Ludwig van Beethoven said that a great poem is more difficult to set to music than a merely good one because the...

Honestly, Tolstoy isn't on that level, maybe Hugo or Cervantes are. Comparison with Shakespeare is much more appropriate. Also funny enough, Napoleon.

Beethoven was shorter than Goethe. It was just a linguistic pun, he wasn't making fun of people

>getting better and better and achieving highs that nobody could even see, let alone touch. The organic growth of both theirs oeuvres is astounding: is a pleasure to witness somebody beginning with many spots, coal marks of artistic defects, but eventually diluting them, or making them work as advantages, and in the end blinding all stains and bruises into a new sun.

Your euphoric fervor is too much
tone it down a little

>implying you can overdo with superlatives for an artist who remained relevant 200 years after his death

I prefer Schubert desu senpai

Bach soars over both

Schubert is a lot less relevant though, and Bach might be pretty popular for people who play but Beethoven's cultural impact reached people who don't know shit about classical. He surpassed music and became almost a mythological being. Doubt any writer sans Shakespeare went as far.

>Doubt any writer sans Shakespeare went as far.
Homer

His impact is more subtle though. Ask 100 people on the street now and 90 probably could name couple plays from William, doubt even 10 would know Homer.

I'd be surprised if less than 50% of the population knew who Homer was

...

Quite the optimism there, mate.

>In short, regarding setting poetry to music, he was wrong.
The greatness of the poetry being spoken about is not of depicting things and then creating music that mimics the thing of a water wheel, or cannon, or mirror, or girl, accurately, but the passion of the poetry, the artistry, sophistication, rhythm, depths, heights.

He was saying a greater poem inspires him to try to be greater to make worthy music to be entwined with a highly great poem, its easier to make music for a worse poem because he doesn't have to struggle as much, try as hard to match its greatness; and then he is making, possibly a personal judgement call, possibly a heavily weighed...still personal opinion? about who created better poetry?

But poetry must have reference to discrete linguistic conceptions, which require a certain degree of thought. I must ascertain what is meant by the words in order to feel the full effect of the poem, whereas tones and pitches, which are intuitive objects, can be thought after they have been felt. Since music, therefore, requires one's full intuitive attention to comprehend, the act of consciously assigning meaning to words while listening to music can only be a distraction. In a large part of popular, contemporary music, which typically has lyrics, this is not a problem because the musical content is already so simple that one's attention is hardly drawn by it. This also accounts for the popularity of "dance music": it is the sort of music one can listen to without listening to it, i.e., while dancing. Indeed, to have been known as the "Waltz King" must have been a rather bitter pill for the younger Strauss to swallow.

>hurr its just an opinion

Anything any person ever says is "personal opinion." This argument is meaningless.

One seventh of the world is illiterate.

Not all poetry is complex nor is all music. A lot of classical music isn't complex either, especially to an audience who have a familiarity with the forms and stylistic elements. All you are describing is a particular instance of how it can be difficult to marry words and music, not that the marriage is necessarily degrading. If someone struggles with the words to Schiller while listening to Schubert they are in some serious brainlet territory.

I can only think to respond with examples of music and poetry and hope you enjoy:

youtube.com/watch?v=H3-miucC_28

youtube.com/watch?v=dK-HHwVVAB0

youtube.com/watch?v=SB-P6lqP76k

youtube.com/watch?v=zEDnmGnYb6I

youtube.com/watch?v=t4N5-OALObk

youtube.com/watch?v=3u1EduLH7L8

bloom.. easy on the adulations

youtube.com/watch?v=z7wKtmJlOb0

youtube.com/watch?v=9nbKCvmhEs8

youtube.com/watch?v=1CNBIJj1CFM

Homer’s likely not a person, though, but rather an oral tradition passed into writing along the way.

So you think there is more than one author of the oddyssey and the illiad?

Pretty much everyone thinks this. The idea that there was ever a Homer, or that if there was that he was the sole author of either works is an extremly niche idea in academia today. The standard among experts today is that during the Greek dark ages there was a strong oral tradition which over time and between many, many story tellers culminated in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Everyone knows this, but that doesn't suggest that Homer wasn't a person, only that he was the last in a long line of Greek oral poets. Since his was the version that was written down, he's the one who's remembered.

