By Taylor Long

Is Justin Timberlake better than Britney Spears because he has more of a hand in writing his own music? Is Evanescence better than both of them because they write all of their songs? What makes these artists’ music just plain music, but Mussorgsky’s or Mozart’s music art? Ah, pop music. When something surrounds us in this way, one can’t help but ask the question-is it art?

First, allow me to elaborate on what I mean by “pop (or popular) music.” For argumentative purposes, I don’t mean the technical music definition of “pop music,” under which music is either “pop music” or “classical.” I mean the kind of popular music you see on Top 40 charts. And by that I mean the Top 40 charts of today; the kind dominated by acts like Nelly, Ashlee Simpson and Maroon 5. Let’s remember that in the ’70s, acts like Led Zeppelin dominated the popular music charts (and, personally, I certainly would never question the artistic value of Led Zeppelin).

Next, we must define art-a term itself that is hard to define because of its subjectivity. Let us look to wordIQ.com for help. At the top of the page, we find the broadest definition: “art refers to all creative human endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction.” Well, this just makes things too easy-the answer is a resounding “yes,” pop music is art (though, certainly, there are artists in the music business motivated by purposes of “reproduction”).

So let’s glance at the next definition on wordIQ.com: “art is often seen as belonging to one class and excluding others. Art is seen as high-status activity associated with wealth and the ability to purchase both works of art and the leisure to enjoy them.” Pop music almost straddles this definition. The artists themselves become wealthy through the mass consumption of their product, but the consumers don’t necessarily need to have any certain status. Though rather expensive still, CD prices tend to range from pocket change for just a CD single or $15 – 20 for a whole album. Due to the wonders of technology and loosening ideals, you can even get it for free (thanks, Kazaa!).

Let’s try the next definition. “Art requires a creative and unique perception of both the artist and the audience,” and “art both explores human emotions and ways to arouse them – and good art brings something new and original in either of these two respects.” In other words, the artist has to communicate something original, or make you feel something original. But where does this put the time old tradition of break up songs? Or love songs? Are they not art because the themes are common? The definition of art is so unclear that even the paragraph above contradicts this: “the value of art is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium in order to strike some universal chord.” So if a song makes me think of a guy I was involved with last year, and it makes him think of a girl he was involved with last summer, is it art because the theme is universal, but its relation to each listener is based on a personal experience (and therefore unique)?

The last definition on the page is “art…can also simply refer to the developed and efficient use of a language so as to convey meaning…art…can be understood as a way of communicating.” Sometimes, though, the lyrics of a particular song don’t strike a chord with you, but the beat does. Say the beat of Usher’s “Yeah” got you tapping a foot or shaking your hips; does this count as the beat “communicating” with your body? If that’s a form of communication, is this music therefore art?

Perhaps we should move away from encyclopedias and dictionaries. Avant-garde composer Arnold Schoenberg, known for his work with atonality and serialism, was quoted as saying “if it’s art, it’s not for everyone. If it’s for everyone, it’s not art.” Even this quote is subjective-what does he mean by the word “everyone”? If “everyone” means a majority of the population, then by his definition, pop music certainly isn’t art. But if by “everyone” he literally meant “everyone,” then we’re back to the first definition of art, under which, pop music certainly is art- because there is no creative human endeavor that everyone enjoys.

There are many more definitions of art. Tolstoy believed that the medium itself isn’t art; art is in the way that the consumer reacts to it. Whereas Plato said that art is imitation, so covers would be the highest musical form of art (my opinions on which you’ll have the pleasure of reading in the near future).

Interestingly enough, none of these definitions mention anything about who writes the art and who performs it. Then again, in the early days of art, that wasn’t exactly an issue. Today, a musical prodigy with a cartoon-character voice can write songs without having to perform them, or someone with a vocabulary of 100 words can show off a stellar vocal range without opening a rhyming dictionary. It’s almost like a musical version of Paint-By-Numbers-except both participants get paid.

While hearing a song for the fifth time in one day is enough to make some people cringe (or twice in a day in the case of “Stacy’s Mom”-for whatever reasons that song was the musical embodiment of nails on a chalkboard to my ears), these days the fact that something is popular or may not be written by the person singing it makes it no less valuable as art. Well, at least according to the aforementioned definitions. The debate may never be settled, so go ahead and rock out to Ludacris and Dave Matthews-its value is up

to you.