Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
There is Objective Beauty in Art
This thread needs to be brought alive.
I’ll kick us off.
There is a difference between the objectively valuable and the subjectively satisfying.
Music, as with all of art, has objective value/ beauty. Of course there is a hierarchy to it as well. To make the case against this is very difficult, and one cannot just say they don’t “like” this or that thing. You need a reason for why if you plan to go against objective beauty. Pure artistry and talent necessarily fit in to this part of it.
I would argue that music “taste” itself is subjective. Similar to how some people prefer the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream. There isn’t really an objective value being discussed in these types of conversations.
This dichotomy is where a lot of us get caught up. We confuse objectivity and subjectivity. Thus we can mistake objective talent being scorned because of people’s subjective musical taste.
DISCUSS!
Comments
you forget that people like to argue about whether something is in fact art or not
Hardly. This is closer to the heart of the matter than one may think.
Objectivity is an illusion. Everything in the realm of human experience is experienced subjectively.
Except your statement which objectively states that everything is subjective. It’s time for you to start thinking on a deeper level.
“objective (əb-jĕk′tĭv)
adjective
You will interpret this definition subjectively.
How’s that? You continue to disprove your own point, including with your statement about my own interpretation. It’s clear your logic is flawed. I’m simply challenging you to do a better job with your arguments because they leave a lot to be desired.
Nothing has disproven my point and you have not proven your point. But your responses suggest you think you have.
There is an observer. The caution is to avoid emotion or prejudice.
The trick is to use these filters to determine facts and define reality.
Some may believe this is impossible and there is no reality that flawed humans can define.
Thankfully they are easy to ignore. They won't believe anything other than their own subjective reality which they know doesn't exist. There are no facts in their worldview.
I have done nothing. I have only pointed out the contradictions in your own argument.
A: There is no Objectivity. (i.e. absolutes do not exist)
B: Everything is Subjective. (i.e. Absolutely everything is subjective)
B is just another way of saying A, and B contradicts A. I’m not sure how else to engage with you if you fail to see that point. My suggestion is to review the fundamentals of logic.
"I've come here for an argument". Time for ignore. Here's the trick. Use a filter and create a private space for creative conversation and avoid escalating the noise floor.
If anyone needs advice on how to implement the filter built into the forum PM me for details.
There is objective beauty in a cosy "echo chamber".
NOTE: If anyone replies to the noise I'd like you request you filter the noise from your comment or I'll have to filter you as yet another source of noice. I expect we'll have a nice little chat while other generate their own parallel conversation which @micheal will be forced to shut down due to a lack of respect for norms and uncivil discourse.
At first glance I thought your post said that people liked to argue if something was a fart or not. I was like "really?".
😂
Can anyone kick off a reasoned conversation by proposing a piece of objectively beautiful art?
“Beauty will be convulsive or will not be at all”
-Andre Breton
What he said.
There may be an objective reality. (Doubtful, but still…) in which Platonic ideal forms exist, external to human culture, but anything ‘I’ perceive (including the ‘me’ that is ‘I’, moment to moment, the hard problem of consciousness itself) in the flickering wall-shadows of the firelight, is not only necessarily subjective and limited to the current functioning of the wetware between my ears, my situation of facing the wall not the entrance to the cave, etcetera, but is also, necessarily, mediated through the cultural norms and anti-norms of not only the hegemonic culture in which my experiencing occurs, but the endless divisible micro cultures of age, class, wealth, ‘taste’ and so on within the specific situatedness of my gender expression, bodily sex, cultural gender expression, historical position, educational attainment, aesthetic literacy… And so on and so on… Without these caveats and endorsements, works cannot even be perceived as art, or craft, or any damn thing at all.
Against this backdrop, any ‘artistic’ endeavour can therefore only ‘succeed’ and be differentiated from other cultural modes of production such as ‘craft’ or ‘play’ and/or attain any objective set for it by it’s maker, which may or may not include a specific, limited sense of ‘beauty’, ‘transcendence’, ‘sublimity’ etcetera, in the terms set not only by it’s maker, but by it’s maker in dialogue, consciously or otherwise, with extant forms of cultural expression available which may be compared to, contrasted with, rejected, accepted, or wilfully ignored.
If the terms explicitly and/or implicitly set by or accepted within the maker happen then to accord with sufficient approvals from the makers’ proposed and/or actual and/or accidental audience(s) :
then, kid, you done got yerself a hit rekkid!