>Everyone knows this, but that doesn't suggest that Homer wasn't a person
In and of itself no, but there is a significant proportion of modern scholars who do not believe he was a real person.

youtube.com/watch?v=x69mB94G4_Y

youtube.com/watch?v=PXIukWpjsbU

youtube.com/watch?v=wUCi9rdBNAE
youtube.com/watch?v=0l9xes_bNws

youtube.com/watch?v=rcSteU9o1aA

what anime is that

youtube.com/watch?v=KX-erDtHoYg

youtube.com/watch?v=DvB63udwP8A

The only worthy form of dance music is the dance music you can both dance and listen to. All else is a waste of time.

youtube.com/watch?v=PlGdXH5vAJ0

youtube.com/watch?v=UQ7umTVn3Xs

youtube.com/watch?v=ZkhSHRvRrvQ

,

Wagner is the synthesesis of Beethoven and Shakespeare

Did Thomas Mann want to cum all over Beethoven's music or what?

he came all over schoenberg's thats for damn sure
>hey what if I wrote a modern adaption of faustus
>yeah and I can spend the first 200 pages of the book meandering about the country bumpkin upbringing of an autistic kraut and his brownnosing friend who won't shut the fuck up in the 1890s, the faustian bargain won't even happen until halfway through the fucking book
I read joseph and his brothers cover to cover in 3 sittings but I struggled through faustus for weeks

Me too. Schubert may not be the greatest composer (let alone the greatest artist) of all time, but I think he may be the best role-model for anyone who presumes to be in any way "lyrical," whether in music, in writing, or in the visual arts--and if you practice a fine art without intending to be "lyrical," without intending to pursue that airy epiphenomenon of cognitive music and everything else implied in that word, then you cannot graduate to the highest grade of artists; you may be a really astounding craftsman or a prodigiously influential metaphysician, a giant of your age even, but you will be only a periphery author of that great, ever-evolving Poem of which Shelley (who belonged to the first grade of poets, in spite of his sometimes silly political and metaphysical aspirations) said every poem was a part.

And, although I don't know much of his biography, from his music one gets the impression that Schubert cared only about, dwelled only in, the world of the lyrical, which is, I suppose, one separate from this one, though created by man, and much more refined and indeed insubstantial, but rooted in this one, and mirroring it (though perhaps not according to the traditional operations of mimesis). In Beethoven, as magnificently lyrical as his music consistently is, you get also a certain concomitant sense of Man becoming God or something like that; in Liszt, you get those chromatic playboy antics that make him so exhilarating, and then in his later works, that startling strangeness that so completely and wonderfully anticipates a lot of 20th century work, but I'd argue that these qualities, as attractive as they are, are only incidental to his music as music; in Chopin, you get I would say a purity of expression to rival Schubert's, although he too can sometimes be intentionally strange, which again is a property to be admired, but still is not the primary quality that makes music valuable. In contrast with these (who are all of the highest grade of artists, as far as I'm concerned), Schubert strives for those divine melodies alone (and of course the proper mode of delivering them to us), and achieves that perfectly. He isn't Man becoming God like in Beethoven, but rather Man becoming truly Man. This may not be very illuminating, but I'd say that he's like Dowson if Dowson had been a truly great poet. Both of them exercised themselves solely in their lyrical gift, and it seems to me that there is not better use of one's time in the world.

How do I get into Wagner? His music seems very grandiose, but with no subtlety or impressive virtuosity, it borders on kitsch at times
And with how low IQ the composer seems, it further makes me avoid it

he was memeing
Wagner is utter pleb tier

>Schubert strives for those divine melodies alone (and of course the proper mode of delivering them to us)

There is a lot more to Schubert's music than just the melodies alone, in truth a melody can be a pretty boring thing without the proper harmony, form and other more subtle things
And this is what he was able to master to perfection, this seeming simplicity that however arises as a part of a complex, fine tuned, underlying structure that the average listener isn't even really aware of. He could have showcased this complexity, as he sometimes does to achieve a climax in his progressions, but most of the time it was tastefully restrained and not the focal point of the work. This, as you say, shows as this lyricism, it's something that is very clear in poetry, however having this sense in music seems to elude a lot of composers.

>but with no subtlety
Wagner has a lot of a certain kind of subtlety. Not as much impressive virtuosity, though there certainly is, especially if you consider grandioseness a production of virtuosity, his unique 'groundbreaking' operas themselves would be evidence of impressive virtuosity. But if by impressive virtuosity you mean more solo instrumental shredding, tricky manuevers, showing off speed, technicalities, yeah I dont know. HIs music is exactly what it is and many people think it is good and great and beyond for being that.

