# Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?



## Captainnumber36

What do you think? I've heard some works by I believe Schoenberg that I think will last, but I think several will be forgotten. Such works just don't tend to have memorable hooks like the big three, and other composers, obviously.


:tiphat:


----------



## larold

If by "last" you mean will they become concert staples and popular, the answer is already no. But if by "last" do you mean will people continue to record them, maybe. The earlier music of the Second Viennese School is soon a century old so it is not exactly new. One thing is certain: I give anything that's made it thus far more chance of surviving in any concept than 99.7 percent of what is being composed today.


----------



## Captainnumber36

larold said:


> If by "last" you mean will they become concert staples and popular, the answer is already no. But if by "last" do you mean will people continue to record them, maybe. The earlier music of the Second Viennese School is soon a century old so it is not exactly new. One thing is certain: I give anything that's made it thus far more chance of surviving in any concept than 99.7 percent of what is being composed today.


I agree with you. Thanks for your comments!


----------



## Phil loves classical

They've lasted for a smaller audience, larger than that of Renaissance music I think. I suspect will continue to be more popular than Renaissance music.


----------



## Bulldog

I can't think of any reason why atonal music wouldn't last for centuries.


----------



## Woodduck

If it's well-crafted and has found and kept an audience for a few decades, it will last. Very little of it is likely to be popular or performed often, but there are plenty of recordings and there will be more. 

It's hard to answer the part of the question that says "like past works," since our time is not like past times. Music composed since the invention of recording, especially in the multiple media of our time, can reach a much wider audience than music could in earlier times, and so it has a virtual guarantor that some one will remember it and want to hear it. Plenty of music, old and new, has survived which would otherwise be forgotten - or, in fact, already was forgotten until somebody unearthed it and recorded it. Mere survival isn't the mark of distinction it once was.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Maybe everything will be remembered by those that care. F.ex. people that investigate the past, musicologists, historians and the likes. They dug up Perotin and Machaut and now everything is available pretty easily


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Where is that "Michael Jackson Eating Popcorn" GIF when you need it?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Lots of them work well as music for horror film scenes. (I'm not making fun of them)
I think that's where their artistry lies. They are still inventive in the way they can create certain emotions the music of the past could not. They just need be coupled with visual content to be 'convincing music'.



hammeredklavier said:


> For example, in this documentary the music played around 20:00~ 22:00 sounds somewhat like Stockhausen and helps instill emotions and atmosphere appropriate for the visual material. I can't think of any other type of music that can do this better."


----------



## mbhaub

Quick - name one, just one, atonal work that is in the standard orchestral repertoire.....can't do it, can you? That's because there are none. There are a few works that barely hang on but only because some conductors and orchestra feel an obligation to carry the torch for Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their ilk. But audiences have made their preferences known both in terms of concerts and recordings. Sadly, concomitant with this is the narrowing of the repertoire in general. Summer festivals are practically indistinguishable from the regular season - it's the same old, tired, worn out tried-and-true Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Wagner...it's very discouraging. So like Kjetil said, atonal music is going to be known only to specialists.

The reason is those "hooks". In my opinion, music must come from the heart - it must make an emotional connection to the listener. And the further music gets from folk songs, the harder it is for the average brain to understand, enjoy and love. Composers whose music makes a connection with the listener will always be around. It may disgust and anger atonal composers, but things like the Dvorak 9th, Tchaikovksy 5th, and Shostakovich 5th will always thrill and excite audiences. So will Sousa marches.


----------



## MarkW

The good ones, yes. The bad ones, no. Just like all other music.


----------



## starthrower

hammeredklavier said:


> They just need be coupled with visual content to be 'convincing music'.


Nonsense. No visuals are going to elevate a lousy piece of music whether it's a tonal or atonal composition. All visuals do is distract one from listening closely to the content of the music. If anything is true, it's the complete opposite. Great music can elevate a film or program. This is why directors hire the best talent they can afford.

No one knows the future, but there's no reason to believe music lovers won't be enjoying Berg's Lyric Suite, or Schoenberg's violin concerto a hundred years from now. Not to mention Takemitsu, Lutoslawski, Elliott Carter, and many others. As for what pieces will be accepted by general audiences in the year 2200. Who knows?


----------



## SONNET CLV

larold said:


> If by "last" you mean will they become concert staples and popular, the answer is already no. But if by "last" do you mean will people continue to record them, maybe. The earlier music of the Second Viennese School is soon a century old so it is not exactly new. One thing is certain: I give anything that's made it thus far more chance of surviving in any concept than 99.7 percent of what is being composed today.


As a devotee of contemporary music, I'd like to know what works are included in that .3 percent! I want to make sure I hear them before I die. Especially since I likely enjoy much of the other 99.7 percent!


----------



## KenOC

I'm sure that atonal works will last hundreds of years, maybe thousands. After all, they will never experience the wear and tear of too much listening.


----------



## Woodduck

mbhaub said:


> Quick - name one, just one, atonal work that is in the standard orchestral repertoire.....can't do it, can you? That's because there are none.


1.) How many works of any kind are in the "standard orchestral repertoire," and how much fine music is rarely programmed?

2.) How many well-known atonal works are written for the standard symphony orchestra?


----------



## Portamento

Did you start this thread with the purpose of it being shut down?



MarkW said:


> The good ones, yes. The bad ones, no. Just like all other music.


Thank you.


----------



## Bwv 1080

It would be a tragedy if there weren’t because there is some great music there, but most people are idiots so who knows?


----------



## BachIsBest

mbhaub said:


> Quick - name one, just one, atonal work that is in the standard orchestral repertoire.....can't do it, can you? That's because there are none. There are a few works that barely hang on but only because some conductors and orchestra feel an obligation to carry the torch for Schoenberg, Berg, Webern and their ilk. But audiences have made their preferences known both in terms of concerts and recordings. Sadly, concomitant with this is the narrowing of the repertoire in general. Summer festivals are practically indistinguishable from the regular season - it's the same old, tired, worn out tried-and-true Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Wagner...it's very discouraging. So like Kjetil said, atonal music is going to be known only to specialists.
> 
> The reason is those "hooks". In my opinion, music must come from the heart - it must make an emotional connection to the listener. And the further music gets from folk songs, the harder it is for the average brain to understand, enjoy and love. Composers whose music makes a connection with the listener will always be around. It may disgust and anger atonal composers, but things like the Dvorak 9th, Tchaikovksy 5th, and Shostakovich 5th will always thrill and excite audiences. So will Sousa marches.


Berg's Violin Concerto is probably pretty close, at the very least, to being 'in' the standard repertoire.


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> Berg's Violin Concerto is probably pretty close, at the very least, to being 'in' the standard repertoire.


Yes, Berg's Violin Concerto is probably about as close as you're going to come. There may be a couple of others. If we can find them, I'll check my database to see how often they're performed by US orchestras each year. And then we can wait for the usual chorus: "Yes, but in Europe, people are lined up around the block to hear these, waving fistfuls of cash and bidding ticket prices through the roof..."


----------



## mikeh375

My heart wants the answer to the OP to be yes, my head says no if I understand correctly that the implication of the question refers to a general public taste. The works will last in academic archives and have already gained a cult status because we are not talking about second rate composers, but I doubt that anyone uninitiated or of milder ears will ever make the effort to get to know them. 

One half of me (the pragmatist) asks reasonably "why should people bother?", the other half brings to mind Ives.


----------



## DavidA

Bwv 1080 said:


> It would be a tragedy if there weren't because there is some great music there, but most people are idiots so who knows?


Most oeople are idiots because they don't like unpleasant sounds that calls itself music? I would've thought that spoke of the general wisdom of the human race


----------



## DavidA

Don't forget Karajan recorded the music of the second Vienese School and it became a bestseller. Just how much it sold because the name of the conductor was on the label and just how much it sold because of the music was another matter. I have the set and I must confess I do not play it very often. It does however contain some fabulous playing If you like that sort of thing. I also have the Berg violin concerto but again do not play very often as I tend to like music which is more pleasant sounding. I bought Wozzek the opera in a sale but haven't had the courage to listen to it yet. This sort of music will find its audience among aficionados but not among the general CM public, Who want music they can enjoy


----------



## mikeh375

Yes, David's post reminds me that the music is archived digitally and will always be available. It also reminds me that the populous wont accept the demise of tonality's implications.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I don't know how often things are played in concert halls. But for artistic merit and beauty, I'd put Schoenberg's "Verklärte Nacht" forward as a piece that should survive and be played.


----------



## Art Rock

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't know how often things are played in concert halls. But for artistic merit and beauty, I'd put Schoenberg's "Verklärte Nacht" forward as a piece that should survive and be played.


Yes, but it's not atonal now is it?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Art Rock said:


> Yes, but it's not atonal now is it?


https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/inside-schoenberg’s-verklärte-nacht

It seems to straddle the line?


----------



## Enthusiast

How long will the habit of some classical fans to divide music into tonal and atonal last? Is it that meaningful a distinction these days? I feel the distinction is only really useful for those fans who have pet peeves against some more modern music. 

Some of the music of the last 100 years will survive and much will merely lurk in the background with those who have a taste for tracking down "neglected masterpieces" digging them up occasionally. That is how it has been for the music of other periods so why not this? I doubt, though, that there will be many atonal warhorses.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Perhaps in the future atonaphobia will be recognized as a treatable psychiatric condition that can be treated with pharmaceuticals and re-education camps


----------



## Larkenfield

I believe it will be of continuing interest as an important part of 20th-century history, like Freud was to psychology, and Picasso was to Cubism, all revolutionary in nature. It does not have to be beautiful to be of interest or value in its new language, where each liberated tone can sound independent of each other. It expanded the entire vocabulary in all of music to express the deep unconscious and the darker side of human consciousness, or other unusual states of mind, including the abnormal, that couldn't be fit into the 19th century model... I believe the problem that some listeners have with it is that as standalone works they often lack context, sound random or highly abstract. Pierrot Lunaire works because the music exists within the context of the character. Erwartung works because the music is like the background to a tale of terror on a woman's forest walk through the night. But then, sometimes context doesn't seem to matter at all, and yet I doubt that such works will have ever have great popular appeal even if it seems to be an indispensable part of 20th-century history. I would consider modern film scores unthinkable without the influence of the liberated vocabulary developed by Schoenberg and others, and the movies provide context where just about anything goes.


----------



## chu42

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/inside-schoenberg’s-verklärte-nacht
> 
> It seems to straddle the line?


For the time, it was revolutionary but that was back when the extent of "anti-tonality" was Wagner and Strauss. I consider it very tonal. Every time it modulates, the key is very distinct, not atonal whatsoever.

"Straddling the line" might be more like this:






It still hints at keys but it gets less and less distinct, whereas serialism has no key whatsoever.


----------



## DavidA

Bwv 1080 said:


> Perhaps in the future atonaphobia will be recognized as a treatable psychiatric condition that can be treated with pharmaceuticals and re-education camps


Yes. Maybe aversion to lying on a bed of nails may also be treated at such places.


----------



## MarkW

People who write atonal music (or twelve-note music, which is only a subset) primarily do so because they have something to say. The best of the works survive because musicians -- many of whom should know -- find enough of value in them to play them. I'm not aware of many who are motivated by spleen ("God, I hate this. I think I'll program it!").


----------



## Woodduck

MarkW said:


> People who write atonal music (or twelve-note music, which is only a subset) primarily do so because they have something to say.


That may be true in 2019, now that classical music has become a sort of eclectic smorgasbord of styles and composers (presumably) feel free to do what fulfills them the most. But I don't think we can safely assume it for serialism's heyday in the mid-20th century when, survivors of the academy tell us, there was considerable pressure felt by young composers to renounce the "earmarks" of tonality. The influence of fashion on artistic production shouldn't be underestimated. It may be that most music has "something to say," but in many cases - maybe a majority of cases - that isn't a requirement for production.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> The influence of fashion on artistic production shouldn't be underestimated. It may be that most music has "something to say," but in many cases - maybe a majority of cases - that isn't a requirement for production.


I don't know about "most music" but, yes, a lot of music (whatever the style and discipline) and many composers fail to achieve anything of any real and lasting value. That has always been the case. It may not always be easy to discriminate between this and the (more rare) worthwhile and meaningful works until the fashion has moved on and the glow that being in fashion brings has vanished.


----------



## millionrainbows

We'll never know, because we'll all be dead.


----------



## Enthusiast

I was thinking that 25 years would be enough to give me an idea but it could take a lot longer before a consensus emerges. I could be still alive in 25 years but might not care that much.


----------



## millionrainbows

*Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?*

That's an unfair question, with all its implications, because modern atonal and serial music must be listened to "in the moment" in a minute-by-minute mode of listening, in a state of "being here now" without any preconceptions of one's mindset, expectations, or thought-constructs/paradigms which one has developed.

The "historical" mode of listening demands a firm grasp of one's identity or "ego" as it observes the music. It is much more narrative in nature, like reading; it demands retention of information and comparison, which is a very cognitive and thought-oriented process.

It's like comparing a listener who looks like Otto Klemperer, dour and pragmatic, with a younger listener who looks like Terry Riley, on mushrooms. These are two different worlds which do not usually meet, except in the case of astute, flexible, adventurous listeners like starthrower, philocetes, flamencosketches, and others like them.

This thread shows an attempt to throw these worlds together, out of miscomprehension, a naive optimism, or perhaps a negligent disdain. It's like trying to mix oil and water.


----------



## FleshRobot

Of course it will survive, as long as they don't destroy the internet (or civilization itself). It will never be very popular, though.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?*
> 
> That's an unfair question, with all its implications, because modern atonal and serial music must be listened to "in the moment" in a minute-by-minute mode of listening, in a state of "being here now" without any preconceptions of one's mindset, expectations, or thought-constructs/paradigms which one has developed.
> 
> The "historical" mode of listening demands a firm grasp of one's identity or "ego" as it observes the music. It is much more narrative in nature, like reading; it demands retention of information and comparison, which is a very cognitive and thought-oriented process.
> 
> It's like comparing a listener who looks like Otto Klemperer, dour and pragmatic, with a younger listener who looks like Terry Riley, on mushrooms. These are two different worlds which do not usually meet, except in the case of astute, flexible, adventurous listeners like starthrower, philocetes, flamencosketches, and others like them.
> 
> This thread shows an attempt to throw these worlds together, out of miscomprehension, a naive optimism, or perhaps a negligent disdain. It's like trying to mix oil and water.


Not buyin' it. Whatever the style of a piece of music, human brains don't function without relating one thing to another - what comes before to what comes after - and composers don't (normally) choose each note by a throw of the dice. All of this woowoo about ego, mindsets, paradigms, naive optimism, negligent disdain, astute flexible listeners...jumpin' jiminy cricket! The absurdity of your position is exposed simply by asking "When we listen moment-by-moment, how brief is a moment?" How extended a passage of music can our brains attempt to hear as coherent before we are guilty of egocentric, naive, negligent, disdainful, inflexible listening? Can it be longer than one note at a time? Two notes? My God - _three?!_

The question posed by the thread may be a bit naive, but it isn't unfair, and certainly not for the reason you give.


----------



## DavidA

MarkW said:


> People who write atonal music (or twelve-note music, which is only a subset) primarily do so because they have something to say. The best of the works survive because musicians -- many of whom should know -- *find enough of value in them to play them*. I'm not aware of many who are motivated by spleen ("God, I hate this. I think I'll program it!").


I would have thought a better test is that people want to hear such music. I can certainly understand some musician's fascination with atonal music. The problem is I don't want to hear most of it!


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> *Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?*
> 
> That's an unfair question, with all its implications, because modern atonal and serial music must be listened to "in the moment" in a minute-by-minute mode of listening, in a state of "being here now" without any preconceptions of one's mindset, expectations, or thought-constructs/paradigms which one has developed.
> 
> The "historical" mode of listening demands a firm grasp of one's identity or "ego" as it observes the music. It is much more narrative in nature, like reading; it demands retention of information and comparison, which is a very cognitive and thought-oriented process.


Different thread, but always the same lecture as if talking to children who don't know how to listen to modern classical music. 'You think you're hearing dissonance and noise little children, but meditate with me and repeat your mantra as I have instructed and it will sound glorious!'


----------



## Larkenfield

No one knows even if Bach, Mozart or Beethoven will last for how many centuries. It hasn’t been two centuries since Beethoven died. That’s a measurement of two centuries and not centuries upon centuries. But of course in those instances, I think they will. But I believe so will Schoenberg and his buddies, the boys of the sour chords. Why? Because they upset the people who like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven too much to shake them out of their comfort zone or complacency every now and then like bombs falling from the sky. Art is also supposed to shake people up on occasion and get them to look beneath the surface a little bit more, the unconscious, with a little terror thrown in for good measure as a reminder of the other dimensions of life that might be tinged with a bit of darkness... Boo! and things that go bump in the night. Two world wars that helped define the 20th century will help keep it alive.


----------



## mbhaub

Woodduck said:


> 1.) How many works of any kind are in the "standard orchestral repertoire," and how much fine music is rarely programmed?
> 
> 2.) How many well-known atonal works are written for the standard symphony orchestra?


1) Roughly 500 works. Only about 50 of them symphonies, if Dalhaus is correct. The second part is one of my biggest complaints and my mission in life. There is a staggering amount of fine music that is rarely, if ever, programmed. Thank God for recordings, otherwise we'd never know the symphonies of Balakirev, Bax, Schmidt, Rontgen, or even someone like Vaughan Williams. Whenever I conduct I always include obscure music if the board and sponsors will let it through. Even getting Korngold programmed is a challenge.

2). "Standard" is the key word here. If by standard you mean the traditional orchestra used by Brahms, Dvorak and company, there is very little. Most all atonal works I know use "grand orchestra" at least and then add a plethora of other things, particularly in the percussion department. But getting the players to perform atonal works isn't a problem for any major or even minor orchestra. It's getting the audience to support it that's the problem. And a conductor with the brains and ear to carry it off.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Good sounding (with emphasis on major minor thirds/sixths, perfect fifths/fourths) 12 tone melody will probably sound like a modulating tonal melody to the regular listener (I have the feeling that most atonal/serial composers were intentionally choosing "garbage" 12 tone sequences to work with).
And what if the composer is using something like 16th notes in moderately fast tempo - does it really matter what is the definite pitch when it is so brief?

So, I doubt most atonal stuff will last - usually it sounds intentionally awful.


----------



## mikeh375

BabyGiraffe said:


> Good sounding (with emphasis on major minor thirds/sixths, perfect fifths/fourths) 12 tone melody will probably sound like a modulating tonal melody to the regular listener (I have the feeling that most atonal/serial composers were intentionally choosing "garbage" 12 tone sequences to work with).
> *And what if the composer is using something like 16th notes in moderately fast tempo - does it really matter what is the definite pitch when it is so brief?
> *
> So, I doubt most atonal stuff will last - usually it sounds intentionally awful.


I'd say yes. Yes it does to a sincere composer embroiled creatively in the technical parameters he has set out for himself. It is a sure way to justify choice in an open atonal field and create a sense of inevitability (at least in the composer's mind). The fact that it doesn't conform to someone's taste does not lessen its honesty nor quality. One has to trust that the great composers _are_ sincere and go along with their choice of notes, accepting them as definitive.

I do agree though that to the general listener, whatever notes are played will not affect their dislike of serialism and will even go so far as to say that yes, other choices in note combinations would be equally effective in atonality. All the more reason for a composer to keep a technical grip on his music less there be a free-for-all. The imposition of will into the music is the emotional input of the composer. It is also true that sometimes serendipity will show its hand and alter the course of events, but generally speaking, composers need to be able to justify (if only to themselves), the choice of notes and this is mostly done via rigour, a sense of adventure and an openness to the unexpected.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> No one knows even if Bach, Mozart or Beethoven will last for how many centuries. It hasn't been two centuries since Beethoven died. That's a measurement of two centuries and not centuries upon centuries. But of course in those instances, I think they will. But I believe so will Schoenberg and his buddies, the boys of the sour chords. Why? Because they upset the people who like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven too much to shake them *out of their comfort zone or complacency *every now and then like bombs falling from the sky. *Art is also supposed to shake people up on occasion* and get them to look beneath the surface a little bit more, the unconscious, with a little terror thrown in for good measure as a reminder of the other dimensions of life that might be tinged with a bit of darkness... Boo! and things that go bump in the night. Two world wars that helped define the 20th century will help keep it alive.


Why on earth is art supposed to shake me out of my so-called comfort zone? I've had plenty of things to shake me out of that like visiting war zones where people have hacked each other to death with machetes or seeing children picking food off stinking rubbish tips to stay alive. Art shaking people out of their comfort zone? Just an illusion for the complacent middle classes!


----------



## BabyGiraffe

People that managed to get famous (Schoenberg) will remain famous thanks to the critics and musicologists (even if they are wrong; from wiki: "Particularly striking examples of such judgements were produced by noted Bach biographers Philipp Spitta and Albert Schweitzer, who criticized Telemann's cantatas and then praised works they thought were composed by Bach, but which were composed by Telemann.")


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Bizarre comment! Just because you don't like some music doesn't mean that the popularity it enjoys is the result of a conspiracy of critics and musicologists! Critics do have a role in pointing out music that they feel is worthwhile ... and then it is over to us. Many people among serious music lovers enjoy and even love Serial music. Are you going to go on to tell us that they are just passively and uncritically following critical advice as some sort of affectation? Or do you grant that those who do enjoy the Serial masterpieces may actually be sincere?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Enthusiast said:


> Many people among serious music lovers enjoy and even love Serial music.


Correct your "many people" to few people. The percentage of people that like anything to do with chromaticism and dissonance is very low.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Why on earth is art supposed to shake me out of my so-called comfort zone? I've had plenty of things to shake me out of that like visiting war zones where people have hacked each other to death with machetes or seeing children picking food off stinking rubbish tips to stay alive. Art shaking people out of their comfort zone? Just an illusion for the complacent middle classes!


I've often had a discomfort with the argument that art is supposed to shake us up. Surely, I think, in the end it must move or inspire us in some way. But I think what this shaking up is all about is helping us to listen afresh. To find new things - previously unavailable - sure, but also merely to help us to rediscover what older music once did for us when we were first listening to it. I don't think much classical music is supposed to just wash over us as a pleasant experience. In some way it must wake us up?


----------



## Enthusiast

BabyGiraffe said:


> Correct your "many people" to few people. The percentage of people that like anything to do with chromaticism and dissonance is very low.


I would say it must be at least half of serious music lovers! But the "serious" word is problematic. I don't mean much more than those who listen to and know a lot of classical music. It is the audiences who don't listen so often, and who might not even know the difference between a good and a bad performance, who really don't want to listen to Serial music. It is they, also, who ensure that orchestras (for example) still play to full houses. But they are not arbiters of good taste.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Enthusiast said:


> I would say it must be at least half of serious music lovers! But the "serious" word is problematic. I don't mean much more than those who listen to and know a lot of classical music. It is the audiences who don't listen so often, and who might not even know the difference between a good and a bad performance, who really don't want to listen to Serial music. It is they, also, who ensure that orchestras (for example) still play to full houses. But they are not arbiters of good taste.


Enthustiast, if we want classical music to survive, we need regular, casual, everyday people to want to listen to it - most of the old art music is based on church music, dances and "easy listening" music, preferred by aristocrats; opera was also not a "serious" music in the beginning. Good music doesn't have to be too artsy, hard to understand and should probably sound pleasant, if you want to actually live as a musician.
The wild experimentalism of last century certainly doesn't have anything to do with mass popularity.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Well, some atonal and many modern works have entered the "general repertoire" but I do also wonder whether the popularity of concerts is as important these days as you suggest. Concerts aren't the way most of us do most of our listening (let alone our exploring), for example. Also, when it comes to the popularity of concerts, contemporary music specialised ensembles tend to do OK in big cities. 

I also think that a vibrant modern and contemporary music scene is good for all music in keeping it alive and relevant: a world in which all we ever heard or played was written before 1918 or is a pastiche of such music would be many steps (hell, a whole staircase) down from where we are now. 

I don't know why it is that no-one can write compelling and powerful pastiches, but they can't. It ought to be possible for a gifted composer to write like Mozart or Brahms and to produce works that are as inspired and inspiring .... but it has never happened. There are, however, still many composers who produce music that is as tonal as Mahler but is in some way new and ... contemporary. Such composers have certainly been influenced by some of the less tonal masters even if they have rejected the methods they use. That is the nature of the current contemporary scene - all sort of variety in language and approach, much of it fresh and new. You can reject atonal music if you don't like it. Fair enough. But don't wish it away. Even you might need it to be there.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Not buyin' it. Whatever the style of a piece of music, human brains don't function without relating one thing to another - what comes before to what comes after - and composers don't (normally) choose each note by a throw of the dice..


Just consider it a different mindset, then, like yours vs. mine. You don't have to buy it. You're a historian, I'm not, simple as you want it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Whatever the style of a piece of music, human brains don't function without relating one thing to another - what comes before to what comes after. All of this woowoo about ego, mindsets, paradigms, naive optimism, negligent disdain, astute flexible listeners...jumpin' jiminy cricket! The absurdity of your position is exposed simply by asking "When we listen moment-by-moment, how brief is a moment?" How extended a passage of music can our brains attempt to hear as coherent before we are guilty of egocentric, naive, negligent, disdainful, inflexible listening? Can it be longer than one note at a time? Two notes? My God - _three?!_


You're thinking too literally, probably just for argumentation. See my blog "new Conceptions..."
https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1521-new-conceptions-musical-time.html

*New Conceptions of Musical Time*
*
Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
*Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.

Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.

*Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.

*Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
*Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.



> The question posed by the thread may be a bit naive, but it isn't unfair, and certainly not for the reason you give.


It's a historically-biased question, which has some built in assumptions.I reject it.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Different thread, but always the same lecture as if talking to children who don't know how to listen to modern classical music. 'You think you're hearing dissonance and noise little children, but meditate with me and repeat your mantra as I have instructed and it will sound glorious!'


Is that right? What does this have to do with anything?


----------



## DaveM

The thing about serial/atonal and much of contemporary CM -something that is often ignored in these discussions except tangentially when people seem to have to instruct on how to listen to it- is that it is a different kind of music, sometimes to the point of not even being classical music.

If this was accepted as the fact it is, there would be less acrimony. Much of what goes on here (when it comes to contemporary music in what some call avant-garde -think Ferneyhough) is trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You're thinking too literally, probably just for argumentation. See my blog "new Conceptions..."
> https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1521-new-conceptions-musical-time.html
> 
> *New Conceptions of Musical Time*
> *
> Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
> *Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.
> 
> Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.
> 
> *Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.
> 
> *Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
> *Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.


People respond to the words we use as if those words mean what they say. No one should be expected to interpret impressionistic word salads or code. You wrote:



> "Modern atonal and serial music must be listened to 'in the moment' in a minute-by-minute mode of listening, in a state of 'being here now.'"


If that actually means anything, it isn't true.

The sense of narrativity or forward pressure in music certainly can vary from urgent to virtually nonexistent. Whether or not music is "modern" or "atonal" may or may not be relevant.


----------



## starthrower

All music can be listened to with ears and brain engaged if you desire to get the most out of it. But after listening to a Bach orchestral suite or Carter's Concerto For Orchestra half a dozen times I can determine intuitively if it's my cuppa tea or not. I don't need to read music appreciation books to tell me how to learn enjoy a piece of music.


----------



## mmsbls

BachIsBest suggested that perhaps Berg's Violin Concerto may last. I think that's a possibility. I was hoping that KenOC would give us the stats on some of these works to see how they have done lately (sorry to always rely on you for these data, but you have been so wonderfully helpful in the past). 

I used to think I knew which works are atonal, but I no longer feel that way so it's hard to know. There are so many piano concertos that Schoenberg's may not last (or maybe it hasn't lasted). I do suspect that some atonal works will continue to be played by specific ensembles that are less mainstream than most orchestras. I do believe there is a market for such works, but I doubt it's nearly as large as the market for the workhorses of classical music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Atonal music will survive (as now will many sorts of music, no matter how obscure or difficult) essentially as a hobbyist specialty. It will not gain a larger foothold in the future "classical music" audience space. In fact, tonal CM may become even more deeply entrenched, though casting a wider net to capture more examples of audience-pleasing (or not displeasing) tonal music. But always something for everybody.


----------



## Blancrocher

Having followed a number of threads concerning atonality on this forum, I can honestly say I have no idea anymore what counts as an atonal composition.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I do love lots of Schoenberg, though.