Anyhoo:
Also: fart or beauty?: FIGHT!
wellI haven’t seen any art or beauty in this thread so.... disappointed ☹️
Edit: except the tasteful deployment of those gifs
Lol. That’s great.
In order to find objective beauty in art one might have a better chance if it is given a break first and limited culturally. Cooking is an art, yet the elegant tastiness of perfectly presented fried grasshoppers might be impossible because of cultural predispositions.
One might find “objectivity” in mass appeal… all Americans love pizza unless they are lactose intolerant.
How about Keats’ “Truth is Beauty, Beauty, Truth. This is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know”.
The objectivity within that subjective statement. Is that each “ye” will have a vision of Truth and Beauty within the same frame of reference (the mind of a particular “ye”) and thus each of the two concepts will be tolerant of each other.
The problem with objectivity is that it must be accurate in every case… like mathematics. There is no work of art that will be assessed beautiful in every human mind. … or in every universe… where even math might not work “objectively”.
Perhaps the best we can do is find objective beauty in the tools that make art… the basic elements…
A single note, a brushstroke, an alphabet, a piece of marble, a software program . These are what create all works of art (when utilized by a human), beautiful or ugly, Those elements are intrinsically beautiful because they have the quality to be anything and everything,
Then, of course there is the objective beauty of nature. But one must ask is a snowflake art… if no in itself… is it art and “objectively” beautiful if one makes a “beautiful” photograph of a snowflake?
I always thought Kryptonite was beautiful, but, here on earth, I am not from Krypton.. unlike some of us.
Thanks for the discourse.
I do want to bring up that yes there is objective value.
For example, the idea that racism is wrong exists outside of each human being. Whether certain individuals adhere to the principle or not is a different story (and not for this thread). Just something to think about.
I propose that this can be applied to art/ music as well.
Anyone find any good art or music yet?
I propose the beauty of Vince Gill's vocal on Brian Wilson's "The Warmth of the Sun":
@mjcouche : I don’t think there is a case to be made for any particular aesthetic system to be objectively correct or true. Play Bach, for example, to someone that comes from a culture where music is based on entirely different concepts, and it will not seem beautiful…or play the greatest gamelan music to a 13th Century monk.
Even within a culture , across time periods, things breakdown….and the members of a culture there is never unanimity about what is great and beautiful.
Beauty and its perception is highly personal and always has some element of community/cultural norms.
I took a great class about the social history of art. The prof was amazing. He made a (convincing to me) case that J.S. Bach, Van Gogh and Hieronymius Bosch created works that became more compelling long after their deaths while Salieri, for example, created work that became less so due to the way European culture developed.
In 1938, Albert Einstein surmised that physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. And Einstein thus subsumed the role of consciousness in conceptualizing vibrational reality.
Just because there isn’t unanimous agreement doesn’t mean a notion doesn’t exist.
While I understand what you are trying to say, I think we can at least agree that we can find objective value in someone’s talent to compose and/ or play something on the level of Bach or the gamelan example you put forth.
Whether a society accepts it as valuable is separate from the object/ talent itself.
Nice. Bitchen mullet too.
The only objective beauty we may be able to agree to is the bitchen mullet.
@mjcouche : the burden
of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is an objective standard that holds across all cultures and times. A number of philosophers have tried over a few thousand years to argue for an objective aesthetic. None have succeeded.
The burden is on the person postulating a truth to demonstrate its truth…and the ability of their hypothesis to withstand counter arguments.
It isn’t a counter argument to simply say “there might be an objective beauty.”
If you believe there is one, how do you account for the things that I mentioned?
I think that in this context the word art quickly becomes very dangerous, political, hierarchical, etc.
I'd much rather say that creative (as in 'non-destructive') self-expression is beautiful. as an act itself. and not because of some quantifiable or perceptible properties.
Now THAT is art.
You may want to read some more philosophy. To state none have succeeded - I agree the burden of proof is on the one who is postulating a truth.
I’m not going to change your mind in a thread on a music forum. And I don’t intend to. It’s just a beginning of a conversation.
For the things you’ve mentioned, I believe I’ve already addressed in an abbreviated form. You account for those things because the culture’s acceptance of objectivity does not prove/ disprove it is objective.
An object reveals itself to an individual, the object does not change based upon the individual’s perception, or culture.
Thank you for the opportunity to engage in a decent conversation. I respect you greatly as a thinker, as knowledgeable in iOS app lore, and as a musician.