sing, dance... you name it. That's the baseline. Now, a completely different story is whether what was created ends up being good or bad, a hit or a flop, a masterpiece to some or total trash to others.
That first part is art, but the second part is just taste.
That’s why I think it’s a mistake from the get-go when people equate "art" solely with what they personally enjoy or appreciate, while dismissing anything else as non-art.
Why wouldn't Brena and her music be considered art, just like Johann Sebastian Bach? Pop music hits every single definition of musical art, just like Bach or Mozart music does.
How can pop music fall outside this simplified definition? 🙂 Brena has all those elements, and so do Bach and Mozart.
Music is an art form expressed through sung and/or played tones, various sounds, noises, and the silence between them.
Look, if every taste were equally high-quality, would that mean we could say every person is equally intelligent? Of course not; that's impossible.
Secondly, regarding your point that everything is art: sure, within art there are different levels of quality, but there is also the argument that for something to even qualify as art, it must possess a certain level of inherent quality from the start. It doesn't really matter which group you belong to.
But let's talk about this idea of art being subjective—where something is "trash" to one person and "quality" to another. Can we apply that same logic to churches and cathedrals? For instance, I don't find those buildings to be art; to me, they're total junk. If art is truly subjective, why should I be forced to accept someone else's declaration that something is "wow"?
And then I shouldn't have to hear, "Oh, it's because you don't understand the complexity of this architecture," because I can easily fire back with, "Well, maybe you don't understand the complexity of the music I'm advocating for compared to that other stuff."
So where does that leave us?
If everything in art is subjective, regardless of what kind of art it is, then I insist we apply that same standard to cathedrals and churches too, please!