----------



## chu42

Blancrocher said:


> Having followed a number of threads concerning atonality on this forum, I can honestly say I have no idea anymore what counts as an atonal composition.


Simply put, the less discernible a key is at any given point in time, the more atonal a composition is.

Completely tonal:






Mostly tonal:






Less tonal:






Atonal:


----------



## Manxfeeder

One thing which will make atonal music last is its place in history. They were putting to music their internal turmoil when the world had been shattered. It won't be popular, but it will keep its place in time.


----------



## millionrainbows

Schoenberg's music will probably last as historical "examples", since he wanted to be "in" with the zombies, anyway. 

"The Night of the Living Music."

The rest of you zombie-lovers out there: you're DEAD, don't you realize that yet?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Schoenberg's music will probably last as historical "examples", since he wanted to be "in" with the zombies, anyway.
> 
> "The Night of the Living Music."
> 
> The rest of you zombie-lovers out there: you're DEAD, don't you realize that yet?






---------------


----------



## millionrainbows

The music of history is dead. What makes it "living?" The _real_ people who play it, with their _"beings."_ Otherwise, Beethoven is dead; we try to evoke his spirit, but that's just an illusion; a certain set of gestures which are re-animated by living beings who perform it.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't think Schoenberg is so hard to like once you have the feel for him. The notes and the relationships between the notes are different but the structure and gestures seem fairly conventional late Romantic. I don't think a forum like this will have many doubters in 50 years time.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think Schoenberg is so hard to like once you have the feel for him. The notes and the relationships between the notes are different but the structure and gestures seem fairly conventional late Romantic. I don't think a forum like this will have many doubters in 50 years time.


Yes, 'Brahms with wrong notes' was always the (mostly unfair) dig at Schoenberg.


----------



## isorhythm

chu42 said:


> Simply put, the less discernible a key is at any given point in time, the more atonal a composition is.


I like these Ives examples because they show that "atonal" doesn't have to mean "as chromatic as possible at all times with no nameable chords" just because that's how Schoenbeg and Webern did it.


----------



## mmsbls

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think Schoenberg is so hard to like once you have the feel for him. The notes and the relationships between the notes are different but the structure and gestures seem fairly conventional late Romantic. I don't think a forum like this will have many doubters in 50 years time.


That's an interesting thought. Early Schoenberg (Verklärte Nacht, Kammersymphonie No. 1) is a relatively small step. Imo works such as the Piano Concerto and Kammersymphonie No. 2 are much larger. I eventually found them Romantic sounding, but I believe it can take awhile to hear them that way (at least for me, and I assume for many others). The late quartets I think are harder still. These works are pushing 100 years old. Normally that would be plenty of time for music listeners to adjust to the new sounds, but in general, I don't think that's happening.


----------



## Mandryka

mmsbls said:


> The late quartets I think are harder still. These works are pushing 100 years old. Normally that would be plenty of time for music listeners to adjust to the new sounds, but in general, I don't think that's happening.


I don't agree with you at all, with regard to the 3rd and 4th quartet and the trio. The fourth quartet especially, and the trio seems to me in the same sort of category as Bartok's 6th quartet in many ways.

What I can say is that one particularly acclaimed set of early performance of this music, the first recordings by Julliard, seems to me to be especially unsympathetic, and I wonder how many people "of a certain age" just rejected late Schoenberg because of how they present the music.


----------



## Larkenfield

Mandryka said:


> I don't agree with you at all, with regard to the 3rd and 4th quartet and the trio. The fourth quartet especially, and the trio seems to me in the same sort of category as Bartok's 6th quartet in many ways.
> 
> What I can say is that one particularly acclaimed set of early performance of this music, the first recordings by Julliard, seems to me to be especially unsympathetic, and I wonder how many people "of a certain age" just rejected late Schoenberg because of how they present the music.


 That was my complaint about some of the Bartok SQ recordings I've heard (without offering examples at the moment): the harsh way the music was presented. Too often I find a lack of musicality in the way some of these non-tonal works are presented, which leads me to conclude that many groups may still not know how to play or interpret them, even after 100 years. Of course, the question remains what were the composers' original intentions? Phrases and lines can be interpreted in many different ways with various degrees of musicality, and dissonance can be played effectively without being played stridently or harshly. I think in some instances the groups have no idea how to interpret such challenging works, and I can't listen to them because it sounds like they have no idea what they're playing.


----------



## starthrower

I don't think the Bartok Quartets were meant to sound smooth and silky. But some recordings are more caustic than others.


----------



## Bwv 1080

starthrower said:


> I don't think the Bartok Quartets were meant to sound smooth and silky.


Yes, no getting around tone clusters marked FF and Pesante

https://blog.bestamericanpoetry.com/.a/6a00e54fe4158b88330133f24257c0970b-pi


----------



## mmsbls

Mandryka said:


> I don't agree with you at all, with regard to the 3rd and 4th quartet and the trio. The fourth quartet especially, and the trio seems to me in the same sort of category as Bartok's 6th quartet in many ways.
> 
> What I can say is that one particularly acclaimed set of early performance of this music, the first recordings by Julliard, seems to me to be especially unsympathetic, and I wonder how many people "of a certain age" just rejected late Schoenberg because of how they present the music.


I like the late quartets, but I certainly hear less of a Romantic sense in them compared to the Piano Concerto. I suppose others could view them as more approachable. I learned to like the Piano Concerto before the late quartets. For that matter I liked the Piano Concerto before Bartok's late quartets.

Anyway, I'm not sure what would change to make later Schoenberg more likable to listeners than he is today.


----------



## Mandryka

mmsbls said:


> I like the late quartets, but I certainly hear less of a Romantic sense in them compared to the Piano Concerto. I suppose others could view them as more approachable.


I don't know the piano concerto very well so I can't comment, and I don't know what a romantic sense is.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> I don't know the piano concerto very well so I can't comment, and I don't know what a romantic sense is.


No idea at all? Not even a little one?


----------



## chu42

Not sure what you mean by "piano concerto", for Bartok has multiple.


----------



## mmsbls

Mandryka said:


> I don't know the piano concerto very well so I can't comment, and I don't know what a romantic sense is.


Sorry, that was a bit ambiguous. I just meant sounding somewhat similar to Romantic era music.



chu42 said:


> Not sure what you mean by "piano concerto", for Bartok has multiple.


If you were referring to my post, I meant the Schoenberg Piano Concerto.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> No idea at all? Not even a little one?


No, I really don't. Could you explain? I think I understand the idea of romanticism in literature a little, but not in music at all. And I was really thrown by the word "sense"

It's important to be very clear and precise when discussing this, otherwise you can give the misleading impression that you're saying something with content.


----------



## mikeh375

Schoenberg developed his techniques so that he could compose "as before", ie carry on the great German/Austro tradition post Wagner. Initially his forays into atonality used well known forms in music in order to aid comprehension, but that approach ultimately stymied his work because the rhythm, allied with keyless music just sounded wrong to many as Bwv1080 indicated earlier. He was romantically inclined in his aesthetics (that of self expression) I believe, partly because of his unwillingness to break with tradition, rather he wanted it to continue with his emancipation of dissonance. Eventually his rhythm became more flexible (less overtly metrical) to more readily accommodate the language.
He was in history at the right time and one feels he had no choice but to take the route he did. It was ironically Webern who ultimately had the most influence on the 20thC.


----------



## Mandryka

mikeh375 said:


> He was romantically inclined in his aesthetics (that of self expression)


I agree that the music is expressive and that Schoenberg was at one time in his career at least, interested in using music as a vehicle to express rapidly shifting and often obscure moods which, following Freud, he saw as part of the modern human condition. In this sense he was more like Frescobaldi than any c19 composer.

However it's the "self" bit which I don't follow entirely, though I can see it may apply to the string trio, but I think that's an exceptional work. It would be interesting to see an explanation of the "self expression" in the third or fourth quartet for example.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think serialism lends itself to certain ends which, as Schoenberg became immersed in it, became more obvious to him. That is, a more classical approach, less "Romantic" and more austere, using motives, cell-motives, structural features.

I think music itself, i.e. harmony, is inherently expressive of "feelings" and "states of being" all by itself. Joni Mitchell has said this about her music, and use of exotic tunings to tap-in to new "emotional states" which are conveyed "automatically" through the harmonic "color" of chords.

Webern? I'm beginning to question his influence. Certainly, he took advantage of the inherent qualities of the serial method, but harmonically he was rather sparse, more of a contrapuntist. Now, compare that to Boulez, whose colorful music is in many ways a departure from Webern.


----------



## Blancrocher

millionrainbows said:


> I think serialism lends itself to certain ends which, as Schoenberg became immersed in it, became more obvious to him. That is, a more classical approach, less "Romantic" and more austere, using motives, cell-motives, structural features.


The austerity--and general seriousness of purpose--also seems apparent in Stravinsky's use of the method. It always sounds "right" to me in the contexts of his settings of religious texts, elegies, etc.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The thing is that much of Stravinsky's pre-serial work was also austere. Often beautiful but austere. His serial works sound mostly like Stravinsky to me!


----------



## chu42

isorhythm said:


> I like these Ives examples because they show that "atonal" doesn't have to mean "as chromatic as possible at all times with no nameable chords" just because that's how Schoenbeg and Webern did it.


Yep. This is why Ives is so very interesting-there's a distinct difference in the way that Ives developed atonality even as the Second Viennese School were doing it. They had their own ideas almost at the same time (Ives was perhaps a bit earlier) and developed them independently. Schoenberg of course recognized Ive's genius but long past his due.

I would say the continuation of Ive's tonality would be seen in composers like Ornstein, Rautavaara, Ben Johnston, and Sorabji. Ligeti is clearly inspired by both schools of thought.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> No, I really don't. Could you explain? I think I understand the idea of romanticism in literature a little, but not in music at all. And I was really thrown by the word "sense"
> 
> It's important to be very clear and precise when discussing this, otherwise you can give the misleading impression that you're saying something with content.


How many times and in how many threads have we had discussions about the Romantic Era CM and what romanticism in music implies or what is meant by it? Am I to believe that someone who has been on the forum for quite awhile and who has a lot of strong opinions suddenly dumbs down when it comes to what might be meant by 'romantic sense' or romanticism in music. If that is, in fact, an ignorance that is legitimate, I'll factor that in future related opinions.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Schoenberg’s music gets classified as Romantic then Expressionistic then Neoclassical. Perroit is expressionism- differing from romanticism in the focus on extreme emotional states. Later works like the Piano Concerto are more neoclassical


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> How many times and in how many threads have we had discussions about the Romantic Era CM .


I've never been involved in any of those discussions. I'm sure they exist though. It's just that c19 music is not an area I've much thought about, at least not in terms of isms.


----------



## millionrainbows

chu42 said:


> Yep. This is why Ives is so very interesting-there's a distinct difference in the way that Ives developed atonality even as the Second Viennese School were doing it. They had their own ideas almost at the same time (Ives was perhaps a bit earlier) and developed them independently. Schoenberg of course recognized Ive's genius but long past his due.
> 
> I would say the continuation of Ive's tonality would be seen in composers like Ornstein, Rautavaara, Ben Johnston, and Sorabji. Ligeti is clearly inspired by both schools of thought.


I don't see Ives that way. He didn't have an atonal 'system,' but simply used dissonance as an end in itself. In this way, I see him as more related to Hindemith's ideas about dissonance.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> How many times and in how many threads have we had discussions about the Romantic Era CM and what romanticism in music implies or what is meant by it? Am I to believe that someone who has been on the forum for quite awhile and who has a lot of strong opinions suddenly dumbs down when it comes to what might be meant by 'romantic sense' or romanticism in music. If that is, in fact, an ignorance that is legitimate, I'll factor that in future related opinions.


I think Mandryka is screwing with you. I see the piano concerto as having _inherently_ more "Romantic potential" because it features a soloist. But it can just as easily be austere and "classical."


----------



## Bwv 1080

If anyone is Ives’ heir its Carter, who abstracted and systemized alot of his ideas


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mandryka is screwing with you. I see the piano concerto as having _inherently_ more "Romantic potential" because it features a soloist. But it can just as easily be austere and "classical."


If he was screwing with anyone, it was mmsbls (who took the high road). My response was calling him on it (if that was what he was doing). His reply is less than convincing insofar in that it is hard to believe that anyone who is into CM is completely out-to-lunch on the century that (arguably) defines it.


----------



## Larkenfield

The new music developed two new directions: not vertical or horizontal but in and out.


----------



## vtpoet

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you think? I've heard some works by I believe Schoenberg that I think will last, but I think several will be forgotten. Such works just don't tend to have memorable hooks like the big three, and other composers, obviously.


Just my late 2 Cents. Atonal compositions will always have their devotees. They will last in that sense. But they'll never be played like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc....


----------



## millionrainbows

vtpoet said:


> Just my late 2 Cents. Atonal compositions will always have their devotees. They will last in that sense. But they'll never be played like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc....


This whole idea of Western "masterpieces" is outdated, and it's ridiculous to apply it to Modernism, which has a completely different agenda. Does anyone else here see that, or are you all just sheep?


----------



## Texas Chain Saw Mazurka

millionrainbows said:


> This whole idea of Western "masterpieces" is outdated, and it's ridiculous to apply it to Modernism, which has a completely different agenda. Does anyone else here see that, or are you all just sheep?


So with regard to the thread's question, can we put you down for a qualified "no"?


----------



## Enthusiast

Baa baa. I more or less agree but am not sure how what you say relates to the post you are replying to.


----------



## vtpoet

millionrainbows said:


> This whole idea of Western "masterpieces" is outdated, and it's ridiculous to apply it to Modernism, which has a completely different agenda. Does anyone else here see that, or are you all just sheep?


Baa. [And insert more "Baas" here to reach 15 word comment requirement.]


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> This whole idea of Western "masterpieces" is outdated, and it's ridiculous to apply it to Modernism, which has a completely different agenda. Does anyone else here see that, or are you all just sheep?


Elliott Carter wrote masterpieces, as did a host of other modernist composers. Maybe the term does not apply to AG composers like Cage, but if the term works for Beethoven, it works for Carter, Boulez, Wolpe, Ferneyhough etc


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> ...but if the term works for Beethoven, it works for Carter, Boulez, Wolpe, Ferneyhough etc


What that says is that if we are going to call works of Beethoven masterpieces, then we have to call works of Carter, Boulez, Wolpe and Ferneyhough masterpieces. Is that just off the top of your head, because I don't think anyone at any time has made that kind of comparison.


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> Elliott Carter wrote masterpieces, as did a host of other modernist composers. Maybe the term does not apply to AG composers like Cage, but if the term works for Beethoven, it works for Carter, Boulez, Wolpe, Ferneyhough etc


Actually it doesn't. Not even close. Most people would realize this doesn't require further discussion, so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> What that says is that if we are going to call works of Beethoven masterpieces, then we have to call works of Carter, Boulez, Wolpe and Ferneyhough masterpieces. Is that just off the top of your head, because I don't think anyone at any time has made that kind of comparison.


The context being the supposedly outdated concept of a masterpiece, a 'a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill, profundity, or workmanship. '. The point, clearer to more reflective would-be keyboard warriors, is that the word has as much meaning within the genre of modernist music as it does in regards to Beethoven's works. Sorry to disappoint, but was not trying to bait a urination match of Beethoven vs Ferneyhough.


----------



## Bwv 1080

KenOC said:


> Actually it doesn't. Not even close. Most people would realize this doesn't require further discussion, so I'll just leave it at that.


Does Carter's music not exhibit craftsmanship, artistry and skill? Why wouldnt the term apply to, say, His Piano Concerto (which of course as called a the first great American masterpiece by Stravinsky?


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> The context being the supposedly outdated concept of a masterpiece, a 'a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill, profundity, or workmanship. '. The point, clearer to more reflective would-be keyboard warriors, is that the word has as much meaning within the genre of modernist music as it does in regards to Beethoven's works. Sorry to disappoint, but was not trying to bait a urination match of Beethoven vs Ferneyhough.


I see this as a contrivance: Since the modernists, to this point, pale in comparison to a Beethoven in the discussion of masterpieces, dismiss the prevailing concept of a masterpiece and separate modernist music from the music that came before when determining what is a masterpiece.

IMO, the concept of a masterpiece hasn't changed. If one is going to declare composers such as Carter, Boulez, Wolpe and Ferneyhough as having created 'modernist music' masterpieces, there should be some accompanying support. Perhaps I can see this as possible with Carter and Boulez, but Wolpe and Ferneyhough?

Finally, mentioning Beethoven in this context is guaranteed to bring a response, urination related or otherwise.


----------



## Swosh

Atonal? No clue! Maybe future music lovers will get something out of it, and maybe atonal music will evolve into something different.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> I see this as a contrivance: Since the modernists, to this point, pale in comparison to a Beethoven in the discussion of masterpieces, dismiss the prevailing concept of a masterpiece and separate modernist music from the music that came before when determining what is a masterpiece.
> 
> IMO, the concept of a masterpiece hasn't changed. If one is going to declare composers such as Carter, Boulez, Wolpe and Ferneyhough as having created 'modernist music' masterpieces, there should be some accompanying support. Perhaps I can see this as possible with Carter and Boulez, but Wolpe and Ferneyhough?
> 
> Finally, mentioning Beethoven in this context is guaranteed to bring a response, urination related or otherwise.


Personally, I don't have a problem with calling some (quite a few) works by Carter and Boulez masterpieces. In fact I'm surprised to see that some are shocked by the idea. It may be a subjective matter (in which case there are just different opinions about the matter and we can't go further than that) or it may be just a matter of fitting the definition of masterpiece. Ferneyhough may be too contemporary for the world (or us) to arrive at a conclusive opinion. I don't know how Carter's and Boulez's masterpieces compare in "greatness" with Beethoven's (a composer who I love so much that I have a great many versions of many of his works) but would personally be more likely to go to a concert that programmes a major Carter or Boulez work than I would yet another Beethoven 5. Indeed the presence of Beethoven 5 on a concert programme would put me off unless the conductor was really someone special. And, actually, I would be surprised to learn that programming a Beethoven symphony is a good way of attracting experienced listeners to buy a concert ticket.


----------



## vtpoet

I don't consider anything a masterpiece that hasn't or doesn't meet a minimum threshold of "broad appeal" over time. That by itself eliminates atonal music. Atonal music hasn't yet, and probably never will, attain any sort of broad appeal. That leaves it for devotees to decide what their "masterpieces" are—but the word (as I use it) loses its meaning by that point. In a similar vein, there are plenty of devotees who consider various pieces by Salieri and JC Bach to be "masterpieces". But so what? 

But I acknowledge that my definition is not the dictionary definition: "Anything done or made with extraordinary skill; a capital performance; a chef-d'oeuvre; a supreme achievement."

But without the proviso of "broad appeal over time", any piece of mediocrity can be somebody's "masterpiece". Now I've got to go to work and earn another 2 cents.


----------



## Bwv 1080

vtpoet said:


> I don't consider anything a masterpiece that hasn't or doesn't meet a minimum threshold of "broad appeal" over time. That by itself eliminates atonal music. Atonal music hasn't yet, and probably never will, attain any sort of broad appeal. That leaves it for devotees to decide what their "masterpieces" are-but the word (as I use it) loses its meaning by that point. In a similar vein, there are plenty of devotees who consider various pieces by Salieri and JC Bach to be "masterpieces". But so what?
> 
> But I acknowledge that my definition is not the dictionary definition: "Anything done or made with extraordinary skill; a capital performance; a chef-d'oeuvre; a supreme achievement."
> 
> But without the proviso of "broad appeal over time", any piece of mediocrity can be somebody's "masterpiece". Now I've got to go to work and earn another 2 cents.


Beethoven's op 133 lacks 'broad appeal over time' while Pachabel's Canon has it in spades - so no, your personal definition does not work


----------



## BachIsBest

Bwv 1080 said:


> Beethoven's op 133 lacks 'broad appeal over time' while Pachabel's Canon has it in spades - so no, your personal definition does not work


In fairness to the poster the 'broad appeal over time' appeared to be a necessary, but not necessarily, sufficient condition to obtain the criteria of masterpiece. Additionally, 'broad appeal' is rather vague. Classical music is listened to regularly by about 3% of the population and of that 3% there are probably quite a few people who never really venture beyond the 'classical FM' type stuff. So it's quite clear that this does not mean a majority of people enjoy the music and I hardly need to check any stats to know that Beethoven's op. 133 has obtained a much wider audience than anything Carter ever wrote.


----------



## vtpoet

Bwv 1080 said:


> Beethoven's op 133 lacks 'broad appeal over time' while Pachabel's Canon has it in spades - so no, your personal definition does not work


My personal definition of a Masterpiece works just fine. It actually aligns well with what are "generally" considered masterpieces. And in fairness to Pachelbel, there's an argument to be made, and a good one, that his canon is indeed a masterpiece. It may be like a third grade primer compared to Carter, but sure as heck nobody walks down the isle to the tune of Carter. Beethoven's Op. 133 may or may not meet the same criteria. It's a great work of art, but is it a masterpiece? I'm not so sure. That may be open to debate.

And speaking of which, has anyone recorded the recently discovered piano transcription (by Beethoven) of op. 133?


----------



## Bwv 1080

has lasted 1.16 centuries, hard to see how anyone cant like this, other than a pathological atonaphobe


----------



## KenOC

vtpoet said:


> And speaking of which, has anyone recorded the recently discovered piano transcription (by Beethoven) of op. 133?


The 4-hand transcription of the Grosse Fuge, published as Op. 134, has always been known and is available in several recordings. What was discovered a few years ago was an authentic 1826 Beethoven manuscript of the work long thought lost.


----------



## vtpoet

Bwv 1080 said:


> has lasted 1.16 centuries, hard to see how anyone cant like this, other than a pathological atonaphobe


1.) If you can't see why anyone might not like this piece, maybe the problem lies with you? Calling anyone a "pathological" atonaphobe who doesn't agree with your taste in music simply makes you sound resentful that the broader public isn't validating your personal preferences.
2.) Arguably lesser pieces of music have lasted far longer than 1.16 centuries. So what?


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> has lasted 1.16 centuries, hard to see how anyone cant like this, other than a pathological atonaphobe...


The Beatles have lasted 0.57 centuries and, I'm sure, handily reach a far broader set of people than the unfortunate Herr Webern. So how do we sort this out?


----------



## vtpoet

KenOC said:


> The 4-hand transcription of the Grosse Fuge, published as Op. 134, has always been known and is available in several recordings. What was discovered a few years ago was an authentic 1826 Beethoven manuscript of the work long thought lost.


Thanks for the correction. I was under the incorrect impression that Halm's was the version we had used until now. Love your avatar. Always have had a soft spot for M Haydn.


----------



## Bwv 1080

vtpoet said:


> 1.) If you can't see why anyone might not like this piece, maybe the problem lies with you? Calling anyone a "pathological" atonaphobe who doesn't agree with your taste in music simply makes you sound resentful that the broader public isn't validating your personal preferences.


Atonaphobia is a treatable condition. While we are not yet advanced far enough as a society to recognize the benefits of involuntary commitments to re-education camps, a regime of extensive Freudian psychotherapy, regular Desoxyn injections and repeated listening to _Gruppen_ can help overcome this crippling neurosis.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Elliott Carter wrote masterpieces, as did a host of other modernist composers. Maybe the term does not apply to AG composers like Cage, but if the term works for Beethoven, it works for Carter, Boulez, Wolpe, Ferneyhough etc


It does? Haa ha aaaa....:lol: What is Ferneyhough's "masterpiece"? Are they gonna use the disco version of it in the next season of "Judge Judy" as the theme? :lol:


----------



## vtpoet

Bwv 1080 said:


> Atonaphobia is a treatable condition. While we are not yet advanced far enough as a society to recognize the benefits of involuntary commitments to re-education camps, a regime of extensive Freudian psychotherapy, regular Desoxyn injections and repeated listening to _Gruppen_ can help overcome this crippling neurosis.


That's okay. Don't need the conversion therapy. I proudly celebrate my Baroquosexuality.


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> Atonaphobia is a treatable condition. While we are not yet advanced far enough as a society to recognize the benefits of involuntary commitments to re-education camps, a regime of extensive Freudian psychotherapy, regular Desoxyn injections and repeated listening to _Gruppen_ can help overcome this crippling neurosis.


Atonaphobia treatment for the rich! The huddled poor can't even get treatment through Medicaid. Their only recourse is to listen to atonal music until their ears stop bleeding...or not.


----------



## isorhythm

Late to this thread, but clearly some atonal music has already "lasted." This year the Met is doing Wozzeck and the NY Phil is doing Erwartung. Lots of people will happily buy tickets to these concerts.

I tend to agree that calling something a "masterpiece" implies a reasonably broad appeal, but it's not easy to define what that is. We have no trouble speaking of classical masterpieces despite the fact that classical music as a whole is a niche interest and these masterpieces are unknown to the vast majority of people living or dead. No one would bat an eye if someone referred to masterpieces of death metal or free jazz, despite these also being niche interests.


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> has lasted 1.16 centuries, hard to see how anyone cant like this, other than a pathological atonaphobe


I wish that the atonalists (new word, seems to fit) could be just a little more objective now and then.


----------



## Gallus

I was listening to Gombert's motet In te Domine speravi while I came across this thread, and the question struck me as a funny one. If sacred Renaissance polyphony has apparently not lasted the centuries because Mahler is more popular, or has not produced any 'masterpieces' because "not a broad enough audience listens to it", then I quite frankly don't give a single **** about these ridiculous assertions.

Now I think I will go listen to Schoenberg's violin concerto performed by Hilary Hahn.


----------



## vtpoet

isorhythm said:


> We have no trouble speaking of classical masterpieces despite the fact that classical music as a whole is a niche interest and these masterpieces are unknown to the vast majority of people living or dead.


By those standards, the same could be said for Shakespeare, let alone Milton or Keats.

I think this repeated assertion that classical music is only a "niche" interest is clichéd nonsese. But let's just say, hypothecally, that 3% is correct. I think that figure is pulled out of thin air (or other places) but let's just say it's correct. Given the world's current population, that means that the equivalent of the population of the entire United States listens to classical music.

Just sayin'.


----------



## DavidA

Bwv 1080 said:


> Atonaphobia is a treatable condition. While we are not yet advanced far enough as a society to recognize the benefits of involuntary commitments to re-education camps, a regime of extensive Freudian psychotherapy, regular Desoxyn injections and repeated listening to _Gruppen_ can help overcome this crippling neurosis.


As a regime of Freudian psychotherapy would leave everyone in a state of complete neurosis, I suggest a walk in the park instead, accompanied by Beethoven's pastoral symphony or Vivaldi's Four Seasons, while those who would devote themselves to atonality worship at that particular exclusive shine of the elect and leave the rest of us to enjoy life in undisturbed and blissful ignorance! :lol:


----------



## isorhythm

vtpoet said:


> By those standards, the same could be said for Shakespeare, let alone Milton or Keats.
> 
> I think this repeated assertion that classical music is only a "niche" interest is clichéd nonsese. But let's just say, hypothecally, that 3% is correct. I think that figure is pulled out of thin air (or other places) but let's just say it's correct. Given the world's current population, that means that the equivalent of the population of the entire United States listens to classical music.
> 
> Just sayin'.


It would shock me if it was anything close to 3% of the world's population.

But it's beside the point - I think you've acknowledged that mass appeal isn't really the deciding factor. Gallus raises a good point in referring to early music. Gombert's Magnificat's are masterpieces, but they've been heard, relatively speaking, by virtually no one. Quite a few atonal pieces have more mass appeal.

I've seen lots of people on this forum point to popularity or lack thereof when it's convenient, but I don't think anyone really believes it's all that important - unless they're willing to bite the bullet and admit that the masterpieces of the classical canon can be found on The All-Time Best Classical Hits for Relaxation Volume 3 or whatever.


----------



## millionrainbows

Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?
No, because "history" as we knew it is dead. Welcome to the twenty-first century. You want mass appeal? The Kardashians.

"History" is only a theme-park, a place to visit. Everything moves too fast, now, for there to be any continuation of "history." Everything is instantaneous. There's been a big paradigm shift.

Instead of traveling down "history" as a big long scroll of narrative, we are are now at the center of a still point, and "history" scrolls by us, as a continuous instant of "now" with no foreseeable end, and no beginning.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?
> No, because "history" as we knew it is dead. Welcome to the twenty-first century. You want mass appeal? The Kardashians.
> 
> "History" is only a theme-park, a place to visit. Everything moves too fast, now, for there to be any continuation of "history." Everything is instantaneous. There's been a big paradigm shift.
> 
> Instead of traveling down "history" as a big long scroll of narrative, we are are now at the center of a still point, and "history" scrolls by us, as a continuous instant of "now" with no foreseeable end, and no beginning.


