5 Worst Composers Ever!!

[Josquin des Prez]

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

I didn't actually say that you did or did not understand art, i was merely making a point. Of course, what i said does ring true in a way. To really understand art one must first be able to understand people. It is the individuality of the artist that makes the difference between a masterpiece by Michelangelo, one of the few true Christian artists in existence, and a well crafted counterfeit of said individuality by, say, a Raphael. To give you an example, here's a not so good painting by Michelangelo:



against one of Raphael's most outstanding ones:



It really doesn't take a genius to understand why the latter is such a failure, compared to the first.

[Scarpia]

Quite apart from this, your assertion, which implies that I do not understand anything about great art, is blatantly offensive, another reason for me to simply ignore your posts from now on.

You catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   

[jowcol]

Yes, which is why it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain. As human beings, we are all in danger of falling to our passions. We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

I fully agree withe the second two sentences-- but they tend to contradict the first, unless you have the interpretation that one could commit unspeakable acts, but as long as one  had beauty within themselves, they wouldn't be a  "real" villain.   Once again, this goes against the central thesis Dostoevsky had in Crime and Punishment.  Raskolnikov did not experience redemption until he realized that he was bound by the same moral code as everyone else.


Fortunately, it's easy to spot a "real villain" -- they typically look like this, are accompanied by spooky music, and are often seen tying up damsels in distress at the local sawmill:

[Scarpia]

I fully agree withe the second two sentences-- but they tend to contradict the first, unless you have the interpretation that one could commit unspeakable acts, but as long as one  had beauty within themselves, they wouldn't be a  "real" villain.   Once again, this goes against the central thesis Dostoevsky had in Crime and Punishment.  Raskolnikov did not experience redemption until he realized that he was bound by the same moral code as everyone else.

It also contradicts the philosophy of the artist that was put forward by Thomas Mann, particularly in his story "Tonio Kruger."  Mann contradicts the canard that art comes form noble feelings or a noble soul and portrays the artist as a person who, although not necessarily evil, is detached from human feelings.  Art from mediocre people makes us cringe because the amateur artist is too sincere and lacks the perspective necessary to create something beautiful.  The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience, although the artist does not partake of those feelings himself.

Do we need any more evidence that artists are not noble people than the newspaper.  Is there a finer filmmaker working than Roman Polanski, a premeditated child rapist who thinks he did nothing wrong? 

[Josquin des Prez]

Is there a finer filmmaker working than Roman Polanski, a premeditated child rapist who thinks he did nothing wrong?

Polanski is over-rated (i just watched Death and the Maiden a few weeks ago and i'm still cringing). Your argument is invalid.

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGkn-gbAxDE&feature=related

^ Not exactly a beautiful man is him.

[Josquin des Prez]

The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience.

What audience? Great artists are never truly understood by the masses.

[DavidRoss]

Is it?

Yes, which is why it is impossible for me to believe anybody with so much beauty within himself could possibly be a real villain. As human beings, we are all in danger of falling to our passions. We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

Of course, i'm not surprised that most people here would reject my proposition. After all, the fact you cannot prove the existence of God is a clear sign that he does not exist. Its obvious.

Egad, but Josquin remains a near-perfect reverse barometer of truth. Our actions ALWAYS represent who we are as individuals.  We aren't what we think we are, we aren't what we say we are, but we are what we show ourselves to be by our actions.

And God's existence, of course, like that of rainbows, bicycles, and pistachio ice cream, is independent of whatever Josquin thinks he or anyone else can or cannot "prove."

[Bulldog]

We all make mistakes, but our actions do not always represent who we are as individuals.

Of course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.  Your mistake is in thinking that an individual is just one or the other.
There's a spectrum at play here in all humans.

[karlhenning]

You catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   

None, I should hope.

[Josquin des Prez]

Of course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.

Too facile. You may argue that you can know something of a person by his actions, but that isn't the same as saying he is that person. A kind person would feel guilt for being mean. A mean person may not have kindness in his heart when he extends his hand to help others. Actions can only define a person from the perspective of an outside observer. The nature of that person remains altogether undisclosed. After all, you don't really know somebody just by observing his actions, right? You have to remain in close contact with that person for an extended period of time before you can say you truly understand his motivations, or you can truly evaluate his character. Actions in a way merely reflect an individual's feelings in that particular moment in time, which may give us a clue as to the nature of the person in question, but cannot tell the whole story, unless the action is extreme enough that the nature behind it is unequivocal (murdering somebody and then feasting on his or her body might be considered a pretty solid give away). Personally though, aside for Gesualdo, i don't recall many artists who's actions sat squarely within that extreme. Aside for the usual faults that go along with human nature, artists usually aren't really an extreme bunch, at least on average.

