Should Art be a Competition?

[blackngold29]

Something like this popped up after the Grammy Awards, I think it was a quote from PT that basically explained how you're not going to win an award unless you're signed to a major record label. So to take it a step further, is it right to make any art form a competition? It seems like a natural inclination to say "This album is better than that one," but should we ever take it so far as to give actual awards? Or do these awards actually push people to try to make better creations in order to win?

Generally speaking, most of the people here would probably say that most of the music on the radio right now is shit, so the Grammy Awards don't mean much to us. And the Academy Awards have largely expanded because they know every movie nominated will make more money.


To me, if you're writing music or books to win awards you should probably just stop. But should we go against that natural instinct and just let art be what it is?

[TL]

Striving for greatness is only natural, but if someone is making 'art' with their primary motivation being to win an award, they should stop.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

I don't think awards are necessary. People who are serious about their music won't care if they win awards or not. If an artist just wants to make money it's not really about the art anymore. Many classical composers did not get recognised until late in their career, or even after their death. Still, they believed in what they were doing and didn't stop.

Furthermore, art can't be objectively compared. Which painting is better, Starry Night or Girl with a Pearl Earring? Which symphony is better, Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 9th?

The need for competition is just a part of human nature. The ego of artists is deeply connected to their work, and to have their work rated higher than other people's work gives a huge ego boost.

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

As big of an ego boost it gives, the point of any artistic aesthetic is the need to be happy. This happiness for creation, presentation or visualization that I sadly can't sum up into a word yet is the absolute basis of any art form. That's what keeps me going. Sure, I know of a ton of artists that have ten times better technique than me, and they have ten times better ideas. Nonetheless I don't feel the need to be in competition with them, or be better than them.

I can understand the need for comparisons in the art/music world, but in the long-run it's a pointless triviality of life. Do you remember who won the Grammy for best song in 1992? Cause I don't. So what's the point? Does this song make you happy?...now that's a better question.

[In The Name Of Rudess]

As big of an ego boost it gives, the point of any artistic aesthetic is the need to be happy. This happiness for creation, presentation or visualization that I sadly can't sum up into a word yet is the absolute basis of any art form. That's what keeps me going. Sure, I know of a ton of artists that have ten times better technique than me, and they have ten times better ideas. Nonetheless I don't feel the need to be in competition with them, or be better than them.

I can understand the need for comparisons in the art/music world, but in the long-run it's a pointless triviality of life. Do you remember who won the Grammy for best song in 1992? Cause I don't. So what's the point? Does this song make you happy?...now that's a better question.

"This happiness for creation, ... is the absolute basis of any art form." I'm not sure if I agree with that. Plenty of composers didn't write music to become happy. Chopin, Shostakovich, Mahler and others wanted to channel feelings of grief and death. They were never happy, I can't see how you can become happy by listening to their music (with some exceptions). Why should music make you happy?

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

Snip

Who's to say they did not feel happier through the creative process despite their chosen subject or focus (Ie: death). You don't have to take the literal dictionary explanation for happy as being happy. Nonetheless, every artist (music or visual) feels happier after making something. Some just mask it by saying they feel "accomplished".

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Snip

You don't have to take the literal dictionary explanation for happy as being happy. Nonetheless, every artist (music or visual) feels happier after making something. Some just mask it by saying they feel "accomplished".

Yes, maybe a sense of accomplishment would be a better term. Fair enough. But I was talking more about this: "Does this song make you happy?...now that's a better question.", where you imply that a song isn't artistically relevant unless it makes you happy.

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

Yes, maybe a sense of accomplishment would be a better term. Fair enough. But I was talking more about this: "Does this song make you happy?...now that's a better question.", where you imply that a song isn't artistically relevant unless it makes you happy.

I guess that would depend on your definition of relevant. Are you concerning it to a certain period of time or a level of people's interests?

[In The Name Of Rudess]

Yes, maybe a sense of accomplishment would be a better term. Fair enough. But I was talking more about this: "Does this song make you happy?...now that's a better question.", where you imply that a song isn't artistically relevant unless it makes you happy.

I guess that would depend on your definition of relevant. Are you concerning it to a certain period of time or a level of people's interests?

My definition of relevant would be "worth listening to".

[lonestar]

Some of the Grammy's given for lifetime achievment, i.e. Steely Dan, were well deserved.  Otherwise, the awards are pretty much for show(see Jethro Tull for best metal song).

[ThroughHerEyesDude6]

My definition of relevant would be "worth listening to".

In that respect, then yes. It isn't relevant, IMHO, unless it makes you happy. If you enjoy listening to a death metal song that lets you get out your rage and thrash about the room, then I would consider that making you happy because you are enjoying it.

Happy is a very diverse term to me, that's probably why there was a little confusion.