You say his music seems very grandiose, but with no... But there are other composers who have if you think more subtlety and virtuosity, maybe wagner did not have as much as them, but maybe he is the mater of grandiose, and this then comes down to what individual values grandioseness how much how often. If his stats were lots of points on grandiose but less points on the other aspects, I mean, does that really matter, in relation to: the music is the music, he created the music he did and it is what exists and it can be enjoyed or not for this reason or that reason, so a person can say: I dont like grandiose music or I dont like this particular grandiose music: Or I would like this particular music, if it had more subtlety and virtuosity, which just gets to the 'er Mozart, too many notes'. One doesnt get to bring Wagner and his music down any pegs with their opinions nor does that one recieve pride or cool points. If I was wagner I would have shredded a guitar solo with interrelating 16th and 32nd notes right there, I cannot enjoy or appreciate or understand the bombastic, jubilated, serene, dreamy, celebratory, triumphant, reflective, deep, mystical, majestic, mysterious, spacious, multi colored and flavored textures and... I guess, absence of subtlety, because ... I guess its not subtle enough, and there is not enough fancy, showing off stunts and complicated tricks. And I cant understand how any other intelligent, sensible, dignified, person can enjoy it...or I can?

(watch/listen to all these, a decent varied overview, and then more, and then reassess your opinion, and keep in mind, some people like only apples, some people like only oranges, and some people can enjoy and appreciate both)

youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls

youtube.com/watch?v=1CNBIJj1CFM

youtube.com/watch?v=J-qoaioG2UA

youtube.com/watch?v=twGxmFNiMEo

youtube.com/watch?v=dytT5OnXU0A

youtube.com/watch?v=JFfzwunOqak

youtube.com/watch?v=5A-Y6ULx3YI

Wagner was definitly the smartest composer who ever lived, go read a book and suck a cock

>the smartest composer who ever lived refused to believe that Jesus was jewish

Jesus was Hebrew and got killed for not being Jewish :/

who the fuck cares about that shit, also where did u get that from?

I don’t know about Wagner personally and I am not here trying to defend him. But you need to be careful with the differences between intelligence and emotions, especially core believes and feelings.

Prejudice and racism can make a very intelligent person act in an irrational way in some discussions. The same when it comes down to politics, for example, or religion.

Look at this quote by Von Neumann:

>“With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when. [...] If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?”

He is undeniably an extremely intelligent man, yet just look at how blindly he was advocating the bombing and terrible elimination of thousands and thousands of lives.

One could say that he was acting rationally, for there was the danger of the U.S. being destroyed by the Russians, but, if you look closer, you will see a great brain spitting out ill advice mostly due to fear and perhaps lack of empathy. He was seeing the enemy country as merely an enemy, not considering every single live as an individual, as a person like himself. Also, the U.S. never got bombed, so his advice wasn’t based on a hazard that was unavoidable without the use of atomic weapons.

So you see, the smartest people on the planet sometimes say or do things that, when coldly considered, are not wise or intelligent.

This thread is just further proof that Mozart is underrated.

what the fuck are you talking about?

For Wagner, his hate for jews came from cultural reasons. Germany at that time was practically seen as a dogshit country, despite having geniuses like Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven etc., and somehow France (Paris) was seen as the "cultural" country, which Wagner (and ofcourse everyone else now) thought was unfair. The Opera at that time was basically a shitshow for laymens, they were only for pure enjoyment, basically the netflix of our time and people thought that was art. And the opera in paris were owned and ruled by the jews (and the banks they owned etc). Back in Germany the opera and the economy etc also was ruled by the jews, which wagner obv. didnt like. The problem was that germany was at the moment trying to strenghten itself, and wagner actually wrote that if the jews came 50 years later to the country than they did, he would have anything against them. sorri engrish aint my first language

lil cherry on top
youtube.com/watch?v=BjIX9mwcyPE

nothing against them*

No, that would be Bach.