Atonal music will last as long as the New Stasis lasts. Beyond that, I can see several "foreseeable" ends to history, none of them pleasant.


----------



## vtpoet

isorhythm said:


> But it's beside the point - I think you've acknowledged that mass appeal isn't really the deciding factor.


No, I never wrote that it was (and besides, I wrote broad appeal over time). But it _is_ a factor. It amuses that there's such an allergic reaction to this assertion. I think it's because it tends to suggest that _personal preference_ isn't really the deciding factor.


----------



## vtpoet

millionrainbows said:


> [h=1]You want mass appeal? The Kardashians.


Let's wait and see how their reputations lasts over time. There were a lot of very mediocre composers who were considered the pinnacle of accomplishment in their own time.


----------



## Simon Moon

millionrainbows said:


> It does? Haa ha aaaa....:lol: What is Ferneyhough's "masterpiece"? Are they gonna use the disco version of it in the next season of "Judge Judy" as the theme? :lol:


It absolutely does apply.

Atonal composers have just as much training, knowledge of musical theory, imagination, passion for composing as Beethoven.

An argument can be made that they may even have more of these. After all, they have all the theory of the past to glean from, as well as everything learned since.

As far as your comment about Ferneyhough's "masterpiece" goes. I am not a fan of Ferneyhough, so I won't comment. But why try to deride his music, by appealing to the worst common denominator, as creating a disco version of it? The fact that a disco version of music that is so metrically and rhythmically complex will not be made, is a big plus.


----------



## Jacck

who are The Kardashians? The name seems to pop up from time to time, but I never bothered to google them. I guess I am better off not knowing. 

concerning atonal compositions. Of course they will last. They are already part of the canon of classical music and nothing is going to erase them. The less memorable and famous compositions and composers will fade into oblivion with time, but a couple of great names such as Schoenberg, Boulez, Ligeti, Xenakis, Messiaen etc. will no doubt survive, enter textbooks, and their most memorable compositions will be listened to.


----------



## DavidA

Simon Moon said:


> It absolutely does apply.
> 
> Atonal composers have just as much training, knowledge of musical theory, imagination, passion for composing as Beethoven.
> 
> An argument can be made that they may even have more of these. After all, they have all the theory of the past to glean from, as well as everything learned since.
> 
> As far as your comment about Ferneyhough's "masterpiece" goes.* I am not a fan of Ferneyhough,* so I won't comment. But why try to deride it, by appealing to the worst common denominator, as creating a disco version of it? The fact that a disco version of music that is so metrically and rhythmically complex will not be made, is a big plus.


This is the problem with these guys. Lotsa training. Not too many fans.


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> This is the problem with these guys. Lotsa training. Not too many fans.


but that is the problem of the whole CM genre. Standard CM is considered challenging for the average Joe, because a symphony requires 30 minutes of concentrated listening. And atonal CM is just extra level of challenge and complexity, so that not even many standard CM fans are going to make the jump. It is never going to get mainstream, but at the same time it already entered popular culture through movie soundtracks etc.


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> who are The Kardashians? The name seems to pop up from time to time, but I never bothered to google them. I guess I am better off not knowing...


A clue: think Mrs. Kanye West. 



Jacck said:


> And atonal CM is *just* extra level of challenge and complexity..


A little bit of oversimplification if not outright misleading.


----------



## Bourdon

Jacck said:


> *who are The Kardashians*? The name seems to pop up from time to time, but I never bothered to google them. I guess I am better off not knowing.
> 
> concerning atonal compositions. Of course they will last. They are already part of the canon of classical music and nothing is going to erase them. The less memorable and famous compositions and composers will fade into oblivion with time, but a couple of great names such as Schoenberg, Boulez, Ligeti, Xenakis, Messiaen etc. will no doubt survive, enter textbooks, and their most memorable compositions will be listened to.


Its an american role model....


----------



## isorhythm

I do think that "masterpiece" implies some significant reach beyond the composer's colleagues, which unfortunately rules out a lot in the last 50 years.


----------



## Simon Moon

isorhythm said:


> I do think that "masterpiece" implies some significant reach beyond the composer's colleagues, which unfortunately rules out a lot in the last 50 years.


But doesn't it rule out a lot of ANY era?

Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, et al., all had many colleagues, that might have even been quite popular in their time, that have been almost forgotten.

As far as composers of the last 50 years that have "reach beyond their colleagues", I could name quite a few.


----------



## Enthusiast

I feel that "masterpiece" implies critical recognition rather than popularity. I also think it is not such a strong word, as the dictionary definition (and the usage such as "x is A's masterpiece") shows. I am bemused when I see people suggesting that we ignore the dictionary and develop our own definitions ... but I'm probably just being a bit too orthodox. Whatever definition is adopted, there is no doubt in my mind that there have been a great many atonal masterpieces. I'm sure I could list 50 without any trouble and that the total is probably closer to 250 or perhaps even more. You don't need to like something to call it a masterpiece or to recognise its greatness.


----------



## isorhythm

Simon Moon said:


> But doesn't it rule out a lot of ANY era?
> 
> Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, et al., all had many colleagues, that might have even been quite popular in their time, that have been almost forgotten.


I wasn't clear. I meant that the audience for the music can't consist primarily of the composer's colleagues - other people writing or playing or teaching similar music. It has to appeal to a significant number of lay listeners.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> I'm sure I could list 50 without any trouble and that the total is probably closer to 250 or perhaps even more. You don't need to like something to call it a masterpiece or to recognise its greatness.


But why should anybody care what you think? Serious question. What makes your opinion as to what constitutes a masterpiece relevant? What should anyone trust you to recognize when something is great?


----------



## vtpoet

isorhythm said:


> I wasn't clear. I meant that the audience for the music can't consist primarily of the composer's colleagues - other people writing or playing or teaching similar music. It has to appeal to a significant number of lay listeners.


Yes, yes and yes again. You find the same problem in poetry, literature and art. Robert Frost used to say of collegial approval: That's an esteem that butters no parsnips.


----------



## Enthusiast

vtpoet said:


> But why should anybody care what you think? Serious question. What makes your opinion as to what constitutes a masterpiece relevant? What should anyone trust you to recognize when something is great?


I struck a nerve, eh? Everyone else is posting their opinions but you would prefer that I didn't?


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> I struck a nerve, eh? Everyone else is posting their opinions but you would prefer that I didn't?


You didn't strike a nerve at all. You're projecting.

I was asking a serious question. The point is this: You can call _anything_ a masterpiece, but who cares? You say you can name 250 masterpieces. Okay? What's your criteria and why should anyone trust your opinion?

It's a serious question. I'd be interested to know why you think you know what greatness is.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Your post was unpleasantly worded. If I misunderstood you intent, I'm sorry, but I think you will see how your post appeared aggressive. 

How do I know that so many atonal musical masterpieces have been written? Firstly, it is an opinion and therefore subjective. That is what we post here - our subjective opinions. I am reporting what I feel about a lot of music that I have come to love. But I don't think I am being obscure. Many of the atonal works I would hold up as great, especially the earlier ones, have been recorded many times and are quite widely known and praised by both critics and those lay people who are open to atonal music. Much of the music I love from the very early to the beginnings of modernism is very widely recognised - I definitely find myself in agreement with much of the critical consensus and have no problem with "the canon" - and I know how much it affects me. There are a great many atonal works that affect me just as much. So I feel some confidence that my subjective opinion is not without substance. 

For quite some time I have not divided music into tonal and atonal. For example, for me Bartok and Stravinsky belong in the same musical world as Schoenberg, Berg and Webern - they were all great modernists (IMO).


----------



## isorhythm

vtpoet said:


> You didn't strike a nerve at all. You're projecting.
> 
> I was asking a serious question. The point is this: You can call _anything_ a masterpiece, but who cares? You say you can name 250 masterpieces. Okay? What's your criteria and why should anyone trust your opinion?
> 
> It's a serious question. I'd be interested to know why you think you know what greatness is.


The thing is that you haven't offered an alternative. You gestured in the direction of mass appeal but then conceded that's not it. So whatever your criteria are, they necessarily require us to trust your opinion.


----------



## vtpoet

isorhythm said:


> The thing is that you haven't offered an alternative.


I never claimed to be able to individually sort out masterpieces, so it stands to reason that I haven't offered an alternative.



isorhythm said:


> You gestured in the direction of mass appeal but then conceded that's not it.


No I didn't. In fact, you just repeated in different words what I'd already asserted. "It has to appeal to a significant number of lay listeners." The only qualification I would add is _over time_.



isorhythm said:


> So whatever your criteria are, they necessarily require us to trust your opinion.


You seem to be constructing a straw man here. I haven't offered any criteria as to what constitutes a masterpiece except to write what you yourself wrote.


----------



## isorhythm

Maybe we don't disagree. I would say appeal to a significant number of lay listeners over time is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Many popular pieces are not masterpieces and many relatively unpopular pieces are, as I think you would agree.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> How do I know that so many atonal musical masterpieces have been written? Firstly, it is an opinion and therefore subjective.


Right, but that doesn't make them masterpieces. It just means you like them. The question that interests me is when broader opinion seems to converge on certain pieces. The degree to which that's happened, the degree to which various atonal works "appeal to a significant number of lay listeners" is debatable.


----------



## vtpoet

isorhythm said:


> Many popular pieces are not masterpieces and many relatively unpopular pieces are, as I think you would agree.


But over time? Would be interesting to test. Can you name a popular piece that is not a masterpiece but has remained popular over time? And if so, maybe it should be considered a masterpiece?


----------



## Strange Magic

All we can say with authority is that we like this and dislike that. In the Arts, we are in a wilderness of subjectivity, so talk of and ranking of "greatness" or "masterpieces" finally boils down to arguments over popularity: how large is the approving audience?, or: how small and self-contained is the approving audience? Is the audience fit to judge the work? we ask. We end up enmeshed in tautologies--the "best people" are those who agree that such-and-such "is a masterpiece", yet that is how we identify and can recognize the best people; they are those who acknowledge that such-and-such is a masterpiece.

Is Ravel's Boléro a masterpiece? Did Ravel think it was? Does it matter? The Great Truth in aesthetics: _de gustibus non disputandum est!_


----------



## isorhythm

vtpoet said:


> But over time? Would be interesting to test. Can you name a popular piece that is not a masterpiece but has remained popular over time? And if so, maybe it should be considered a masterpiece?


Sure, someone said Pachelbel's Canon already. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Etc.


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> Sure, someone said Pachelbel's Canon already. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Etc.


What is your justification for saying that the above 3 works are not masterpieces?


----------



## isorhythm

Bulldog said:


> What is your justification for saying that the above 3 works are not masterpieces?


If you want to say they're masterpieces, go ahead!


----------



## Bulldog

isorhythm said:


> If you want to say they're masterpieces, go ahead!


None of those 3 works are dear to me. However, I am aware that all three are among the most popular classical works. I don't think it would be easy to declare them not to be masterpieces unless good reasons were advanced.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm not that interested in deciding what is or isn't a masterpiece. I don't even like the word.

However, I'm pretty comfortable saying that a set of criteria that would deem the _1812 Overture_ and Pachelbel's _Canon_ masterpieces, but not the _Messe de Nostre Dame_ or _Lulu_, is badly flawed.


----------



## Mandryka

Euphemia Allen's _Chopsticks _is not a masterpiece in quite the same way as Beethoven's op 131 is a masterpiece, though it may be her best piece. What this shows is that the term needs disambiguating.


----------



## Botschaft

One can only hope they won’t.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> All we can say with authority is that we like this and dislike that. In the Arts, we are in a wilderness of subjectivity, so talk of and ranking of "greatness" or "masterpieces" finally boils down to arguments over popularity: how large is the approving audience? [...etc]


All of what you wrote is demonstrably wrong. There are objective reasons why a Bach fugue is superior to that of his peers. And there are objective reasons why Shakespeare wrote masterpieces and Wilkins didn't. There are objective, musical reasons the Beatles are beloved. Many scholars have devoted their careers to sussing out the reasons why certain works of art attain broad appeal over time. To write what you wrote is to dismiss all their work.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> All of what you wrote is demonstrably wrong. There are objective reasons why a Bach fugue is superior to that of his peers. And there are objective reasons why Shakespeare wrote masterpieces and Wilkins didn't. There are objective, musical reasons the Beatles are beloved. Many scholars have devoted their careers to sussing out the reasons why certain works of art attain broad appeal over time. To write what you wrote is to dismiss all their work.


I do exactly that. What I wrote is irrefutable. All aesthetics is individual and personal. All aesthetics is opinion. All that can be said about Art, artworks are factual descriptions of their measurable quantities and qualities: Name of creator (if known). Date of creation. Size, shape, duration (if a piece of music). Language (if literature or opera). Color. Weight. Number and characteristics of those asserting they "like" the work. _und so weite_. etc. Art, artwork just is.. As individuals, we each endow it with other attributes: "like/dislike", which then somehow transmute into bad, good, great, ''masterpiece". The only other viable alternative is a correctly-functioning greatness meter properly attached to the piece in question and recently calibrated.

Leonard Meyer literally wrote the book on why "we" in general respond to this and that in music, that is, mostly we people of taste and refinement. But even he did not address the overriding phenomenon of individual taste and preference in the arts. Yet it is we as individuals who are the audience. Irrefutably true.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> We end up enmeshed in tautologies--the "best people" are those who agree that such-and-such "is a masterpiece", yet that is how we identify and can recognize the best people; they are those who acknowledge that such-and-such is a masterpiece.


That isn't how I recognize either masterpieces or the "best people." I recognize the former by means of a developed musical understanding, and I recognize the latter by their knowledge, their eloquence, and their ability to help me better perceive and describe the substance and quality of the music I hear.

Authority in musical matters is no different in that respect than authority in other fields. As in other fields, there is no need to accept anyone's judgment without question, and certainly no need to doubt one's own. But the farther we get in refining our own perceptions, the better we're able to recognize those who can take us farther along the path of discovery and understanding. Early in my discovery of classical music, I found some excellent guides, critics and scholars to whom I've always felt indebted.

Personal taste in music is an entirely different matter. You seem to want to conflate the two, as if there were no such thing as artistic discrimination. But people who speak of masterpieces are not necessarily expressing their personal preferences.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Euphemia Allen's _Chopsticks _is not a masterpiece in quite the same way as Beethoven's op 131 is a masterpiece, though it may be her best piece. What this shows is that the term needs disambiguating.


Not quite indeed. 

What it more likely shows is that masterpieces are not produced by people named Euphemia.


----------



## DaveM

The word 'masterpiece' is used in a general/subjective/often meaningless way and in a more profound and meaningful way that IMO is accepted by most people as having a significance beyond it just being _individual_ opinion. The works of art that have the legitimate description of a masterpiece are those that are accepted as such by the majority of viewers or listeners and experts over time.

Reducing the term, masterpiece, to just an opinion in a way that infers no significance ignores the fact that the collective opinions of both the common man/woman and experts over time for the same work of art has a special meaning that the word, masterpiece, was meant to signify. Otherwise, there would be no works of art that are superior to others and there would have been no need for the word in the English language in the first place.

Can you imagine almost anyone, expert or not, seeing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and not agreeing that it is a masterpiece? I recognized it as such and I have never painted a ceiling in my life.


----------



## Enthusiast

vtpoet said:


> Right, but that doesn't make them masterpieces. It just means you like them. The question that interests me is when broader opinion seems to converge on certain pieces. The degree to which that's happened, the degree to which various atonal works "appeal to a significant number of lay listeners" is debatable.


Broader opinion? So your argument is that our subjective views (based on what music we enjoy and are being inspired by) are not enough - and we need an objective measure - and that popularity (the subjective judgement of the largest number of people) is the only proper measure? Subjective vs. objective is a never ending battle on this site and subjective always wins. As for popularity, it means the lowest common denominator. I know what I like and how much it moves (in the broadest terms) me. I have a lot of experience and I trust my taste. I don't ask you to.

I don't know a lot of music history but wasn't Bach broadly unpopular until he was rescued in the mid-19th Century? Did that mean his works became masterpieces only after that? Similarly, I grew up in a Britain that looked down on Mahler as a vulgar composer. When I was young there were still people around who considered Dvorak to be a "peasant composer"!


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> ............When I was young there were still people around who considered Dvorak to be a "peasant composer"!


That's wrong Enthusiast. He was a media composer who trounced my pitch for a Hovis ad. I'll never forgive him for that.......


----------



## mikeh375

Public opinion aside, Boulez's rallying call that composers who don't explore or embrace atonality are not worth considering (paraphrased somewhat, sorry), does still resonate for quite a few composers and the possibilities opened up by emancipation of all rudimentary elements in music can be creatively dizzying and exciting. On that basis alone, atonality will last for sometime yet imv, so long as atonally inclined composers step to the music they hear and not to the popular clamour for tonal reassurance.


----------



## Strange Magic

I observe--without unseemly satisfaction or rancor--that my commentators (critics, if you will) resort as they must to reference to collective opinions and to guides, critics, and scholars (with whom they have come to agree). A moment's reflection--or more if that's required--will serve to bring realization that these yardsticks of greatness and criteria for identification as masterpieces, are anchored in the sand of opinion and not in the bedrock of objective, measurable facts, quantities, qualities inherent within the art itself. The speed of light has been measured with great accuracy; the value of pi determined to millions of decimal places. Will I receive a similar answer to my query about Ravel's Boléro? Ravel didn't think it was, and he was well-qualified to judge. If it is a masterpiece, is it of the same order as _La Mer_? Or of the Glazunov violin concerto? Is that a masterpiece?

Things (in the Arts) are masterpieces if we think they are (as individuals). If others agree, we feel better about the validity of our own judgement: "Well, if X likes it, it must be good!" Who is to be master? I think most of us secretly have made a god of our own taste, and have our own accumulated library of masterpieces. I know I do, and have. If others agree, so much the better. If not, then am I wrong and they are right?


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> All that can be said about Art, artworks are factual descriptions of their measurable quantities and qualities: Name of creator (if known). Date of creation. Size, shape, duration (if a piece of music). Language (if literature or opera). Color. Weight. Number and characteristics of those asserting they "like" the work. _und so weite_. etc.


Really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. The phrase, Dunning-Kruger effect, comes to mind.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> Broader opinion? So your argument is that our subjective views (based on what music we enjoy and are being inspired by) are not enough - and we need an objective measure - and that popularity (the subjective judgement of the largest number of people) is the only proper measure?


No. That's not my argument.



Enthusiast said:


> Subjective vs. objective is a never ending battle on this site and subjective always wins. As for popularity, it means the lowest common denominator. I know what I like and how much it moves (in the broadest terms) me. I have a lot of experience and I trust my taste. I don't ask you to.


Again. Good for you, but that doesn't mean ---> What you like = Masterpiece.



Enthusiast said:


> I don't know a lot of music history but wasn't Bach broadly unpopular until he was rescued in the mid-19th Century? Did that mean his works became masterpieces only after that? Similarly, I grew up in a Britain that looked down on Mahler as a vulgar composer. When I was young there were still people around who considered Dvorak to be a "peasant composer"!


"Broad appeal" involves not just lay people, but professional, and scholarly opinion as well --- all of them; and when talking about composers like Bach, you also have to consider the utterly different circumstances of music and musical life then as compared to now. Music consumption wasn't something "the masses" did. If you heard professional music, it was because you were either a member of the aristocracy, wealthy merchant class, or because you went to church. So, if you want to talk about Bach and "popularity", you need to take into account the time period and what it meant to be "popular". In that respect, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. It's a bit of a myth that Bach was broadly unpopular. In his own lifetime, he was considered the greatest organist in Europe which is as much as to say---the world. That's no small caveat. His skills at the keyboard were legendary. His musicianship was just as highly respected and sought after. His music was collected, even in his own lifetime, by other professional musicians, and his works were regularly discussed (not always favorably, but Bach was not ignored). Don't forget that no less than King Frederick the Great spent a decade trying to get old Bach to visit and later in life called JS Bach's visit one of the hightlights of his life. Bach's manuscripts continued to circulate and was eagerly sought after for acquisition by collectors. By the classical period, for example, you had Baron von Swieten staging weekly concerts featuring the music of JSBach. Mozart studied the elder Bach's music (including the fugues as a child---and which he specifically requested sing that no one compared to old Bach) and Haydn was bedazzled by Bach's Mass in B Minor. When Beethoven later wrote his own Missa Solemnis, it's length was meant to rival Bach's Mass. Beethoven's fugues? They were written as an artistic acknowledgement of Bach's fugues. So, were the masses clamoring for Bach CDs in the 18th century? No. But Bach's "broad appeal" already was well established among those with access to his music.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> Really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. The phrase, Dunning-Kruger effect, comes to mind.


I'll bet it came quickly to your mind, thus painlessly shutting off the need or desire to think further about my post. You will note you find yourself embedded in the same sand of opinion as my other critics.


----------



## isorhythm

So a near-consensus is emerging, that expertise and developed taste are also important in evaluating works. I agree with this.

By any reasonable standard the core repertoire of atonal modern music has already made it. It's lasted and is part of the canon. The question is closed.


----------



## Strange Magic

isorhythm said:


> So a near-consensus is emerging, that expertise and developed taste are also important in evaluating works. I agree with this.
> 
> By any reasonable standard the core repertoire of atonal modern music has already made it. It's lasted and is part of the canon. The question is closed.


I agree. I'm sure the core repertoire of atonal modern music is established on the basis of number of performances, their frequency, audience size and characteristics, CD sales, and critical concurrence. Can we now have a vote as to which are the masterpieces, in order to anchor them firmly within an objective framework?


----------



## isorhythm

Strange Magic said:


> I agree. I'm sure the core repertoire of atonal modern music is established on the basis of number of performances, their frequency, audience size and characteristics, CD sales, and critical concurrence. Can we now have a vote as to which are the masterpieces, in order to anchor them firmly within an objective framework?


Probably been done already on this site, in one of the many voting threads, right?


----------



## Strange Magic

I should have added  and  to my post above about anchoring a masterpiece list in the objectivity of a vote. But herewith ongoing discussions similarly working to establish broad truths about music:

Telemann is greater than Bach
My definitive ranking of the major composers
Best 25 works of this century?
Composer tier list


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I observe--without unseemly satisfaction or rancor--that my commentators (critics, if you will) resort as they must to reference to collective opinions and to guides, critics, and scholars (with whom they have come to agree). A moment's reflection--or more if that's required--will serve to bring realization that these yardsticks of greatness and criteria for identification as masterpieces, are anchored in the sand of opinion and not in the bedrock of objective, measurable facts, quantities, qualities inherent within the art itself. The speed of light has been measured with great accuracy; the value of pi determined to millions of decimal places. Will I receive a similar answer to my query about Ravel's Boléro? Ravel didn't think it was, and he was well-qualified to judge. If it is a masterpiece, is it of the same order as _La Mer_? Or of the Glazunov violin concerto? Is that a masterpiece?
> 
> Things (in the Arts) are masterpieces if we think they are (as individuals). If others agree, we feel better about the validity of our own judgement: "Well, if X likes it, it must be good!" Who is to be master? I think most of us secretly have made a god of our own taste, and have our own accumulated library of masterpieces. I know I do, and have. If others agree, so much the better. If not, then am I wrong and they are right?


You are far to much in the weeds on this. Things in the Arts are masterpieces if we think they are as the collective opinion of individuals over time when works of art are created that others are not capable of equaling. The longer the period of time and the more people over the ages that make the collective evaluation the more likely a work of art is going to be something few others can create and the more the designation of it being a masterpiece is appropriate.

In short, what you are missing is the fact that it is not just about individuals looking at or hearing a work and saying, 'That is a masterpiece!'; it is a consensus: many individuals collectively over time agreeing that this is something wonderful and beautiful that they and most others could not possibly create.


----------



## Enthusiast

vtpoet said:


> No. That's not my argument.


Then I am not sure what your argument is. Perhaps you could reiterate it? And, while you are at it, I would love to know why it worries you so much (sorry but that is always the question in my mind whenever I see a spate of anti-atonal posts).



vtpoet said:


> Again. Good for you, but that doesn't mean ---> What you like = Masterpiece.


As I have said, at the end of the day we are all expressing opinions and cannot hope to do more than that. There is no acceptable proof in this regularly repeated discussion (there is always at least one discussion going on about how atonal music is doomed or great). I know I am right and you know you are right. That's what taste is like.



vtpoet said:


> *"Broad appeal" involves not just lay people, but professional, and scholarly opinion as well *--- all of them; and when talking about composers like Bach, you also have to consider the utterly different circumstances of music and musical life then as compared to now. Music consumption wasn't something "the masses" did. If you heard professional music, it was because you were either a member of the aristocracy, wealthy merchant class, or because you went to church. So, if you want to talk about Bach and "popularity", you need to take into account the time period and what it meant to be "popular". In that respect, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. It's a bit of a myth that Bach was broadly unpopular. In his own lifetime, he was considered the greatest organist in Europe which is as much as to say---the world. That's no small caveat. His skills at the keyboard were legendary. His musicianship was just as highly respected and sought after. His music was collected, even in his own lifetime, by other professional musicians, and his works were regularly discussed (not always favorably, but Bach was not ignored). Don't forget that no less than King Frederick the Great spent a decade trying to get old Bach to visit and later in life called JS Bach's visit one of the hightlights of his life. Bach's manuscripts continued to circulate and was eagerly sought after for acquisition by collectors. By the classical period, for example, you had Baron von Swieten staging weekly concerts featuring the music of JSBach. Mozart studied the elder Bach's music (including the fugues as a child---and which he specifically requested sing that no one compared to old Bach) and Haydn was bedazzled by Bach's Mass in B Minor. When Beethoven later wrote his own Missa Solemnis, it's length was meant to rival Bach's Mass. Beethoven's fugues? They were written as an artistic acknowledgement of Bach's fugues. So, were the masses clamoring for Bach CDs in the 18th century? No. But Bach's "broad appeal" already was well established among those with access to his music.


The highlighted part of the first sentence seems to be a proof that could be used for atonal music, too. For the rest, there is no myth. Bach _was _respected in his lifetime and many critics and composers revered him after that, until his music slowly became acceptable in public performance again. No-one mentioned the lumpen masses - it was educated concert audiences who rejected him, as did the many who bought sheet music (the nearest equivalent to CDs and downloads). Adjusting for history many atonal composers of the early to mid 1900s are doing better with the educated public than Bach did after, say, 70 years.

For myself, I don't greatly care if atonal music continues to grow in popularity or not. I know what reward I get from listening to various masterpieces and it doesn't matter to me at all if some of them sink without trace after I am gone. And, even if it did, that would not mean it might not spring back 100 years later. For now, anyway, I have access to a huge variety of it and very often a choice of performances, too.


----------



## Woodduck

The widely agreed-upon "masterpieces" of music are extraordinary achievements by master composers. A master composer is one who has mastered the elements of his art, and has employed them in a manner which conveys a distinctive vision and a "message" which strikes a great number of people as powerful, important, and timeless, the last of these tested over time, as the word implies. Recognition of masterpieces is partly objective: do I hear the composer manipulating the conceptual and technical materials of his art in an accomplished and exceptional way? - partly personal/subjective: do I feel the work is saying something extraordinary? - and partly statistical: how is the work assessed, both objectively and subjectively, by others (with consideration given both to who those others are and to the time period over which they make their assessments)?

To reduce the complex process of evaluating art to "taste" is an absurd reduction and falsification.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> T Bach _was _respected in his lifetime and many critics and composers revered him after that, until his music slowly became acceptable in public performance again. No-one mentioned the lumpen masses - it was educated concert audiences who rejected him, as did the many who bought sheet music (the nearest equivalent to CDs and downloads). *Adjusting for history *many atonal composers of the early to mid 1900s are doing better with the educated public than Bach did after, say, 70 years.


That comparison requires a rather substantial "adjustment," wouldn't you say?


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> The widely agreed-upon "masterpieces" of music are extraordinary achievements by master composers. A master composer is one who has mastered the elements of his art, and has employed them in a manner which conveys a distinctive vision and a "message" which strikes a great number of people as powerful, important, and timeless, the last of these tested over time, as the word implies. Recognition of masterpieces is partly objective: do I hear the composer manipulating the conceptual and technical materials of his art in an accomplished and exceptional way? - partly personal/subjective: do I feel the work is saying something extraordinary? - and partly statistical: how is the work assessed, both objectively and subjectively, by others (with consideration given both to who those others are and to the time period over which they make their assessments)?
> 
> To reduce the complex process of evaluating art to "taste" is an absurd reduction and falsification.


