Its a good point. However id argue that many things did require great skill and time commitments OR the people who created them were so above normal people with their gifts that it didn’t take them as much effort as someone else.
Example, do you think Bach wrote all his best work in a day with no effort ?
Do you think a 3 minute song made of GarageBand loops by a 13 year old is on the same level of art ? No, its not. However, someone may enjoy the 3 minute looped song over a Bach piece. Thats fine. But if we have to ask which is higher art and which is timeless, its going to be the Bach piece.
I agree though to a point, metal for example. Just because dream theater puts out an insanely complex 20 minute song that only they can play proficiently doesn’t mean its “better” than enter sandman. The areas get very gray at that point.
While I agree with your conclusion about the garageband loops vs the Bach, I think that the skill was coincidental, not essential, in the superiority of the Bach piece. It’s not the fact that Bach was more skilled that makes his piece better. It’s simply the case that his skill made it easier for him to discover a better piece. It’s something useful for him, but as people who experience his art, it’s not what the art is about. If a toddler happened to accidentally mash out the same piece on the piano at home (yes this is unfathomably unlikely), it would still be an equally amazing and timeless piece - despite the fact that no skill whatsoever went into it. All that the artwork is, is contained in the artwork. Everything else is extraneous context that we may derive some other additional value from, but it is not essential to the art in itself.
Its a good point. However id argue that many things did require great skill and time commitments OR the people who created them were so above normal people with their gifts that it didn’t take them as much effort as someone else.
Example, do you think Bach wrote all his best work in a day with no effort ?
Do you think a 3 minute song made of GarageBand loops by a 13 year old is on the same level of art ? No, its not. However, someone may enjoy the 3 minute looped song over a Bach piece. Thats fine. But if we have to ask which is higher art and which is timeless, its going to be the Bach piece.
I agree though to a point, metal for example. Just because dream theater puts out an insanely complex 20 minute song that only they can play proficiently doesn’t mean its “better” than enter sandman. The areas get very gray at that point.
While I agree with your conclusion about the garageband loops vs the Bach, I think that the skill was coincidental, not essential, in the superiority of the Bach piece. It’s not the fact that Bach was more skilled that makes his piece better. It’s simply the case that his skill made it easier for him to discover a better piece. It’s something useful for him, but as people who experience his art, it’s not what the art is about. If a toddler happened to accidentally mash out the same piece on the piano at home (yes this is unfathomably unlikely), it would still be an equally amazing and timeless piece - despite the fact that no skill whatsoever went into it. All that the artwork is, is contained in the artwork. Everything else is extraneous context that we may derive some other additional value from, but it is not essential to the art in itself.