[Waehnen]

I also wonder, btw, why can't we single out Mahler's symphonies (I'm not necessarily saying they fit the description above) in this thread, with statements like:

"the level of dismissiveness required to refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of artistic achievement in the language of Western music represented by Mahler's symphonies is mind-boggling."

They somehow don't deserve to be put on this pedestal according to the 'objectivitists' here, according to their Universal Laws of Objective Value?

Are you expecting some of us to consider ourselves "objectivists" who would possess "Universal Laws of Objective Value"? And of whom it would be honest to admit that the aim of all this has been to prove that objectively Mahler is the absolute pinnacle of Western music? And that everyone objecting to this are subjectivists who can be considered really bad listeners and who just do not have a valid right to dislike Mahler?

If there are this kind of fears and attitudes in the TC community, then I am worried.

 

[DaveM]

I feel like the Three Musketeers and D'Artagnon rolled into one. ..

I think of you as the Man in the Iron Mask and we are the 3 Musketeers and D’Artagnon trying to save you. And this is (perhaps objectively ) one of the great movie themes:

 

[justekaia]

No, it is not all just opinion. Not ALL...

The problem with the "all artistic values are subjective" theory is that it fails to recognize that works of art - like other things - succeed or fail, not merely according to standards of "taste" applied by audiences, but by their own standards. Perhaps the most essential perception in judging a work of art is the perception of what it is trying to be, and perhaps the highest praise we can give a work is that in trying to be something strong, rich, challenging, or original it has carried out its intended idea with consistency and force. Obviously the artist is best positioned to know how well he has succeeded by that standard - he alone knows fully his intent - but works are acclaimed in no small part when the artist has succeeded in communicating a clear intention - a clear vision or concept - by carrying out its expression in a way that coheres and reinforces itself. Coherence - clarity of purpose, consistency of idea, and the appropriateness of means to ends - are admirable not merely as abstract ideals but as crucial conditions of effective aesthetic expression. And - essential to this discussion - they can to a great extent be perceived and are not simply matters of "opinion." That we do perceive them is a principal reason why certain works of music survive and give pleasure for centuries while others are forgotten. They are forgotten because, failing to make a cohesive appeal to our faculties of aesthetic perception and impress us with strong ideas tightly argued, they are intrinsically forgettable (or worse). Works that succeed in these things represent extraordinary achievements by extraordinary creative minds and rightly acquire reputations for superiority.

There are right and wrong, better and worse. decisions an artist can make as he makes the thousands of choices that confront him in the act of creation. What is wonderful for us, his audience, is that we have the power to intuit the appropriateness of his choices and to feel a profound pleasure at the results of his success - as well as a profound indifference or distaste at the results of his failures.

the things you mention about purpose, ideas, appropriate means are what i consider to be the intrinsic value of a work of art. i would add some elements that i believe are important to assess value like originality, historical context and perhaps also a certain amount of readability (otherwise your 3 elements can not be perceived by the audience). a subject that is of great interest to me in the visual arts is the debate whether you should do research, talk with artists and critics before you see or judge art works. some people believe it limits the possibilities, different meanings or interpretations the audience can attribute to an artwork. ideally you should have your own raw opinion first and then enrich it by research and contacts. contrary to many tc members i am very interested by the genesis, sources of inspiration and content of musical works and also by the personality of the composer. just enjoying the sound satisfies the ears but not the mind.

 

[Waehnen]

-there is no art in the natural world, only objects existing, waiting to be valued by the human mind. Art springs out of our own minds and exists only there, and not in the products that are created.

Do you think a mountain does exist in the natural world but a fugue by a Bach does not exist in the natural world? If you think an art object exists only in the perceiver´s mind then logically a mountain also exists only in the perceiver´s mind.

Nevertheless we live in a world where we need to take into consideration that mountains exist and sometimes we need to move around them if we do not wish to climb them. Similar thing with art objects: you cannot play a Bach fugue on the piano without a physical piano or without practicing your playing. Should you also want someone to be interested in your Bach playing, it would also help to get some teaching or getting to know the tradition of Bach playing, and how the musical community (where the Bach fugue is performed) is organized.

You will get nowhere either climbing the mountain or playing the Bach if you just repeat: "This is just an opinion in the perceivers mind, this is just an opinion in the perceivers mind..."