I more or less agree with your ideas about what a masterpiece is although it is a personal one that goes well beyond the dictionary definition. I have argued a few times for some objectivity in this sort of question myself but as far as discussions here go it is subjectivity that counts. The part of your post that says



> Recognition of masterpieces is partly objective: do I hear the composer manipulating the conceptual and technical materials of his art in an accomplished and exceptional way?


refers to questions that could not be definitively (or objectively) answered. I hear what you are saying and am comfortable with it ... but those questions would be answered differently for a given piece by different members of this forum.

Either way, what you say strengthens my belief that there are many atonal masterpieces. So let me thank you for strengthening the case!


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> That comparison requires a rather substantial "adjustment," wouldn't you say?


Yes, of course. The way recognition and popularity with informed audiences has played out at different times is nearly impossible to compare. It is interesting to try, though.


----------



## samm

Woodduck said:


> The widely agreed-upon "masterpieces" of music are extraordinary achievements by master composers. A master composer is one who has mastered the elements of his art, and has employed them in a manner which conveys a distinctive vision and a "message" which strikes a great number of people as powerful, important, and timeless, the last of these tested over time, as the word implies. Recognition of masterpieces is partly objective: do I hear the composer manipulating the conceptual and technical materials of his art in an accomplished and exceptional way? - partly personal/subjective: do I feel the work is saying something extraordinary? - and partly statistical: how is the work assessed, both objectively and subjectively, by others (with consideration given both to who those others are and to the time period over which they make their assessments)?
> 
> To reduce the complex process of evaluating art to "taste" is an absurd reduction and falsification.


On the other hand a lot of people in the classical listening world also judge works on the criteria of whether they "sound right". Which means: judging whether these are obviously tonal, whether they have melodies that fit the existing idea of a melody, whether, in fact, they sound very much like other pieces of music already judged to be masterpieces. Some of them only elevated to that accolade centuries after they were written.

To be able to judge whether a composer is conveying a distinctive vision and a "message" is actually very subjective, with a lot of opinion about this being parroted from certain critics rather than being the thought-out response of every individual listener. Plus there is a tendency to believe or suggest that an 'atonal' composer is somehow, at bottom, a bit of a fraud and not really a master of his/her craft, and so hides behind atonal shenanigans.

I'd say until the standard repertoire is open to more than what has been standard fare for a long time, that opinion won't change and no 'masterpieces' outside the strictly tonal world will be admitted.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> That comparison requires a rather substantial "adjustment," wouldn't you say?


Yes, but the fact is that the educated public bought more recordings of the music of atonal composers than the educated public of J.S. Bach in his day!


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'd be surprised if that was true!

(And now - after DaveM's edit - I can only agree!).


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'd be surprised if that was true!


Well, you got me there. Rather comical as was written. Has been edited.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> You are far to much in the weeds on this. Things in the Arts are masterpieces if we think they are as the collective opinion of individuals over time when works of art are created that others are not capable of equaling. The longer the period of time and the more people over the ages that make the collective evaluation the more likely a work of art is going to be something few others can create and the more the designation of it being a masterpiece is appropriate.
> 
> In short, what you are missing is the fact that it is not just about individuals looking at or hearing a work and saying, 'That is a masterpiece!'; it is a consensus: many individuals collectively over time agreeing that this is something wonderful and beautiful that they and most others could not possibly create.


Note that your view and mine are both simultaneously correct. Masterpieces can be both what I say is a masterpiece and also what the group of those who think it's a masterpiece affirm among themselves is a masterpiece. "I" can easily be "we"--happens regularly. But tell me about Ravel and Boléro--is it a masterpiece?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

One thing I find increasingly humorous about these discussions is how those who believe things like "masterpiece" can be objectively defined inevitably result to arguments from subjectivity without realizing they've done so. As examples from this thread: 

"What many people think over a long period of time" is just subjectivity tallied among many over a long period of time. 

"What experts think" is just the subjectivity of experts (unless it's concerning some factual matter, like whether X work was actually written by Y composer)

"Hearing a composer manipulating the materials of their art exceptionally" is just your (or others') subjective standards as to what counts as such. 

Even assuming such things weren't innately subjective, there's not even reasons given as to why we should value them in the first place. Of course, we're all free to value what we will, but I wish people wouldn't delude themselves as to what they're doing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> All of what you wrote is demonstrably wrong. There are objective reasons why a Bach fugue is superior to that of his peers. And there are objective reasons why Shakespeare wrote masterpieces and Wilkins didn't. There are objective, musical reasons the Beatles are beloved. Many scholars have devoted their careers to sussing out the reasons why certain works of art attain broad appeal over time. To write what you wrote is to dismiss all their work.


Everything you wrote here is demonstrably wrong except the 5th sentence (the "Many scholars..." one). As for that 5th sentence, explaining why things have "broad appeal" is different than finding "objective reasons" why some work of art is superior or a masterpiece. Scholars are invaluable when writing on factual matters that requires dedicated research and analysis, but when it comes to qualitative assessments they're using subjective-based standards like the rest of us.


----------



## DaveM

The movie


Strange Magic said:


> Note that your view and mine are both simultaneously correct. Masterpieces can be both what I say is a masterpiece and also what the group of those who think it's a masterpiece affirm among themselves is a masterpiece. "I" can easily be "we"--happens regularly. But tell me about Ravel and Boléro--is it a masterpiece?


Popularity and being a masterpiece are not the same thing. I see no evidence that, as time has passed, Bolero is considered to be a masterpiece. On the other hand, Bo Derek was a masterpiece...


----------



## Bwv 1080

Here is one atonal composition that will last centuries

https://www.aslsp.org/de/


----------



## DaveM

Here’s two questions for all those dismissing/diminishing the concept of a ‘masterpiece’: What significance, if any, do works of art that are called masterpieces have? What significance, if any, do the creators of said works have?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Here's two questions for all those dismissing/diminishing the concept of a 'masterpiece': What significance, if any, do works of art that are called masterpieces have? What significance, if any, do the creators of said works have?


First, I'm not trying to dismiss or diminish the concept of "masterpiece." Claiming something is subjective isn't to diminish or dismiss it, it's just (correctly) determining its locus.

Second, the significance of works called masterpieces tend to be that they've (often deeply) affected many people and (often deeply) influenced works that came after, and I'd say the same is true of the creators of such works.


----------



## Strange Magic

On Boléro Being a Masterpiece (or Not):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303552104577436853116452924

Some say no (Ravel, sort of); some say yes. Where's that meter??


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...Second, the significance of works called masterpieces tend to be that they've (often deeply) affected many people and (often deeply) influenced works that came after, and I'd say the same is true of the creators of such works.


Add to that that experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective.

It does not meet the smell test that the designation of a masterpiece, as most experienced people (in the arts) see it, starts and ends with simple subjectivity (with emphasis on 'ends').


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Add to that that experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective.
> 
> It does not meet the smell test that the designation of a masterpiece as most experienced (in the arts) see it starts and ends with simple subjectivity (with emphasis on 'ends').


No. What we have are votes and popularity contests ("beauty contests"), agreement among experts, etc. No matter how you slice it and dice it, it is opinion, or opinion squared, or cubed. What would an aesthete of the T'ang Dynasty make of the (insert atonal or whatever Western masterpiece here)? If the masterpiece qualities are inherent in the art, then all should be receptive to them. If not, we are dealing with opinion/subjectivity.


----------



## Simon Moon

samm said:


> On the other hand a lot of people in the classical listening world also judge works on the criteria of whether they "sound right". Which means: judging whether these are obviously tonal, whether they have melodies that fit the existing idea of a melody, whether, in fact, they sound very much like other pieces of music already judged to be masterpieces. Some of them only elevated to that accolade centuries after they were written.


Interesting thing is, when I listen to atonal works, they _do_ sound 'right' to me. So do many tonal works sound 'right' to me.

I don't care if melodies fit the existing idea of a melody, that is not one of the reasons I listen to atonal music. There are plenty of works within classical, and in other genres, where the 'existing idea of melody' is adhered to.

There are so many other musical reasons, besides fitting an existing idea of melody, to listen to atonal music.

Whether they sound like other pieces to me is a negative. I enjoy new and unique music and art.



> To be able to judge whether a composer is conveying a distinctive vision and a "message" is actually very subjective, with a lot of opinion about this being parroted from certain critics rather than being the thought-out response of every individual listener. *Plus there is a tendency to believe or suggest that an 'atonal' composer is somehow, at bottom, a bit of a fraud and not really a master of his/her craft, and so hides behind atonal shenanigans.*


Yes, that is clear by how often atonal music is dreided here on TC.

I am sure that all the haters feel that way.

But why define some atonal techniques as 'shenanigans', and not tonal techniques? Aren't you poisoning the well?


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> Then I am not sure what your argument is. Perhaps you could reiterate it?


This:



Enthusiast said:


> and that popularity (the subjective judgement of the largest number of people) is the only proper measure?


Is not something I wrote or ever stated. This is a straw man of your own making. It is not "the _only_ proper measure", but one _part_, as others here have stated.



Enthusiast said:


> As I have said, at the end of the day we are all expressing opinions and cannot hope to do more than that. There is no acceptable proof in this regularly repeated discussion (there is always at least one discussion going on about how atonal music is doomed or great). I know I am right and you know you are right. That's what taste is like.


You're conflating two different issues. The first is the interesting question of what defines a masterpiece. More than just opinions go into assessing a masterpiece like Mozart's 40th or Shakespeare's Hamlet. There are objective reasons why these works are superior to others of their kind. Just because _you_ or _Strange Magic_ or others don't have the education or training to suss it out (and I don't mean that pejoratively---there's no reason why you should) doesn't mean that ipso facto everything is just _by golly_ a matter of subjective opinion. There are fascinating insights that go far beyond "just taste". The second is that it doesn't matter whether there's any consensus as regards masterpieces (or not) insofar as atonal music goes (or heavy metal for that matter). If atonal music appeals to you? Great! I don't have a dog in the hunt. That's a matter of taste and taste is subjective.



Enthusiast said:


> The highlighted part of the first sentence seems to be a proof that could be used for atonal music, too.


Of _course_ it could! But has it? Is there any consensus as regards atonal 20th century masterpieces? I honestly don't know.



Enthusiast said:


> For the rest, there is no myth. Bach _was _respected in his lifetime and many critics and composers revered him after that, until his music slowly became acceptable in public performance again.


This very assertion betrays a misunderstanding of music history. It's not as if _any_ composer, let alone Bach, were being regularly "performed" before an audience once their careers had ended. The modern notion of a dedicated orchestra and conductor publicly performing pieces by a deceased composer didn't get started until the 19th century. Before then, you might have benefit concerts or you might have one-off revivals of pieces by Handel and CPE Bach (Mozart re-orchestrated the music of both). It's as if you had written: "...until his music slowly became acceptable to classical music radio stations again." It's an anachronistic assertion. For the most part, public performances meant composers performing their own works. Why would any composer spend precious time and resources promoting a deceased composer's works? If one didn't hear Bach prior to Mendelssohn, it wasn't because he wasn't "acceptable in the public performance", but because that sort of outlet and audience didn't exist yet. Once Mendelssohn undertook the creation of it, Bach was immediately accepted by the public. That repeats itself over and over with many of his pieces, like the Cello Suites and the Goldberg Variations.



Enthusiast said:


> No-one mentioned the lumpen masses - it was educated concert audiences who rejected him...


A.) Educated _concert_ audiences didn't exist then as now. B.) You're just wrong about educated audiences:

"As Christoph Wolff pointed out in 2004, Bach's music continued to circulate among two different groups: professional musicians (including Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven) and middle-class intellectuals. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, people with enough education and leisure time to do so liked to gather together in people's homes to discuss various smart topics; these gatherings were known as "salons." (We associate that word with hairdressers today because they were once seen to fulfill the same role in society: a place where people discuss the goings-on of the world.) Wolff's essay focuses on the salon of Sara Levy, which attracted people who were interested in old music at a time when newly composed music dominated the concert halls. Sara Levy was Mendelssohn's great-aunt...."



Enthusiast said:


> Adjusting for history many atonal composers of the early to mid 1900s are doing better with the educated public than Bach did after, say, 70 years.


That's just complete nonsense. First of all, this isn't a competition between Bach and atonal composers. But as a factual matter, Bach continues to be listened to far above and beyond, probably, atonal composers _as a whole_. But if you like atonal music, good! Listen to it. I don't know why it's important to you that it be competitive with Bach and Beethoven. Beyond that, atonal music was and remains the purview of devotées. The masses long ago left behind/rejected that phase of "classical" music, moving on to jazz, country music, rock, pop, etc.... where music continued to be tonal.



Enthusiast said:


> For myself, I don't greatly care if atonal music continues to grow in popularity or not.


Good. Odds are, it won't. But I also think there will always be a very small core of listeners to whom it will appeal---and in a world with billions of people, that's still a fair amount of people, and enough to keep the composers fed-though I would recommend composing for film if they have a taste for caviar and champagne. Or get a job teaching at conservatories. That's what all the third rate poets do.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Add to that that experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective.
> 
> It does not meet the smell test that the designation of a masterpiece, as most experienced people (in the arts) see it, starts and ends with simple subjectivity (with emphasis on 'ends').


Your additions are as follows: the subjective opinions of experts (whose expertise ultimately have no impact on said opinions); the collective subjective opinions among experts (whose expertise ultimately have no impact on said opinions); the collective subjective opinions of the common man/woman. None of that is evidence for anything being "more objective than subjective;" that statement doesn't even make sense.

I don't know what "smell test" you speak of or why it doesn't meet it. The simple question is this: does the designation of "masterpiece" require thinking minds establishing standards that it utilizes for that labeling? Since the (obvious) answer to this is "yes," it is subjective, full stop. That a lot of people, experts, etc. agree on the standards and classifications is of zero consequence to this.

It seems to me that what a lot of people mean by "not subjective/objective" is "collective." The two are not remotely the same thing. The definitions of words, or the rules of sports, are determined by collective agreement; but definitions and rules are not objective. A classification like "masterpiece" doesn't even have that level of collective agreement.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> No. What we have are votes and popularity contests ("beauty contests"), agreement among experts, etc. No matter how you slice it and dice it, it is opinion, or opinion squared, or cubed. What would an aesthete of the T'ang Dynasty make of the (insert atonal or whatever Western masterpiece here)? If the masterpiece qualities are inherent in the art, then all should be receptive to them. If not, we are dealing with opinion/subjectivity.


As they say, you're missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your additions are as follows: the subjective opinions of experts (whose expertise ultimately have no impact on said opinions); the collective subjective opinions among experts (whose expertise ultimately have no impact on said opinions); the collective subjective opinions of the common man/woman. None of that is evidence for anything being "more objective than subjective;" that statement doesn't even make sense.


It makes sense. You just don't understand it.



> I don't know what "smell test" you speak of or why it doesn't meet it. The simple question is this: does the designation of "masterpiece" require thinking minds establishing standards that it utilizes for that labeling? Since the (obvious) answer to this is "yes," it is subjective, full stop. That a lot of people, experts, etc. agree on the standards and classifications is of zero consequence to this.
> 
> It seems to me that what a lot of people mean by "not subjective/objective" is "collective." The two are not remotely the same thing. The definitions of words, or the rules of sports, are determined by collective agreement; but definitions and rules are not objective. A classification like "masterpiece" doesn't even have that level of collective agreement.


So you're walking back your previous post and the term 'masterpiece' has no significance. Try running all of the above by experts and the common folk and they'll tell you how the 'smell test' applies.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> It makes sense. You just don't understand it.


No, I understand it perfectly having actually studied this subject. You can't use subjective agreement to make what's subjective objective. That's not how it works.



DaveM said:


> So you're walking back your previous post and the term 'masterpiece' has no significance. Try running all of the above by experts and the common folk and they'll tell you how the 'smell test' applies.


I never said the term had no significance. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Why would I want to "run all the above" by people who are likely completely ignorant of the relevant philosophy underlying this subject?


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Machiavel

Atonal bad but John cage 4.33 a masterpiece for some here when its just pure fraud. lol


----------



## KenOC

Music without recognizable rhythms, clear form, or any melody at all is likely to always be a minority pleasure. In that, it’s like those two things that Bax makes exceptions to his general rule, “One should try everything once.” Each, though universally execrated, has its coterie of aficionados.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Since Larkenfield deleted his post I'll delete my response.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "Hearing a composer manipulating the materials of their art exceptionally" is just your (or others') subjective standards as to what counts as such.
> 
> Even assuming such things weren't innately subjective, there's not even reasons given as to why we should value them in the first place. Of course, we're all free to value what we will, but I wish people wouldn't delude themselves as to what they're doing.


You're conflating evaluation (appraisal) with valuing (preference). The two influence each other, but are not the same, and the better we understand music, the more we can separate them.

There are reasons why there is only one J. S. Bach, only one W. A. Mozart, only one L. van Beethoven, only one R. Wagner, etc., etc. These reasons are not "subjective," and neither is the distinctiveness of their work and the ability of people - including you - to perceive that distinctiveness. You know as well as I do that that some composers achieve a higher level of skill and inspiration than others, and in the above (and some other) cases a level achievable by only a minute fraction of human beings.

Since you know it, I know it, and the collective understanding of humanity knows it, what is all this nattering over "subjectivity"? Whether you or I "like" the _B-Minor Mass_ or _Parsifal_ is not the point. The point is that a musically sensitive/knowledgeable person - one who understands, whether intuitively or technically, the "language" of Western music - recognizes them as the work of artistic geniuses who have mastered that language and spoken it with incomprehensible - to most of us - prowess and distinction.

These arguments that all aesthetic excellence is a creation of "subjective" bias would lead me to think their proponents incredibly insensible if I didn't know better. I think the "absolute subjectivists" are simply bound to deny their own perceptions by their philosophical presuppositions, which appear to consist of some sort of radical, empirical materialism that denies the knowability of anything nonphysical. Genius? Beauty? Profundity? Where is it? Can't see it or measure it!


----------



## DaveM

^^^ What he said.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I never said the term had no significance. In fact, I said the exact opposite.


You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it has the special significance you said in your quote and dismiss the term as simple subjectivity.

Btw, you've said you have studied this. What are your sources that prove your point?


----------



## Bwv 1080

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS854US854&sxsrf=ACYBGNTkMTD1-NJ0BnfwC_241UZ4QLhTnw%3A1568407339046&ei=K_97Xd6rAsmUsgWA3a9Q&q=pierrot+schoenberg+masterpiece&oq=pierrot+schoenberg+masterpiece&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.10875.21510..22253...1.0..0.130.529.2j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......33i299.KBB2hB8opwY&ved=0ahUKEwie7bnS1M7kAhVJiqwKHYDuCwoQ4dUDCAs&uact=5


----------



## Simon Moon

Machiavel said:


> Atonal bad but John cage 4.33 a masterpiece for some here when its just pure fraud. lol


Are there really any people here that consider 4:33 a masterpiece?

There may be some, that may appreciate it on some levels*, but a masterpiece?

*conceptually, to demonstrate that there may be music in ambient/environmental sounds.


----------



## vtpoet

Bwv 1080 said:


> https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS854US854&sxsrf=ACYBGNTkMTD1-NJ0BnfwC_241UZ4QLhTnw%3A1568407339046&ei=K_97Xd6rAsmUsgWA3a9Q&q=pierrot+schoenberg+masterpiece&oq=pierrot+schoenberg+masterpiece&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.10875.21510..22253...1.0..0.130.529.2j3......0....1..gws-wiz.......33i299.KBB2hB8opwY&ved=0ahUKEwie7bnS1M7kAhVJiqwKHYDuCwoQ4dUDCAs&uact=5


Meh. You can do that with any composer.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...hUKEwjv-cawmM_kAhXcIDQIHcGPBYsQ4dUDCAc&uact=5


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck: "These arguments that all aesthetic excellence is a creation of "subjective" bias would lead me to think their proponents incredibly insensible if I didn't know better. I think the "absolute subjectivists" are simply bound to deny their own perceptions by their philosophical presuppositions, which appear to consist of some sort of radical, empirical materialism that denies the knowability of anything nonphysical. Genius? Beauty? Profundity? Where is it? Can't see it or measure it!"


I think we have a misapprehension. I certainly do not deny the knowability of anything nonphysical, whether it be Genius, Beauty, or Profundity. What I repeatedly affirm is that these terms are clothed with reality only in each person's individual mind--each person pours into the empty but receptive vessel (especially Beauty) their own unique history, psychology, neurology. Hence my reference to a T'ang Dynasty aesthete who brings to an art object or experience his/her T'ang experience in judging whether a particular work or object has Beauty with a capital B, and/or is a work of Profundity or Genius. What our T'ang gentleman will make of a Bach fugue is unknowable. People speak of these as Platonic ideals floating in some metaphysical void and given universal, trans-cultural, trans-personal reality common to and mutually identifiable by all. This might be considered "objective" if it were actually the case. It is not. As I have repeatedly stated, all aesthetics is individual, personal. and subjective. Having bunches of people sharing part (nobody shares all) of one's enthusiasms in the arts merely combines individual subjectivities into a larger amalgam--which remains subjective.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> As I have repeatedly stated, all aesthetics is individual, personal. and subjective. Having bunches of people sharing part (nobody shares all) of one's enthusiasms in the arts merely combines individual subjectivities into a larger amalgam--which remains subjective.


I doubt that there's any such thing as a collective subjectivity. That's stretching language a bit too far far for me. I've been wondering for some time whether the very term "subjective" is not more confusing than it is useful.

I'm quite capable of recognizing the beauty of a T'ang landscape. Why couldn't your T'ang aesthete recognize the beauty of a Bach fugue? Neither of us is under any obligation to take any particular sort of personal pleasure from the other culture's work, but we are both likely to experience at least the pleasure of appreciation. A survey of the world's arts quickly leads us to the realization that our sense of aesthetic fitness (I'll avoid the word "beauty") isn't merely an accident of personality or culture. Moreover, a side-by-side comparison of a symphony of Mozart and one of a lesser contemporary such as Cannabich leads to the realization that not all art is equal in quality, and a little experience in listening reveals the difference in creative power that countless others have perceived, and shows how terms such as "greatness," "mastery" and "masterpiece" refer to something real. Such appreciation is not, as you would have it, individual and personal, although an individual's capacity for appreciation is.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I doubt that there's any such thing as a collective subjectivity. That's stretching language a bit too far far for me. I've been wondering for some time whether the very term "subjective" is not more confusing than it is useful.


It will help if we realize that our collective judgments of music, including the "greatness" of specific works, are simply fashions that come and go.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> It will help if we realize that our collective judgments of music, including the "greatness" of specific works, are simply fashions that come and go.


If that helps you, bless your pea-pickin' heart, you just go right ahead and "realize" it. :kiss:


----------



## science

One down. How many centuries do _any_ works have left?


----------



## anahit

not all will survive, neither did all tonal music.
but some greatest will survive, of course.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> I think we have a misapprehension. I certainly do not deny the knowability of anything nonphysical, whether it be Genius, Beauty, or Profundity. What I repeatedly affirm is that these terms are clothed with reality only in each person's individual mind--each person pours into the empty but receptive vessel (especially Beauty) their own unique history, psychology, neurology. Hence my reference to a T'ang Dynasty aesthete who brings to an art object or experience his/her T'ang experience in judging whether a particular work or object has Beauty with a capital B, and/or is a work of Profundity or Genius. What our T'ang gentleman will make of a Bach fugue is unknowable. People speak of these as Platonic ideals floating in some metaphysical void and given universal, trans-cultural, trans-personal reality common to and mutually identifiable by all. This might be considered "objective" if it were actually the case. It is not. As I have repeatedly stated, all aesthetics is individual, personal. and subjective. *Having bunches of people sharing part (nobody shares all) of one's enthusiasms in the arts merely combines individual subjectivities into a larger amalgam--which remains subjective.*


That's not merely a morally neutral point -- it's essential to remember this and to insist on it when people who disagree with the larger POV are under attack.

In the end, almost any claim to be "objective" outside of mathematical or empirical knowledge amounts to a claim about who has the power to legislate right and wrong. The reason these threads have so much smoldering resentment is that both sides see the other as attacking them personally: either one side is "wrong" to like modern (i.e. "atonal") music, or the other side is wrong not to. Something real is at stake: respect at a minimum, and usually the question of how money is to be spent is not far away.

Since a ceasefire is apparently implausible, I support whichever side appears to be losing at the moment.


----------



## Enthusiast

I never know what to do with threads like this one. I start by responding in a fairly colloquial way (to a fairly colloquial post) but, as the thread develops, responses demand more and more carefully worded and thorough posts which become more and more complicated to participate with or respond to. We end up debating details that cannot be easily related to the OP and it escalates until it becomes clear that it would really take essays (I don't mean long posts - I mean genuine essays) to address the various angles.

Those who can and do enjoy some atonal music continue to insist that there are many atonal masterpieces. And It feels to me that those who may be convinced that atonality cannot lead to great music try to pick holes in arguments in favour of atonality but seem to fall short of advancing arguments in favour of their initial feeling that atonal music is doomed to obscurity. It is of course much easier to pick holes in a post than to advance an argument for your position - at least it is in a fans' forum.

_*Perhaps it will help us to get back to the meat of the question to ask the question by focusing on a few examples*_, rather than discussing music in general? A consensus requires widespread acceptance rather than agreement. You can dislike Berg's Violin Concerto while accepting that it is sufficiently recognised as great to qualify as a great work. Similarly, you might not know a work (how could you if you don't like it at all?) but still find yourself relatively comfortable that it is recognised by those in the know as great (I currently feel this about a lot of Liszt). I think a certain amount of time - probably in the order of 75 years - is needed to reliably use the word masterpiece and to even dream of getting a consensus on this. So, to some examples:

-	Take Berg. Is anyone saying here that Wozzeck and the Violin Concerto, for example, are not masterpieces? 
-	Then, to take a more difficult case, consider Schoenberg. Is anyone here of the opinion that, say, the Piano Concerto or the String Trio are not masterpieces?

Personally, I think all four examples are masterpieces. And it felt to me that they were sufficiently recognised as such (I'm mostly talking about critical esteem but also views expressed by people posting here and on other forums) before I grew to love them. Of course, I recognised that they are works that are disliked by many … but Mozart, Schubert and Bach also have their detractors.

_*It might also be interesting *_to look at some great music that has been with us for hundreds of years. What about, say, a mass by Josquin (say, "Missa Lesse faire a mi") or by Byrd? Are these great works? Are they masterpieces? Clearly, they are (I'm not expecting any disagreement, here) but it might be a good test of your reasoning on my proposed examples to see how it applies to these distant works.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I doubt that there's any such thing as a collective subjectivity. That's stretching language a bit too far far for me. I've been wondering for some time whether the very term "subjective" is not more confusing than it is useful.
> 
> I'm quite capable of recognizing the beauty of a T'ang landscape. Why couldn't your T'ang aesthete recognize the beauty of a Bach fugue? Neither of us is under any obligation to take any particular sort of personal pleasure from the other culture's work, but we are both likely to experience at least the pleasure of appreciation. A survey of the world's arts quickly leads us to the realization that our sense of aesthetic fitness (I'll avoid the word "beauty") isn't merely an accident of personality or culture. Moreover, a side-by-side comparison of a symphony of Mozart and one of a lesser contemporary such as Cannabich leads to the realization that not all art is equal in quality, and a little experience in listening reveals the difference in creative power that countless others have perceived, and shows how terms such as "greatness," "mastery" and "masterpiece" refer to something real. Such appreciation is not, as you would have it, individual and personal, although an individual's capacity for appreciation is.


I do understand the effort that people put into believing that there are characteristics inherent in art that will be universally recognized and appreciated. We are both quite capable in your view of appreciating the beauty of a T'ang landscape, but will we both seize upon the same landscape and pronounce it a masterpiece, the best, etc.? There is no _a priori_ reason to assume so, nor will either of us necessarily choose the landscape that the Count of T'ang himself deems irrefutably the best. Surely the "bestness" of the Count's choice will make itself known to the meanest understanding, whether the appraiser be Bernard Berensen, Babur the Mughal, or a !Kung tribesman of the Kalahari. No, the reality is that each individual will have his/her own internal mental/emotional/sensory template with which he or she will overlay art objects or sounds and determine the closeness of fit. We meet individuals with whom we share certain parts of that simple or complex template, and mistake our partial agreement for some "objective" truth or rightness within the art itself that manifests itself--or surely ought to--to all observers. Not the case. And what if our T'ang aesthete tells us that Bach's WTC is a bunch of jangly noise?


