This is art, but this is not....?

[waxwing]

This question has many branches. Answer whatever you want to.

I recognize that art may facilitate communication where other media fail, but how? Why? Where are the limits? Is banging garbage can lids together music if the person is trying to express himself? What if the person lacks all sense of rhythm and cannot discriminate pitch? Then, can that person still make music? How? Who is to judge? What is not music to him (if he is simply banging lids together without awareness of how it sounds in process) may be heard as rhythmic to someone nearby. Or, what is music (banging lids together in a percussion ensemble) may be heard as not music, but noise.

Next, as a natural outgrowth of the previous questions, I wonder why so many things become artistic to me. Rain. Whirring electronics. Footsteps. Puddles. The bumpy texture of the wall. Speech. The adolescent girl who cried all her make-up off. The stubborn bend in the phone cord. I begin to conclude that these things can acquire artistic value because they are tension-ridden processes to me. Or, they represent more profound processes. The bend in the phone cord may seem inconsequential, but I begin to run my fingers along it. (Enter: repetition). Then, I catch myself trying to straighten it (Enter: awareness of pattern of self/awareness of the coiled pattern of the rest of the cord). Is there a line where this awareness/tension/expression --> coincidence of patterns becomes actual art? I wonder where the artistic value actually resides?

[SgtWalrus]

I was an art major, and the cliched question "what is art" remained the crux of discussion. In order to set definable boundaries, most students stuck to the traditional delineation of "products of human creativity, having aesthetic value." IMO the concept of art is more open-ended. Akin to your perspective, I intuit art in the everyday and commonplace. As an artist, the ambient textures of life serve as fuel for my art (the product) ~ still, if I was not an artist in the traditional sense, I would realize that the ephemera of daily life would serve as art. This is the existentialist beauty of art = that we define it for ourselves, even life itself becomes a work of art - it defies the rational boundaries of science, commerce and other fields.

[cjs55]

I have to disagree. The most fundamental important art for me holds the same motivation from beethoven to debussy to darkthrone. Many things could be called art, but all great art is extremely similar, the evolution of an understanding that moves through time but is still conected with its past. I am not the definer of said art, it most certainly has defined itself.

[coffeezombie]

If someone enjoys it besides the creator, then it is art.

[cjs55]

So Beethoven's symphonies would not be art if he had kept them entirely private?

Bullshit.

[coffeezombie]

So Beethoven's symphonies would not be art if he had kept them entirely private?

Bullshit.

Well, there would be some metaphysical idea of "if somebody could see them, would they like them?" If so, then it would be art. My basic theory is that people can create art or they can create crap, if nobody likes such "art" at all. It's an existential idea that all art is in the eye of the beholder and that there is no "essential" idea of what art is. Something can even go from crap to art if it is created before its time and is only enjoyed by future generations.

[Sackanaka]

At the cost of sounding cheesy:

Art is a qualitative definition applicable to anything that has applicable meaning to an individual. Like you said, waxwing, many ordinary things hold artistic value. It seems to me that it is a property of all matter, much like color, density, etc. The distinguishing aspect of art is that it is dependent upon a person to have meaning, since meaning is only created through cognition.

Art then, though perhaps taking the simile too far, ought to have varying degrees of intensity. Similar to that of variations through the electromagnetic spectrum (colors and such), the degree to which an Object or any other sensory-stimuli is highly dependent upon an individual's own neural structure. At least, that would be my guess. Since individual brains are unique yet often similar, individual persons may enjoy certain things that hold meaning to a vast majority of a population, yet will inevitably hold certain things in value moreso than others.

In short, I agree that "What is Art" varies in specificity, but I'll stick to my version of the general reasoning why it is that way.


The more pressing controversy perhaps lies in the fact that Art and Skill are not dependent of each other. A good piece of art remains subjectively so, but the amount of effort and skill put into a work of art is often more able to be objectively analyzed. Because the amount of skill/effort can be defined by comparative (to other artists) or quantitative (years spent working, how many critical reviews, etc.) means, more people can readily see the objective value of artworks.

However, that is probably what separates those who appreciate everything as art and those who appreciate hard works of art.

