The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-04-2016, 07:18 PM   #11
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Quote:
NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art.
In another sense though --

If a piece of art becomes well-known, and is thought to be important enough to pay attention to, it actually then contributes to all future art.

When someone sits down to write music, or a novel, or paint a landscape, they start with what they know, which is roughly a summary of everything that was well-shared and appreciated in history.

All western music was changed by Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. Were there better writers than McCartney/Lennon, yes but they won't have changed all music. And so in 100 years their music is likely to sound seem uninteresting or even strange.

Doesn't even have to be a hit or a critical success to change everything. The Velvet Underground and Nico sold 30,000 copies, not enough to even be a minor hit or make any lists. Brian Eno later said "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band."
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.