James

If a painter looks at a sunset, then creates a piece of art based on that sunset therefore interpreting the sunset in a different way - how is that different from a singer looking at some words on a page and using their voice to create their version of those words? Both are art to me.

duga

That's a good point...I never thought about it that way. Of course, you could still argue that some people can "paint by numbers" so to speak. For example, taking a course and one of the projects is "how to paint a sunset". Are you still an artist at that point?

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Ninetales

Yes.

James

Aww man if she had wrote Stay I would have so much more respect for her. Still an incredible song though.

I'm not sure. It's so complicated. My own personal definition of art is an expression that captures the soul. Van Gogh's my favourite painter because you look at his work and even if it's just a picture of the sky at night or some flowers there's unmistakably part of him within it. So even if you had to paint that sunset for a class, it's still art if you can create it in you're own way with feeling and emotion.
Songs can be 'art' even if they're not original, it's the depth of the interpretation that matters. That's why folk standards that have been around for a hundred years are still being sung today, and those performances are still beautiful.
But that'd all sound like pretentious mumbo jumbo to a lot of people. I'm doing a module on 'Aesthetics' at university, the examination of the ideas behind what we find beautiful. It's really interesting, when you think about it, like what even is beauty? That's an almost impossible question.

I think one thing that bogs down this sort of conversation is the fact people think calling something 'art' is a sort of praise. Art can be art but still suck. People are too quick to pigeonhole the stuff they dislike.

duga

"Art" can suck, but I think people tend to reserve the term "artist" for someone with real talent. I agree with most of your post, though...it's interesting stuff to think about.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Soulflower

There is no difference. However, you say this like Rihanna is one of the greatest singers of her generation with impeccable range and depth. lol

She is not a Whitney Houston or a Luther Vandross.

Whitney could stand in front of a sold out stadium and do so many magical things with her voice. She didn't need a spetacle. She didn't need to prance around stage half naked.

She could stand on stage alone and entertain with her voice because she created an unmatched piece of vocal art when she sanged.

None of the above singers have nothing on her or Luther sorry.