I have little grasp of what were you trying convey in this word salad, however I will clarify what I meant. As an example of grandiose music with both subtlety and virtuosity I would take Liszt, at first glance he seems to be just showing off, but at the end it's worth it, because the music has other value in it, the self importance feels justified. It's not mere sportsmanship, it's the brilliance of composition that astounds.
On the other hand, in Wagner every note is presented such as is it were the most paramount thing in existence, drawn out and celebrated, but I feel no inclination to grant it that honor. It's just a note, I feel no amazement, no profound feeling. He does nothing that makes me feel like the note earned any of that, it almost feels like Wagner was Narcissus, and his music was his reflection in the water.

if you read the world as will and representation you will get wagner

Didn't Schopenhauer think that Wagner was a idiotic fanboy, and called him a deaf musician?

oh shit what a gem

Nice.
youtube.com/watch?v=RMn9fObPH7g
youtube.com/watch?v=08vTtu4pmjk

>I feel no amazement, no profound feeling. He does nothing that makes me feel like the note earned any of that, it almost feels like Wagner was Narcissus, and his music was his reflection in the water
Did you listen to all the examples I provided? Also I am glad Liszt and Wagners music both exist, just because Liszt existed doesn't mean Wagners music is worthless or bad.

But you seem to not be able to get what any hubbub is about. Do you know that Liszt transcribed a few of Wagners tune for piano as he did with many other famous opera tunes: Do you think Liszt would share your sentiments? Not that it would matter, just would find it interesting you using him as a standard of sorts and authority on one hand, and then possibly deny or strongly disagree with him on the worth and value of Wagners music.

Anyway, the music speaks for itself, listen to the pieces I provided here: What do you think of the possibility of a Jewish person not like Wagners music or not even wanting to listen to it, understand it, or like it due to some things he might of said or believed, or his music possible relation to that time period and potential beliefs or fervors and energies?

You speak very exaggerated "in Wagner every note"... every note? No, you have not listened to much Wagner.

youtube.com/watch?v=dWLp7lBomW8

>Do you think Liszt would share your sentiments?
No, he would not speak ill of his son in law.

>Tristan Chord
Another pet peeve of mine, there seems to be this misconception that the purpose of every great composer is to use and invent ever more complex and unconstrained harmonies. If that were the case, music is a wholly finished and closed book, as in that regard everything that could be done with the 12 tones of the western music has already been discovered.
And this chord also symbolizes exactly what I've been talking about, how there is so much importance placed on a single chord. I will try to get to know his music more in the future, but so far it has not captivated me. Are there any smaller in scope compositions by Wagner? Or has he only written things for an oversized orchestra?

ever sound is for a reason, the tristan chord is also, its not just a random chord that makes ur dick hard and lucid at the same time

The sonority of the chord itself is of no importance, its significance is entirely contextual.

what do u mean,i cant find an arguement here

>reason

We're talking about art, I don't think you can logically convince me to like a chord.

This reminds me of another chord, the "death shriek" in Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, the chord itself seems to be of an overblown importance, it's just simpler to talk about it in terms of music theory. The form of the whole Symphony is much more important, and how it all pays off at the and, how manages to bring catharsis, not to even talk about the whole harmonic structure. That is what makes it significant, a single chord is just a chord.

No theorist would regard the sonority of the Tristan chord as significant in and of itself, it is merely its function as a vehicle of unresolvable modulation that lends it significance.

yea sure, and the whole opera builds on the chord, was is the problem in that? do you just think it's overrated or something

It just seemed to me that the two of you were not grasping the significance of the chord beyond its appearance.

Personally I am not hugely into Wagner (unless I am very drunk).

>Mozart

the list goes:
Job
Isaiah
Homer
Aeschylus
Lucretius
Dante
Shakespeare
Caravaggio
Titian
Raphael
Michelangelo
Bach
Beethoven
Delacroix
Baudelaire
Pushkin
Rimbaud
Picasso
Rachmaninov
Mandelshtam

Further proof that Mozart is underrated.

...

>Picasso
>Baudelaire
I love Baudelaire, but c'mon

that's pretty cool for you to say that because it's the only two which made me hesitate

hm ok i thought i replied to the same person, but i am very aware of the chord beyond its appearance
i think

>No Demosthenes or Plato or Thucydides or Cicero or Virgil or Boccaccio or Montaigne or Alberti or fuck maybe even Gorgias or Lysias

Are you crazy? You are naming several artists who worked in smaller genres or who produced small body of works (Job, Isaiah, Baudelaire, Rimbaud), and artists whose name is not even that well established (Picasso is seen by many as mostly one example of the power of propaganda than actual talent and effort).

While you do this, you are counting Mozart out - a man who had an enormous productivity, who is seen by several musicians and music experts as one of the greatest names on the art, who is well known and beloved by the larger public, who is one of the main examples of child prodigy who managed to keep his flame alive - while putting in your list many debatable names.