----------



## Strange Magic

science said:


> That's not merely a morally neutral point -- it's essential to remember this and to insist on it when people who disagree with the larger POV are under attack.
> 
> In the end, almost any claim to be "objective" outside of mathematical or empirical knowledge amounts to a claim about who has the power to legislate right and wrong. The reason these threads have so much smoldering resentment is that both sides see the other as attacking them personally: either one side is "wrong" to like modern (i.e. "atonal") music, or the other side is wrong not to. Something real is at stake: respect at a minimum, and usually the question of how money is to be spent is not far away.
> 
> Since a ceasefire is apparently implausible, I support whichever side appears to be losing at the moment.


I absolutely disclaim any resentment--smoldering or otherwise--toward those with enthusiasms in music and art different from mine. In fact, the individualist-subjectivist approach to aesthetic enjoyment allows to each his/her very own list or lists of masterpieces, criteria for greatness, etc. Billions and billions of flowers bloom, not just a central nosegay approved by the Priests of Art. How can one possibly resent the aesthetic choices of another (outside of acting out states of clear pathology)?


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> ....... the reality is that each individual will have his/her own internal mental/emotional/sensory template with which he or she will overlay art objects or sounds and determine the closeness of fit. We meet individuals with whom we share certain parts of that simple or complex template, and mistake our partial agreement for some "objective" truth or rightness within the art itself that manifests itself--or surely ought to--to all observers.


That seems correct to me and to be a good description of what I have been calling a critical consensus. But it goes further and allows for more unpicking of our issue while dismissing the bait of objectivity being possible to resolve our question of whether or not a certain subsection of modern music will or will not survive.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> In the end, almost any claim to be "objective" outside of mathematical or empirical knowledge amounts to a claim about who has the power to legislate right and wrong.


Nah. That's just demonstrably wrong. You can objectively compare a fugue by Bach to a lesser work by any of his peers. It's one of the reasons Mathematicians _love_ to claim Bach as one of their own (you know, 'cause Mathematicians will take love however they can get it). You can do the same with Shakespeare, Keats or Michelangelo, among others.



science said:


> The reason these threads have so much smoldering resentment is that both sides see the other as attacking them personally...


I wouldn't know, since I'm not feeling any "smoldering resentment". It makes sense though. That is, if you're an "absolutist subjectivist" then any questioning of your aesthetic judgement, your assignation of what is or isn't a masterpiece, is by definition a personal "attack".


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it has the special significance you said in your quote and dismiss the term as simple subjectivity.
> 
> Btw, you've said you have studied this. What are your sources that prove your point?


I _can _have it both ways and, indeed, I did so. The two statements--masterpieces are deemed such due to subjectivity, the significance of masterpieces is that they've deeply affected many people--are not, in any way, contradictory or mutually exclusive. In fact, they seem to fit quite neatly together.

My own views are a mix of the thoughts of many who've written directly on the subject and many others who've written on many other (but related) subjects that I find relevant. If we're talking direct writing, then Hume and Kant have probably had the biggest impact, even if I disagree with both on many points. There isn't one name I'd give that I think proves my point; the points stand on their own. However, there's many free pages available discussing this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for anyone interested.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> You're conflating evaluation (appraisal) with valuing (preference). The two influence each other, but are not the same, and the better we understand music, the more we can separate them.
> 
> There are reasons why there is only one J. S. Bach, only one W. A. Mozart, only one L. van Beethoven, only one R. Wagner, etc., etc. These reasons are not "subjective," and neither is the distinctiveness of their work and the ability of people - including you - to perceive that distinctiveness. You know as well as I do that that some composers achieve a higher level of skill and inspiration than others, and in the above (and some other) cases a level achievable by only a minute fraction of human beings.
> 
> Since you know it, I know it, and the collective understanding of humanity knows it, what is all this nattering over "subjectivity"? Whether you or I "like" the _B-Minor Mass_ or _Parsifal_ is not the point. The point is that a musically sensitive/knowledgeable person - one who understands, whether intuitively or technically, the "language" of Western music - recognizes them as the work of artistic geniuses who have mastered that language and spoken it with incomprehensible - to most of us - prowess and distinction.
> 
> These arguments that all aesthetic excellence is a creation of "subjective" bias would lead me to think their proponents incredibly insensible if I didn't know better. I think the "absolute subjectivists" are simply bound to deny their own perceptions by their philosophical presuppositions, which appear to consist of some sort of radical, empirical materialism that denies the knowability of anything nonphysical. Genius? Beauty? Profundity? Where is it? Can't see it or measure it!


"Appraisal" is just estimating the valuing of others, so, no, I don't believe I'm conflating them.

What distinctive composers do that makes them distinctive may indeed be an objective part of their work; but judging its skill and imagination is another matter entirely and is entirely subjective. It requires, among other things, observing that distinctiveness and thinking it's a positive quality.

"The nattering" always happens when people start trying to claim that subjective judgments are as objective and factual as saying the sun exists. I'd also say there are plenty of musically sensitive/knowledgeable people who dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and/or Wagner. If they "recognize" any of their works as masterpieces, all they're doing is acknowledging that other people feel differently about them. You might be surprised how many "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" people deem all kinds of things masterpieces that you would not.

It's not that we subjectivists are "denying (our) own perceptions by (our) philosophical presuppositions," it's that we're acknowledging our perceptions, at least on this subject, do not have any validity outside our minds. I assume the sun exists whether or not I'm looking at it, which makes it objective (by definition); I don't assume Mozart's 41st is a masterpiece if nobody can listen to it, which makes its masterpiece status subjective (by definition).


----------



## samm

Simon Moon said:


> But why define some atonal techniques as 'shenanigans', and not tonal techniques? Aren't you poisoning the well?


Oh no, I was using it ironically; in the way the people deriding extended tonality/atonal music clearly think of it.

Now the cafe philosophers here have this question by the throat, it may go on for many pages where people defend their mere tastes to the death, wrapped in a crispy coating of intellectual imposture.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> Nah. That's just demonstrably wrong. You can objectively compare a fugue by Bach to a lesser work by any of his peers. It's one of the reasons Mathematicians _love_ to claim Bach as one of their own (you know, 'cause Mathematicians will take love however they can get it). You can do the same with Shakespeare, Keats or Michelangelo, among others.
> 
> I wouldn't know, since I'm not feeling any "smoldering resentment". It makes sense though. That is, if you're an "absolutist subjectivist" then any questioning of your aesthetic judgement, your assignation of what is or isn't a masterpiece, is by definition a personal "attack".


Not one but two false assertions without proof in one brief post. And my aesthetic judgement is questioned every day (I hope), but I never regard such questioning as a "personal attack" but rather as the confused nattering of someone yet to see the excellence of my choices. Some See the Light; others are doomed to Darkness.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "The nattering" always happens when people start trying to claim that subjective judgments are as objective and factual as saying the sun exists. I'd also say there are plenty of musically sensitive/knowledgeable people who dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and/or Wagner. If they "recognize" any of their works as masterpieces, all they're doing is acknowledging that other people feel differently about them. You might be surprised how many "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" people deem all kinds of things masterpieces that you would not.


You're ignoring the fact that, even if you are going to reject everything else, musicological experts have evaluated a number of Beethoven's works (for instance) strictly on the basis of the originality of what he created and how he did it regardless of who likes them and who doesn't.

As to your last statement, there will always be a few who have loose criteria for using the term 'masterpiece'.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "Appraisal" is just estimating the valuing of others.


No it isn't.



> *What distinctive composers do that makes them distinctive may indeed be an objective part of their work; but judging its skill and imagination is another matter entirely and is entirely subjective. It requires, among other things, observing that distinctiveness and thinking it's a positive quality. *


This amounts essentially to a statement of the arbitrariness ("subjectivity") of all values.

It is perfectly possible to compare _objectively_ the creative imagination and technical skill of artists and their works, within limits dictated by our own cognitive powers; I may not be able to say _how much_ greater an opera _La Traviata_ is than _The Bohemian Girl,_ or how much greater is the creative mind of Verdi than that of Balfe - and who needs to quantify these things? - but I can easily recognize, without having to "estimate the valuing of others," that the former is considerably greater than the latter in either case. Whether Joe Schmoe personally prefers _Traviata_ or _The Bohemian Girl_ is of no interest to anyone other than Joe Schmoe. Who cares whether Joe values creative imagination or technical skill - or intelligence, or good health, or happiness, or life itself? Joe can do his own thing. It's irrelevant to the quality of Verdi's thing and Balfe's thing, but Joe might come to appreciate their things if he can, and if he chooses to.



> "The nattering" always happens when people start trying to claim that subjective judgments are as objective and factual as saying the sun exists. *I'd also say there are plenty of musically sensitive/knowledgeable people who dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and/or Wagner.*


Most of those "musically sensitive/knowledgeable people" will also recognize that those composers are among the greatest masters of music. They don't reach those conclusions by taking a poll, so how do you suppose they reach them?



> If they "recognize" any of their works as masterpieces, all they're doing is acknowledging that other people feel differently about them.


No, that's not all they're doing.



> You might be surprised how many "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" people deem all kinds of things masterpieces that you would not.


Please. At my age very few things surprise me. Certainly not what kinds of ghastly dreck some people think is "great."



> It's not that we subjectivists are "denying (our) own perceptions by (our) philosophical presuppositions," it's that we're acknowledging our perceptions, at least on this subject, do not have any validity outside our minds.


No, you're aren't "acknowledging." You're _claiming._



> I assume the sun exists whether or not I'm looking at it, which makes it objective (by definition); *I don't assume Mozart's 41st is a masterpiece if nobody can listen to it, which makes its masterpiece status subjective (by definition).*


That's cute, but that definition of "subjective" isn't what we're talking about here. I'm not interested in whether a tree falling makes a noise when there's no one there to hear it. I'm interested in whether Mozart's 41st symphony is a superb achievement. It is, whether you or Strange Magic or Joe Schmoe are listening to it or not, and whether you like it or not.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> Not one but two false assertions without proof in one brief post.


What, specifically, is false about them?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You're ignoring the fact that, even if you are going to reject everything else, musicological experts have evaluated a number of Beethoven's works (for instance) strictly on the basis of the originality of what he created and how he did it regardless of who likes them and who doesn't.
> 
> As to your last statement, there will always be a few who have loose criteria for using the term 'masterpiece'.


And I would agree that originality, at least in theory, is a subject that could be addressed objectively. Still, even assuming we are capable of declaring some music by Beethoven (or anyone) objectively original, this says nothing about whether we should value that originality. In fact, there's plenty of modern/contemporary music that's utterly original that most people hate. I seem to recall a certain piece from not too terribly long ago that had everyone up in arms about whether it was even music or not (I forget the title/composer, though).

I actually didn't say anything about "loose criteria." Maybe there are people with tight criteria that just happen to have standards based on an entirely different set of aesthetic principles than what classical music provides.


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> Most of those "musically sensitive/knowledgeable people" will also recognize that those composers are among the greatest masters of music. They don't reach those conclusions by taking a poll, so how do you suppose they reach them?


Arguing with them is strikingly like arguing with Intelligent Design Creationists or Climate Deniers. Because they have no practical knowledge of the subject (or else they wouldn't be invested in their ideology) one just ends up arguing against their ideology. Every thread, as was noted above, "demand more and more carefully worded and thorough posts which become more and more complicated to participate with or respond to."

Well, there's a name for that and a reason. It's called the Gish Gallop.

"The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it. "

And you see it throughout this thread. Each individually weak argument demands ever more complicated explanation.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> This amounts essentially to a statement of the arbitrariness ("subjectivity") of all values.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to compare _objectively_ the creative imagination and technical skill of artists and their works, within limits dictated by our own cognitive powers; I may not be able to say _how much_ greater an opera _La Traviata_ is than _The Bohemian Girl,_ or how much greater is the creative mind of Verdi than that of Balfe - and who needs to quantify these things? - but I can easily recognize, without having to "estimate the valuing of others," that the former is considerably greater than the latter in either case. Whether Joe Schmoe personally prefers _Traviata_ or _The Bohemian Girl_ is of no interest to anyone other than Joe Schmoe. Who cares whether Joe values creative imagination or technical skill - or intelligence, or good health, or happiness, or life itself? Joe can do his own thing. It's irrelevant to the quality of Verdi's thing and Balfe's thing, but Joe might come to appreciate their things if he can, and if he chooses to.


Why is subjectivity tantamount to arbitrariness to you? Our subjectivities are formed, at least in part, by billions of years of evolution. There's nothing "arbitrary" about this. Given our billions/trillions of common ancestors, it's completely unsurprising that we come to similar conclusions on any number of subjective subjects.

It is perfectly impossible to compare "creative imagination" and "technical skill" objectively as both fundamentally require subjective standards by which to judge such things by. Such standards are not found in nature, nor directly observed with our five senses; they are created by human minds based on what we value and find appealing. At best, if you wanted to define "technical skill" as "the ability to achieve certain goals through practice" then you might say that some are able to do things that most cannot, and that would be objective; however, the desired goals and the practice required to achieve them can be entirely different among composers, much less among various composers/musicians/songwriters in other genres.



Woodduck said:


> Most of those "musically sensitive/knowledgeable people" will also recognize that those composers are among the greatest masters of music. They don't reach those conclusions by taking a poll, so how do you suppose they reach them?


For most people who are "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" with no interest in classical music, I doubt they "recognize" anything about those composers, they probably just take it for granted that other "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" people feel that way and leave it at that.



Woodduck said:


> Please. At my age very few things surprise me. Certainly not what kinds of ghastly dreck some people think is "great."


Right, so you acknowledge other musically sensitive/knowledgeable people consider some things masterpieces that you consider dreck. How does that happen, pray tell?



Woodduck said:


> That's cute, but that definition of "subjective" isn't what we're talking about here.


That IS the definition, especially as it relates to the subject of aesthetic judgment. If you have some other that you're discussing then feel free to define it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> Arguing with them is strikingly like arguing with Intelligent Design Creationists or Climate Deniers. Because they have no practical knowledge of the subject (or else they wouldn't be invested in their ideology) one just ends up arguing against their ideology.


So what philosophers have you read on the subject? I named two and could list others if desired. I could also specify what in their philosophy I find correct and what I take issue with. Thus far, you've done nothing but insult the knowledge, education, and intelligence of your opponents while making various assertions that have been challenged and then ignored (by you).



vtpoet said:


> Well, there's a name for that and a reason. It's called the Gish Gallop.


Strange Magic's and my posts have been extremely concise (consistently either shorter or roughly the same length of the posts we're responding to) and most contain the same argument stated in different ways depending on whom we're responding to, so this accusation is just plain false.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> What, specifically, is false about them?


A) While one can compare a Bach fugue with "a lesser work" by another composer ("a peer"?), I can also compare a triangle with a square and tell you what the differences are. But your very wording tells us in advance that the other work is the lesser work and we haven't even done the comparison yet. And if the other composer is Bach's peer (=equal), why maybe the peer's fugue is just as good; maybe better. Bach presumably composed good fugues and bad ones, yes? Or are they all the same and masterpieces? Glenn Gould knew a little bit about Bach and thought his output highly variable in quality--sometimes great, sometimes merely adequate.

B). I already dealt with your second assertion, that "absolute" subjectivists like me regard criticism of my aesthetic judgement as a personal attack. That is a howler.

By the way, your conflating me with intelligent design enthusiasts, AGW deniers, and, while we're at it, creationists and creationism is also a howler. :lol: No cigar.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> And I would agree that originality, at least in theory, is a subject that could be addressed objectively. Still, even assuming we are capable of declaring some music by Beethoven (or anyone) objectively original, this says nothing about whether we should value that originality. In fact, there's plenty of modern/contemporary music that's utterly original that most people hate. I seem to recall a certain piece from not too terribly long ago that had everyone up in arms about whether it was even music or not (I forget the title/composer, though).
> 
> I actually didn't say anything about "loose criteria." Maybe there are people with tight criteria that just happen to have standards based on an entirely different set of aesthetic principles than what classical music provides.


So, what is the significance a Beethoven's 9th Symphony over Chopsticks? My major issue with your position is that you are essentially eliminating the significance of superior human creativity. A masterpiece, among other things, reflects the creation of something few or no one else can create. If the creation is deemed to only have significance because others simply subjectively say so then the creation has limited significance.


----------



## vtpoet

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Given our billions/trillions of common ancestors, it's completely unsurprising that we come to similar conclusions on any number of subjective subjects.


Unless you're including prokaryotes in our evolutionary tree, we don't have billions and trillions of ancestors. But an interesting question:

"If you're willing to accept many orders of magnitude and define life as the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

For the rest of this answer, life begins 3.5 Gya with cyanobacterial mats and stromatolites and so on. Genetically the LUCA is dated to around this time, which matches the fossil record and everything's great. The LUCA can't have sprung from nothingness, so there may(will) have been (many)generations before the LUCA of things we would recognize as life, but I'm ignoring them. If they wanted to be considered they should have left descendants.

The fastest doubling times for modern bacteria are about 7-9 minutes but most are longer. E. coli takes about 20 minutes, and yeast takes hours. Given the 3.5 billion year clock, that gives an upper bound of about 1x10^14 generations. (Green sea turtles take 20-30 years to reach sexual maturity, or 1.1x10^9 generations). Something a bit representative is probably Pelagobacter ubique, which is vastly successful and takes about 29 hours to divide. Averaging out ice ages and so on and skipping the slowing of generations multicellularity probably implies(the Cambrian explosion is 82% of the way to the present day, being only 543 million years ago. We could account for it, but our guesses on generation time are way more inaccurate than any possible effect that could have) would estimate about 1x10^12 generations."



Eva Yojimbo said:


> It is perfectly impossible to compare "creative imagination" and "technical skill" objectively as both fundamentally require subjective standards by which to judge such things by.


And with a wave of the hand you think you've put the whole subject to rest, as if pointing out that the subjectivity of all experience means there's no such thing as aesthetic objectivity. But you're objecting to a straw man. The question isn't: Is our reaction to music objective or subjective? But this: _Why do certain works of art (music in this case) attain broad appeal over time (Masterpieces), and why are other pieces neglected?_ For that answer, you need to first admit that the phenomena exists (and it's not clear to me that some of you will even go that far) and second that the only way to answer _why_ is to objectively discern what acknowledged "masterpieces" have in common. That's what scholarship is all about. What you don't seem to get or acknowledge is that human beings have favorites. Again: Why? In order to answer that question, you need objective answers. Pointing out the fact that the vast majority who love Beethoven's 9th are merely exercising subjective standards is to be, for lack of a better word, obtuse. It's a red herring. It's a logical fallacy. You're not acknowledging the pertinent question.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> A)And if the other composer is Bach's peer (=equal), why maybe the peer's fugue is just as good; maybe better.


I see. And how would you know?

I eagerly await your answer. Though if you ask me, you've just hoisted yourself on your own pitar.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So, what is the significance a Beethoven's 9th Symphony over Chopsticks? My major issue with your position is that you are essentially eliminating the significance of superior human creativity. A masterpiece, among other things, reflects the creation of something few or no one else can create. If the creation is deemed to only have significance because others simply subjectively say so then the creation has limited significance.


I don't understand the reasoning here. There is only one Beethoven 9th; all agree with that. What does that demonstrate? If I reach into a drawer and pull out a score by Schubert and it is identical to Beethoven's 9th, that also proves what? Your assertion is a fact without a consequence. My view is indeed that a "creation is deemed to only have significance because others simply subjectively say so.". It does indeed have just that limited significance. I know people want to believe that Beethoven's 9th speaks eloquently to all, even to our T'ang Dynasty aesthete, but it does not. Lots of people like the 9th; even I like parts of it, but I prefer the 3rd--now that's a masterpiece!


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> I see. And how would you know?
> 
> I eagerly await your answer. Though if you ask me, you've just hung yourself on your own pitar.


I'd have to hear both. Then I'll give you my decision. Remember, you might not agree, as all aesthetics is individual, personal, and subjective. I promise I won't regard your disagreement as a personal attack. Believe me, I understand the yearning for there to be some objective inherent fixity "out there" in metaphysical spacetime for aesthetic truths and qualities transcending individual eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, but alas, there is no such thing. But feel free to soldier on.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> I'd have to hear both. Then I'll give you my decision. Remember, you might not agree, as all aesthetics is individual, personal, and subjective. I promise I won't regard your disagreement as a personal attack. Believe me, I understand the yearning for there to be some objective inherent fixity "out there" in metaphysical spacetime for aesthetic truths and qualities transcending individual eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, but alas, there is no such thing. But feel free to soldier on.


A beautifully evasive answers, but now that I have you on the hook, let's reel this discussion in. What did you mean by "_just as good, maybe better_"? Let's drill down on that.

You don't need to hear anything. But, I mean, we _can_ if you really want. You can pick two fugues, then contrast and compare.

Tell me about your methodology. Explain to me how you decide that one is just as good and maybe better? I'm on tinder hooks.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I don't understand the reasoning here. There is only one Beethoven 9th; all agree with that. What does that demonstrate? If I reach into a drawer and pull out a score by Schubert and it is identical to Beethoven's 9th, that also proves what? Your assertion is a fact without a consequence. My view is indeed that a "creation is deemed to only have significance because others simply subjectively say so.". It does indeed have just that limited significance. I know people want to believe that Beethoven's 9th speaks eloquently to all, even to our T'ang Dynasty aesthete, but it does not. Lots of people like the 9th; even I like parts of it, but I prefer the 3rd--now that's a masterpiece!


Your post simply proves my point: You would be likewise dismissive about any other work of art deemed to be a masterpiece. And I'm not surprised at all that you don't understand my reasoning.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Why is subjectivity tantamount to arbitrariness to you?* Our subjectivities are formed, at least in part, by billions of years of evolution. There's nothing "arbitrary" about this. Given our billions/trillions of common ancestors, it's completely unsurprising that we come to similar conclusions on any number of subjective subjects.


ARBITRARY: _adj._ based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

The ultimate end of "subjectivity," the unadmitted assumption of those who assert the "subjectivity" of all values, is arbitrariness. For all practical purposes, they're synonyms.



> *It is perfectly impossible to compare "creative imagination" and "technical skill" objectively as both fundamentally require subjective standards by which to judge such things by.*


Students of music theory and composition will be delighted to hear this. Meanwhile, Mozart's ghost is snorting his coffee onto his fortepiano keys.



> *Such standards are* not found in nature, nor directly observed with our five senses; they are created by human minds *based on what we value and find appealing.* At best, *if you wanted to define "technical skill" as "the ability to achieve certain goals through practice" then you might say that some are able to do things that most cannot, and that would be objective*; *however, the desired goals and the practice required to achieve them can be entirely different among composers*, much less among various composers/musicians/songwriters in other genres.


You're still confusing the condition of excellence with the condition of being valued. We recognize Mozart's 41st symphony as a masterpiece, _whether we personally like the work or not,_ in large part precisely because it represents "the ability to achieve certain goals through practice" (or innate genius), and additionally because we see in it Mozart's ability to go beyond conventional applications of learned skills to create something original, something fresh, striking, and memorable. Asking whether anyone in particular values these latter qualities is irrelevant to whether Mozart has achieved something exceptional.



> For most people who are "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" with no interest in classical music, *I doubt* they "recognize" anything about those composers,* they probably* just take it for granted that *other "musically sensitive/knowledgeable" people feel that way* and leave it at that.


Why are people with "no interest" in classical music relevant here? And how would you know what they take for granted, or how they form their judgments, or what judgments they're capable of forming? We don't hire Mormons as wine tasters, but they'd probably be as good at it as anyone if they converted to Roman Catholicism.



> Right, *so you acknowledge other musically sensitive/knowledgeable people consider some things masterpieces that you consider dreck.* How does that happen, pray tell?


I didn't acknowledge that. There may be some "musically sensitive/knowledgeable people" who are so excited by the "Helicopter Quartet" that they think it's as brilliant as the "Hammerklavier," but then we're all subject to temporary states of infatuation and madness.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> So, what is the significance a Beethoven's 9th Symphony over Chopsticks? My major issue with your position is that you are essentially eliminating the significance of superior human creativity. A masterpiece, among other things, reflects the creation of something few or no one else can create. If the creation is deemed to only have significance because others simply subjectively say so then the creation has limited significance.


Depends on what you mean by "significance," but I'd go back to what I said about masterpieces: Beethoven's 9th has had a deeper affect on more people than Chopsticks has. I'm by no means eliminating the "significance of 'superior human creativity;'" what I'm doing is saying that the means by which we judge what counts as "superior human creativity" is subjective, it only exists because we think about; and its significance is precisely in the impact it has on us. Yes, this "limits" the significance to people that are, indeed, affected by it, but so what? Why must something have significance to everyone in order to have significance?


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> It makes sense though. That is, if you're an "absolutist subjectivist" then any questioning of your aesthetic judgement, your assignation of what is or isn't a masterpiece, is by definition a personal "attack".


An "absolutist subjectivist" would just regard such questioning as wrong-headed.

The person who believes his tastes are _objective_ - which is what both sides of the pro/anti-modern music debate believe - is who feels attacked by people not sharing his tastes. And that is why this fight has been going on here for, like, a decade now.

I used to hope everyone would learn to respect each other, but it's not going to happen. In the culture as a whole, the question has been settled since about 1968, but for some reason a group of people who are still angry about Schoenberg have chosen to make their last stand here. I guess that's what the talkclassical windmill is for.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> A beautifully evasive answers, but now that I have you on the hook, let's reel this discussion in. What did you mean by "_just as good, maybe better_"? Let's drill down on that.
> 
> You don't need to hear anything. But, I mean, we _can_ if you really want. You can pick two fugues, then contrast and compare.


I'll like one better than the other (maybe). That one will be the better fugue, maybe great, maybe a masterpiece in my view. You seem to have trouble accepting that there is no evidence in the arts for saying that, intrinsically, one bit of art is better than another "out there", in Plato-land. This is one area where Berkeleyan Idealism may have relevance--art just is. It is we as individuals who uniquely pour meaning and value and gradation into it. If you can't get your head around that, call it a day.



> Tell me about your methodology. Explain to me how you decide that one is just as good and maybe better? I'm on tinder hooks.


Get a dictionary. It's "tenterhooks".


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> Unless you're including prokaryotes in our evolutionary tree, we don't have billions and trillions of ancestors. But an interesting question:
> 
> "If you're willing to accept many orders of magnitude and define life as the Last Universal Common Ancestor.
> 
> For the rest of this answer, life begins 3.5 Gya with cyanobacterial mats and stromatolites and so on. Genetically the LUCA is dated to around this time, which matches the fossil record and everything's great. The LUCA can't have sprung from nothingness, so there may(will) have been (many)generations before the LUCA of things we would recognize as life, but I'm ignoring them. If they wanted to be considered they should have left descendants.
> 
> The fastest doubling times for modern bacteria are about 7-9 minutes but most are longer. E. coli takes about 20 minutes, and yeast takes hours. Given the 3.5 billion year clock, that gives an upper bound of about 1x10^14 generations. (Green sea turtles take 20-30 years to reach sexual maturity, or 1.1x10^9 generations). Something a bit representative is probably Pelagobacter ubique, which is vastly successful and takes about 29 hours to divide. Averaging out ice ages and so on and skipping the slowing of generations multicellularity probably implies(the Cambrian explosion is 82% of the way to the present day, being only 543 million years ago. We could account for it, but our guesses on generation time are way more inaccurate than any possible effect that could have) would estimate about 1x10^12 generations."


I was thinking back to the origins of life, and this was all rather irrelevant to the larger point; but thanks for the extra information.



vtpoet said:


> And with a wave of the hand you think you've put the whole subject to rest, as if pointing out that the subjectivity of all experience means there's no such thing as aesthetic objectivity. But you're objecting to a straw man. The question isn't: Is our reaction to music objective or subjective? But this: _Why do certain works of art (music in this case) attain broad appeal over time (Masterpieces), and why are other pieces neglected?_ For that answer, you need to first admit that the phenomena exists (and it's not clear to me that some of you will even go that far) and second that the only way to answer _why_ is to objectively discern what acknowledged "masterpieces" have in common. That's what scholarship is all about. What you don't seem to get or acknowledge is that human beings have favorites. Again: Why? In order to answer that question, you need objective answers. Pointing out the fact that the vast majority who love Beethoven's 9th are merely exercising subjective standards is to be, for lack of a better word, obtuse. It's a red herring. It's a logical fallacy. You're not acknowledging the pertinent question.


