September 30, 2026 at 10:28

what makes art

i consider myself an artist; art is not my day job, but i make music and when i do so i do it for the sake of art. i’ve played instruments, composed music, designed sounds and experimented with music for twenty years and in that time i’ve come to understand how to make sounds that make me feel a certain way.

i think when people say something “is not art” they are actually trying to disparage its quality. the hidden claim is that if something is not good enough, then it is not art. putting that claim aside, i think this concept of “quality” of art is not well defined by the people making this claim.

the most measurable definition of artistic quality might be something like popularity, but this falls at the zeroth hurdle; while i have the utmost respect for pop artists, i don’t think the charts represents the highest of artistic output of the human race.

something less controversial might be the endurance of a piece of art. bach’s concertos could be thought of as higher quality than his peers because his outlasted theirs in the cultural conversation.

judging art by how society at large receives it means we might miss out on some incredible art that was just never shared with the public, or art that was overlooked for other reasons. maybe there was a woman who composed “better” sonatas than mozart, overlooked for the crime of being a woman.

something people say a lot about art is that it should make you feel something. this is much harder to measure, because different people react differently to each piece. which is more important: to make a few people feel strongly, or many people feel weakly?

i also write. i’m far less experienced at writing. why is it that my writing is “worse” than my music? it’s probably true that at least one person in the world would prefer my writing to my music.

i think the key difference between my writing and my music is my ability to put an intent into the art. when i make music i can convey a feeling, i can tell a story, or i can just make a groove. on a more micro level, i can make each individual beat sound like the song i have in my head, and on a macro level i can put multiple songs together to form a cohesive album with a single concept behind it.

when i write, i may struggle to pace a chapter. i might use words that are correct, but not precise. my sentences may run too long for the flow of the scene i’m imagining. and on a higher level, i might not even have an intent to put into words. there’s a story in my mind but i don’t have a strong desire for “how this chapter should feel” because i’m not experienced enough to know the choices i could make.

the artist must have a goal, and that goal must be related to the art and not its reception. the goal must be achievable even if the piece remained totally unshared with the world.

zero comments

what makes art

i consider myself an artist; art is not my day job, but i make music and when i do so i do it for the sake of art. i’ve played instruments, composed music, designed sounds and experimented with music for twenty years and in that time i’ve come to understand how to make sounds that make me feel a certain way.

i think when people say something “is not art” they are actually trying to disparage its quality. the hidden claim is that if something is not good enough, then it is not art. putting that claim aside, i think this concept of “quality” of art is not well defined by the people making this claim.

the most measurable definition of artistic quality might be something like popularity, but this falls at the zeroth hurdle; while i have the utmost respect for pop artists, i don’t think the charts represents the highest of artistic output of the human race.

something less controversial might be the endurance of a piece of art. bach’s concertos could be thought of as higher quality than his peers because his outlasted theirs in the cultural conversation.

judging art by how society at large receives it means we might miss out on some incredible art that was just never shared with the public, or art that was overlooked for other reasons. maybe there was a woman who composed “better” sonatas than mozart, overlooked for the crime of being a woman.

something people say a lot about art is that it should make you feel something. this is much harder to measure, because different people react differently to each piece. which is more important: to make a few people feel strongly, or many people feel weakly?

i also write. i’m far less experienced at writing. why is it that my writing is “worse” than my music? it’s probably true that at least one person in the world would prefer my writing to my music.

i think the key difference between my writing and my music is my ability to put an intent into the art. when i make music i can convey a feeling, i can tell a story, or i can just make a groove. on a more micro level, i can make each individual beat sound like the song i have in my head, and on a macro level i can put multiple songs together to form a cohesive album with a single concept behind it.

when i write, i may struggle to pace a chapter. i might use words that are correct, but not precise. my sentences may run too long for the flow of the scene i’m imagining. and on a higher level, i might not even have an intent to put into words. there’s a story in my mind but i don’t have a strong desire for “how this chapter should feel” because i’m not experienced enough to know the choices i could make.

the artist must have a goal, and that goal must be related to the art and not its reception. the goal must be achievable even if the piece remained totally unshared with the world.

Filed under Notes

0 comments

Comments are closed.

Display

Appearance