How can you say, for example, that Rachmaninov is greater than Mozart? Mozart was great in almost all music forms, his symphonies, operas and piano concertos are held as among the very greatest. I don’t see Rach achieving so much in so different styles and forms.

How can you name Pushkin when his work hardly survives translation? A mark of the great poet is that his language is so powerfull that even when translated is going to be striking, but Pushkin loses all when translated (His language hasn’t even one tenth of Shakespeare enormous invention)

How can you say that Isaiah and Job are greater than Mozart when they have only one masterpiece to brag about, while Mozart has hundreds? And I honestly believe that is much harder to produce something as elegant, deeply human, painfully beautiful, filled with echoes of sensuality, fear, nostalgia, a work so complex and varied and yet marmoreal in its perfection of form as The Marriage of Figaro than to indulge yourself on the free and monotone hysteria of the poetry of Isaiah and even Job.

Job, for example, has done in some of his speeches something that hardly any other writer has done before: match Shakespeare poetic exuberance. Yet he had done it in one work, and in selected speeches of that work, while Shakespeare is doing it all the time.

Your list isn’t worth much consideration, I’m sorry.

>Rachmaninov and not Mozart
You're a fucking idiot.

>(Picasso is seen by many as mostly one example of the power of propaganda than actual talent and effort)
Yeah this is the general opinion of brainlets

you must be a very clever boy

To invent something just for the sake of invention is not a big deal. Most of Picasso’s work can be copied and done by anyone with one week, one month of training. The fact that he invented “modern art” is nothing, since it dosend demand any effort from the artist.

Is very different from what Michelangelo did: works that everybody admire yet cant even conceive how to create it. Or Leonardo’s and Brozino’s drawings, for example.

You can teach a child to paint Guernica. The fact that Picasso “invented that new style” don’t have any value, for anyone can do that.

Picasso was mostly a mediatic figure.

If your artwork can be done by anyone with little difficulty then you are not a great artist. Real artists (in any field) can only be called geniuses when they do things that are superhuman in the eyes of others.

He is not an idiot, he probably envies Mozart. This is one small way of attacking him.

how come you aren't a new Picasso then, if it's so simple?

check mate anti-deskillists

There are several people doing things like Picasso right now: some get famous, some don’t.

There are several people creating rap and pop songs right now: some get famous, some don’t.

There were several erotic books written before Fifty Shades of Grey, yet only FSOG exploded in the whole world.

What I mean is: several pseudo-talented people are doping these simple things that anyone can do, but there is only space for some of them to come into the light.

Why did Pollock became famous? Any retard can do what he did. Many others where folling themselves, pretending to be “artists”, yet only he did. Is it because he was superior to them? No, is mostly just luck.

And for me there are easier ways to get rich, which is the only thing that Picasso was able to do. He was not a great artist and he probably knew it himself. I remember reading about him, the last days of his life, and how angry he was that he couldn’t reproduce works like the ones of Goya and El Greco and Leonardo, even after months of recluse training (he was already rich and famous, so he could afford this time all for himself). When alone with himself he knew that he wasn’t in the same league of the real artists.

Fame is not the same thing as greatness, and Picasso was smart enought to know this bitter truth.

>he hasn't seen picasso's mastery as a youth
you obviously know nothing of the guy. a genius on the level of Joyce, playing with a medium that he was a genius in.if you look through his early work chronologically, its like him picking up all his antecedents and flexing his muscles: as if to say, see, i can do degas, lautrec, matisse, renoir, etc.after he threw out his training wheels (taking a historical tour of western europe), his painting started to get interesting.

here, take this painting here. he painted this when he was 16. to stay within western european trends and history would be to limit yourself as an artist and stagnate. if he kept painting like this until he died his work would likely still be highly esteemed--his talent was undeniable--but not nearly as distinguished as he is now, worldwide.

similarly Pollock, and those pop artists which you so hate, stand head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent, skill, and insight
reactionaries like you just look at something you barely understand and instead of trying to comprehend, which would take mental effort, you just knee-jerk

You know the book of Job is about 3000 years old right? as for Picasso, you're being a stupid, snobbish sob 2bqh. he is a giant who rose several times to the pinnacle of the visual arts (early days, blue period, pink period, full-on cubist period, etc.) in a time when it was not possible anymore to paint figuratively.