First, it isn't a strawman if people feel such aesthetic judgments are objective as that's what I'm arguing against, and there are clearly people here who feel that.

Second, when was that "question" explicitly stated in the thread? I must've missed it. In any case, while I recognize the obvious fact that certain works of art attain broad appeal over time and some are neglected, answering "why" would still require investigating human subjectivity, stuff like neuroaesthetics, cognitive science, cultural anthropology, etc. You couldn't possibly just point to qualities in the object to answer that question as that wouldn't explain why people thought those qualities were worthwhile to begin with. Plus, even answering that wouldn't be answering whether they should think that, or whether something is a masterpiece regardless of what people think about it.

Finally, I'd say that scholarship is about much more than what you suggest, and unless this scholarship you vaguely reference is investigating why human minds react to art as they do, then at most it's just pointing out features the work has without answering why those features are worthy of praise. Ala Hume, you can't get an ought (we we "ought" to like/appreciate something) from an is (elements within the work).


----------



## DavidA

vtpoet said:


> Arguing with them is strikingly like arguing with Intelligent Design Creationists or Climate Deniers. Because they have no practical knowledge of the subject (or else they wouldn't be invested in their ideology) one just ends up arguing against their ideology. Every thread, as was noted above, "demand more and more carefully worded and thorough posts which become more and more complicated to participate with or respond to."
> 
> Well, there's a name for that and a reason. It's called the Gish Gallop.
> 
> "The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it. "
> 
> And you see it throughout this thread. Each individually weak argument demands ever more complicated explanation.


I think you are somewhat unfortunate in using the term is intelligent design creationists or climate deniers in your arguments as people who have no practical knowledge of the subject as it just reveals that you have no practical knowledge of their subject. If you actually read these people many have a vast knowledge of the subject and multiple qualifications to prove it. They may of course represent a minority opinion, and whether you will agree with them is a different matter. But to say they have no knowledge of the subject just reveals your own lack of knowledge on the subjects and people concerned . I do not wish to continue our discussion along these lines as the subject is music but I would like just to point it out to you . Read some of the literature on the subject and you will note that many of the people are very highly qualified scientists indeed . But then it's quite obvious that some people rather than arguing on a point and proving their point just wish to ridicule the opposition. I'm afraid you are stooping to the tactic here you accuse others of and just shows the weakness of your own argument .


----------



## DavidA

As one who generally dislikes atonal music I certainly do not wish to fall out with people who do like it. I just cannot see why we just cannot agree to differ in our tastes . Where I did resist strongly was people like Boulez Who seem to preach that serialism was the only way . It is not of course . Myself I cannot see any reason why a tonal music shouldn't last for another hundred years especially from the leading composers. It will always probably be a minority taste and to be viable commercially will probably have to ride on the back of more popular music . For example Isabel Faust recorded the Berg violin concerto couple with the Beethoven. I have the disk but must confess that Beethoven gets played far more often. So good luck to those who enjoy eternal music but generally speaking it is not for me except on a very rare occasion. But please guys don't fall out about it


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> ARBITRARY: _adj._ based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> 
> The ultimate end of "subjectivity," the unadmitted assumption of those who assert the "subjectivity" of all values, is arbitrariness. For all practical purposes, they're synonyms.


But I don't think subjective tastes are based on either "random choice" or "personal whim," and who the hell uses a "system" to determine what music they like? Finally, you can't "reason" towards any value, aesthetic or otherwise. That's not how it works.

No, the ultimate end of "subjectivity" is that values are based in human thought/feeling, which is conditioned by evolution, society, culture, and, yes, some dose of individuality.



Woodduck said:


> You're still confusing the condition of excellence with the condition of being valued. We recognize Mozart's 41st symphony as a masterpiece, _whether we personally like the work or not,_ in large part precisely because it represents "the ability to achieve certain goals through practice" (or innate genius), and additionally because we see in it Mozart's ability to go beyond conventional applications of learned skills to create something original, something fresh, striking, and memorable. Asking whether anyone in particular values these latter qualities is irrelevant to whether Mozart has achieved something exceptional.


No, I'm not confusing anything. What I'm saying is that any recognition of "masterpiece" requires the subjective standards by which to judge such a thing. Whether those standards are yours or not, whether they were created by experts or laymen, whether they've been accepted by millions of "sensitive/knowledgeable listeners" over time or not. You can not name a "masterpiece" that nobody likes. All you're saying with "we can recognize masterpieces regardless of personal taste" is that "we recognize others, who have different tastes, like this piece enough to consider it a masterpiece," and that's it. You aren't being objective when you appeal to others' subjectivities and standards. And asking whether people value such qualities IS the point, because those are (some of) the standards by which we used to judge masterpieces. Value different qualities and different pieces qualify as masterpieces.



Woodduck said:


> Why are people with "no interest" in classical music relevant here? And how would you know what they take for granted, or how they form their judgments, or what judgments they're capable of forming?


Because they're evidence that people can be musically sensible/knowledgeable, yet not care about the standards by which we, as classical music fans, declare certain works masterpieces. And I know because I've talked to plenty of them. Do you seriously think people who know/care nothing for classical could tell you why people consider Bach a great composer or Mozart's 41st a masterpiece?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Your post simply proves my point: You would be likewise dismissive about any other work of art deemed to be a masterpiece. And I'm not surprised at all that you don't understand my reasoning.


Actually, I might not be dismissive about any other or any particular work of art as a masterpiece. There are many works I regard as masterpieces. There again is confusion here--I never said there are no masterpieces. What I do assert is the validity, integrity, and supremacy of my own judgement over all others in the realm of aesthetics. And I affirm and recognize and grant that freedom to everyone else.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> An "absolutist subjectivist" would just regard such questioning as wrong-headed.
> 
> The person who believes his tastes are _objective_ - which is what both sides of the pro/anti-modern music debate believe - is who feels attacked by people not sharing his tastes. And that is why this fight has been going on here for, like, a decade now.
> 
> I used to hope everyone would learn to respect each other, but it's not going to happen. In the culture as a whole, the question has been settled since about 1968, but for some reason a group of people who are still angry about Schoenberg have chosen to make their last stand here. I guess that's what the talkclassical windmill is for.


What in heaven's name are you talking about? Pro/anti-modern music? 'People still angry about Schoenberg making their last stand here?' Plus your previous post inferring some ongoing conflict. This is a rather invigorating debate about subjectivity/objectivity vs. the concept of a masterpiece. Atonal music isn't the issue at the moment, there are no hard feelings (as far as I can tell) among all of us and we are responding in a respectful manner. Did you pop in here just to drop a little stink bomb or two?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, I might not be dismissive about any other or any particular work of art as a masterpiece. There are many works I regard as masterpieces.


What criteria do you use?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> What criteria do you use?


You didn't ask me, but I think that's a good general question for everyone. Personally, my criteria is simply that whatever I'm listening to (or reading, or watching) leave me with an overwhelming sense of wow and/or awe. I've found that sensation can be created in a tremendously diverse range of ways across mediums and genres, to the point that I've given up trying to create some "system" I feel can explain them all.

Ultimately, I think that's really what we all do. When we talk of "recognizing masterpieces" that don't move us to that extent, all we're really doing is legitimizing the feelings/reactions of others for whom it has. As an exercise in sympathy/empathy it's probably even positive to say "I understand why you/some/others could like this to this extent, and while I do not I respect your right to feel/think that way." Of course, the negative flip-side of this are those types who look for the art (and fans of that art) whom they feel superior in being able to dismiss and de-legitimize.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> What criteria do you use?


Nothing systematic; nothing formal; no process--just repeated hearings crystallize a growing, deepening bond with the music (or painting, or whatever). Holding my interest closely from beginning to end is a strong plus. Avoiding _longueurs_ is another. Well-established melodies. Usual stuff that most TC listeners likely employ/enjoy. Some examples: the Ravel Concerto for the Left Hand I regard as a masterpiece, as, to my ear, there is not a single wrong or misplaced or absent note in the whole piece. A non-masterpiece: Schubert C-major Symphony--lovely melodies that never go anywhere, never evolve. Even Von Karajan said he didn't ''understand" the C-major. I like to listen to it now and again, but.....

Now I'll be hunted down with torches and pitchforks.....


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You didn't ask me, but I think that's a good general question for everyone. Personally, my criteria is simply that whatever I'm listening to (or reading, or watching) leave me with an overwhelming sense of wow and/or awe. I've found that sensation can be created in a tremendously diverse range of ways across mediums and genres, to the point that I've given up trying to create some "system" I feel can explain them all.
> 
> Ultimately, I think that's really what we all do. When we talk of "recognizing masterpieces" that don't move us to that extent, all we're really doing is legitimizing the feelings/reactions of others for whom it has. As an exercise in sympathy/empathy it's probably even positive to say "I understand why you/some/others could like this to this extent, and while I do not I respect your right to feel/think that way." Of course, the negative flip-side of this are those types who look for the art (and fans of that art) whom they feel superior in being able to dismiss and de-legitimize.


Do you believe that Beethoven composed some works at a level that few other composers have been able to equal?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Do you believe that Beethoven composed some works at a level that few other composers have been able to equal?


Nobody composed Beethovenlike works like Beethoven did. Beethoven did Beethoven better than anybody. I am not being flippant.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Do you believe that Beethoven composed some works at a level that few other composers have been able to equal?


I'd be more inclined to say I feel/think that rather than "believe" that. I don't "believe" it the way I believe that humans breathe oxygen (ie, as a fact).


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> Nobody composed Beethovenlike works like Beethoven did. Beethoven did Beethoven better than anybody. I am not being flippant.


I believe you're forgetting about Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> The person who believes his tastes are _objective_ - which is what both sides of the pro/anti-modern music debate believe - is who feels attacked by people not sharing his tastes. And that is why this fight has been going on here for, like, a decade now.


What a mass of assumptions and complaints!

"The person who believes his tastes are objective," "the pro/anti-modern music debate," "both sides"... That's quite a collection of collectives. How many individuals fit neatly inside them? What purpose is served by turning arguments about artistic issues into simple "wars" between "sides," whether "objectivist vs. subjectivist" or "modernist vs. antimodernist"?

As for "objective vs. subjective," there are certainly a few people who think their tastes should be shared by everyone. Those people are pretty easy to spot and to ignore. But that isn't what's being contended in the present much more interesting conversation. Very few people deny that artistic values have a significant personal component, and that taste is basically inarguable. My contention is that taste is entirely legitimate but shouldn't be taken either as a guage of quality or an argument for the nonexistence of inherent quality, which can exist outside the mind of any observer and which normal minds can recognize.



> I used to hope everyone would learn to respect each other, but it's not going to happen.


Jeez, how old were you when you hoped for that? :lol: Do you see a lack of respect in the tone of the current discussion? Anything that calls for a rebuke?



> In the culture as a whole, the question has been settled since about 1968,


What question? What culture as a whole? Is there a collective "culture as a whole"? Has it reached conclusions on artistic matters with which we should all agree? And what happened around 1968 to "settle" things once and for all?

When I hear people speaking for the culture, or society, or God, I'm ready to protest in the streets.



> but for some reason a group of people who are still angry about Schoenberg have chosen to make their last stand here.


I don't think there's any "group of people" who are "angry" about Schoenberg, and I don't think there's any "last stand." We can all stand wherever, whenever, and for whatever, we please.

People here are a diverse bunch of individuals from everywhere who want to speak their minds. Ya godda problem wid dat?


----------



## Strange Magic

Blancrocher said:


> I believe you're forgetting about Brahms.


No. if you listen carefully, you will be able to tell the difference. Much of it lies in the far richer texture of Brahms' orchestration. This is silly, and fun!


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Now I'll be hunted down with torches and pitchforks.....


I think we can come up with something better than that.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I think we can come up with something better than that.


I just got chills from the evil mastermind laugh I imagined in my head after reading your post.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Nobody composed Beethovenlike works like Beethoven did. Beethoven did Beethoven better than anybody. I am not being flippant.


I didn't mean Beethovenlike. When Brahms said he didn't feel he could compose a major concerto/symphony until it rose to a level he considered to be close to Beethoven, he wasn't suggesting that it would be like Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I just got chills from the evil mastermind laugh I imagined in my head after reading your post.


Yes, and we may just round up more than SM (hmm, interesting set of initials) while we're at it!


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I didn't mean Beethovenlike. When Brahms said he didn't feel he could compose a major concerto/symphony until it rose to a level he considered to be close to Beethoven, he wasn't suggesting that it would be like Beethoven.


I'll buy that. Brahms always paid credit to Beethoven and Bach. In his four symphonies and four concertos, Brahms fully realized his goal of achieving something he felt Beethoven would approve.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Yes, and we may just round up more than SM (hmm, interesting set of initials) while we're at it!


I will be found to have an extensive criminal record, with many violations of established concepts of aesthetics....


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Nothing systematic; nothing formal; no process--just repeated hearings crystallize a growing, deepening bond with the music (or painting, or whatever). Holding my interest closely from beginning to end is a strong plus. Avoiding _longueurs_ is another. Well-established melodies. Usual stuff that most TC listeners likely employ/enjoy. Some examples: the Ravel Concerto for the Left Hand I regard as a masterpiece, as, to my ear, there is not a single wrong or misplaced or absent note in the whole piece. A non-masterpiece: Schubert C-major Symphony--lovely melodies that never go anywhere, never evolve. Even Von Karajan said he didn't ''understand" the C-major. I like to listen to it now and again, but.....


So you don't put much stock in what are almost universally called masterpieces, say for instance a Mona Lisa or the David or The Marriage of Figaro or Beethoven's 6th to name a few. It's all about what just comes into your head based on your own subjective likes/dislikes.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> ...but for some reason a group of people who are still angry about Schoenberg have chosen to make their last stand here. I guess that's what the talkclassical windmill is for.


Not sure why you're hung up on Schoenberg? My argument is with the notion that there's nothing that can be said about art that isn't subjective.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> I'll like one better than the other (maybe).


Yeah, but that's not what you wrote. You're being entirely evasive now. You didn't say you would "like one better than the other". You slipped up (and I suspect you know it). You wrote:

"And if the other composer is Bach's peer (=equal), why maybe the peer's fugue is just as good; maybe better."

To make such a statement presupposes a criteria by which one composer is "just as good" or one fugue is "just as good; maybe better."

My work here is done.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, but that's not what you wrote. You're being entirely evasive now. You didn't say you would "like one better than the other". You slipped up (and I suspect you know it). You wrote:
> 
> "And if the other composer is Bach's peer (=equal), why maybe the peer's fugue is just as good; maybe better."
> 
> To make such a statement presupposes a criteria by which one composer is "just as good" or one fugue is "just as good; maybe better."
> 
> My work here is done.


I agree. Great job! I'm shattered.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> But I don't think subjective tastes are based on either "random choice" or "personal whim," and who the hell uses a "system" to determine what music they like? Finally, you can't "reason" towards any value, aesthetic or otherwise. That's not how it works.


Oh, all right! Have some more definitions of "arbitrary":

1. existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

2. based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

Precision is admirable, but let's not quibble. The point I was trying to make is that "subjective" values that can claim nothing but "liking" for their explanation and validation make explanation and validation pointless. We're saying only "I like it because I like it." This tells us nothing about values inherent in the thing itself, if indeed it doesn't deny their existence altogether. Valuations based on factors other than the qualities of the things being evaluated are, in effect, arbitrary.



> No, the ultimate end of "subjectivity" is that values are based in human thought/feeling, which is conditioned by evolution, society, culture, and, yes, some dose of individuality.


So you're not only a thoroughgoing subjectivist, but a determinist as well. We're all just pushed around by our environment and our genes (unless that "dose of individuality" is a mysterious third factor). My distaste for Scelsi is Mom's fault; she should've laid off the wine when she was pregnant.



> No, I'm not confusing anything. What I'm saying is that any recognition of "masterpiece" requires the subjective standards by which to judge such a thing.


I know that's what you're saying - and saying, and saying. Meanwhile I'm listening to Mozart with admiration for its objectively existing brilliance. The way he slips back imperceptibly into the recap blows my mind.



> You can not name a "masterpiece" that nobody likes.


Heh heh. Good one. I guess a lot of people have a funny way of recognizing quality?



> All you're saying with "we can recognize masterpieces regardless of personal taste" is that "we recognize others, who have different tastes, like this piece enough to consider it a masterpiece," and that's it.


No, that's not all I'm saying. I knew Beethoven's Op. 132 string quartet was a surpassingly great work of art when I first heard it at age 15, before I knew what anyone else thought of it. I knew, by the exercise of my own ears and brain, that it was a greater musical achievement than the music most of my high school classmates were listening to, despite the fact that I was one person against hordes of them and they were screaming and fainting at rock concerts. Beethoven didn't make me scream or faint; it just made me sit there, stunned, knowing that a world was being opened to me that I wasn't even ready fully to enter.



> You aren't being objective when you appeal to others' subjectivities and standards.


I don't do that.



> And asking whether people value such qualities IS the point, because those are (some of) the standards by which we used to judge masterpieces. Value different qualities and different pieces qualify as masterpieces.


Sure, things can be "masterpieces of their kind," but not all "kinds" are equally remarkable. I think Josef Strauss's _Spharenklange_ is a masterpiece of the Viennese waltz genre, but I've never imagined it being as great an achievement as Beethoven's Op. 132, either in form or in substance, despite the fact that I enjoy it every bit as much. My judgment is based neither on felt enjoyment nor on some sort of "collective subjectivity."



> Do you seriously think people who know/care nothing for classical could tell you why people consider Bach a great composer or Mozart's 41st a masterpiece?


No, I don't seriously think that. But what difference does it make what they can or can't explain about music? We're not talking fundamentally about conceptual knowledge or verbal skills. The perception of aesthetic qualities is just that - perception. It's a given; you perceive things, or you don't. Explanations may follow, but aesthetic perception - the apprehension of the organization of the sensory elements of music into comprehensible and significant entities - fortunately doesn't depend on them. Neither does the ability to discern, within the limits of our mental and emotional development and constitution, degrees of excellence in the way composers have done that organizing.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, the ultimate end of "subjectivity" is that values are based in human thought/feeling, which is conditioned by evolution, society, culture, and, yes, some dose of individuality.


I have some bad news for you. Everything humans do (including looking at the sun and seeing it exists) is based in human thought/feelings, which is conditioned by evolution, culture, and, yes, some does of individuality.

What is, arguably, the most objective construction of all, an axiomatic logic system, exists entirely in human thought.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So you don't put much stock in what are almost universally called masterpieces, say for instance a Mona Lisa or the David or The Marriage of Figaro or Beethoven's 6th to name a few. It's all about what just comes into your head based on your own subjective likes/dislikes.


Actually, I think you may find that I regard as masterpieces many things that others also regard as masterpieces. This should come as no surprise. Within each of our circles (Venn diagrams, perhaps) listing those works we each regard as masterpieces, there will often be areas of overlap. This holds for most everyone here on TC, though it might not hold between me and my hypothetical T'ang Dynasty aesthete.

But it is indeed all about what just comes into my head based on my own subjective likes/dislikes. If I happen to share some elements of taste and selection with others, we have something then in common. I don't know how to make my position any more clear.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, I think you may find that I regard as masterpieces many things that others also regard as masterpieces. This should come as no surprise. Within each of our circles (Venn diagrams, perhaps) listing those works we each regard as masterpieces, there will often be areas of overlap. This holds for most everyone here on TC, though it might not hold between me and my hypothetical T'ang Dynasty aesthete.
> 
> But it is indeed all about what just comes into my head based on my own subjective likes/dislikes. If I happen to share some elements of taste and selection with others, we have something then in common. I don't know how to make my position any more clear.


This is a great point. Of course our tastes overlap -- yours and mine, or yours and whoever's, or mine and whoever's. Anyone on this board has had so many experiences in common. We've watched many of the same movies and television shows, eaten many of the same foods, gone to many of the same museums, listened to the same comedy specials. We've all sat in school, ridden subways, seen old guys sitting on benches in a park, ....

Considering how similar our lives are, it's actually impressive how little our tastes overlap.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> My distaste for Scelsi is Mom's fault....


I know you meant this as a throwaway bit of sarcasm, but the idea underlying the sarcasm is brilliantly revealing. We need to just bring this out in the open.

It's nobody's _fault_. It's okay not to like Scelsi. Stop feeling bad about it. Stop being defensive.

And stop attacking people who like his music --- EVEN WHEN they act like something is wrong with you for not liking it. When they act like that, it shows that something is wrong with them. Stop letting people try to legislate their tastes, and stop legislating yours.

There's no right or wrong, no objectivity. Just more-or-less shared pleasures, overlapping subjectivities. The diversity is glorious. Embrace it, accept yourself, let us all enjoy and celebrate what we love, even when other people don't like it.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I know you meant this as a throwaway bit of sarcasm, but the idea underlying the sarcasm is brilliantly revealing. We need to just bring this out in the open.


Bring w_hat_ out into the open? I'm apprehensive...



> It's nobody's _fault_. It's okay not to like Scelsi. Stop feeling bad about it. Stop being defensive.


I haven't assigned fault. I know it's OK. I don't feel bad. I'm not defensive.



> And stop attacking people who like his music --- EVEN WHEN they act like something is wrong with you for not liking it.


I haven't attacked anyone for liking anything.



> When they act like that, it shows that something is wrong with them. Stop letting people try to legislate their tastes, and stop legislating yours.


I don't know what you're talking about. I don't see anyone legislating anything.



> There's no right or wrong, no objectivity. Just more-or-less shared pleasures, overlapping subjectivities. The diversity is glorious. Embrace it, accept yourself, let us all enjoy and celebrate what we love, even when other people don't like it.


There's been a misunderstanding. I feel as if someone just waved at me, and then suddenly I became aware that there was someone standing behind me who was the actual recipient of the wave.

Clearly you didn't follow my argument with EY. The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments are not merely tastes determined by the sorts of influences that EY cited. They _can_ be that, but they can also be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself. (As for Scelsi, I don't care much for what I've heard, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not offering judgments either on him nor on people who like him, much less trying to "legislate" anyone's preferences.)


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Bring w_hat_ out into the open? I'm apprehensive...
> 
> I haven't assigned fault. I know it's OK. I don't feel bad. I'm not defensive.
> 
> I haven't attacked anyone for liking anything.
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about. I don't see anyone legislating anything.
> 
> There's been a misunderstanding. I feel as if someone just waved at me, and then suddenly I became aware that there was someone standing behind me who was the actual recipient of the wave.
> 
> Clearly you didn't follow my argument with EY. The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments are not merely tastes determined by the sorts of influences that EY cited. They _can_ be that, but they can also be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself. (As for Scelsi, I don't care much for what I've heard, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not offering judgments either on him nor on people who like him, much less trying to "legislate" anyone's preferences.)


I understand what the argument was. I also understand that the idea that aesthetic taste is objective has a larger goal, a social and even a political goal. There's a reason some people want to insist that their tastes are objective. It's about status and power. Even if for now it's convenient to disregard that goal, I'm sure you understand that too, and you certainly understand it very well when you're being attacked for not liking something like Scelsi's music.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> This is a great point. Of course our tastes overlap -- yours and mine, or yours and whoever's, or mine and whoever's. Anyone on this board has had so many experiences in common. We've watched many of the same movies and television shows, eaten many of the same foods, gone to many of the same museums, listened to the same comedy specials. We've all sat in school, ridden subways, seen old guys sitting on benches in a park, ....
> 
> Considering how similar our lives are, it's actually impressive how little our tastes overlap.


Our musical sympathies arise from psychological (cognitive and emotional) factors much deeper and more individual than the common cultural experiences you mention. And our lives are not so similar: I know my childhood experience, my _internal _experience, of the world was vastly different - sometimes painfully, irreconcilably different - from that of most of the other little American boys I grew up around. Even in our own families we can find incomprehensibly different siblings ("How did my sons grow up so different? I treated them both the same!") (No you didn't...) And then there's the obvious fact that we're not all Americans!

What impresses _me,_ given the amazing differences among human beings and their native cultures, is that there's so much agreement on questions of artistic excellence. An American can learn to listen with discrimination to Asian music, while the Asian can learn to hear what makes Bach or Schubert great. Different tastes follow naturally from our environments and our personalities, but although art is not quite a "universal language," it crosses personal and cultural divides with an ease that can only be explained by qualities inherent in our common humanity and in qualities inherent in art which speak to that.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I understand what the argument was. I also understand that the idea that aesthetic taste is objective has a larger goal, a social and even a political goal. There's a reason some people want to insist that their tastes are objective. It's about status and power. Even if for now it's convenient to disregard that goal, I'm sure you understand that too, and you certainly understand it very well when you're being attacked for not liking something like Scelsi's music.


No one is arguing that _taste_ is "objective," only that there are objective factors inherent in music which can serve as a legitimate basis for aesthetic judgments (not for "tastes," which are a personal matter not subject to debate). And no one here, to my knowledge, has any social or political goals, or any aspiration to status or power. We're just examining our ideas about art and how it's to be understood.

You're imposing some preconceptions on other people here, and distorting their (my) views to fit them. What you're describing doesn't represent what I think.


----------



## ido66667

vtpoet said:


> Nah. That's just demonstrably wrong. You can objectively compare a fugue by Bach to a lesser work by any of his peers. It's one of the reasons Mathematicians _love_ to claim Bach as one of their own (you know, 'cause Mathematicians will take love however they can get it). You can do the same with Shakespeare, Keats or Michelangelo, among others.
> 
> I wouldn't know, since I'm not feeling any "smoldering resentment". It makes sense though. That is, if you're an "absolutist subjectivist" then any questioning of your aesthetic judgement, your assignation of what is or isn't a masterpiece, is by definition a personal "attack".


It feels to me that you just cannot grasp the fact that people, infact, many people, perhaps the majority of humanity can hold contrary opinions to what is widely accepted in your own social circles.

First of all, works by Bach are not always distinguishable for experts from music of his contemporaries. A number of pieces, some quite famous, that had been attributed to him in the past were found to be of other composers (like Telemann) or simply arrangements or transcriptions made by Bach.

And as someone who's into early music (Baroque and Renaissance), I can yell you many of Bach contemporaries composed fugues, and some of them very proficiently. If you think there are rules set in stone saying what makes a fugue great or how to exactly compose it, than you probably haven't heard much music from that era, or even a good number of fugues. The closest thing we have is a general idea of characteristics that fugues have. A textbook fugue writing rules are just an abstraction of those common characteristics designed to assist students in deciphering music from the era or learn to compose fugues of their own. Bach is no god among Baroque composers, he is simply the most popular and known among "lay people".

Aesthetical opinions differ widely between and within societies. If you judge Shakespeare by Epic Greek poetry conventions, then perhaps Shakespeare isn't much of a great poet. In fact, he uses almost non of the devices the ancient Greeks considered to be beautiful. And I'm pretty sure many (probably most, let's not kid ourselves) English speakers today enjoy Shakespeare less than simple folk/rock/pop songs.

If there were built-in objective aesthetical judgmental into our brains, than we wouldn't be here arguing because we'd all agree what is a masterpiece and what isn't. It's absurd that you think there is such an agreement when you stare right at the disagreement. Also, speaking of the undeniable greatness of Beethoven, the great expert Leonard Bernstein actually doesn't think he was that great. What makes your, or other experts' opinions more objectively correct?



Woodduck said:


> This amounts essentially to a statement of the arbitrariness ("subjectivity") of all values.


Ah, I see the news have finally caught up to you.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> No one is arguing that _taste_ is "objective," only that there are objective factors inherent in music which can serve as a legitimate basis for aesthetic judgments (not for "tastes," which are a personal matter not subject to debate).


That's a semantic distinction without a significant difference. The result is the same, no matter which terms you collocate with claims of aesthetic objectivity.



Woodduck said:


> And no one here, to my knowledge, has any social or political goals, or any aspiration to status or power. We're just examning our ideas about art and how it's to be understood.
> 
> You're imposing some preconceptions on other people here, and distorting their (my) views to fit them. What you're describing doesn't represent what I think.


I really don't think you're being completely honest with yourself here. The debate really is about who counts and who doesn't.