Those who have developed the neural connections to find significant amount (not implying a number, but a qualitative property) are probably more likely to be amongst the "everything-is-artistic" crew. On the other hand, those who rely more on the objective approach to analyzing art will be hard-pressed to call everything art because some artists have put much more effort into their work than others. This probably also means that they find more meaning in an artist's skill rather than an artist's "potentially meaningful vision." This is because if they haven't found and developed meaning, giving the Object in recognition the property Art, they would have to define Art in another way. Thus, Art to these individuals is not as applicable to a broad range of Objects as described earlier, but still retains it's original broad definition: A property of an Object or other stimuli which has meaning to the individual.

To make short of that last part:
People disagree on the definition of art, when in fact Art (dependent on individual) and Skill (evident through the work) are not necessarily dependent properties.

People forget that we create meaning.

[cjs55]

It's an existential idea that all art is in the eye of the beholder and that there is no "essential" idea of what art is. Something can even go from crap to art if it is created before its time and is only enjoyed by future generations.




Those who have developed the neural connections to find significant amount (not implying a number, but a qualitative property) are probably more likely to be amongst the "everything-is-artistic" crew. On the other hand, those who rely more on the objective approach to analyzing art will be hard-pressed to call everything art because some artists have put much more effort into their work than others. This probably also means that they find more meaning in an artist's skill rather than an artist's "potentially meaningful vision." This is because if they haven't found and developed meaning, giving the Object in recognition the property Art, they would have to define Art in another way. Thus, Art to these individuals is not as applicable to a broad range of Objects as described earlier, but still retains it's original broad definition: A property of an Object or other stimuli which has meaning to the individual.

People disagree on the definition of art, when in fact Art (dependent on individual) and Skill (evident through the work) are not necessarily dependent properties.


I disagree with all of this so strongly it makes me sad. I don't really have the energy to go into it deeper at the moment, however.

[meshou]

My definition:

Anything not required for basic survival, usually involving a learned skill.

So-- Going to the grocery-- not art. Cooking something with more than minimum effort/ ingredients involved-- art.

So yes, baking bread is an art. Baking bad bread is bad art, and therefore not talked about much, the same way no one will scream and faint at your feet for humming tunelessly.

[garak]

Impossible to define, pointless to waste time on. Art is what you want it to be, and don't expect anyone else to accept your definition.

[Sackanaka]

I'm sorry, controversial matters can make me sad too :(. I hope you feel better soon.

[meshou]

So Beethoven's symphonies would not be art if he had kept them entirely private?

Bullshit.Yes, it is sad that things you don't put out into the world do not matter. A masterpeice no one sees may be a masterpiece, but it is also inconcequential.

If he hadn't shared, they may never have been written down. He could have listened to beautiful music in his head, and he would have rightly died anonymous. No one cares about a genius who does nothing in the world, and no one should.

It is still art in the sense that it has artistic merit. In every other sense, it'd be hardly worth calling it masturbation.

[SgtWalrus]

Impossible to define, pointless to waste time on. Art is what you want it to be, and don't expect anyone else to accept your definition.

Succinct, unpretentious, and all-so true. Art is the most subjective of phenomena, people try to define it, but it escapes rationale; thus every discussion of it becomes a prime example of intellectual masturbation. Like masturbation, it's still fun though.

Regarding if Beethoven's symphonies would be art if he kept them to himself, it comes to whether or not you believe art is valid unless it has cultural acceptance by mainstream society. How much validity does that acceptance give art? If some delusional hermit somewhere came up with the most profound symphony to convey the human condition, does it matter if human ears hear it? I'll leave it up to you, for art is the polar opposite of science - a subjective, irrational phenomena.

[Pan]

Next, as a natural outgrowth of the previous questions, I wonder why so many things become artistic to me. Rain. Whirring electronics. Footsteps. Puddles. The bumpy texture of the wall. Speech. The adolescent girl who cried all her make-up off. The stubborn bend in the phone cord. I begin to conclude that these things can acquire artistic value because they are tension-ridden processes to me. Or, they represent more profound processes. The bend in the phone cord may seem inconsequential, but I begin to run my fingers along it. (Enter: repetition). Then, I catch myself trying to straighten it (Enter: awareness of pattern of self/awareness of the coiled pattern of the rest of the cord). Is there a line where this awareness/tension/expression --> coincidence of patterns becomes actual art? I wonder where the artistic value actually resides?


