Is music criticism an art form?

Is music criticism an art form?

No, it's the epitome of if you can't do, teach.

If these people are so knowledgeable then where are their number one hits?

it's actually the purest form of art

is mayonnaise an art form?

fantano your existence is literally meaningless you talentless hack

The critic is the real artist.

What is a poet? An unhappy person who conceals profound anguish in his heart but whose lips are so formed that as sighs and cries pass over them they sound like beautiful music. It is with him as with the poor wretches in Phalaris's bronze bull, who were slowly tortured over a slow fire; their screams could not reach the tyrant's ears to terrify him; to him they sounded like sweet music. And people crowd around the poet and say to him, "Sing again soon"-in other words, may new sufferings torture your soul, and may your lips continue to be formed as before, because your screams would only alarm us, but the music is charming. And the reviewers step up and say, "That is right; so it must be according to the rules of aesthetics." Now of course a reviewer resembles a poet to a hair, except that he does not have the anguish in his heart, or the music on his lips. Therefore, I would rather be a swineherd out on Amager and be understood by swine than be a poet and be misunderstood by people.

Kierkegaard

wow you sure are fucking smart holy shit kikeguard woah sounds like a smart french guy

There is only one real art form and it is memes

Music criticism (and criticism in general) is what gives art it's artistic value. The artist isn't any more important than the critic.

>this is what critics actually believe

well you cant have one without the other. Thats called communism and it doesnt work with art

I'm not wrong though

there would still be art if there was nobody to analyze it
there wouldn't be critique if there was no art

This thread is going to be shit

No. By definition it's just someone's reaction to an art form.

But to understand and appreciate an art form it's important to read critics. Whether or not you agree or disagree with them, at least you're hopefully thinking critically and able to articulate why you agree or disagree.

when was it ever not shit

Before it existed

you literally are
Would you look at art you'd never heard any critical analysis of and see no value?

"The value of art depends on the values of the art critic. Most art is born as imitation, not innovation. The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it, the artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic. The critic is the real artist."

-- Anthony Fantano

if there is art and no one around to analyze it, then who is around to call it "art"

This is kinda like that does a tree make a sound if no one is around. It doesnt matter what you may think is art or isnt art. If you arent around to see it, then you arent around to call it art, therefore you need a critic to have art and vice versa

>who is around to call it "art"
It intrinsically is

Art isnt objective, its subjective

so no it isnt

no lol

Yeah, that's because you don't know what art criticism means

Taste is subjective, art is not. Sound waves are not subjective, and neither is the reflection of light.
So you're wrong

no. Its just a literature genre.

no you're wrong

sound waves are not subjective, yes, but that is not the point. The point of music as art is the organization of those sounds and whether or not it has any meaning or value to the listener. There is nothing intrinsic about art at all. Today's art might be tomorrow's trash. Nothing matters at all, but what the art stands for.

i don't get it