I sense some really illogical ontology here to be frank. It seems to be suitable only to mentally defend a listener who feels their listening preferences is threatened by some assumed objectivist elitists.

 

[Woodduck]

There is no question that there exist gradations of the value of art and of the means of establishing those gradations. All my position does is to bring this function down to the precise level where it is truly operative, the individual. Thus, the removal of the evaluating, judging function from A) the global population, B) special and distinct populations, and C) clusters of Experts and Enthusiasts, and instead imbuing each individual--unique, sui generis--with the power and the responsibility for evaluating art.

I've been debating this subject with you for a long time, and I have to say that the above does not sound like the position of someone who acts as if he is debating me. If your first sentence is true then we have no debate.

For the rest, I don't think you're fully describing how art is "truly operative" in the world. Despite the extreme atomization of modern life - loneliness is now a major cause of premature death - art still functions as a social product, and how it's collectively experienced, judged and propagated is still important at every level. This is particularly true of music; although we can all sit at home listening to our recordings or playing our pianos, it isn't, for the most part,"the individual" who decides what music gets programmed or recorded and who gets to perform it, or even, in many cases, who can afford to attend the symphony or opera to hear it. It's also true that any individual wishing to obtain a profound knowledge of music, classical music especially, has an important collective - the 'experts' you deride - to thank for much of what he or she learns. I know that in my early years as a lover and student of music my encounters with the opinions of those with far greater knowledge than my own were not only highly stimulating but formative.

In affirming that art has more than individual significance I'm not remotely suggesting that anyone's personal taste in music should be subordinated in any confrontation with any so-called consensus, but then I don't know anyone who actually advocates that kind of self-abnegation. I'm sure such humble souls exist, but I for one have no interest in debating them, and I'm surprised that arguing against them seems to you a worthwhile activity.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Michael Haydn

"I find it unfair that an "indecent pot-boiler" like Cosi fan tutte survived, while stuff like the "proto-Schubertian" pastoral poem, Die Hochzeit auf der Alm with its later added supplemental music and its "anthem of fidelity" and Die Ährenleserin did not. I find the dramatic structure of this Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=10m43s Dies irae (which integrates the Lacrimosa) more interesting than the one from Mozart's sketchy requiem. I find that none of Mozart's symphonies before No.31 are as "mature" as watch?v=e8ba5g_jF5M , watch?v=v80s4yjSdQM , watch?v=ppTToo8lrMQ " (and so on..)

Of course, I don't hold these opinions, but in a "parallel world" where Mozart's certain contemporaries get as much exposure as him, there could be people holding them. There's no unversal law of objective value that somehow exempts Mozart from these accusations; he isn't somehow on a higher plane than them; that's just an illusion we've created in our minds.

 

[DaveM]

"I find it unfair that an "indecent pot-boiler" like Cosi fan tutte survived, while stuff like the "proto-Schubertian" pastoral poem, Die Hochzeit auf der Alm with its later added supplemental music and its "anthem of fidelity" and Die Ährenleserin did not. I find the dramatic structure of this Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=10m43s Dies irae (which integrates the Lacrimosa) more interesting than the one from Mozart's sketchy requiem. I find that none of Mozart's symphonies before No.31 are as "mature" as watch?v=e8ba5g_jF5M , watch?v=v80s4yjSdQM , watch?v=ppTToo8lrMQ " (and so on..)

Of course, I don't hold these opinions, but in a "parallel world" where Mozart's certain contemporaries get just as much exposure as him; there "could be" people holding them. There's no unversal law of objective value that somehow exempts Mozart from these criticisms; he isn't somehow on a higher plane than them; that's just an illusion we've created in our minds.

Well, unless I’m misunderstanding, you seem to be playing both ends against the middle. You say you ‘don’t hold these opinions’, but your final sentence suggests otherwise.

 

[Strange Magic]

Waehnen, post: 2294539, member: 60476"]
OK, so you do think that only your point is valid and worth repeating and implementing on fellow forumists. Good to have that one cleared although I am disappointed. Nervertheless, I wish you all the best! ☺

You confuse two concepts. All are free to hold and express whatever views they have. But in a matter such as discussed here, therm can be only one correct viewpoint. Just like the fact that the earth is not a cube. Everyone has a right to have and express an opinion but not everyone can be right (though everyone is right in whatever valuation they put on art). I hold that the evidence for the complete subjectivity of art is irrefutable and thus have no need or requirement to compromise my position.

