godix wrote:So I wouldn't say trash art is inherently evil, it just shouldn't be viewed in the same light as regular stuff.
Well played.
Although I hesitate to call what you just described 'art,' since it doesn't seem to have a focus on creativity. But I don't disagree with anything you said, so there's no point arguing the details.
Dr.Dinosaur wrote:i think we have different definitions on what trash art is.
I think all three of us do. o.O
Dr.Dinosaur wrote:I love me some trash art.
getting a little off topic here, but I feel "trash" art can get at alot of stuff that fine art can't. It's just as legitimate as any other form of art and too me just as interesting.
Here is a musician that identifies himself as surreal folk blues gospel trash, and I love him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJYiIdgpw4Y
I'm talking about the 'artist' who heaps up a pile of wooden boards and calls it art.
Trash is something that, by definition, is worthless, has no beauty, no melody, no point. Trying to make ugly, unmelodious, pointless art on purpose is something I'm philosophically against.
As for that song, Dr. D, I think we're just disagreeing about the definition of a word here. The song didn't sound like it was trying to offend peoples' ears or make them want to turn it off. I think it was intended to entertain people, by appealing to their sense of aesthetics or taste--i.e. it was meant to have a certain beauty to it.
The song isn't trash by the above definition (but this is English; the word has other meanings).
I can see a connection though. It uses some "throw-away" sounds, like the sound of grating metal. When you hear that sound in everyday life it has no music to it, but here it's been organized, given rhythm. Something valuable has been made out of what was once trash.
I like it. It's a kind of positive and uplifting concept, don't you think?
)
you.