Either people who don't like classical music count, or they don't. If we say any kind of thing (couched in however much euphemistic obscurity) like they don't know what they're talking about, they have bad taste, they don't perceive certain qualities, et cetera, we are saying they don't count - and, at some level of our consciousness, we're doing it intentionally.

Either people who don't like atonal music count, or they don't. If we say any kind of thing (couched in however much euphemistic obscurity) like they don't know what they're talking about, they have bad taste, they don't perceive certain qualities, et cetera, we are saying they don't count - and, at some level of our consciousness, we're doing it intentionally.

Either people who like atonal music count, or they don't. If we say any kind of thing (couched in however much euphemistic obscurity) like they don't know what they're talking about, they have bad taste, they don't perceive certain qualities, et cetera, we are saying they don't count - and, at some level of our consciousness, we're doing it intentionally.

That's even more forcefully true when we acknowledge how important musical preferences are to personal identity. There might be some kind of philosophical merit in an ivory tower discussion to a distinction between "your music is crap" and "you are crap," but in the real world of real people, that distinction never has, never will, and never can exist.


----------



## Woodduck

ido66667 said:


> Also, speaking of the undeniable greatness of Beethoven, *the great expert Leonard Bernstein actually doesn't think he was that great.* What makes your, or other experts' opinions more objectively correct?


I'm afraid you've misunderstood Bernstein's views. Don't let Lennie's rhetorical theatrics fool you. He indulged in hyperbole to make a point. You can easily figure out his true estimate of Beethoven if you just do some casual Googling. An excerpt:

"Many, many composers have been able to write heavenly tunes and respectable fugues. Some composers can orchestrate the C-major scale so that it sounds like a masterpiece, or fool with notes so that a harmonic novelty is achieved. But this is all mere dust - nothing compared to the magic ingredient sought by them all: the inexplicable ability to know what the next note has to be. Beethoven had this gift in a degree that leaves them all panting in the rear guard. When he really did it - as in the Funeral March of the Eroica - he produced an entity that always seems to me to have been previously written in Heaven, and then merely dictated to him. Not that the dictation was easily achieved. We know with what agonies he paid for listening to the divine orders. But the reward is great. There is a special space carved out in the cosmos into which this movement just fits, predetermined and perfect.

"Form is only an empty word, a shell, without this gift of inevitability; a composer can write a string of perfectly molded sonata-allegro movements, with every rule obeyed, and still suffer from bad form. Beethoven broke all the rules , and turned out pieces of breath-taking rightness. Rightness- that's the word! When you get the feeling that whatever note succeeds that last is is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, in that context, then chances are you're listening to Beethoven. Melodies, fugues, rhythms- leave them to the Chaikovskys and the Hindemiths and Ravels. Our boy has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down."

"But that is almost a definition of God."

"I meant it to be."


----------



## ido66667

I will conceed that. The Bernstein example wasn't good. (Although most, including me, will still disagree that Beethoven doesn't have good melodies, fugues and orchestration).

Still, you ignored the rest of my post in your reply and instead focused on the example. Can you provide a more comprehensive reply?

And if you want another example, for the sake of it, some experts (specifically Giovanni Artusi) back in the late Renaissance concluded that Monteverdi was failing at composing in the accepted norms of the time, allegedly due to poor skills. Artusi coined the phrase "Seconda practica" to describe and deride such new music, but Monteverdi adopted the term, accepting that many of his compositions contain elements contrary to older aesthetical judgements, but in that "Seconda pratica", what we now call early Baroque Music, they are not only valid, but beautiful and expressive. This is a good example of differing and changing attitude among people very knowledgeable about the same topic. Monteverdi and his contemporary younger composers and musicians simply had different aesthetical judgements than older ones like Artusi. And here we are today, lauding Monteverdi's music (listen to it, if you are not familiar) as superb and revolutionary.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> That's a semantic distinction without a significant difference. The result is the same, no matter which terms you collocate with claims of aesthetic objectivity.


No, it's a _real _distinction, not a semantic one. If you don't see a difference between taste and aesthetic judgment, you may not be too advanced in your perception of aesthetic values or your thinking about aesthetic theory. You might just ask yourself whether you've ever thought a painting, a poem or a piece of music was good without actually liking it. I suspect most of us have had that experience. Why do you think we have?



> I really don't think you're being completely honest with yourself here.


What qualifies you to judge my honesty?



> The debate really is about who counts and who doesn't.


I'll wager nobody else here thinks that. That's just your hangup and, judging by your past similar remarks over several years, a perennial preoccupation.



> Either people who don't like classical music count, or they don't. If we say any kind of thing (couched in however much euphemistic obscurity) like they don't know what they're talking about, they have bad taste, they don't perceive certain qualities, et cetera, we are saying they don't count - and, at some level of our consciousness, we're doing it intentionally.


That's just silly. It's also presumptuous. It even strikes me as a mite paranoid.



> That's even more forcefully true when we acknowledge how important musical preferences are to personal identity. There might be some kind of philosophical merit in an ivory tower discussion to *a distinction between "your music is crap" and "you are crap," but in the real world of real people, that distinction never has, never will, and never can exist.*


I don't consider my musical preferences critical to my personal identity. They certainly reflect my identity in certain ways, but I'd have to have a pretty unformed or shaky sense of self to be threatened by someone's distaste for what I like. I dare say there are millions of people who don't, or wouldn't, enjoy my favorite opera, _Parsifal,_ but I'm fine with them calling it obscure and boring as long as they don't also put forth crackpot theories about it being Nazi or homoerotic. Then I will argue with them and give good reasons why what they're claiming is incorrect.

If someone said, "_Parsifal_ is crap," I wouldn't feel as if I didn't "count," or as if he didn't. I would think, "He doesn't understand _Parsifal,_" and maybe give him some reasons to reassess his opinion.

If you really want to discuss "who counts and who doesn't," and how innocent souls are at stake because somebody dares to suggest that there are valid criteria by which Joseph Haydn can be judged a superior composer to Carrie Jacobs Bond, why not start a thread under Politics and Religion? Maybe you can title it "Is Belief in Excellence a Form of Discrimination?" or "Should Everybody Get an A+?" or "You Make Me Feel as if I Don't Count and That's Really Mean!"


----------



## Woodduck

ido66667 said:


> I will conceed that. The Bernstein example wasn't good. (Although most, including me, will still disagree that Beethoven doesn't have good melodies, fugues and orchestration).


Bernstein doesn't really think that either. He was exaggerating to make a point.



> Still, you ignored the rest of my post in your reply and instead focused on the example. Can you provide a more comprehensive reply?


I think I've stated my views pretty comprehensively in earlier posts.



> And if you want another example, for the sake of it, some experts (specifically Giovanni Artusi) back in the late Renaissance concluded that Monteverdi was failing at composing in the accepted norms of the time, allegedly due to poor skills. Artusi coined the phrase "Seconda practica" to describe and deride such new music, but Monteverdi adopted the term, accepting that many of his compositions contain elements contrary to older aesthetical judgements, but in that "Seconda pratica", what we now call early Baroque Music, they are not only valid, but beautiful and expressive. This is a good example of differing and changing attitude among people very knowledgeable about the same topic. Monteverdi and his contemporary younger composers and musicians simply had different aesthetical judgements than older ones like Artusi. And here we are today, lauding Monteverdi's music (listen to it, if you are not familiar) as superb and revolutionary.


That one is easy. The new is typically misunderstood. People are naturally attached to what they know, and that clouds their judgment. Time has a way of making things clear. Of course there are always some who understand immediately; they may grasp underlying principles and qualities of excellence even in things which are strange on the surface. And true greatness generally finds its way quickly: the "new monody" of the Florentines is a perfect example.


----------



## Guest

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you think? I've heard some works by I believe Schoenberg that I think will last, but I think several will be forgotten. Such works just don't tend to have memorable hooks like the big three, and other composers, obviously.
> :tiphat:


Some will last, others will be forgotten - but the same could be said (and probably has been) for tonal too. Not every tonal composition ever written is now 'remembered', surely?

If one definition of "forgotten" is that such compositions are neither performed nor recorded nor available for sale to the public, can anyone produce any kind of list of composers' works that have "been forgotten"?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> No, it's a _real _distinction, not a semantic one. If you don't see a difference between taste and aesthetic judgment, you may not be too advanced in your perception of aesthetic values or your thinking about aesthetic theory.


I may not be!

This comment really amused me, though. It amounts to saying that since I disagree with you, something really must be wrong with me. Which is exactly what you claim not to be saying.



Woodduck said:


> You might just ask yourself whether you've ever thought a painting, a poem or a piece of music was good without actually liking it. *I suspect most of us have had that experience. Why do you think we have?*


A variety of reasons, especially recognizing elements that other people like even if they don't do anything for me, making allowances for other people's tastes, recognizing skill/virtuosity, recognizing historical influence.... All kinds of stuff.

But especially because there's no need to take "like" in a really superficial sense. At some point in our lives, we've probably all enjoyed pain. There's no reason not to allow "like" to include a really broad range of the complexity and subtlety of human feeling.

But we're chasing a red herring here. In the end, even if there is a distinction between taste and aesthetic judgement, it's semantic in the sense that matters: to denigrate _either_ a person's taste _or_ aesthetic judgment has the same intention and desired effect.



Woodduck said:


> What qualifies you to judge my honesty?


The same thing that qualifies you to judge my ability to perceive aesthetic values!

It's okay.

I'm eager to concede that my perception of various elements of any work of art could improve - I mean, really, I come to this site in large part because I am in search of that improvement.

And I think that if you were more comfortable in this discussion you'd be willing to concede that there is more to what I'm saying than you're admitting. After all, you know very well how upset people get when their music or their taste is insulted. You've witnessed the sturm und drang many times, and I think you might admit that you've occasionally participated too, and sometimes passionately....



Woodduck said:


> I'll wager nobody else here thinks that. That's just your hangup and, judging by your past similar remarks over several years, a perennial preoccupation.


I'm definitely more interested in the sociological and political aspects of taste than many people, and a lot more cynical about "what's really going on" when we create our tastes (or aesthetic perceptions or whatever). I _constantly_ see cultural consumption as a performance, whereas most people don't often think of it that way.

Even so, I think you'd lose your bet.

But more importantly, I have a distaste for comments like this:



Woodduck said:


> That's just silly. It's also presumptuous. It even strikes me as a mite paranoid.


I'm glad you made them about me, because I'm fairly immune to the pain you intend to cause. But there are people, including people active on this board now and in the past, whom you've hurt with comments like this. And I know that it's gone both ways, that you've been the recipient approximately as often as you've been the aggressor.

And I also know - we both also know - that the root of the emotion there, the motivation for hurting each other, is (at least in part, if not primarily) pain that your musical preferences are scorned. We've known people who look down on you, who disrespect and insult you, because you don't like the music they think you should like.

The reason this matters so much to me, part of the reason I find it fascinating, is because I really do wish we (as a community, as a species) could tolerate a wider diversity of taste, that we could differ without antagonism.

I hope that if we all become conscious of the game, it'll stop being zero-sum.

It's selfish of me, ultimately. Given that the antagonism will not die at least until we all do, it's reasonable for each side to have their own safe spaces, to rage at intruders, and maybe it's reasonable for both sides to find a battle ground and have it out. But none of that helps me personally. What helps me is having you all around because I learn a lot from both sides. So I'd rather both sides just got along.

I also really do feel sorry for the people who get hurt. It's hard to remember that the people on the other side of the screen may not be okay. There have been some emotionally vulnerable people in these conversations, and I'm sad that they got hurt. I'll admit to feeling a little indignation on their behalf.

But anyway. Hopefully this is enough confession to ease the hostility a bit.



Woodduck said:


> I don't consider my musical preferences critical to my personal identity. They certainly reflect my identity in certain ways, but I'd have to have a pretty unformed or shaky sense of self to be threatened by someone's distaste for what I like. I dare say there are millions of people who don't, or wouldn't, enjoy my favorite opera, _Parsifal,_ but I'm fine with them calling it obscure and boring as long as they don't also put forth crackpot theories about it being Nazi or homoerotic. Then I will argue with them and give good reasons why what they're claiming is incorrect.
> 
> If you really want to discuss "who counts and who doesn't," and how innocent souls are at stake because somebody dares to suggest that there are valid criteria by which Joseph Haydn can be judged a superior composer to Carrie Jacobs Bond, why not start a thread under Politics and Religion? Maybe you can title it "Is Belief in Excellence a Form of Discrimination?" or "Should Everybody Get an A+?" or "You Make Me Feel as if I Don't Count and That's Really Mean!"


You're conflating a lot of things there, and I don't think me responding to them would be very useful.

But I do want to make clear - just in case there really is any misunderstanding about this - that I'm using "taste" in a broader sense, not to refer to why, say, I love _From Me Flows What You Call Time_ more than I love _A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden_, or why I enjoy a particular recording of one of those works more than I enjoy a different one. Instead, I intend to refer to the question of why I am - that is, why (on some level of my consciousness) I've _chosen_ to be - the kind of person who loves that kind of music at all.

I don't know whether it would be helpful to have a sample conversation about the "valid criteria by which Joseph Haydn can be judged a superior composer to Carrie Jacobs Bond," but just in case it would be... I think I'd like to try! If I start a thread on reasons for judging a particular work of Haydn (not, for clarity, the individual himself) to be superior to a particular work of Bond, will you give examples of those criteria and see whether they really are objective value judgments rather than descriptions of preferences? Or can we both already foresee that in each case, sure, we can see - objectively - that one composition has more of criterion X than the other (assuming criterion X is relatively tangible, rather than something like "sublimity"), but that enjoying or valuing criterion X is a subjective judgement? I assume we're already on the same page about this, but if not, maybe it would actually be helpful to parse it out.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> It amounts to saying that since I disagree with you, something really must be wrong with me. Which is exactly what you claim not to be saying.


No, I merely suggested reasons why you might - might - not make a distinction between taste and appraisal. It isn't about something being "wrong" with you.



> A variety of reasons, especially recognizing elements that other people like even if they don't do anything for me, making allowances for other people's tastes, recognizing skill/virtuosity, recognizing historical influence.... All kinds of stuff.
> 
> But especially because there's no need to take "like" in a really superficial sense. At some point in our lives, we've probably all enjoyed pain. There's no reason not to allow "like" to include a really broad range of the complexity of human feeling.


That all makes sense to me.



> But we're chasing a red herring here. In the end, even if there is a distinction between taste and aesthetic judgement, it's semantic in the sense that matters: to denigrate _either_ a person's taste _or_ aesthetic judgment has the same intention and desired effect.


That's the sense that matters to _you,_ according to your view, which I don't share. But careful now! You're perilously close to telling me there's something wrong with me! (Actually, by saying I was being dishonest, you've already done that. Is accusing someone of lying preferable to saying that the music they like is inferior, in the "you don't count" department?)



> The same thing that qualifies you to judge my ability to perceive aesthetic values!


As I said, I was just speculating, not judging. BTW, I have never accused anyone here of lying.



> I'm eager to concede that my perception of various elements of any work of art could improve - I mean, really, I come to this site in large part because I am in search of that improvement.


So my suggestion wasn't bad after all?



> And I think that if you were more comfortable in this discussion you'd be willing to concede that there is more to what I'm saying than you're admitting. After all, you know very well how upset people get when their music or their taste is insulted. You've witnessed the sturm und drang many times, and I think you might admit that you've occasionally participated too, and sometimes passionately....


Here is what I concede: people can get their feathers ruffled and their feelings hurt by all sorts of things. That's no reason for withholding our artistic judgments. This is a forum. It comes with the territory. It's one of the things we're here to do. We just need not to be stupid and rude about it, and not interject negative remarks where they're merely disruptive or annoying. When people do that, I get sturmy und drangy, without apology.



> I'm definitely more interested in the sociological and political aspects of taste than many people, and a lot more cynical about "what's really going on" when we create our tastes (or aesthetic perceptions or whatever). I _constantly_ see cultural consumption as a performance, whereas most people don't often think of it that way.


OK. Just please don't play Dr. Freud and tell people that they have attitudes, purposes and ulterior motives they don't have - and tell them they're lying when they deny having them.



> I'm fairly immune to the pain you intend to cause.


How noble. 



> But there are people, including people active on this board now and in the past, whom you've hurt with comments like this. And I know that it's gone both ways, that you've been the recipient approximately as often as you've been the aggressor.


What - you keep a ledger of ("approximately") how often people do "aggressive" things here? Are we lab rats?



> And I also know - we both also know - that the root of the emotion there, the motivation for hurting each other, is (at least in part, if not primarily) pain that your musical preferences are scorned. We've known people who look down on you, who disrespect and insult you, because you don't like the music they think you should like. The reason this matters so much to me, part of the reason I find it fascinating, is because I really do wish we (as a community, as a species) could tolerate a wider diversity of taste, that we could differ without antagonism.
> 
> I hope that if we all become conscious of the game, it'll stop being zero-sum.


Zero-sum? This is getting rather melodramatic. It's my observation that most people here are perfectly willing to respect others' tastes. There are a disruptive few who seem to make a sport of running down certain music or composers wherever they find people enjoying them. That's reprehensible - it's trolling, really - but most of the rest, I think, is just the ordinary hurly-burly of life.



> It's selfish of me, ultimately. Given that the antagonism will not die at least until we all do, it's reasonable for each side to have their own safe spaces, and it's reasonable for both sides to find a battle ground and vent their rage. But none of that helps me personally. What helps me is having you all around because I learn a lot from both sides. So I'd rather both sides just got along.


Getting along is great. But it needn't preclude vigorous debate, which sometimes creates the intense dialogue from which we learn the most. That's what I've been doing in this thread, so I don't like you implying that I'm doing something else, something "aggressive" or dishonest or otherwise illegitimate.



> I don't know whether it would be helpful to have a sample conversation about the "valid criteria by which Joseph Haydn can be judged a superior composer to Carrie Jacobs Bond," but just in case it would be... I think I'd like to try! If I start a thread on reasons for judging a particular work of Haydn (not, for clarity, the individual himself) to be superior to a particular work of Bond, will you give examples of those criteria and see whether they really are objective value judgments rather than descriptions of preferences? Or can we both already foresee that in each case, sure, we can see - objectively - that one composition has more of criterion X than the other (assuming criterion X is relatively tangible, rather than something like "sublimity"), but that enjoying or valuing criterion X is a subjective judgement? I assume we're already on the same page about this, but if not, maybe it would actually be helpful to parse it out.


That might be an interesting experiment. Difficult, since such things are more easily experienced than articulated, but likely to get people thinking.


----------



## Enthusiast

Enthusiast said:


> _*Perhaps it will help us to get back to the meat of the question to ask the question by focusing on a few examples*_, rather than discussing music in general? ...... So, to some examples:
> 
> -	Take Berg. Is anyone saying here that Wozzeck and the Violin Concerto, for example, are not masterpieces?
> -	Then, to take a more difficult case, consider Schoenberg. Is anyone here of the opinion that, say, the Piano Concerto or the String Trio are not masterpieces?
> 
> Personally, I think all four examples are masterpieces. And it felt to me that they were sufficiently recognised as such (I'm mostly talking about critical esteem but also views expressed by people posting here and on other forums) before I grew to love them. Of course, I recognised that they are works that are disliked by many … but Mozart, Schubert and Bach also have their detractors.
> 
> _*It might also be interesting *_to look at some great music that has been with us for hundreds of years. What about, say, a mass by Josquin (say, "Missa Lesse faire a mi") or by Byrd? Are these great works? Are they masterpieces? Clearly, they are (I'm not expecting any disagreement, here) but it might be a good test of your reasoning on my proposed examples to see how it applies to these distant works.


This was a thread about whether atonal works would survive which became a discussion about whether there are any atonal masterpieces. I feel that there are many atonal masterpieces and that the older works among them have secured an audience but have been asked how I know this to be the case. That led into another of these heated debates about aesthetic philosophy (if that is the right term), some of which I found interesting. It seems to me that the discussion doesn't throw light on the question of atonal masterpieces and that the arguments from both sides in the debate tend to support the view that there are atonal masterpieces. The "broadly objectivist" position says there are characteristics that determine whether or not the works we are considering could be masterpieces but none of these characteristics seem absent for many of the atonal masterpiece candidates. The "subjectivists" acknowledge the same characteristics (and therefore also accept the candidacy of many atonal pieces for masterpiece status) but either do not think they can be objectively defined or think that they merely represent a consensus within a given community (which allows legitimacy to a community of people who recognise that some atonal works are masterpieces). So, in going off on this familiar but interesting philosophical track, we are no longer discussing the survival of atonal music and may have come to an agreement that the survival is as assured as the survival of any music?

While we were actually on-topic there were many attacks on the arguments and suggestions in support of the survival of atonal music - attacks that mostly asked "how do you know?" and then dismissed the reply as subjective. But I did not see any attempt from "the dismissers" (I'm trying to avoid naming them "haters") to respond, objectively or otherwise, to candidates for atonal masterpiece status. I suggested several but no-one took the bait. Perhaps they don't know the works (how would they if they disliked them from the off?) or perhaps their own arguments (for objectivity etc.) have blocked their ability to argue against the works. Probably it is a bit of both? Maybe a couple of different candidates will be easier to respond to and will help us to get the discussion (if there is still any discussion about the OP left to be had) back on-track.

What about Messiaen? Can anyone argue that the Quartet for the End of Time or the Vingt Regards sur l'enfant-Jésus are not masterpieces?


----------



## Enthusiast

science said:


> I'm definitely more interested in the sociological and political aspects of taste than many people, and a lot more cynical about "what's really going on" when we create our tastes (or aesthetic perceptions or whatever). I _constantly_ see cultural consumption as a performance, whereas most people don't often think of it that way.
> 
> Even so, I think you'd lose your bet.


It surely is most likely (I was going to say "beyond doubt" but then I imagined the work involved in responding to any responses to that) that there are sociological and political components to our arriving at approved tastes. I can't really see how it would be otherwise.



science said:


> But more importantly, I have a distaste for comments like this:
> 
> I'm glad you made them about me, because I'm fairly immune to the pain you intend to cause. But there are people, including people active on this board now and in the past, whom you've hurt with comments like this. And I know that it's gone both ways, that you've been the recipient approximately as often as you've been the aggressor.


These debates do tend to become unpleasant. Only a fool (like me occasionally) would get involved in philosophical discussions with people who clearly know their way around the subject much better than I do. But we fools get the message from the robust (and often frankly insulting) language that gets used sometimes. I never really understood why rudeness is necessary in a post that also manages a substantive argument, articulately put. It throws up a fog, IMO, and pads out an argument with bluster - perhaps a sign that the author is not as sure of his case as he makes out? It certainly gives the message to most of us to stay clear and let the big boys decide the issue for us. So to me it seems that the rudeness and put downs have the affect of shutting most members out of the debate. This, for me, is the issue rather than "hurt" caused. I'm not saying that hurt is never caused - it is likely that it is - but I think most of us come to recognise the personal style of regular posters and to allow for that. The apparent rudeness and superior tone of some posts - perhaps posts countering one of our own - may cause us to drop out of a discussion ... and it can be a pain to feel that participation in a discussion is going to be too burdensome (in terms of responding to nit picking that often takes us away from our discussion and in terms of finding being insulted a little depressing) ... but I don't think many of us feel much pain from the slight. I think what we feel is a slight anger that we have to take somewhere else.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> No, I merely suggested reasons why you might - might - not make a distinction between taste and appraisal. It isn't about something being "wrong" with you.
> 
> That all makes sense to me.
> 
> That's the sense that matters to _you,_ according to your view, which I don't share. But careful now! You're perilously close to telling me there's something wrong with me! (Actually, by saying I was being dishonest, you've already done that. Is accusing someone of lying preferable to saying that the music they like is inferior, in the "you don't count" department?)
> 
> As I said, I was just speculating, not judging. BTW, I have never accused anyone here of lying.
> 
> So my suggestion wasn't bad after all?
> 
> Here is what I concede: people can get their feathers ruffled and their feelings hurt by all sorts of things. That's no reason for withholding our artistic judgments. This is a forum. It comes with the territory. It's one of the things we're here to do. We just need not to be stupid and rude about it, and not interject negative remarks where they're merely disruptive or annoying. When people do that, I get sturmy und drangy, without apology.
> 
> OK. Just please don't play Dr. Freud and tell people that they have attitudes, purposes and ulterior motives they don't have - and tell them they're lying when they deny having them.
> 
> How noble.
> 
> What - you keep a ledger of ("approximately") how often people do "aggressive" things here? Are we lab rats?
> 
> Zero-sum? This is getting rather melodramatic. It's my observation that most people here are perfectly willing to respect others' tastes. There are a disruptive few who seem to make a sport of running down certain music or composers wherever they find people enjoying them. That's reprehensible - it's trolling, really - but most of the rest, I think, is just the ordinary hurly-burly of life.
> 
> Getting along is great. But it needn't preclude vigorous debate, which sometimes creates the intense dialogue from which we learn the most. That's what I've been doing in this thread, so I don't like you implying that I'm doing something else, something "aggressive" or dishonest or otherwise illegitimate.
> 
> That might be an interesting experiment. Difficult, since such things are more easily experienced than articulated, but likely to get people thinking.


I might find time to reply to some of that more substantially within a reasonable period of time, but just in case I don't, for now I just want to note that I suggested that you weren't being honest with yourself, which is not the same as dishonesty or lying in the old "you have besmirched my honor and now we have to have a duel" sense. I don't know whether you were really offended or if you were just trying to use it rhetorically, but _just in case_ I want to clarify that I intended to recommend more introspection rather than to besmirch your honor or anything.

If you really were offended, sorry, bro. I didn't think it would have that affect.


----------



## Enthusiast

I wonder about the approach to responding which cuts up someone's post and responds to the various points it makes separately. We all do it. But it can quickly lead to a thread going off-track and to the appearance of point scoring. A response to the *whole *of what someone said might be a better way of maintaining focus and ensuring that responses engage with a whole argument rather than details, whether they be clumsily put or not? Avoiding too much cutting up would also make lively threads easier to follow. I sometimes wake up at a normal English time and find my night has brought pages of debate that are hard to follow from different time zones. It is hard to see whether the thoughts I had overnight are still relevant or even if they have been covered!


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm the one who brought up the idea of "masterpieces," which I do not believe in except as an artifact of bygone times. Yet, everyone seems to be "running" with the idea, trying to define it and apply it to the present. Again, I don't believe the idea of "masterpieces" is still relevant to today's music.

How's that for a "whole" response?


----------



## Strange Magic

Strange Magic said:


> Atonal music will survive (as now will many sorts of music, no matter how obscure or difficult) essentially as a hobbyist specialty. It will not gain a larger foothold in the future "classical music" audience space. In fact, tonal CM may become even more deeply entrenched, though casting a wider net to capture more examples of audience-pleasing (or not displeasing) tonal music. But always something for everybody.


To again address Enthusiast's return to the OP question: As a purely bias-free statement, the above is difficult to refute. Most everything--probably everything--in the arts will continue as a hobbyist interest while current conditions obtain.


----------



## samm

Amazing life-wasting, time-wasting tit-for-tat over nothing more than tastes.


----------



## Blancrocher

samm said:


> Amazing life-wasting, time-wasting tit-for-tat over nothing more than tastes.


This is what we all signed up for when we joined a music forum, samm.


----------



## DavidA

Blancrocher said:


> This is what we all signed up for when we joined a music forum, samm.


Just think of how much music you could have listened to instead of spending so much time pointlessly arguing the toss over it!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> So you don't put much stock in what are almost universally called masterpieces, say for instance a Mona Lisa or the David or The Marriage of Figaro or Beethoven's 6th to name a few. It's all about what just comes into your head based on your own subjective likes/dislikes.


Again, not directed at me, but an interesting question to answer. What do you mean by "put much stock in?" When it comes to works others perceive as masterpieces that I don't, if it's a medium/genre I generally like, I at least try to understand what others see in it, especially if it's many others or others whose taste I tend to share. Sometimes I will see what they see, but have a different reaction, and other times I won't see it at all. Generally, no matter the outcome, I will simply leave it to them to consider a masterpiece. I do this with, say, Bach's Goldberg Variations. Listened to it many times, heard/read what others have to say about it... it's never clicked with me. If others want to consider it a masterpiece, that's fine. I do not, and that _should be_ fine too.


----------



## vtpoet

ido66667 said:


> It feels to me that you just cannot grasp the fact that people, infact, many people, perhaps the majority of humanity can hold contrary opinions to what is widely accepted in your own social circles.