 

[Strange Magic]

^^^^@Woodduck: I agree with the bulk of your post #125 above, but as usual with our posts, we fail to fully understand one another. Minor example: how to interpret your statement; "If your first sentence is true then we have no debate". Is this A) that we are in perfect agreement, or B) that we cannot debate these issues; that I have somehow blocked the possibility of debate. An ambiguity. And C) I think you have yet to grasp the central point that I have attempted to have others understand--that art is entirely a human construct and has no meaning or existence in the external world--as art--unless there is human intervention to energize, vitalize, actualize it. In a sense, my position is a variant of Bishop Berkeley's curious thesis that to be is to be perceived in the one instance where his notion is correct. Our friend Waehnen, who is responsible for this whole thread by bringing out our easy weakness in discussing again this topic for the 47th time, tells me that a Bach fugue exists as a physical object, touting this as a refutation of my position of pure subjectivity of art. It would be folly to deny that said fugue exists as writing on a piece of paper, or as sound waves when rendered as such, or that a Bernini statue exists. But with no one to perceive it as such, as art, it has no existence as art. it is a variant of the well-worn notion that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no entity to hear it, does it make a noise?
As I indicated, all of your other points are true and good--the useful role of experts, the availability of a collective, your remarks about who gets to program, what gets programmed, who can afford,etc.--all well and good. But, again, this does not deal with the issue at hand, to my understanding.

 

[Strange Magic]

Do you think a mountain does exist in the natural world but a fugue by a Bach does not exist in the natural world? If you think an art object exists only in the perceiver´s mind then logically a mountain also exists only in the perceiver´s mind.

Nevertheless we live in a world where we need to take into consideration that mountains exist and sometimes we need to move around them if we do not wish to climb them. Similar thing with art objects: you cannot play a Bach fugue on the piano without a physical piano or without practicing your playing. Should you also want someone to be interested in your Bach playing, it would also help to get some teaching or getting to know the tradition of Bach playing, and how the musical community (where the Bach fugue is performed) is organized.

You will get nowhere either climbing the mountain or playing the Bach if you just repeat: "This is just an opinion in the perceivers mind, this is just an opinion in the perceivers mind..."

I sense some really illogical ontology here to be frank. It seems to be suitable only to mentally defend a listener who feels their listening preferences is threatened by some assumed objectivist elitists.

See my reply to Woodduck. Being defensive is not part of my nature as the mods will tell you. Nor is feeling threatened by tastes other than my own. And I repeat my mantra about art=opinion because I believe it to be a correct view: Here I Stand. You seem to be looking always for some middle ground halfway between Y and Z--Some say (let's postulate) that the earth is a cube; others that it is a sphere. Is your answer then that the earth is a cube with quite rounded corners and edges? I think not.

 

[59540]

"I find it unfair that an "indecent pot-boiler" like Cosi fan tutte survived, while stuff like the "proto-Schubertian" pastoral poem, Die Hochzeit auf der Alm with its later added supplemental music and its "anthem of fidelity" and Die Ährenleserin did not. ...

I don't understand. If the one survived and the other didn't, how can you compare...

 

[Strange Magic]

I think of you as the Man in the Iron Mask and we are the 3 Musketeers and D’Artagnon trying to save you. And this is (perhaps objectively ) one of the great movie themes:

I want the cover art painted by both Ingres and Rembrandt!

