When I point out art wasn't made to entertain I don't mean it wasn't made to entertain the elite instead of the 'layman'. I meant art is firstly created in honour of art itself, it is the need to create, the magic, it is almost religious, it is a calling. It has nothing to do with any crowd.
Entertainment is just spiritual and noble as meditation, religion or the magic you're talking about
I don't see the reason to consider entertainment and fun as something trivial and without depth, as you can find all the magical, spiritual, religious, meditative and deep aspect of art in fun and entertainment
And when composers created something to entertain they were giving it the same importance of any other piece
Now, this is like the Accademy Awards mentality that think that only drammatic movie can deserve an oscar
But you know what: homour, irony, fun and entertainment can be high art and have deep and spiritual meanings too
Life was never meant to be a struggle so you can't find beautiful and spiritual aspect only and melancholy, sadness and medition, even having fun, entertain other and be humorous is part of our sould and our spiritual life
Notice how a lot of the great works were written for the composers own enjoyment and were never liked by the audienced.
There's never a single audience
Every composer before the 1900 has found his own audience
For example there were a Brahms audience and a Tchaikovsky audience
It was kind of rare to find a piece that was not liked even by the faithful audience of the composer
"Do you have some objective proof that you're any better than "them"? "
Of course people that 'study' music have a deeper understanding of it. Just like people that study physics or math have a deeper understanding of it compared to the average person. A person that knows music for example just has a sharper eye. If he or she can hear better then he or she has a big advantage. Just like someone who can only see black and white can't appreciate Van Gogh as much as someone who can see the striking use of colours. If you want to call this taste, fine. But note that there are also people that are deaf or blind.
This is nonsense
You're comparing objective things like eyesight and math to subjective and atereal thing like music
You can say that someone who is hearing impaired can less appreciate music but you can't say that knowing music theory has anything to do with musical appreciation because despite being a popular myth and belief this is something not true
Music is somthing that speak to your heart and your conscious and while you're listening to it all your knowledge about theory, harmony can't do nothing to alterate your perception as you're not listening it with your conscious brain
And on the other hand if you listen it with your conscious brain observing harmony, melody, progressions, cadenza and so on you can't really "feel" music the way it is intended to be listen
This studies have already been done
You use a different side of your brain to hear music and this is why music is like a jorney in another world, in the composer world or in your unconscious world as soon as you begin "reasoning" and take account of music theory in the music you're listening, that unconscious magic dies and music stop being art or even being music
Music is not better appreaciated by people who study music and are knowledgeable about music theory
Math, physic and colous are another story
Music can be subjectively appreciated by everyone and now that I'm more knowlegeable about music than 6 years ago I still appreciate the same music I appreciates back then, and people that doesn't know anything about harmony, counterpoint, notes, scales and orcehstration are completely able to appreciate fully any piece of music from Greeks chants to Stravinsky as long as the piece strive a chord in them
"Do you really believe that you're judging music "subjectively" and that you would have judged it differently if you had not studied music?" "
Of course. The more I know about music, the more passionate it became to listen to it. It is amazing, so emotional, so powerful. It can be compared to finding out God exists. Imagine how deep such a realisation would be.
Music is passionate and powerful just because you can't hear it consciously
The unsciounscious state that any people can experience and in which music is listened is what make it magic and spiritual
If you apply a resoning to it while you listen to it you're not experiencing this magic anymore
So, no, think twice you're not more entitled and any better in judging music subjectively than a butcher who doesn't even know the word "harmony", he would be able to appreciate music the same way you are and you conscious knowledge doesn't change your perception
It's like with paiting, you can take a group of people who know nothing about art and have them choose their favorites between hundereds of pictures
If you then have them follow an art and paiting course, their appreciation will not change
Either after the course they will choose the same pictures or if their tastes changed they changed subconsciously ofr reasons not related with the their better knowledge
Itzhak Perlman once said music was his religion. I feel the same. It is a comforting supernatural power that transcends human thought.
I agree
And therefore when you apply human though to music you destroy it's trascendental quality
I agree that you be more likely to appreciate specific components of a piece consciously because of your knowledge, but for what concern the true listening, when you're there with your eyes closed letting music enters in your soul and guiding you through a wonderful jorney all human are alike as knowledge ceases to be an important factor since subconsciously we're all the same and you can't change your subconscious emotions with theory knowledge
Also, I find your definition of art a bit narrow minded, you should lighten up a bit. You sound like the
people you say you despise.
You're right
My definition was just an aspect of my definition of art
My definition of "art" is:
living expression of your interior and subconscious world obtained through the technical ability in using a conscious communication form, art is anytime you're using the material world to materialize your immaterial world and art is the materialization of the your unconscious thoughts and desires throught something that could, unlike your subconscious, be perceived by other people
Everyone has experienced how hard is to explain your dreams and your thoughts to someone else, "art" permits you to forget about the limit of the spoken words and use a limitless and global communication form to share your profound thoughts
Art is not created for the sake of it, but for the sake of espressing yourself while any other method seems not the right one to use
In fact, artists who created artistic works never thought they could become part of the art heritage, they created them for that moment, for sharing themselves and their soul with the contemporary world
So sorry, but if noone read it, noone listen it, noone sees it... then it's not art; as art is communication and there can't communication without someone who is paying attention
Therefore there is never a right characteristic for art as anything can be art
So art is not necessarily serious, is not necessarily, intellectual, is not necessarily innovative, is not necessarily moral, is not necessarily religious, is not necessarily wise and knowledgeable, is not necessarily meditative or melanchonic
Art could be anything and the contrary of anything and yes entertainment and light fun could be art as well
And by the way: the difference between "art music" and "popular music" was invented by modernists and avant-gardists and originated in the 20th century, it never existed in the past and it's of course an absurd and haughty differentiation
Daniel