The rest of your argument is
>muh quantity
which is, you're right, arguably everything Mozart has. I know lots of professional musicians, not one ever mentioned him as a favorite. it's mostly for stay-at-home moms. Also I won't indulge in explaining how stupid your doesn't survive translation argument is; I believe it speaks for itself.

This is a list of the very greatest. It also lacks Sophocles, Juvenal, Flaubert, Céline, Schubert, Brahms, Rilke or any german because I don't speak their language or my favorite pianist Glenn Gould and not one expressionist painter even though it's my second favorite movement. And our lists of those not in the list themselves are lacking. so what? that's the point.

painfully pathetic

This is probably the most moronic post I've seen on this website in a while. It's clear that you don't have any education, since your opinions amount to a bunch of internet platitudes.
>To invent something just for the sake of invention is not a big deal
And water is wet. Picasso's genius lies not in its "inventions", but how he uses them.
>Is very different from what Michelangelo did: works that everybody admire yet cant even conceive how to create it.
Since when the opinion of the common man is relevant when judging a work of art? Is Joyce's Ulysses bad because the vast majority of people can't appreciate it?
>You can teach a child to paint Guernica.
Since when is difficulty of execution a good measure of art in itself? Lmao
>The fact that Picasso “invented that new style” don’t have any value, for anyone can do that.
See above.
>Picasso was mostly a mediatic figure.
No, that was Dalì.
>If your artwork can be done by anyone with little difficulty then you are not a great artist.
This is the third time you've said this, you don't seem to be able to go beyond this simplicistic misconception of "durr art that looks good = good". You're also forgetting the fact that Picasso was already a skilled artist at a young age. He CHOOSED not to be another mediocre neoclassical imitator.
>Real artists (in any field) can only be called geniuses when they do things that are superhuman in the eyes of others.
What a dumb platitude, not to mention a self-defeating one, consider Picasso was indeed considered a genius by many of his contemporaries. Also lmao@u for thinking that the greatness of Renaissance painters (which are indeed better than Picasso, but not because "muh craftmanship") is solely because of their technical skill.

you are a fool

Jesus you really are out of touch with reality

I sincerely hope you're trolling

This is a piece of music of Wagner that I just discovered semi recently, I don't know how you can like classical music at all, and not consider this to be an exceptional piece of music. Culminating at 4:55- note at 5:08 which the experience of alone is worth a few piece of (albeit the much lesser standard) music our favorite composers wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=SB-P6lqP76k

another enjoyable version (one without the singing) was posted earlier third from last here

>you obviously know nothing of the guy.

Yes, I know: as I said, I have read about him.

The fact is that, as a realist painter, he could not move beyond a certain level, and he himself knew it. He had friends among his contemporaries who would much more accomplished than him in realistic and academic painting, and he was smart enough to realize that, if he wanted to distinguish himself, he would need to bet hard in his “persona” as an artist and in the new emerging movements of modern art.

Also, he used to greatly exaggerated his ability in drawing, saying that he could draw in his youth like Raphael, yet none of the surviving drawings show even half of the mastery of the renascence master.

>a genius on the level of Joyce

I don’t think that Joyce is anywhere near the level of Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tolstoy, Michelangelo.

>if he kept painting like this until he died his work would likely still be highly esteemed--his talent was undeniable--but not nearly as distinguished as he is now, worldwide.

He is famous, but that dosent make him great. Fame is not the same as greatness.

>similarly Pollock, and those pop artists which you so hate, stand head and shoulders above the competition in terms of talent, skill, and insight

Ok, now you just lost any decency: you are just parroting what history tells you to say.

>and insight
>reactionaries like you just look at something you barely understand and instead of trying to comprehend,

There are great modern works of art (The Godfather, Princess Mononoke, The Exorcist, Network, The Grand Hotel Budapest, the short stories of Alice Munro, the poems of Wisława Szymborska), but with all of them there is an enormous amount of craft and hard work involved, and the final result are works of art that touch and move most people, works that really mean something to them.

With the likes of Picasso and Pollock is that old saying of the emperor without clothes: everyone notice but, as it is the social norm to keep quiet about it, people don’t say “Wait, this is childish stuff: anyone can do this”).

You must be an "art" student

>or my favorite pianist Glenn Gould

hahahaha

I know why you dont like Mozart now.

>painfully pathetic

Say that about your list, retard.

>The Godfather, Princess Mononoke, The Exorcist, Network, The Grand Hotel Budapest
Ahahahaha holy shit

I dunno but his 7th 2nd movement is the most beautiful thing ever created by the human race, in all areas.