 

[Woodduck]

^^^^@Woodduck: I agree with the bulk of your post #125 above, but as usual with our posts, we fail to fully understand one another. Minor example: how to interpret your statement; "If your first sentence is true then we have no debate". Is this A) that we are in perfect agreement, or B) that we cannot debate these issues; that I have somehow blocked the possibility of debate. An ambiguity. And C) I think you have yet to grasp the central point that I have attempted to have others understand--that art is entirely a human construct and has no meaning or existence in the external world--as art--unless there is human intervention to energize, vitalize, actualize it. In a sense, my position is a variant of Bishop Berkeley's curious thesis that to be is to be perceived in the one instance where his notion is correct. Our friend Waehnen, who is responsible for this whole thread by bringing out our easy weakness in discussing again this topic for the 47th time, tells me that a Bach fugue exists as a physical object, touting this as a refutation of my position of pure subjectivity of art. It would be folly to deny that said fugue exists as writing on a piece of paper, or as sound waves when rendered as such, or that a Bernini statue exists. But with no one to perceive it as such, as art, it has no existence as art. it is a variant of the well-worn notion that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no entity to hear it, does it make a noise?
As I indicated, all of your other points are true and good--the useful role of experts, the availability of a collective, your remarks about who gets to program, what gets programmed, who can afford,etc.--all well and good. But, again, this does not deal with the issue at hand, to my understanding.

I extract the following as your attempt to clarify "the central point [you] have attempted to have others understand":

"art is entirely a human construct and has no meaning or existence in the external world--as art--unless there is human intervention to energize, vitalize, actualize it."

I'm afraid that statement is not as clarifying as you may think it is. In fact I think it's terribly ambiguous. Art has no existence in the external world? What is filling the walls of museums and the shelves of libraries? Into what world did art emerge, if not the external one, when a painter or writer put his ideas onto canvas or paper? What do you mean by "as art"? By "intervention"? By "energize," "vitalize," "actualize"?

I have to assume that all of that means something more than "if a tree falls in the forest", etc. As far as that's concerned, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm sure I've never argued that music is communicating any meaning when it isn't audible, with no one to hear it. That seems so obvious, so epistemically elementary, as to be not worth mentioning, much less debating. I'm sure I've never debated it, and if you've imagined that I have I'd be curious to have my own statements to that effect read back to me. But it does not follow that art has no meaning except during the process of being heard or viewed. Nor does it follow that all worthwhile judgments about the meaning and quality of a piece of music are private, or that all private judgments about a painting or poem represent equally valid understandings of it. Moreover, it does not follow that there are no controlling factors inherent in the artwork and in the human mind that guide and place limits on reasonable interpretation. An Ingres portrait and a Rembrandt portrait cannot legitimately mean the same thing, no matter how drunk or insane the "sovereign individual" looking at them. Rembrandt and Ingres were very different individuals who have both mastered their craft sufficiently to make their differences abundantly clear, and their works contain a wealth of information about who the artists are and what they're trying to communicate. Our personal, individual responses to their work, however eccentric or bizarre, may matter more to us than what anyone else can tell us about them, but those paintings contain what they contain and not something other, and they are sure as hell "in the external world as art," whether or not we choose to "intervene" and "energize," "vitalize," or "actualize" them.

Our appreciation and enjoyment of art is only the final step in a sequence that began in the mind of the artist, and between his mind and ours stands the work - "as art," in the external world - full of implicit meanings bound up in words, sounds, colors, and ready to divulge those meanings to anyone willing and able to look for them. Are many of those meanings ambiguous, open-ended, suggested rather than defined? Of course. A work of art isn't a dissertaion or a sermon. We are expected to contribute. But we do so best when we're curious and humble, and not infatuated with our sovereign individuality.

It is not so much we who energize, vitalize and actualize art, as art that energizes, vitalizes and actualizes us, in ways we could never dream of. That's what art is for.

 

[Luchesi]

I think the current "orthodoxy" would be that if someone subjectively prefers the stick man, then it's "greater". That's the modern dismantling of "art" in a nutshell.

Yes, 'greater' for that numbskull but should anyone else care? People have all kinds of silly and transitory moods and preferences. They're not even understandable..

 

[Strange Magic]

Yes, 'greater' for that numbskull but should anyone else care? People have all kinds of silly and transitory moods and preferences. They're not even understandable..

My point entirely. Your and my views are our own, and we are free to personally hold any view of the tastes of others as we choose. The danger, if there is one, is that one begins to think that one's own evaluation of artwork is better, superior to another's evaluation (perfectly legitimate)--but beyond that, that people whose tastes are different from ours should be reminded of such, that they are lesser beings, numbskulls, etc. This IMO is a corrosive, negative attitude if widely communicated to others when a simple silence or an explanation that one's tastes are different, but not necessarily better. This is why I almost never disparage the tastes of others but merely state that I am not a member of the audience for which that music or art was intended.

