Why bother with music when it's the lowest art form of them all?

who decides what is art and what isn't

music > literature > art (as in painting) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> videogames > photography

>I fail
yep

literature > music > film > vidya

I don't see why you would care how anyone spends their free time

What is literature

Attached: film v book.png (236x214, 37K)

Popular, yes, but what needs to be considered when promoting discourse on the 'lowest', insofar as that is possible, considering that there is presumably at least one great work to justify, otherwise they would not be considered art at all, unless one works from the potential rather than the examples that have been seen and can be analysed to discuss whether they are art, or unless one believes that entertainment and art are one and the same and that deciding what is and isn't art is meaningless, which seems reasonable in theory until one remembers that things like mobile games and Soundcloud rap exist which are not made with any artistic intent and are not seen as any more than entertainment even by their consumers, so that one great work is inherently incomparable to a great work from another medium, of art is that as previously mentioned, there are works for which the notion of art never enters even the creation or the consumption, which presumably makes them not art, which raises the question of what the line is between trashy art that fails and entertainment that doesn't try, and what popular music needs to achieve, or at least harbor pretensions to achieving, to achieve the same achievements, whatever they are, whether edification, tonal poetry, or whatever the achievements aspired to by art in general are, insofar as one can synthesise the aims of all media and find one aim of all great works of literature, from Homer to Bolano, if not further, however Bolano is the most recent author I feel safe in using as an example of a future member of the canon, 2666 being considered the great 21st century work so far, admittedly only 20 years in, although 1900-1919 had some great works, however art in general has had a perceived decline in general, whether real or not, in the eyes of traditionalists, leading to a...
[CONTINUED]

counterculture of respecting the canon, a strange reversal of what traditionally would be considered rebellious, because, in their eyes, the rebels are now the establishment, and were only ever superficially rebels anyway, and demagogical figures for those of lower IQs, although that to be clear is a joke, considering the limited effect of IQ on one's life generally seen, although this depends on what one wants in life, such as Jordan Peterson, painting and sculpture from the Greeks to Van Gogh - I do not feel comfortable going any further, as mentioning someone like Pollock or Rothko, both hated by /pol/, would result in tons of meme replies - and music from the medieval composers to Reich, ibid, and whether it has already achieved these with works such as Echoes and Ys, the latter of which is probably the most artistic, whatever that means, album of the 21st century, because God knows something like MBDTF, standing for My, referring to Kanye West, the creator, along with many others, although he is often considered more of a director than anything, and he is prone to crediting people for literally anything, Beautiful, a common aim of art, Dark, another common aim, Twisted, ibid, Fantasy, a perceived lower form of literature, with notable exceptions, however, such as Little Big and the Gormenghast trilogy, both acclaimed by Harold Bloom, a major defender, because it seems this is necessary in the modern world, whenever that began, although actually it might be the postmodern world, of the Western Canon, and so presumably not one who would praise a work he considered unworthy, is not a traditional work of art, although its aspirations and creator are undoubtedly Wagnerian, including the controversies.

Prove video games are art then.

I'm just curious.

Brainlet image.

Music is the most subjective art form of all. Because of this, critics have a hard time objectively evaluating any piece of music, and often end up contradicting eachother with their very much subjective opinions. While this may make you think music is the lowest form of art, I'd say it's quite the opposite, because artists can express their feelings much better through music than through any other art form.

Attached: I'm taking the bait.png (539x910, 659K)

This post is flawed because music isn't "more subjective". Critics can analyze a piece of music objectively by using music theory.

ready to be educated by my unambiguously superior opinions?
20th and 21st century recorded music which is actually a form of gesamtkunstwerk >>> film which is also gesamtkunstwerk = video games which are also gesamtkunstwerk >>>>>>> literature which is not gesamtkunstwerk = visual art which is also not gesamtkunstwerk >>> traditional forms of music which are also not gesamtkunstwerk
also all forms of art are good and worthy of time

based

i am also a fan of Gormenghast and Little Big and I also consider Kanye West to be Wagnerian and i am quite sure that great art has only become less and less visible because of the massive increases in quantity of artists and art. i'm also quite sure that there are many great artists from the past and present who have little or no legacy, which might actually be a good thing

also i think that the "canon" got hijacked

No form of art is more emotional than music, you can't prove me wrong.

>lowest art form of them all?

Well at least it's art, unlike vidya

Attached: vidya.jpg (752x467, 94K)

Nah it's the highest fuck you dweeb

You didn't answer the question from the OP.