Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).
Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).I would argue that a work such as Music For Strings, Percussion and Celeste by the atheist Bartok is as profound as the works of Bach or Beethoven. The number of such twentieth century for which I would say this is true is however less than for the period 1710-1826 .
I can think of plenty of examples of great works of literature written in actual prisons.Great compositions of music could be called profound (by me) because humans have used the physics all around them to express themselves, ascent up through their long history.
The greatest mystery is not
that we have been flung at random
among the profusion of the earth
and the galaxy of the stars,
but that in this prison,
we can fashion images of ourselves,
sufficiently powerful,
to deny our nothingness!
Andre Malraux
Quatuor pour la fin du temps was composed in a Nazi prison camp.I can think of plenty of examples of great works of literature written in actual prisons.
Can anyone think of greatt works of music written in a prison?
The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.
Good point. And then there are the works written in Theresienstadt.Quatuor pour la fin du temps was composed in a Nazi prison camp.
But doesn't the same argument apply to Beethoven : using the artistic techniques of Bach, Haydn and Mozart?Most muscians would agree I think, but it strikes me as unfair, since Bartok had the advanced artistic techniques in his toolbox (form, rhythm, harmony).
When you say totally objective, we can't be. But you don't have to be, if you're making a helpful point about a musician's world.The premise that the greatness of works of Art must either be totally Objective or totally Subjective has always seemed to be one of those flakey philosophical arguments to me.
Yes, there's a grand sweep of development to appreciate.But doesn't the same argument apply to Beethoven : using the artistic techniques of Bach, Haydn and Mozart?
And ditto for Bach using those of Buxtehude etc.
I just don't understand why the Bartok example "strikes you as unfair." How is it different from a work by Beethoven in this respect?Yes, there's a grand sweep of development to appreciate.
My point is it is a false dichotomy between two absurd stances. Total subjectivity means my Cat running up and down the piano is as great as any work of music. Total Objectivity means that the works of Beethoven can be ordered from greatest to least profound/sublime.When you say totally objective, we can't be. But you don't have to be, if you're making a helpful point about a musician's world.
It would be tough to define in a comprehensive way what is meant by "profound" in the case of a work of art. (I would argue it is impossible, but let's pass over that rabbit hole.) However, I would go so far as to suggest that art that successfully conveys profound ideas is far more likely to survive the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created. The word "classical", especially when applied to art, traditionally referred to the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. It still generally refers to art of an earlier period or era.Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.
I'm not sure the "strong" "hyper-subjective stance" is very popular anywhere. The generally expressed subjective stance is more that there must be some sort of basis for comparing a cat on a piano with Beethoven.My point is it is a false dichotomy between two absurd stances. Total subjectivity means my Cat running up and down the piano is as great as any work of music. Total Objectivity means that the works of Beethoven can be ordered from greatest to least profound/sublime.
That is good to hear that it is true of this forum.I'm not sure the "strong" "hyper-subjective stance" is very popular anywhere. The generally expressed subjective stance is more that there must be some sort of basis for comparing a cat on a piano with Beethoven.
This is a favorite topic of mine. Look at the scores to see the fascinating advancements in rhythm and harmony, especially.I just don't understand why the Bartok example "strikes you as unfair." How is it different from a work by Beethoven in this respect?
I don't think it's that variable. It's not a world in which Rashomon and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure are considered "profound" by equal numbers of people who know both.Strange Magic said:In the arts, the objects of those feelings are, by contrast, all over the map, with some experiencing awe and sensing profundity in places and things where others see nothing of the sort; hence the much more highly variable, individualistic responses.
Does Pachelbel's canon successfully convey profound ideas, justifying its popularity with the public today? Some people could say that (in the ending) it evokes nostalgia for the German Baroque in a level that even Bach or Handel doesn't, for instance. In the end, how much of its popularity is jusitified by its "profoundity" belongs in the realm of subjective opinion.However, I would go so far as to suggest that art that successfully conveys profound ideas is far more likely to survive the era, the social and cultural context and the specific factual circumstances in which it was created. The word "classical", especially when applied to art, traditionally referred to the culture of ancient Greece and Rome.
"look at the scores": scores of which: Beethoven or Bartok?This is a favorite topic of mine. Look at the scores to see the fascinating advancements in rhythm and harmony, especially.
Your counterexample of one! And Pollack, Cot, and Giorgione along a continuum. Let's add Kinkade, and the dogs playing poker. What are you contributing to the discussion?Do you have any data to back that up, or is it just something you pulled out of your backside? I love both Webern and Mozart, as a counterexample. Someone who is interested in the visual arts is likely to appreciate both artists as lying along roughly the same continuum. As for the rest, Eva Yojimbo would know more about it, but it sounds to me like rehashed Spinoza.