Just a thought.

 

[Luchesi]

Are you expecting some of us to consider ourselves "objectivists" who would possess "Universal Laws of Objective Value"? And of whom it would be honest to admit that the aim of all this has been to prove that objectively Mahler is the absolute pinnacle of Western music? And that everyone objecting to this are subjectivists who can be considered really bad listeners and who just do not have a valid right to dislike Mahler?

If there are this kind of fears and attitudes in the TC community, then I am worried.

What do we do when we want to learn/appreciate any serious subject, and save time? We seek the experienced and the knowledgeable.
You don't have to agree, but the likelihood is that you will eventually agree with (or more fully understand) their objective approach. Whether you end up liking a piece is wholly separate, and isn't predictable.

 

[Strange Magic]

Woodduck; I'm afraid that statement is not as clarifying as you may think it is. In fact I think it's terribly ambiguous. Art has no existence in the external world? What is filling the walls of museums and the shelves of libraries? Into what world did art emerge, if not the external one, when a painter or writer put his ideas onto canvas or paper? What do you mean by "as art"? By "intervention"? By "energize," "vitalize," "actualize"?

I will attempt to clarify yet again by asking a question: If Bernini's sculpture of David or something very like it is sitting on the planet Thraa, several galaxies away, is it still art or simply just another oddly-shaped rock? "Art" objects so very obviously exist in the physical world that only a wet-lipped idiot would deny it, but they only obtain the status of Art by being perceived as such by human agency. And different perceivers will have different views as to its message, meaning, quality, integrity, some very far from the intention of the artist, if that has been stated by such. Hope this makes sense.

The balance of your post, like much of my of my posting, is a repetition of views we have expressed so many times before. I suggest we focus on music and art we love, knowing that we both derive so much pleasure and solace from the art that we have come to know.

 

[59540]

Yes, 'greater' for that numbskull but should anyone else care? People have all kinds of silly and transitory moods and preferences. They're not even understandable..

Maybe people shouldn't care, but there are those who care very deeply if you dare to denigrate -- or even question -- the taste and judgement of Stick Man Fan. If you do, you'll get another round of dog-chasing-tail like this one.

 

[59540]

My point entirely. Your and my views are our own, and we are free to personally hold any view of the tastes of others as we choose. The danger, if there is one, is that one begins to think that one's own evaluation of artwork is better, superior to another's evaluation (perfectly legitimate)--but beyond that, that people whose tastes are different from ours should be reminded of such, that they are lesser beings, numbskulls, etc. This IMO is a corrosive, negative attitude if widely communicated to others when a simple silence or an explanation that one's tastes are different, but not necessarily better. ...

If evaluations of art are all equal, then all art is equal. Leonardo=Stick Man. That's corrosive.

 

[DaveM]

My point entirely. Your and my views are our own, and we are free to personally hold any view of the tastes of others as we choose. The danger, if there is one, is that one begins to think that one's own evaluation of artwork is better, superior to another's evaluation (perfectly legitimate)--but beyond that, that people whose tastes are different from ours should be reminded of such, that they are lesser beings, numbskulls, etc. This IMO is a corrosive, negative attitude if widely communicated to others when a simple silence or an explanation that one's tastes are different, but not necessarily better. This is why I almost never disparage the tastes of others but merely state that I am not a member of the audience for which that music or art was intended.

Most of us discussing this are enlightened enough to not denigrate the tastes of others. And, contrary to what you infer by perseverating on the subject, no one (that I know of) is denying that individual tastes are totally subjective.

Speaking only of the CP era music, what you choose to ignore is that when a blueprint for what attracts a cross-section of people develops, an individual taste does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the music or the skill that was required to compose it, but collectively, over time, a consensus does. CP era music developed over centuries and, presumably, composers were challenged to innovate with more complex and sophisticated works to attract and enlarge new audiences. If that didn’t/doesn’t suggest the requirement of objective evidence of skill, then I don’t know what does.

Thus, came the Mozart symphonies, concertos and operas, the Beethoven sonatas, concertos and symphonies, the Chopin piano works, the Wagner operas and so forth. This process was an example of the very best of human creativity at work and to ignore the objective evidence of it is to diminish the accomplishment.