In terms of art, my yardstick has always been to ask myself, “Could I do something like that?” (I don’t have an artistic bone in my body). If the answer is “yes”, then in my opinion it’s not art, because basically anyone can do it, and there is no special skill or talent involved - regardless of how it is presented.
In terms of music, the same principle applies: I hear the alleged song and ask myself, “Could pretty much anyone do that?” If the answers is “yes”, then it’s not a song, because it takes specialised talent and skill to write and/or perform a song.
So applying that to 4:33 - no, it’s a not a song, it’s the opposite of a song. If it’s a song then it invalidates my own songwriting skill and talent, and it invalidates genuine songwriting in general. It’s similar to allowing transgender females, who are biologically men, to compete in women’s sport. At face value it might seem reasonable, but in fact it invalidates the entire concept of women’s sport.
This sounds like the same argument of “What is art?”. Is Jackson Polloc art? Is a piece of metal that is crunched up art? There was a time I believe when this conversation, or question never was asked. The definition of are was never contemplated because everyone understood that art was always something someone worked at. Up until cubism, I don’t think anyone thought to try to NOT work at it, yet still claim that it was art. No one dropped the paint on the floor and decided that the splatter was art.
To me, as an artist for a living, I believe that there there is a common and universal agreement on art, just like morality. There is what I call the majority definition and the minority definition. That is to say that using the Parrado principle, that there are probably 80% of the public that would all agree that something is not art and there would only be 20% that would say it is. But I don’t think you would find the opposite of that. I don’t think you would find a classical painting by Monet and you would get 80% not calling it art and only 20% saying it is. No matter who the people and where they were in the world, you would probably always find that same thing. I believe there is an inherent gravitation towards things of beauty and proportion in every person and they mostly agree with one another on that. The Greeks and Romans perfected architecture. No one ever says, "I really am sick of the classical order and all those old structures there in Rome. But they do get sick of vinyl siding quite quickly.
So I think your question can be, and has been applied to all forms of art. And I personally think that there is a distinction between art and not art, there is a distinction between a song and not a song. Otherwise then everything is then a song, which means that then nothing is really a song.
How refreshing! It’s an excellent viewpoint and one which deserves further discussion.
I especially liked this:
It expresses what I was trying to say but in a much better way. There must be not-song in order to have song. Just like there must be sadness in order to have happiness. If all people suddenly became happy 100% of the time, then ‘happy’ would merely be normal and there would be no happiness.