Is some art intrinsically worth more than other? Who can judge?

Question

Can Hip hop be compared to Mozart for example, or are they totally in different leagues? Is is pure snoberry to say Mozart is worth more than hip hop? Does democracy skew the debate with its instance on having the masses decide what is good or bad?

Answer 1

I used to work for a very high-end art gallery, and I'll tell you this:
Art is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Previous sales of the same artist or the same style often set precedent for pricing on future pieces.
If there is high demand for Crap, people will pay HUGE sums of money for it, even if it looks (or sounds) like it was thumbed out by a retarded child or a gorilla. Same deal if it's trendy, at least in Las Vegas....

Some of the most brilliant artists in history were largely ignored or even ridiculed by the masses and died tormented, penniless deaths, only to have future generations make fortunes off of the products of their soul that had been spit on just years before.
I imagine hip hop will be seen in some way such as this in the future - either as 20th century kitsch (like a velvet Elvis), or as the outpourings of the souls of a generation; a voice that was not heard by the masses until years later.

I believe however, that the true value of art lies in your own soul.
Whatever beats in sync with my own heart, whatever speaks to me and causes me to look into myself, whatever makes me think, or shake my ***, or cry, or scream out loud in pure jubilation...
THAT is what I call Art, my friend...
and no one can judge that but you.

Answer 2

1. Yes, if the artwork is composed of gold or some other precious material otherwise no its based on perceived value which is set by someone but just don't know who. What's so funny about this is when someone buys a Jackson Pollock painting for $4 and it turns out its value is millions but then you get a bunch of jealous art dealers and collectors who say cry foul.
2. Who can judge? Art dealers and auction houses determine values because they have a stake in the outcome. They buy cheap and sell high.
3. Its subjective - relative values. But another way to look at it is to ask how many people cross-culturally were influenced by a musician or artist. Maybe that's a more accurate way to measure value? Also some consideration needs to be given to context such as type of music and time period so in your example different leagues.
4. If someone says that some musician is more valuable than an entire genre of music then I'd probably say they were not entirely objective. I think its unfair to conflate snobbery with Mozart's work. I think Mozart was a creative genius just like Tupac and they both had - in their lifetimes - disdain for the establishment which included the wealthy and the powerful.
5. Everyone has an opinion of what's good and bad. Just because a large segment (majority - American Idol) thinks some artist is the greatest doesn't mean that history will remember it that way. Usually contemporary musicians, artists and scientists will look back to those who preceded them, and because everyone has individual tastes each artist will have particular favorites which will influence their works which gives us all the choices we now have today. Think the same is true for all societies (socialism, theocracy, dictatorship) not just democratic ones because in those cases you have the state saying (e.g. all Western music is bad or whatever). The masses will influence history but I think its the future artists who actually bring to light the forgotten artists and have more influence on how history judges art because they themselves are artists and therefore know the true value.

Answer 3

Mozart managed to inspire the people of his time in excess of anybody else who managed to produce music. He was able to listen to music that went for hours, and then scribe it down perfectly after hearing it only once. He was specifically asked to play music for increadibly important people at a time where few people cared about music as they were too busy trying to live.

Hip hop artists, while I listen to more hiphop that classical, produce whatever people want to hear. They (typically, there are exceptions) don't really care what they are putting out and are driven entirely by market forces.

Typically in society we value things for their rarity. Diamonds are only really as beautiful as crystal but are worth so much more due to the effort and skill involved in producing this unique product. So I do think that mozart is worth more than hiphop.

I still listen to Jay Z instead though. Value is not the ONLY reason music might be important.

Answer 4

In general, things are worthless when there are no takers, or admirers putting a mark of appreciation on whatever meet their eyes.

Things become worthy when more people are chasing the same wants, which has imposed a higher value from those people who are more desperate than the rest in the acquisition. Therefore, anything with no significant, out of the blue can become valuable due to demand alone. Sometime the popularity of anything can be inspired, in make believe gesture that we are forever gullible to follow the crowd.

Answer 5

Art is subjective.

I love a wide range of music for different reasons. Classical is beautiful to me, it is inspiring, it lifts my soul. But I also love blues, rock, pop, alternative, some hip hop, rap and dance. Some music energizes me & makes me want to dance. Other music is just soothing to listen to. Some provides thought-provoking lyrics. I like good music in any genre. You enjoy the variety. You can't really compare Mozart to Hip Hop. It's like asking which fruit is better strawberries or oranges. Well they're both fruit. They're both sweet. I prefer strawberries but someone else may prefer oranges.