Huh?



ido66667 said:


> First of all, works by Bach are not always distinguishable for experts from music of his contemporaries. A number of pieces, some quite famous, that had been attributed to him in the past were found to be of other composers (like Telemann) or simply arrangements or transcriptions made by Bach.


That's an exceedingly small number of pieces. And I notice you're being exceedingly vague about the "number of pieces" for someone who professes to be "into early music". I'm guessing that you're referring to the Toccata and Fugue in D minor as one of the "famous pieces"?



ido66667 said:


> And as someone who's into early music (Baroque and Renaissance), I can yell you many of Bach contemporaries composed fugues, and some of them very proficiently.


Yeah, that's why it's called the baroque period.



ido66667 said:


> If you think there are rules set in stone saying what makes a fugue great or how to exactly compose it, than you probably haven't heard much music from that era, or even a good number of fugues.


Okay. Now we're into the straw man, _if you believe "x", then_ formulation. Which I don't, but do go on.



ido66667 said:


> The closest thing we have is a general idea of characteristics that fugues have.


Right, gotta' stop you here. Couple things: I attended the conservatory of music at Cincinnati where I passed out of music history and composed fugues (among other pieces) because, you know, there's an untapped market for 21st century baroque composers.

Not.

I moved on to literature.

My point is: I have some idea what I'm talking about and it sounds like, based on your sweeping generalities, _you don't_. At all. When you're comparing Bach's fugues to those of his peers, it's not about referencing some fugual ideal. What makes Bach's fugues great is his encyclopedic knowledge of contrapuntal techniques and his ability to apply them with seeming effortlessness to the appropriate subjects. It's about his exploitation of key relationships or as his contemporaries would have put it: His knowledge of harmony. No other composer of the period compares. Not even Händel, who quit writing fugues in his youth and destroyed most of his efforts.



ido66667 said:


> If you judge Shakespeare by Epic Greek poetry conventions, then perhaps Shakespeare isn't much of a great poet.


[Face palm.]



ido66667 said:


> If there were built-in objective aesthetical judgmental into our brains, than we wouldn't be here arguing because we'd all agree what is a masterpiece and what isn't.


Another face palm because, you see, that is precisely what happens. There apparently _is_ just such a thing because in each musical genre, be it classical, jazz, rock or pop, listeners tend to agree on who's writing the best music --- the Beatles for example. And many scholars have devoted their ingenuity to teasing out just what all these pieces, _objectively_, have in common.

I cannot for the life of me understand what is so difficult about that to grasp-or so controversial?!?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Oh, all right! Have some more definitions of "arbitrary":
> 
> 1. existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
> 
> 2. based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
> 
> Precision is admirable, but let's not quibble. The point I was trying to make is that "subjective" values that can claim nothing but "liking" for their explanation and validation make explanation and validation pointless. We're saying only "I like it because I like it." This tells us nothing about values inherent in the thing itself, if indeed it doesn't deny their existence altogether. Valuations based on factors other than the qualities of the things being evaluated are, in effect, arbitrary.


With those definitions, I don't think the first fits at all (and I think that's closer to what most people mean by "arbitrary"). For the second, I think that's ultimately what all subjective judgment is unless people are using others' preferences rather than their own for the standard (but I don't think the second is what most people mean by arbitrary).

Unless you believe that human behavior, thoughts, and values are fundamentally inexplicable, I have no idea why you'd think that subjective values can't have explanations. The desire to live is a subjective value, but it's perfectly explainable by evolutionary psychology. As for "validation," we are "validated" the moment we find like-minded people, which also happens all the time with subjective values.

Again, there ARE no values "inherent in the thing itself." Have you never heard the saying "A thing's worth what someone is willing to pay for it?" The same is true of all objects. Things are only as valuable as the value people see in them. Things are not, can not be, inherently valuable. There's a rather fantastic scene in the 1966 film Blow Up that demonstrates this quite perfectly: 



Notice how the broken guitar goes from being so "inherently valuable" that the crowd is fighting over it, but once outside the club it becomes a worthless chunk of wood? What changed? The guitar is still the same, the only thing different is the minds of the people encountering it. All art, all objects, are like that when it comes to value.



Woodduck said:


> So you're not only a thoroughgoing subjectivist, but a determinist as well. We're all just pushed around by our environment and our genes (unless that "dose of individuality" is a mysterious third factor). My distaste for Scelsi is Mom's fault; she should've laid off the wine when she was pregnant.


I think the best current scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning leads to determinism, yes. Thing is "we" are not "pushed around by our... genes," we ARE our genes (and our brains) and all the molecules/particles that make them up, and, so far as we can tell, what such material does is physically determined. Unless you believe in libertarian free will as most religious-types do, it's difficult not to be a determinist.



Woodduck said:


> OhHeh heh. Good one. I guess a lot of people have a funny way of recognizing quality?


You laugh it off, but it's a rather good point. If you claim that masterpieces exist objectively independent of what people think, that there are masterpieces that are still such even though some don't like it, why are there no masterpieces that (almost) nobody likes?



Woodduck said:


> No, that's not all I'm saying. I knew Beethoven's Op. 132 string quartet was a surpassingly great work of art when I first heard it at age 15, before I knew what anyone else thought of it. I knew, by the exercise of my own ears and brain, that it was a greater musical achievement than the music most of my high school classmates were listening to, despite the fact that I was one person against hordes of them and they were screaming and fainting at rock concerts. Beethoven didn't make me scream or faint; it just made me sit there, stunned, knowing that a world was being opened to me that I wasn't even ready fully to enter.


All you're doing is projecting a subjective experience into a state of objective knowledge. How many could say the same thing but replace Beethoven's Op. 132 with The Beatles or literally any other music that people feel that way about? Then you have this fundamental disagreement with no way to settle it other than for you and the other person to hypothetically yell "I know I'm right and you're wrong!" at each other to a stalemate.



Woodduck said:


> I don't do that.


Whenever you say "I don't like X, but I still think X is a masterpiece" you are very much doing that.



Woodduck said:


> Sure, things can be "masterpieces of their kind," but not all "kinds" are equally remarkable. I think Josef Strauss's _Spharenklange_ is a masterpiece of the Viennese waltz genre, but I've never imagined it being as great an achievement as Beethoven's Op. 132, either in form or in substance, despite the fact that I enjoy it every bit as much. My judgment is based neither on felt enjoyment nor on some sort of "collective subjectivity."


The "kinds" that are more remarkable are only more remarkable because you (and others) have subjectively decided they're more valuable. The things Beethoven's Op. 132 does is more valuable to you (and others) compared to J. Strauss's Spharenklange. That's all there is to it. You could have different values that would swap these two easily. Just imagine thinking that what Spharenklange does is more valuable than Beethoven's Op. 132. There, done.



Woodduck said:


> No, I don't seriously think that. But what difference does it make what they can or can't explain about music? We're not talking fundamentally about conceptual knowledge or verbal skills. The perception of aesthetic qualities is just that - perception. It's a given; you perceive things, or you don't. Explanations may follow, but aesthetic perception - the apprehension of the organization of the sensory elements of music into comprehensible and significant entities - fortunately doesn't depend on them. Neither does the ability to discern, within the limits of our mental and emotional development and constitution, degrees of excellence in the way composers have done that organizing.


If they can't explain anything then how do you know what aesthetic qualities they're perceiving or not? For all you know, to them, it's just a random collection of pretty sounds.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> I have some bad news for you. Everything humans do (including looking at the sun and seeing it exists) is based in human thought/feelings, which is conditioned by evolution, culture, and, yes, some does of individuality.
> 
> What is, arguably, the most objective construction of all, an axiomatic logic system, exists entirely in human thought.


Of course, but there are some aspects of perception, like seeing at the sun, that don't change depending on how we feel/think about them. I can believe the sun doesn't exist all I want, but when I look up I will still see a giant, orange, glowing ball that will give me sunburn and (eventually) skin cancer. The thing with objectively existing things is that our senses tend to persistently report them regardless of what we think about them. Subjective things aren't like that. They only exist because we think about them. They aren't properties of those persistent sensory objects. Unfortunately, many people fail to distinguish this difference and project subjective things (like values) onto objective reality all the time... probably for good evolutionary reasons.

Actually, I would say that axiomatic logic systems are subjective as well, but they are (typically) constructed to be accurate models of objective reality and thus have their validation in how well they model that reality. We can construct axiomatic systems that have no connection to reality (some experimental mathetmatics do this), but such things are exceptions.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> No one is arguing that _taste_ is "objective," *only that there are objective factors inherent in music which can serve as a legitimate basis for aesthetic judgments* (not for "tastes," which are a personal matter not subject to debate). .


Not without us first deciding that those "objective factors inherent in music" SHOULD serve as a basis for aesthetic judgment, and that decision is (surprise, surprise) a subjective one.


----------



## vtpoet

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not without us first deciding that those "objective factors inherent in music" SHOULD serve as a basis for aesthetic judgment, and that decision is (surprise, surprise) a subjective one.


But you're utterly and I mean _just completely and utterly_ missing the point.

You can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes.

If that weren't the case, the record industry wouldn't be paying producers millions of dollars and advertising wouldn't exist. Period.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> But you're utterly and I mean _just completely and utterly_ missing the point.
> 
> You can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes.
> 
> If that weren't the case, the record industry wouldn't be paying producers millions of dollars and advertising wouldn't exist. Period.


Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes, but I don't see what point I missed, or even what point you're making. If you took a poll about whether people preferred Taylor Swift or Beethoven, you'd have an objective conclusion about subjective tastes, but unless you're suggesting we should use this as a basis for declaring which is "objectively better" (which I doubt you are), I don't know why this is relevant.


----------



## vtpoet

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes...


í ¼í¾† í ¼í¾† í ¼í¾† That's all anybody has been saying the entire time! í ¼í¾† í ¼í¾† í ¼í¾†



Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...but I don't see what point I missed , or even what point you're making..


That you draw objective conclusions about what "Masterpieces" have in common. If that weren't the case, conservatories wouldn't exist, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, let alone Salieri, would have had nothing to teach.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you took a poll about whether people preferred Taylor Swift or Beethoven, you'd have an objective conclusion about subjective tastes...


For example. Or you could apply music theory to pieces (that have had broad appeal over time) to discover what, objectively, these pieces have in common.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...but unless you're suggesting we should use this as a basis for declaring which is "objectively better" (which I doubt you are), I don't know why this is relevant.


The music industry does this every day. Any producer worth their salt can tell you, objectively, what is apt to appeal to the widest possible audience. Does that make it "objectively better"? Not as a rule. But Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (among other composers) grasped what made music objectively better, otherwise their music wouldn't be held up as masterpieces.


----------



## Strange Magic

Our friend from Vermont (beautiful state--because I think so!) appears to triumph when he declares that one can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes. That sort of polling data is precisely among those measurable, quantifiable properties that do exist objectively when discussing art objects and experiences--along with color, weight, size, shape, duration, creator (if known), date of creation, where object can be found, etc. This has nothing to do with the inherently subjective nature of our opinions about art, "greatness" in art, "masterpieces", etc. The fact remains that value in art is opinion, neither more nor less. And the corollary, for me, is that all aesthetics is subjective, individual, and personal


----------



## Enthusiast

Round and round and no-one is going to tell me how my six proposed "atonal masterpieces" fail to make the grade. Is that why this thread has gone so astray and become so irrelevant to the question - because no-one has an answer to my question? I guess the added requirement of objectivity makes my question impossible to answer. 

And, if you let in my six you will have to let in many more.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Round and round and no-one is going to tell me how my six proposed "atonal masterpieces" fail to make the grade. Is that why this thread has gone so astray and become so irrelevant to the question - because no-one has an answer to my question? I guess the added requirement of objectivity makes my question impossible to answer.
> 
> And, if you let in my six you will have to let in many more.


Why not just present your list of 6 atonal masterpieces in one place, with a statement that you believe these 6 are indeed atonal masterpieces, and ask for comments to either support or deny your assertion?


----------



## toshiromifune

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Of course, but there are some aspects of perception, like seeing at the sun, that don't change depending on how we feel/think about them. I can believe the sun doesn't exist all I want, but when I look up I will still see a giant, orange, glowing ball that will give me sunburn and (eventually) skin cancer. The thing with objectively existing things is that our senses tend to persistently report them regardless of what we think about them. Subjective things aren't like that. They only exist because we think about them. They aren't properties of those persistent sensory objects. Unfortunately, many people fail to distinguish this difference and project subjective things (like values) onto objective reality all the time... probably for good evolutionary reasons.
> 
> Actually, I would say that axiomatic logic systems are subjective as well, but they are (typically) constructed to be accurate models of objective reality and thus have their validation in how well they model that reality. We can construct axiomatic systems that have no connection to reality (some experimental mathetmatics do this), but such things are exceptions.


But if you put sunglasses on, you don't see the sun the same way anymore. It's simmilar for music. Think of sunglasses as our bias (culture, familiarity, exposure, nostalgia, "coolness"...). Of course, it's much easier to remove your sunglasses than to remove your bias about music. Actually, it is impossible to listen to music objectively (without bias), but that doesn't mean that there is no objectively greater and lesser music.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> ....one can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes. That sort of polling data is precisely among those measurable, quantifiable properties that do exist objectively when discussing art objects and experiences...


That's right. That's why sutdents wanted studied with the great composers; and not to learn Strange Magic's rule of composition: _Everything's subjective so just compose whatever your little heart desires and fame and prestige will come to you. La!_



Strange Magic said:


> This has nothing to do with the inherently subjective nature of our opinions about art, "greatness" in art, "masterpieces", etc.


Nobody but you is saying it does. I don't even particularly care about that assertion. It's so stupidly obvious it's not worth discussing. The point is in discerning what masterpieces can objectively tell us about our subjective experience of music----and what we collectively value.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unless you believe that human behavior, thoughts, and values are fundamentally inexplicable, I have no idea why you'd think that subjective values can't have explanations.


I never said that they can't have explanations: physiological, psychological, ideological, whatever. But who appeals to such things in trying to understand a piano concerto? This particular line of discussion seems rather useless.



> As for "validation," we are "validated" the moment we find like-minded people, which also happens all the time with subjective values.


I don't need like-minded people to validate my artistic judgments.



> Again, there ARE no values "inherent in the thing itself."


"Values" has more than one definition. Am I being a little archaic in using the word to describe a quality of excellence inherent in something? A thing has "value" in that sense if it ought to be valued, or appraised as excellent, by a reasonable, intelligent, informed person. This isn't the same, again, as personal liking. I recognize the artistic values in Milhaud's neoclassical works even though I don't much care for that style of music.



> If you claim that masterpieces exist objectively independent of what people think, that there are masterpieces that are still such even though some don't like it, why are there no masterpieces that (almost) nobody likes?


That's so easy I'm surprised you would even ask it. The answer is that people are generally perceptive enough that fine things won't go unrecognized.



> All you're doing is projecting a subjective experience into a state of objective knowledge. How many could say the same thing but replace Beethoven's Op. 132 with The Beatles or literally any other music that people feel that way about? Then you have this fundamental disagreement with no way to settle it other than for you and the other person to hypothetically yell "I know I'm right and you're wrong!" at each other to a stalemate.


You're forgetting the context of my statement. You had written: _"All you're saying with 'we can recognize masterpieces regardless of personal taste' is that 'we recognize others, who have different tastes, like this piece enough to consider it a masterpiece,' and that's it.'_ I responded: "No, that's not all I'm saying." I wasn't saying anything like that.

In the quote above, by saying "any other music that people feel that way about," you're reducing my response to Beethoven's quartet to a "feeling." You surely realize that there is far more to the perception of art than "feeling." Plenty of things can make us "feel," but they don't all impress us as being great works of art. A relentless drum beat can induce ecstatic feelings around the village fire pit, but there isn't much to be said for it as music.



> The "kinds" [genres or categories of music] that are more remarkable are only more remarkable because you (and others) have subjectively decided they're more valuable.


Some kinds of music are inherently capable of greater complexity of form and richness of expression. I call "remarkable" composers and works that exploit those potentialities effectively. Things aren't "remarkable" just because someone likes them.



> The things Beethoven's Op. 132 does is more valuable to you (and others) compared to J. Strauss's Spharenklange. That's all there is to it. You could have different values that would swap these two easily. Just imagine thinking that what Spharenklange does is more valuable than Beethoven's Op. 132. There, done.


No, not "done" at all. The things Beethoven's Op. 132 does are more complex, more expressively profound, and more difficult to imagine and realize in a work of art than the things a Strauss waltz does. So much so, in fact, that Beethoven's late quartets are widely perceived as pinnacles of creation in our Western musical heritage. I wanted to make clear by describing my reaction to Op.132 that its qualities were immediately apparent even to me as a teenage music lover - that even though I didn't have the conceptual frame of reference with which to articulate the extraordinary things I heard in it, I knew that I was witness to a tremendous creative achievement that stood above much other music I loved. In fact I tried to describe in a brief essay for English class the new realm of feeling I heard Beethoven exploring, a realm which, as I recall, I described as transcending mundane, specific emotional states and attaining a sort of serene perspective on them. It was interesting, in later years, to discover that many people more experienced than I was in both music and life have described the music of late Beethoven in similar ways.

You will now tell me that Beethoven's late quartets are only called things like "tremendous creative achievements" and "transcendental" because an extraordinary number of people happen to "feel" that they are and like that sort of thing.

Bleah.



> If they can't explain anything then how do you know what aesthetic qualities they're perceiving or not? For all you know, to them, it's just a random collection of pretty sounds.


I don't understand this comment, so I won't try to respond to it.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Not without us first deciding that those "objective factors inherent in music" SHOULD serve as a basis for aesthetic judgment, and that decision is (surprise, surprise) a subjective one.


I said "there are objective factors inherent in music which _CAN_ serve as a legitimate basis for aesthetic judgments." That they _CAN_ is indisputable, given the fact that they actually _DO!_ This is not dependent on anyone's opinion as to whether they _SHOULD._

But beyond this bit of clarification, isn't it obvious that the aesthetic qualities of art simply exist, independent of our personal interest in them? We can appreciate them or not, but they don't go away, or become less important in making the art work what it is, for lack of interest on our part. If we want to say anything meaningful about art (as opposed to "duh, me likey this"), we had best take these qualities into account.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> Round and round and no-one is going to tell me how my six proposed "atonal masterpieces" fail to make the grade.


Okay, so, my main interest in this thread has been to clarify what _objectivity_ might mean when appraising music that has attained _wide appeal over time_-loosely masterpieces I suppose. I'm satisfied that I've done that.

Namely this: You can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes based on what music attains wide appeal and recognition over time. That insight into what most speaks to our subjective and collective preferences, and why, continues to grow and expand along with the music we listen to.

So, these standards are probably fairly good predictors of what will and what won't attain the status of a masterpiece. However, it's ultimately the masterpiece that defines the objective standard. That means that while no one might have predicted that Bolero or Carnival of the Animals would have been considered the respective masterpieces of Ravel and Saint-Saëns (least of all the composers), their wide appeal over time has added to our understanding of what we collectively value.

The same could be true of your list. Why don't you explain why you think your proposed atonal works make the grade?


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Again, not directed at me, but an interesting question to answer. What do you mean by "put much stock in?" When it comes to works others perceive as masterpieces that I don't, if it's a medium/genre I generally like, I at least try to understand what others see in it, especially if it's many others or others whose taste I tend to share. Sometimes I will see what they see, but have a different reaction, and other times I won't see it at all. Generally, no matter the outcome, I will simply leave it to them to consider a masterpiece. I do this with, say, Bach's Goldberg Variations. Listened to it many times, heard/read what others have to say about it... it's never clicked with me. If others want to consider it a masterpiece, that's fine. I do not, and that _should be_ fine too.


This is a surprising perspective and I don't think it is supported by anything you've studied, because in taking the subjectivity-based argument to an extreme you have both made the evaluation of what is a masterpiece all about you and diminished the accomplishments of the humans who have created these masterpieces, accomplishments that are objective facts.

Perhaps somewhere back in time in cultures, say Europe in the 18th and 19th century, subjective factors had a part in defining what great classical music is. But that isn't just a matter of 'Gee, I like that, it's pretty.', it also involves physiological factors such as pattern-matching, something you've talked about. Over decades and centuries the music became something that was entrenched in the society and the works of the composers who create the works that are both highly original and unique -something no one else has done and something musicologists agree is extraordinary- became accepted as masterpieces.

(Fwiw, I find it interesting that Asian cultures have absorbed Western European classical music to the extent they have. IMO, there is a special significance -that goes well beyond simple subjectivity- of this kind of cross-culture attraction and acceptance.)

I don't totally dismiss subjectivity-related factors, but IMO you are taking it to an extreme that diminishes what is great about masterpieces and the people who make them.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> That's right. That's why sutdents wanted studied with the great composers; and not to learn Strange Magic's rule of composition: _Everything's subjective so just compose whatever your little heart desires and fame and prestige will come to you. La!_
> 
> Nobody but you is saying it does. I don't even particularly care about that assertion. It's so stupidly obvious it's not worth discussing. The point is in discerning what masterpieces can objectively tell us about our subjective experience of music----and what we collectively value.


Our experience of music is indeed subjective--at least everybody now appears to agree about that. What masterpieces (lists of masterpieces, votes, polls) tell us is that there are clusters of agreement around some pieces and not around others. My list of masterpieces may not share a single entry with your list, 43% with X's list, 18% with Y's list, etc. The Count of T'ang doesn't regard anything I like as listenable, let alone a masterpiece (I asked him ). These are all objective truths about music. Therefore, What? What lies beyond these profundities?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> This is a surprising perspective and I don't think it is supported by anything you've studied, because in taking the subjectivity-based argument to an extreme you have both made the evaluation of what is a masterpiece all about you and diminished the accomplishments of the humans who have created these masterpieces, accomplishments that are objective facts.
> 
> Perhaps somewhere back in time in cultures, say Europe in the 18th and 19th century, subjective factors determined what is great classical music is. But that isn't just a matter of 'Gee, I like that, it's pretty.', it also involves physiological factors such as pattern-matching, something you've talked about. Over decades and centuries the music became something that was entrenched in the society and the works of the composers who create the works that are both highly original and unique -something no one else has done and something musicologists agree is extraordinary- became accepted as masterpieces.
> 
> (Fwiw, I find it interesting that Asian cultures have absorbed Western European classical music to the extent they have. IMO, there is a special significance -that goes well beyond simple subjectivity- of this kind of cross-culture attraction and acceptance.)
> 
> I don't totally dismiss subjectivity-related factors, but IMO you are taking it to an extreme that diminishes what is great about masterpieces and the people who make them.


This is essentially a collectivist approach to aesthetics (I do not mean that pejoratively). It relies upon the sharing of tastes among the taste-sharers, and the winnowing-out of the outliers. As many know, Leonard Meyer wrote the book on the hierarchical nature of the cerebral/rational side of the appreciation of music, and the role of alternating satisfaction and denial when sequencing notes, keys, etc. Yet Meyer deliberately chose not to involve himself in what he called the sensual aspects of music, and also did not address the uniqueness of the historical/social/experiential/psychological/neurological package any individual listener brings to music. Yet such individuation is the jewel in the crown of each unique listener--it makes each of us who we are. We are actually the masters of our taste, should we choose to embrace it, and need not flail about for outside validation for our choices.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> This is essentially a collectivist approach to aesthetics (I do not mean that pejoratively). It relies upon the sharing of tastes among the taste-sharers, and the winnowing-out of the outliers. As many know, Leonard Meyer wrote the book on the hierarchical nature of the cerebral/rational side of the appreciation of music, and the role of alternating satisfaction and denial when sequencing notes, keys, etc. Yet Meyer deliberately chose not to involve himself in what he called the sensual aspects of music, and also did not address the uniqueness of the historical/social/experiential/psychological/neurological package any individual listener brings to music. Yet such individuation is the jewel in the crown of each unique listener--it makes each of us who we are. We are actually the masters of our taste, should we choose to embrace it, and need not flail about for outside validation for our choices.


All very interesting, but on reading it and re-reading it I'm not sure it adds anything profound to the discussion.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Lost track of the argument here - so everyone’s agreed that Perroit is a masterpiece, right?


----------



## DaveM

Bwv 1080 said:


> Lost track of the argument here - so everyone's agreed that Perroit is a masterpiece, right?


Maybe one new recording in 20 years? Relatively few performances now compared to the (mostly earlier) 20th century? Has been described as one of Schoenberg most celebrated works. Can't argue with that. But rising to the level of a widely accepted masterpiece? No.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> As many know, Leonard Meyer wrote the book on the hierarchical nature of the cerebral/rational side of the appreciation of music, and the role of alternating satisfaction and denial when sequencing notes, keys, etc. Yet Meyer deliberately chose not to involve himself in what he called the sensual aspects of music, and also did not address the uniqueness of the historical/social/experiential/psychological/neurological package any individual listener brings to music. Yet such individuation is the jewel in the crown of each unique listener--it makes each of us who we are. We are actually the masters of our taste, should we choose to embrace it, and need not flail about for outside validation for our choices.


When I listen to music, especially the music of great composers, my impulse is to crown the composer, not myself and my uniqueness. Art affirms who I am, but I'm fortunate when it makes me in some small way more than I was before encountering it. I listen to music partly to interrupt the constant playing and replaying of the self-reinforcing interior monologue that issues from the "historical/social/experiential/psychological/neurological package" of my brain. In a meaningful sense, I listen to take a vacation from "who I am."

It isn't remarkable that Leonard Meyer wasn't interested in the accidents of individual psychology and life experience. His subject was the structure of music itself, and he concerned himself only with those aspects of human cognition - not his, yours, or my cognition, but cognition as an attribute of human beings as such - which are involved in the apprehension of music, and which allow music to have the effect on us that it does. I don't think calling his subject the "cerebral/rational side of the appreciation of music" is right, since the dynamic patterns he identifies in melody, harmony and rhythm are vehicles of expression - more specifically, devices through which perceptual experiences evoke corresponding affective experiences without cerebral/rational intervention or translation.


----------



## Woodduck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Lost track of the argument here - so everyone's agreed that Perroit is a masterpiece, right?


That's _exactly_ what we've all been struggling and failing to say!


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I find it interesting that Asian cultures have absorbed Western European classical music to the extent they have. IMO, *there is a special significance -that goes well beyond simple subjectivity- of this kind of cross-culture attraction and acceptance.*


Cross-cultural art appreciation and practice - the ability of people raised in one culture to appreciate, compose and perform music (and other arts) of foreign and dissimilar cultures, often very easily and at the highest level of understanding and accomplishment - should go some way toward convincing the "aesthetic subjectivists" that aesthetic values have a high degree of universality transcending cultural traditions and personal tastes. This can only be explained if there are "objective" - i.e. real - physical and psychological factors constituting the human aesthetic sense, factors unaltered at a fundamental level by the accidents of parentage, culture, and other elements of individual experience.

The cave paintings of prehistoric France, with their exquisitely envisioned animal forms exhibiting spatial dynamics and linear sensitivity artists of today can learn from, still thrill us with their timeless beauty after tens of thousands of years. Yet there is no resemblance between the culture of those cave-dwelling hunters and ours. Clearly their sense of what is visually vital, strong and beautiful, and the shock of affirmation we feel when we see their work, arise from some common core of perception and feeling residing in our common humanity.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> All very interesting, but on reading it and re-reading it I'm not sure it adds anything profound to the discussion.


Dave, re-read your own post #316 and ask yourself whether either of us has added anything profound to the discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Cross-cultural artistic appreciation and practice - the ability of people raised in one culture to appreciate, compose and perform music (and other arts) of foreign and dissimilar cultures, often very easily and at the highest level of understanding and accomplishment - should go some way toward convincing the "aesthetic subjectivists" that aesthetic values have a high degree of universality transcending cultural traditions and personal tastes. This can only be explained if there are "objective" - i.e. real - physical and psychological factors constituting the human aesthetic sense, factors unaltered at a fundamental level by the accidents of parentage, culture, and other elements of individual experience.


This is where the breakdown happens. It's all very well to work out group patterns, group phenomena in responses to music, and come up with broad generalizations about what moves certain clusters of people to regard certain artworks as bad, good, great, masterpieces. But it collapses when we deal with an individual example, whose list of good/bad is unique, differing from the next person over. Let's hypothesize that Sir Kenneth Clark looks upon the Mona Lisa and asserts that he does not regard it as a masterpiece. You mention the Michelangelo _David_ and he says it's adequate but he much prefers either the Donatello or the Bernini. What then? The pieces sit there, mute, unchanged. