Was he right about music being the highest form of art?

"without music, life would be a mistake" -Nietzsche

Not even close. The excellent music will certainly stand out, but no single aspect of a bad film can redeem it

shit book desu

video games werent invented yet

It's a pretty solid follow up to Nietzsche on the subject, actually.

the highest art form is aerospace engineering

youtube.com/watch?v=VcFpL_fTVPQ

Nietsche did not write about "art games", actually.

Seems like you didn't read it then. The genealogy covers the history of art and uses Nietzsche's arguments as its basis.

Came here to shitpost this

Despite having "genealogy" in the title it shows no respect for Nietzshe's ideas. It's a polemics book about contemporary art from a guy who wants to shit on it and thinks it'll make him look like an ubermensch. Find better art history books.

best filmmakers don’t even like using music

100 years ago it was

Why do you wrap genealogy in quotes? It employs the same critical style as Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, cites a number of real world examples, and covers enough art history to make its points.

Define contemporary art, because he doesn't shit on it. What he does is argue for his own contemporary art, a very real kind, that is appreciated by many more than just him.

>Find better art history books.
Which ones cover the latest artforms like video games? Point me in the direction and I'll read them.

Video games aren't an art form, unless you think oil painting is also an art form.
protip: painting is the art form.

if you mean classical music, yes

if you mean your whyte bands and rock and hip hop music, no its filth

scuptor, painting, engravings and dance are still more beautiful mediums for human creativity in my mind. but, classical does sit right at the heights with all the great masterpieces from those types of art. its just that this took thousands of years to achieve and then immediately fell into disarray and disintegration.

Reiterating: yes if you are excluding popular music, folk music, hip hop and rock of all varities it is indeed

So, games are an artform? What is your point?

My point is that this book sucks big time.
Games and toys are folk art, deal with it.

10/10 critique, gonna go burn my copy now.

>highest form of art
What the fuck qualifies 'highest'? If you listen to music that's regarded as high art and it does nothing for you then what's the point? If you get more emotional impact out of a different medium than why shouldn't that be the highest form of art for you?

Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's art. There's obviously a pleasurable aspect to the determination and ranking of art, but it's more than that.

Who's the arbiter of what constitutes art then if it isn't up to the individual to decide?

>the book is good enough to be published in a physical format

History, doofus.

History isn't some sentient homogenous entity you fuckass, it's a collection of individuals across generations who collectively came to a consensus over a long period of time

How is that a problem? A little self-centered, are you?

Critics.

Yes, because it's the most abstract (provided it's just music and not music with vocalized words). That was literally his argument for why you should believe this by the way, so people saying "film" or "poetry" are totally missing the point.

Yes
Those excluding rock and rap are Apollonian retards

>How is that a problem?
Not that guy, but you're retarded.

tfw concept art is more abstract than music

Why do you say that? Do you really need somebody to tell you what is and what isn't art?

All I'm saying is that it still comes down to arbitrary individual standards
If a composer was retrospectively influential, that influence is decided on by each individual composer who took influence from them. Perhaps historians are more or less objective in deciding which composers were more influential than others and then these composers are the ones who made 'art', but this isn't based on anything other than those who were influenced being emotionally impacted by the music and attempting to replicate it.

I don't see what other standard there is for what constitutes art other than individuals deciding it and then that decision appearing solidified because enough time has passed and the consensus among other individuals has grown

Critics are still individuals, what standard do they have to measure against? Beethoven' s 7th symphony was critically lampooned for using dissonance, retrospectively critics have decided It's one of the greatest pieces ever made, and the fallibility of individual opinion being used as some sort of objective standard was revealed once again

People respond differently to different forms of art. We should celebrate this rather than fight about what's the "objectively" highest form. By placing different but equal values on music, literature, dance, cinema, painting, any combination of these, etc. we can know that they're all valued and appreciated.

Just like we appreciate the work done by physicians and engineers alike, we don't fight what's "best" between computers and vaccines.

Yes, in my experience it does comes down to arbitrary standards, I agree. But then the discussion devolves into a matter of taste.

Having said that, I like your example because the subtle dynamics of art-making may be at their most noticable when posterity rehabilitates an artist who was not considered in his time.

Thank you sensible user

Nietzsche continued Schopenhaur's line of thought in BT and dismissed the novel as a further debasement of of Apollonian-Dionsyian art (the only respectable art tbhq) as poetry became subordinate and was used more as a tool for narrative (i.e., "lul muh logical forms sterile abstractions plot character woowee look at me go") rather than for its own sake.

>relative response
>relative merit
What to do with all this ressentiment

Now this is an interesting claim

What films would you consider as representing will? My first thought is Solaris but my knowledge of cinema is reddit tier.

There's nothing relativistic about what I posted.

Okay yeah, agreed then. I just find the tag 'highest' misleading if it all comes down to a matter of taste because it seems to imply adherence to some objective third party

There Will be Blood
Sunshine
>Revenant
Groundhog Day
The Fountain
Shawshank Redemption

>le emotive subjectivity
Truly the reddit of artistic perspectives

>concept art is more abstract than music
No it isn't.
Music (again, provided it's without language using vocals) is pure will. Concept art is not.
>Unlike all of the other arts, which express or copy the Ideas (the essential features of the phenomenal world), Schopenhauer affirmed that music expresses or copies the will qua thing in itself, bypassing the Ideas altogether. This puts music and the Ideas on a par in terms of the directness of their expression of the thing in itself (WWR I, 285). In order to understand Schopenhauer's reasoning for this rather stunning view of the cognitive significance of music, one needs to pay attention to the role of feeling in Schopenhauer's epistemology, and especially to the feeling of embodiment that a subject can experience by attending to ordinary acts of volition.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer-aesthetics/

Holy pleb, man.

Shawshank? Really? Gotta say I'm a bit skeptical now. But you started off with a strong one. It didn't stick well with me on the first viewing, but I'm about to go back and rewatch it. My friend raves about the use of sound in the opening scene where Daniel Day Lewis fucks his leg up.

Right, highest is nothing special, a little gross even. But it's still funny how people try to look smart by associating themselves with such ideas.

Disprove me then, I'm sure someone of your intelligence could put forth a good counterargument
()

Cinematogrophy, the way photographs are strung together could be considered similar to the sort of motion and vibration in music that schopey likened to the language of the will

But hat was his argument for music being the highest form of art?

It expresses the will, others do not!

Anything from Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, Kurosawa, Buñuel, Truffaut, Fellini, Kobayashi, Malick...

this.

It is ridiculous how every month, or so, a new dog-shit song comes out, but just like the song of before, it catches on and sticks. Digital instruments cobbled together with digital voices that still ring out in your head now and again.

>Literature is richer. Music is maybe heavier, but more diluted

To use M.Mcluhan's theory of hot and cold mediums; literature is high definition, or rich in detail, while music is low definition and sparsely detailed - that's not to say there's less detail in the latter.

See:
It's all about how music is the most abstract artform. Instead of being a production of appearances, it's nothing but pure sound without semantic content, meaning you get as close as possible to an experience of the will itself through an art.

No, that's pretty stupid. Read what Schopenhauer wrote first then come back.

Yeah, drama's the shit.

>pure sound without semantic content
not this meme again

It really is

It's not a meme, it's exactly what Schopenhauer's argument was.

instead of talking about what's "better" let's talk about how different it is. That's what Schopenhauer did. Whether we say drama or poetry is better or not, there's no doubt that music, universally, makes man feel different

The third party you mention is an historical sythesis which, without being deprived of quality, can hardly be described as objective.

What about dance?

>instead of talking about what's "better" let's talk about how different it is. That's what Schopenhauer did.
Schopenhauer pretty clearly and repeatedly said music was better.
>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

I know.

Maybe, but you gotta remember they're ontologically encased in Apollonian form (not to mention literal form: the individual shots in the reel encasing illusions within illusions). This is why music is the best candidate for representing will: it's very presentation at least mimics something beyond outer sense (you could argue that it is still encased in inner sense, but good Kantian epistemologists like Schopey and N wouldn't worry about that now would they).

I'm glad mentioned Kurosawa. I could envision a defense of cinema on the same grounds as N defended Wagner (before he jumped ship), but I think that might only be tenable to epic films like seven samurai (or maybe the one about Macbeth, idk havent seen it). Maybe a case could be made for Fellini (though he strikes me as parallel to Euripides, particularly with 8 1/2). Definitely not Truffaut.

I stand corrected.

Does Schopenhaur gove an account of which is "better?" The only one I can imagine is the same dogma repeated in N about being seated in the will of the universe and all that. Need to revisit WWR soon.

>dance
Dance is less abstract than music because its medium is the appearance of a human body vs. the sound used to create music. A human body dancing will convey less abstract / more concrete messages that are way downstream from pure will. Just the fact it's a person you're looking at means you had to go from will, to appearances, to history and biology, to civilization and society, etc. to get to that particular instance of a person looking and acting in a bunch of not so abstract ways.
With music (excluding vocals with language), you just get will through sound.

How is concept art less abstract than music?

Concept art is a reproduction of ideas, not will.
>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

Why is hearing more abstract than seeing?

Cinema is not the same as opera so I don't see why you should it be compared. In fact, many great films doesn't even have music in it.

I'm not fully clear on what you're saying

To what quality are you referring?

That would be poetry since any audio/visual medium is intrinsically wired to be preferred (i.e. it takes immediate effect), while poetry is pure abstraction.

Poetry is highest human achievement and math is our highest discovery.

This retard thinks, or at least implies, that more craft goes into what video game ost composers do than into the music of Friedrich Cerha. There's a reason no one besides one or two culties on this forum who shill him like this for years takes icycalm seriously.

Because humans are primarily visual creatures. It's easier to tune out and read a text than tuning out and listening, most people only close their eyes to sleep. Further, words have precise meanings, notes do not

I liked it before it was cool

I don't mind the special status people want to give to music but this is such a baseless argument, desu.

>Art is like subjective man, like everything can be art or some shit

It really isn't. You're also ignoring that beauty in art can absolutely be measured and there are countless examples in history (most notably the golden ratio)

Look into his eyes. What do you think?

No.
The artform hat has done the highest seems to be literature though.

Highest meaning most abstract and thus most accurately representing the pure will. If you're gonna post in a thread on Schopenhauer, at least read the cliff notes. Then you would know it's not about elitism and you could have spared us with that Rodney King "let's all get along" rambling

But sounds do have meaning, speaking, talking, sneezing, thunder, etc all mean something. So, since notes don't really have meaning like English words, would gibberish be as high a form of art as music?
>khxho{®^π©×•÷¢doydodu966'ododitdoyvuv cyofoyfou y6of9''oyfoufuo

Of course it is. Those who say it's literature and poetry have never read anything lmao half the greatest authors wrote about how music was the highest form of art.

jjoyceguitar.jpg

t. schopengoy
Read Hegel right mf'n now!!!~~~ Music is just low entertainment.

every art roastie's profile pic caption

kys

>With this example, I must not refer to those who use the images of the action in the scenes—the words and emotions of active people—in order with their help to come closer to the feeling of the music. For none of them speaks music as a mother tongue, and, for all that help, they proceed no further than the lobbies of
musical perception, without ever being able to touch its innermost shrine. Some of these who take this road, like Gervinus, don't even succeed in reaching the lobby. But I must turn only to those who have an immediate relationship with music and who find in it, as it were, their mother's womb, those who stand bound up with things almost exclusively through an unconscious musical relationship.

Nietzsche

You're right, I should have known better than to assume we could all get along, I'm so fucking stupid
degrade me more