Art is an active thing. A bend in a phone cord is not artistic, but your awareness of its expressive possibilities, its metaphoric uses can be, and in your above paragraph, already is.

I went to a concert today (frind of mine - piano recital). Sitting a couple of rows in front of me was an old woman (80+ years). She put her hands down on her purse and started imitating the finger movements of the pianist. She was self-conscious, and every once in awhile her hands would inhibitedly clasp... but would inevitably begin again to follow the performer's movements. I can't tell you if she used to play or not, though I believe she did. Is what she was doing art? Of course not. Was my perception of what she was doing art? almost... but if I were to recreate the situation on film (or in more skillful words) it most certainly would be, as long as I could capture it in a way that would translate my understanding and perception to someone else (pathos - a skill lost through age or never gained, a beauty unattainable by herself). Art is in communicating the ordinary to other people in a way that makes them recognize connections that they haven't before seen.

This is what is artistic in the rain you see and hear... not the rain itself (just white noise), but your perception of pattern or symbolic applicability in that rain, and your ability to organize and communicate it (even just in theory) to another mind. Your linking of that rain with the puddle, the textured wall, the tragic figure of the girl, is art.


Good lord, I must be DRUNK!

[SgtWalrus]

Good lord, I must be DRUNK!

I am drunk for many of my posts as well! Which reminds me:

"For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."
Friedrich Nietzsche

[abathur]

My definition:

Anything not required for basic survival, usually involving a learned skill.

So-- Going to the grocery-- not art. Cooking something with more than minimum effort/ ingredients involved-- art.

So yes, baking bread is an art. Baking bad bread is bad art, and therefore not talked about much, the same way no one will scream and faint at your feet for humming tunelessly.

Glad I read all the way down before I posted a piece of my mind. I think I can accept a few definitions (or a combination thereof) and this is one of the big ones. I guess this one's probably best for definining what "could be art." I'm not sure I'd say _everything_ not required for survival is art, but it's a good container for art.

The more concise the definition gets, the more incorrect it's likely to be. I guess you could liken art to religion. Even in long established religions you'll get millions of varying definitions for what it is. Some people like it, some people don't. It makes life worth living for some people... for some people it doesn't. No one wants someone elses definition shoved down their throats, yet almost everyone is sure their definition is the correct one to hold.

In the end I can call anything I fucking please art, but it isn't really my place to tell someone what they like/make/think isn't art. Not that I won't feel free to tell them if I don't like it, but just telling them it isn't art won't get either of us anywhere.

[Pan]

I am drunk for many of my posts as well! Which reminds me:

"For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."
Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm strangely comforted by the idea the Nietzsche was piss drunk when he said that.

[philonightmare]

I consider "art" to be anything created by the human imagination, given meaning by one or many people. The things created don't necessarily require a brush; they can be pictures, sticks thrown in a heap, etc.

[cathmc]

Regarding if Beethoven's symphonies would be art if he kept them to himself, it comes to whether or not you believe art is valid unless it has cultural acceptance by mainstream society. How much validity does that acceptance give art? If some delusional hermit somewhere came up with the most profound symphony to convey the human condition, does it matter if human ears hear it? I'll leave it up to you, for art is the polar opposite of science - a subjective, irrational phenomena.
I think the significance of any form of 'art' is only in its consumption, not its production. I don't mean 'cultural acceptance by mainstream society'. Just that the symphony isn't a symphony because of being composed, it's a symphony because of being heard. A novel isn't a novel because it was written, it's a novel in the reading. A painting...well you get the point.
And yes, this does make the whole question entirely subjective, AND means that a particular work is a completely different work of art to different people. Your 'War and Peace' is very different from my 'War and Peace' even though we have the same words on the page.

[Hexchild]

I remember hearing somewhere that "Art is in the eye of the beholder".

Maybe that's why it's so hard to define. As many previous posters have already mentioned (or hinted at), it's subjective. In my opinion, whether something is art or not should therefore depend entirely on the viewpoint of whoever is experiencing it, not some well-defined, common standard.

It follows that if the beholder in question prefers to have points of view that conform to some standard or other, then that is his/her choice, and therefore perfectly valid.

[cjs55]

Yes, it is sad that things you don't put out into the world do not matter. A masterpeice no one sees may be a masterpiece, but it is also inconcequential.

If he hadn't shared, they may never have been written down. He could have listened to beautiful music in his head, and he would have rightly died anonymous. No one cares about a genius who does nothing in the world, and no one should.

It is still art in the sense that it has artistic merit. In every other sense, it'd be hardly worth calling it masturbation.

Your reply seems to have nothing to do with my own (other than you agree with me and then wish to go off on some tangent, imagining I said something that I never did).

------

It's not suprising that since existentialist thought is the norm here that art would be existential as well. Since I disagree with the former I would disagree with the latter. This is the main cause of my frustration, as no longer being an existentialist I will disagree with every member on this board on practically every point. This is frustrating and causes me sadness (loneliness in a worldview especially in a board where I hoped to be able to relate to people much easier than other places).

The best art and music does have to do with a culture, it's true, but right now that culture is not relevent in the world which we live (mainly because there is no culture at all in the world which we live). There is a non-subjective spirit that is followed, although there may be different ones for different cultures. This spirit of great art does not require any human being to define it. I say this because of my experience (almost ironic, but not quite) of it: I never defined it, not once, it instead defined itself quite clearly for me. In brilliant art I find myself where buddhists seek to go, the place where self no longer is the most important entity.


This is why very little of worth has been produced in the last century. The farther we went down the existentialist road the more bullshit we had to put up with and accept, going farther away from great art like beethoven and closer and closer to britney spears (or the postal service, which is probably worse).

[SgtWalrus]

It's not suprising that since existentialist thought is the norm here that art would be existential as well. Since I disagree with the former I would disagree with the latter. This is the main cause of my frustration, as no longer being an existentialist I will disagree with every member on this board on practically every point.
You really think this is the case? As a semi-regular non-NT poster I find this interesting. Being an NF artsy type, I find that I lean towards an existentialist worldview. But judging from the time I spend here, I find that the philosophical temperaments range from Randian objectivism to angsty anarchism.

Back to art, I believe that an existentialist take does not equate Jessica Simpson with Mozart. It's not Postmodern relativism - I have personal ideas of what good art is: aesthetics, meaning, symbolism, cultural relevance; I intuit a collective consciousness that links great art through the ages. But as far as an objective definition - it seems such a paradox - unlike science you cannot point to empirical evidence to back up a theory. This is why I believe that art is the most existential of human activities ~ it is self-creating. This could explain why many artists ascribe to an existential worldview as well.

[indie]

The earlier mention of questioning the validity of art in a "heap of sticks" reminds me of Andy Goldsworthy (http://ea.pomona.edu/goldsworthyart.html), (pics (http://ea.pomona.edu/goldsworthygallery.html) of his work), an artist whom I greatly admire.

His art is made exclusively of the natural materials of a "place": twigs, ice, stone, bark, leaves, snow, flower petals, etc and left modified, but "intact" in nature, for the elements to slowly wear down. A lot can be said of an artist who is so devoted to creating these intensely divine works/odes to nature, and leaving them all behind, taking nothing but a photograph.

Brilliant indeed.

[ApeTheDog]

I have no idea what art is. I'm inclined to say that if someone made something just to show it to other people, it qualifies as art.

[lexiphanic]

I agree with Pan.

[Xander]

How's about if you look at this question from the other end. Art is produced by artists. But to call someone an artist is not a label but a word conveying the speakers opinion of the crafter. After all you can be a painter but try calling Dahle a painter in art circles and see if you can out run the mob!
Therefore it would be better to approach what is art from the point of the word art is a statement of opinion.
Well thats my opinion anyhew. You can call me artist or arsehole if you like.
As to why we no longer produce much of any impact, I'd attribute to cliques and bad communication. Why has each profession got its own lingo? Is it because it needs the new words or is it because those in the profession believe that if they describe something in common words they degrade their work? If people were to speak the same lingo then it would be easier for doctors to come up with new uses for computer systems without having to have a doctorate in both subjects. The common man could read scientific or philisophical texts without going to sleep and it just may be his uneducated perceptions that revolutionise the entire subject!
Besides that, cool thread!

[kendoiwan]

[QUOTE=Sackanaka]At the cost of sounding cheesy:



The more pressing controversy perhaps lies in the fact that Art and Skill are not dependent of each other. A good piece of art remains subjectively so, but the amount of effort and skill put into a work of art is often more able to be objectively analyzed. Because the amount of skill/effort can be defined by comparative (to other artists) or quantitative (years spent working, how many critical reviews, etc.) means, more people can readily see the objective value of artworks.

I have this conversation in regards to music all to frequently. An "artist" can make a terrible song, fuck it, terrible album. Sell no units, recieve no acclaim, but still be skilled.
Hip-hop is littered with "artist" who have no skill but can succeed in crafting a song that moves people i.e. Mike Jones
And on the flip side, I hold, there is no doubt the Lauryn Hill got skills but she hasn't made a good song that has receive mass acclaim in years. (Plus most people think she's looney) But the kicker is that since she hasn't produced "art" her skill is in question. The same with many an "artist".

[Pan]

I have always been, and will always remain, violently skeptical of any art that does not require skill to create.

[Xander]

Skill?
What would be defined as skill? Is it different from an inbuilt talent. Would it be an ability that requires the person to be taught? In which case would that not relegate art to just following instructions? Perhaps art is the combination of using what is know and putting in the unknown or unexplored. Better still is it the quintessential display of a particular discipline?
In any case unless art is the repetition of what previous acclaimed people developed, and thinking about it in that case as well, then it is always going to be the reaction of the viewer that defines its artistic value. One thing to consider is that although some items recieve larger acclaim, it does not take alot of research to find situation where once the "expert" has made their decision then the populace follow. Placebos and politics should be all the proof needed of the power involved in making the populace believe that something should be true and so is true.
Or perhaps I've just totally lost the plot?

[indie]

What would be defined as skill? Is it different from an inbuilt talent. Would it be an ability that requires the person to be taught?

Maybe. Skill is not the same as talent. Skills can be learned whereas talent is inherent. People who have talent and skillfully hone it are artists of their talent.

[Xander]

Not to harp on but I'd still define those who are skilled at their craft are craftsmen. Only those who the subject actually respects are artists. Unless you are defining it from a more traditionla standpoint in which case I'd theorise that the accolade is given to those who actually make significant impact on their craft. However as this cuold be linked directly to how popular they are then it only really leads me back to my origional stand point.
Am I going anywhere? Will I ever catch my tail?
Is the truth out there?

[kendoiwan]

Maybe. Skill is not the same as talent. Skills can be learned whereas talent is inherent. People who have talent and skillfully hone it are artists of their talent.


That's just hair splitting. You're questioning the origin of a skill, not the skill itself. Whether you just "have it" or you work hard at it, or some combination of both, skill is the end result.

[cjs55]

You really think this is the case? As a semi-regular non-NT poster I find this interesting. Being an NF artsy type, I find that I lean towards an existentialist worldview. But judging from the time I spend here, I find that the philosophical temperaments range from Randian objectivism to angsty anarchism.



Holy crap, I just remembered this thread! I was much more of an existentialist when I took the test though (things change fast) : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4441&page=1&pp=10

[Xander]

That's just hair splitting. You're questioning the origin of a skill, not the skill itself. Whether you just "have it" or you work hard at it, or some combination of both, skill is the end result.
I think the difference intended is that skill is formal and can be taught formally where as talent, whilst it can emulate skill, is natural and so leads to completely different methods and therfore differing results.

[kendoiwan]

I think the difference intended is that skill is formal and can be taught formally where as talent, whilst it can emulate skill, is natural and so leads to completely different methods and therfore differing results.


I need an example to swallow that... If the skill is writing how do you differentiate a "skilled" writer from a "talented" writer. Or fencing, could you say the best swordsman in the world was "talented" but not "skilled"? But the skill is the action, not the aptitude, or the origin. If I'm a skilled boxer does it matter if I trained hard or I just "got it"? How do you decide?

Need more input...

[Xander]

I need an example to swallow that... If the skill is writing how do you differentiate a "skilled" writer from a "talented" writer. Or fencing, could you say the best swordsman in the world was "talented" but not "skilled"? But the skill is the action, not the aptitude, or the origin. If I'm a skilled boxer does it matter if I trained hard or I just "got it"? How do you decide?

Need more input...

Someone with strong survival instincts with fight better than someone without. Best example is that animals have no skills naturaly only talents. There are better developed fighting instincts and lesser ones. Though this does broach into instincts I think that it is a combination of instinctive attributes that leads to a talent. For example no matter what the family history there are few good leaders with little charisma. Charisma is the intuitive thing, as something that you can be trained to do but most of the time it is purely natural.
I think I'm rambling but the point is why would a master of Wu Shu take on one child with no training and a barely developed sense of self and not another? I would also say that those with talent can practice the craft without concious effort and sometimes with no cognitive thought where as those with skill have to concentrate and apply themselves. That is probabaly a very polarised view of it but its about as clear as I ever get without loads of babbling!!!

[kendoiwan]

Someone with strong survival instincts with fight better than someone without. Best example is that animals have no skills naturaly only talents. There are better developed fighting instincts and lesser ones. Though this does broach into instincts I think that it is a combination of instinctive attributes that leads to a talent. For example no matter what the family history there are few good leaders with little charisma. Charisma is the intuitive thing, as something that you can be trained to do but most of the time it is purely natural.
I think I'm rambling but the point is why would a master of Wu Shu take on one child with no training and a barely developed sense of self and not another? I would also say that those with talent can practice the craft without concious effort and sometimes with no cognitive thought where as those with skill have to concentrate and apply themselves. That is probabaly a very polarised view of it but its about as clear as I ever get without loads of babbling!!!

I concede that a talented person will have an easier time at a given skill verses someone who trained really hard. But I'm just saying a: the skill is the action therefore can not be compared to the talent. You can't compare the the outcome to the reason.

Or to put it another way. INTP's have a talent for debate, other types may learn how to debate, and may learn to be better at debating than a given INTP, but debating is the skill, independant of the source of the skill, we got it, they practise, but "it" is debate.

PS why put a: and not have a b:? ;P

[Xander]

I concede that a talented person will have an easier time at a given skill verses someone who trained really hard. But I'm just saying a: the skill is the action therefore can not be compared to the talent. You can't compare the the outcome to the reason.

Or to put it another way. INTP's have a talent for debate, other types may learn how to debate, and may learn to be better at debating than a given INTP, but debating is the skill, independant of the source of the skill, we got it, they practise, but "it" is debate.

PS why put a: and not have a b:? ;P

I think what we are arguing over here is the usage of the word "skill". Whilst I understand that the word is used both to describe the ability and the usage we would have to restrict it to one or the other to get anywhere with this point.

However back to what qualifies as art. I have seen some that qualify on technique and some on pure opinion. The only thing in common amoungst all of them seems to be that it must be produced by someone with a quite high level of ability, whether classic or more contempory disiplines, and for i to connect with people. Though some pieces are called art wihtout being popular they remain in a kind of sub group where its labelled art but only for the purposes of discussion and isn't actually respected as art.
OK that was as clear as a magic eye picture!

[indie]

That's just hair splitting. You're questioning the origin of a skill, not the skill itself. Whether you just "have it" or you work hard at it, or some combination of both, skill is the end result.

Ah, but that is what I do best. . . there are various fine lines and distinctions in the use of language, which is why people should be very careful to use precise wording when they communicate.

[kendoiwan]

Ah, but that is what I do best. . . there are various fine lines and distinctions in the use of language, which is why people should be very careful to use precise wording when they communicate.


Conceded, you have a skill for hair splitting... Now is it a talent or did you have to work hard at it???

[kendoiwan]

[QUOTE=Xander]I think what we are arguing over here is the usage of the word "skill". Whilst I understand that the word is used both to describe the ability and the usage we would have to restrict it to one or the other to get anywhere with this point.

Correct!!! On both counts. So allow me to rephrase. Whether you achieve an ability through innate talent, or practice, you both still have the ability regardless of the route taken. And I said all that to prove what point???

Who the hell knows....

What ever. They say true art captures the human condition and expresses as much.

[Xander]

So what is the human condition then?
Are these people saying that landscapes are useless?
How on earth would you capture the human condition in a sheep cut in half and displayed in a glass box?
Nah. Sounds like an excuse to say something you like is "proper art".

[kendoiwan]

So what is the human condition then?
Are these people saying that landscapes are useless?
How on earth would you capture the human condition in a sheep cut in half and displayed in a glass box?
Nah. Sounds like an excuse to say something you like is "proper art".


I can't speak for "them". I just know that's what "they" say. I'm only equipped to go into detail on the realm of music. Outside of that your guess is as good as mine.