Art and Meta-art

The Degradation of Art thread reminded me of a question I often ask myself and equally often disregard or answer prematurely. Concerning the value of a piece of art, what role do things beyond the pure artistic piece play other than giving shape to that art? Take an example: "Shred" guitar music. Guitarists such as Michelangelo Batio and Yngwie Malmsteen are the pinnacle of this subgenre and the nadir of the genre containing it; at once the pieces that they write are filled to the brim with technical sophistication which attracts the praise of shred fans everywhere but are equally devoid of any melodic, structural, or emotional merit, attracting the reproach of rock fans in general. The difficulty of playing these passages is not a part of the art itself, it is "meta-art." However trivial such meta-artistic elements seem, whole subgenres and their followings spawn out of them. Perhaps they are wrong, perhaps right, perhaps the question is a matter of indifference. What say you? I'll post my own thoughts later. Perhaps by then they'll be relevant, or at least extant.

Art is what one makes of it. Art is personal, what you think of as art is art. Some people will disagree with your interpretation of what is art, but ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There will always be art that lacks some aspects that some people consider to be important to art, like emotion, whereas others may like the art more for the lack of those aspects. So all things can be art, it's just that some things are more accepted than others as true art.

In other words, art is intent or interpretation. That granted, two things are of concern: what is the value of art (the motivation for intending or interpreting something as art) and what value does meta-art play in one's response to it?

As a classical guitarist, I can not personally consider 'shredding' [on its own] an art, largely because it is a series of scales played at significant speed. It is therefore tantamount to taking a simple study in guitar (which would be used only for improvement of mechanical skills), and considering that raw study the art itself.

When applied in small amounts, this can be an artistic touch, or when the skills acquired from the ability to shred is applied to swift execution of a melody, then it becoms art.

It should otherwis just be considered a basic skill.

DeridingPolyphemus wrote:

As a classical guitarist, I can not personally consider 'shredding' [on its own] an art, largely because it is a series of scales played at significant speed. It is therefore tantamount to taking a simple study in guitar (which would be used only for improvement of mechanical skills), and considering that raw study the art itself.

When applied in small amounts, this can be an artistic touch, or when the skills acquired from the ability to shred is applied to swift execution of a melody, then it becoms art.

It should otherwis just be considered a basic skill.

I understand what you're saying as: difficulty alone is not artistic (or if we define art as intent/interpretation, valuable) but it can enhance art. One thing I'm not clear on is this: is it the difficulty (the meta-art) that you find valuable in an authentic work or the art itself, to which difficulty is a prerequisite?

Quote :

One thing I'm not clear on is this: is it the difficulty (the meta-art) that you find valuable in an authentic work or the art itself, to which difficulty is a prerequisite?

I believe in a balance between the two, but the idea is not-quite solidified in my mind.

To show off raw skill (Meta-art) is an artisan skill, while to create a beautiful melody is the work of a simple artist. But to be a virtuostic artist, one must be able to employ a said skill to create the beautiful melody.

For example, an eloquent writer may put forth flowery and intelligent scentences, but the essay might lack appropriate warrants and claims, or the structure may be weak.

Thinking about it, I have an idea. When one encounters a piece of art, he responds to it emotionally and intellectually. When one encounters, as you put it, virtuosic art, there is an emotional reaction to the substance and an intellectual recognition of the virtuosity that went into the piece's creation. Recognition alone means nothing, I think, but it in fact engenders a subsequent emotion of awe. It is the awe that increments the emotional reaction, thus making the piece seem more valuable. Therein, if I haven't missed something, lies the value of meta-art. Any thoughts? Digressions?

I would agree completely with your statement.

That sounds about right.