There are [...] people who don't bother with learning their craft and are thus not able to create anything of much value.
Corrected: I'd appreciate if you quoted me right.
What are you to say what has value and what has not? Personal taste aside.
That's a good question, one I would like to redirect at you in light of this statement:
[A] hard empiric fact I've witnessed in my life is that most of the very technically oriented "artists" produce boring crap.
As for my definiton of "value" in this context, let me answer to this:
[...]You still talk about who can and who cannot produce some value. You are actually judging art through the intentions and work process of the artist and not purely through the art work.
No - agreed, it is hard to stay objective when it comes to the term "value", but let me try to explain.
Something has value if it is valuable to someone, in the best case someone besides the author himself
. Be it because it impresses them technically, touches them emotionally, works with a certain imagery to convey a certain mood, etc.
Some artist work so that instead of focusing learning new skills, they use their time and energy on producing something with current skills. And you say they cannot create anything of much value?
I don't say that, either. I say there are people who are not able to create something they want to create because they hit their limits of skill. Or rather, their work could have a much greater value or a value to more people if they knew more about their craft. It is possible to be both creative and
learn your craft. What gives you the idea it isn't besides examples of maybe some gearhead nerds on a forum or some shredding athletes on YouTube?
Of course, there are people who work within these limits and are able to create something of great value, but looking for the reason in their lack of skill or even in their unwillingness to learn new things is absurd.
Either way, it has nothing to do with actual end result. Very skilled artist can produce crap, as well as very untrained amateur can produce a masterpiece.
Are you saying skill has nothing to do with the actual end result?
This is what's wrong with your argument: you disagree with the fact that the creative outcome is combining imagination and
Let's say we're talking about the same thing here. Then turn to the right page of any dictionary or encyclopedia and read the definition of the word "Art".
And that trend [of most of the very technically oriented "artists" producing boring crap] is been exaggerated in creative communities where technical oriented artists communicate and share. It is easy to share and evaluate trivial things, like theory and techniques. How does an engineer impress another engineer?
Of course we talk about technicalities, not just because you think it is the easiest topic to talk about. You are free to ignore these discussions if you feel they don't help you. But how you feel these discussions contribute to a demise of creative quality is beyond me.
From this whole TIGsource community, this particular thread has been the most hostile I've ever witnessed here. That's very surprising actually, but I guess musicians are not very easy going persons then. You are like the atheists of art world. God damn pagans I tell you.
I've told you before, it's because you directly attack people, be it willingly or not. How do you attack them, you might ask? You say that talking about anything but the emotional aspects impairs the quality of the music. The logical conclusion is that everyone who tries to discuss technicalities produces music with impaired quality in your eyes. Moreover, you imply that emotionality and technicalities are mutually exclusive. This is wrong by definition of the work "art"
Sorry to say it, but this together with some pretentious remarks is what makes you look like a jerk. And again, sorry if I seem hostile. I just strongly disagree with both your argument and your way of presenting it.