The value of music or any form of art for that matter is its ability to move you, to entertain or inspire or engage you. To stop you in your tracks. To make you think. Sometimes critics are snobs. Sometimes they will look down their noses on certain types of music or art, but the bottom line is that it is up to the individual to judge. If you love a certain kind of music then enjoy it. If you love a painting, put it on your wall. Who cares what the so-called experts say.

I am a singer/songwriter/guitarist as well as a visual artist. I am thrilled when people like my songs & paintings but I realize that they're not for everyone. If I can affect one person, if I can reach someone & affect them. If they leave one of my shows with my song in their heads or if they love one of my paintings enough to buy it & bring it into their homes then that is all the success I need. As far as democracy goes, just because something is "popular" doesn't necessarily make it good. Some mainstream musical artists aren't terribly talented but they are marketable products & achieve fame as such. I have met many extremely talented musicians who have not achieved commercial success because their music is a little more offbeat, not for everyone. It doesn't mean that it isn't good.

All art is a gift. It takes great courage to express yourself & share that expression with the world, risking ridicule. It takes great faith to bare your soul for strangers, not knowing how they might react. It is the most rewarding of pursuits. Sadly for most artists, it doesn't pay the bills. I can't quit my day job yet!

Answer 6

Mozart may be 'technically' better than most hip-hop artists.
There is a common 'chord' that holds all mass together through it's 'frequency'. (Vibrations)
Many extremely successful musicians subconsciously know this, and re-produce it in their music
Mozart, Handel and Liszt, As well as The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix etc.
Hip-hop, by it's very nature, can't include 'the chord' so while it may be AS entertaining and meaningful to those who prefer it to other genre's, if you are looking for life-changing 'positive vibes' you won't find them in Hip-hop.

As for other art forms. The same can apply. Everything we see is relayed to our brain through 'frequencies'. If a certain piece of art stimulates that 'positive' chord frequency in our mind and imagination, it would be percieved as 'better' than a piece incapable of transmiting that 'chord'.

Though to be honest. the media DOES control the masses through subliminal use of the Chord to 'instruct' us to believe what they want us to believe. So unless you are particularly strong willed and AWARE that this is going on, you WILL be convinced that certain art forms are best, even though they transmit 'negative' frequencies. (Like Hip-Hop).

This serves the purpose of 'dividing' society, and as we all know, you need to 'divide' to 'conquer'.

The free online book below delves deeper into this theory if you'd like to take the trouble find out more.

Cheers,

Pete.

Answer 7

It depends on who is judging the art. Art can be defined as good or bad by the individual. For instance, I put classical music above other types of music because I enjoy that type of sound whereas someone else might prefer rock music.

Answer 8

I think some art comes from genius and some art comes from materialism, from trying to make a buck. They are not in the same league at all. I don't know how to judge though. The artist has to be the true judge.

Answer 9

as far as music goes i think you have to judge each piece first in its own catagory.I mean art of all types is an expression of a personal nature,in a way a creative communication that will be enjoyed and understood by those who can relate to that type of communication.So yes it would be snobbery for me to say that my prefered type of music is better than yours.it,s an apples and oranges thing ,personal preference and all that.music speaks to the emotions of people and relates to them what they are and where they are at that moment.
Im not sure what you mean by democrocy skewing the debate.I believe that the industry itself does. it decides who the big spenders are and then markets the product to fit what the spenders want .artists are then forced to set aside creativity to produce boxed music to serve the masses.that is a travesty.and then you have awesome artists who are left behind because they dont fit the box.example: a wonderfully creative woman singer ,songwriter,instrumentalist goes to Nashville, they love her music! and her lyrics but she doesnt fit the type they are looking for (young ,skinny ,blonde,sexy) they,ll sell her music but they wont sell her.she struggles for awhile and the answer is the same everywhere finally she gives in so as not to starve. she sells her music to big names. but then they tell her how to write her music and want her to sign a contract saying she will produce so many songs in so much time and everyting she writes while shes with them is theirs, and no she can never perform any of it.
so she packs up and goes back home where she performs her music in bars and night clubs and is happy again.True story.
how many artists are left behind never to communicate their creativity to others? because they dont fit the market?
the masses should decide what they want to hear, not just the the targeted buyers.there should be more independant radio stations that play unknown artists and allow the masses to decided whats good whats not.
sorry Im ranting.
peace><>

Answer 10

I think we should take into an account the essential difference between the two in terms of its worth. In other words if popular art product can reproduce itself in numerous copies, technically speaking, in accordance with market demand, then what is called "high"- is in itself high priced product because of its solitariness in the market.

In the end there is no essential difference whether it is sold at Wal-Mart at wholesale price or at Christie's, in both instances there is tons of cash.