Ask HN: Is fine art really better beyond requiring a higher attention span? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is fine art really better beyond requiring a higher attention span?

9 pointsklbarry12 comments

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.

View on HN

The term "fine" in "fine art" is not used to describe "better" art. Fine art is just a term that has since been abandoned for simply "art." However, some people refer to visual art, such as painting, as "fine art."

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. ;)

Classical music (music from the classical period) was that period's pop music. One of it's goals as a musical current was for it to be understood by as many people as possible. It also has a simpler texture than baroque music. The musical forms are clearly defined and composers did a lot of derivative works, starting with theme and variations.

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.

So, to follow your comment let's hope that in 200 years we have forgotten the biebers and spears, and remember the radioheads and other musicians who aren't formulaic but are pushing musical boundaries.

"Classical music (music from the classical period) was that period's pop music."

No, it wasn't.

This is a really fine answer, thank you.

There is a whole branch of philosophy that deals with this: aesthetics.

There 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.

Thank you, this is very helpful.

Christopher Nolan bookended Inception with two references to Matthew 7:24. Spielberg snuck a passage from Sleeping Beauty into A.I. at a critical point. Lucas associates water with the subconscious throughout Star Wars.

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.

There's a pg essay on this:

http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html

It is much a matter of opinion. I happen to like much of classical music.

I also like classical music, but that surely can't be a good foundation on which to judge various forms of art.

To continue with poloniculmov's comment, the classical music you are listening to now is the 'good' stuff. If you go and study manuscripts of music that isn't played any more, it's for a good reason. Take Salieri's music for example, it's fairly bland (though the odd piece stands 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com