[jowcol]

What audience? Great artists are never truly understood by the masses.

Hence Shakespeare and Dickens were not understood by the masses, or else they were not great.


Of course, if we overload the word "truly" to be "what I say it means for this context" it's much easier to reconcile.

[jowcol]

And God's existence, of course, like that of rainbows, bicycles, and pistachio ice cream, is independent of whatever ...anyone else can or cannot "prove."

In Pistachio we trust.

[Scarpia]

Hence Shakespeare and Dickens were not understood by the masses, or else they were not great.

Nor Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Wagner, Verdi.  These arguments are much easier to make when you allow yourself to make any absurd claim required by your these, regardless of the factual basis. 

This is fun, but it may be time to stop feeding the troll.

[Verena]

You catch on fast, Verena!  Thee are numerous posters here I feel it necessary to ignore.  How many feel it necessary to ignore me, is impossible to determine.   

[jlaurson]

When someone decides per definitionem that great artists cannot also have been scoundrels, then a proven scoundrel-artist will either be considered 'not great' or an artist considered great simply cannot be, whatever his actions, have been a scoundrel. Trying to use reason or facts against such an "argument" is as fruitful an exercise as nailing Jell-O to the wall.

[Josquin des Prez]

When someone decides per definitionem that great artists cannot also have been scoundrels, then a proven scoundrel-artist will either be considered 'not great' or an artist considered great simply cannot be, whatever his actions, have been a scoundrel. Trying to use reason or facts against such an "argument" is as fruitful an exercise as nailing Jell-O to the wall.

But since you believe there is no real criteria to determine what makes an artist great, any attempt at making such an evaluation to be considered purely subjective in nature, you can as easily afford to make such an accusation, as you just did, without having to actually test my mettle in the process, so to speak. If i stated that Fellini was a greater genius then Polanski (which he was), you can simply deny that such an evaluation is possible, and then state that i cherry picked my evidence to fit the theory. Very convenient for you.

[Florestan]

Indeed, at least they produced works that articulated anti- semitism.

You're kidding, right? Mussorgsky, Dickens and Hasek articulated anti-semitism?

Or highly jealuos and posessive, withdrawn and irritative- sort of passive/agressive- if we believe the portraid by George Sand in LUCREZIA FLORIANI.

George Sand is just as credible a source of information about Chopin as is Chopin about George Sand. 

[Florestan]

Mann contradicts the canard that art comes form noble feelings or a noble soul and portrays the artist as a person who, although not necessarily evil, is detached from human feelings.  [...] The detached artist creates something beautiful which appeals to the emotions of the audience, although the artist does not partake of those feelings himself.

Ah, the always good ol' appeal to authority. Absent Mr. Mann himself, could you please explain how an artist can express the widest range of human feelings in his work yet not experience them himself? Could you give us an example of a great artist detached from human feelings?

[jlaurson]

But since you believe there is no real criteria to determine what makes an artist great, any attempt at making such an evaluation to be considered purely subjective in nature, you can as easily afford to make such an accusation, as you just did, without having to actually test my mettle in the process, so to speak. If i stated that Fellini was a greater genius then Polanski (which he was), you can simply deny that such an evaluation is possible, and then state that i cherry picked my evidence to fit the theory. Very convenient for you.

In your very example you yourself eschew any standard of absolute greatness in favor of relative greatness. The issue at hand is hardly a matter of ranking achievement (which can never not be subjective to some degree). In order for your little theory to pass the test of Popperian falsifiability, you need to at the least: 1.)  name a list of artists you deem unequivocally "great"  2.)  and give absolute standards of what constitutes irredeemably immoral behavior.

[Verena]

Of course they do.  A person might be kind and altruistic one day, rather mean and nasty the next day; the person is a mix of both types of actions and mindsets.  Your mistake is in thinking that an individual is just one or the other.
There's a spectrum at play here in all humans.

Exactly