[DARISC]

[QUOTE=Taz's Master;5169889]That's what I was talking about when I said defining art is an attempt at quantifying the subjective.

Yes...and no. I said art can be subjectively defined anyway an individual wants to define it. In that sense, whatever anyone defines as art is art and thus there is no single definition. Yes, that is always the case in the present.

When you set your boundaries, there are always things that qualify but fall outside the boundaries, and when you have no boundaries then nothing can be disqualified.

I'm not sure what it means to qualify (according to who?) and what (who's) boundaries they fall outside of. Again, yes, nothing can be absolutely disqualified - in the present.

Recall that I used the terms vertical and horizontal audience. The horizontal aufience is that of the present and what ocurs in the present is judged by those experiencing it in the present. That includes art critics, historians, patrons of the arts, artists and the man on the street.

There is always much disagreement about what qualifies for even being considered to be art and about the quality of that which is. Critics make their proclamations, gallery owners (often in cahoots with the critics) hype what they hope will make them money and art historians speculate and make guesses about what in the present will prove to be significant throughout history.

Historians deal with looking back and trying to put what happened in the past in context with what that which happened before what they are dealing with and this really can't be done in the present - no more than can be seen now how Bush will be seen in the eyes of history. It takes time.

As time passes, events fall into place for historians (and yes I know, historians can be looked at skeptically as those who fictionalize the past) and they put that which is significant in their analyses into their history books. What ends up in history books is that which has a vertical audience, the audience which continues through time, constantly being renewed as imembers die and new members enter.

This is a very different audience than the horizontal audience which is ephemeral, always changing in the very short term when compared with the vertical audience. How many members of art's, or music's, current horizontal audience can name any artist or musician who was wildly popular and hugely successful 150years ago? I'm guessing you'll agree, not many. Ask anyone who has an interest in art or music that goes beyond what is popular and accepted in the present, one who's interest is deep enough to have made them read history, and maybe take a course or two and you'll probably get some responses. And ask just about anybody who Michaelangelo was and they'll know - because art history is a valid and valuable discipline. The vertical audience of those who have an in depth understanding and appreciation of art, music, et al, surpasses any given horizontal audience by a factor of thousands in number of members.

Also, consider how many artists were scorned, laughed at and ridiculed by their horizontal audience and are now universally accepted as masters; the list is long.

As far as your saying that classical music is "better" than rock and roll, I'd say they are different as opposed ot one being qualitatively better than the other. While both are music, comparing the two outside of their context in the music world seems to me like comparing apples and oranges - they're both fruits, but...

And, as far as, "On the whole I am lined up pretty much in complete agreement with you and Sniper as to how to appreciate art.", I actually have nothing to advocate to anyone on how they should appreciate art. I do make a distinction between, oh, my neighbor, my doctor, the guy at the liquor store, Sniper, et al, who, unfortunately, may have nothing more to say about art than "I know what I like, I know what art is and most modern art is clearly crap!" and people like yourself who have an interest in what others think and have to say and can carry on a worthwhile discussion.

Thanks.

Oh yeah, back to one of the things you said about music,

Brahms may rock me right to sleep,
but Styx and Stones rock my bones.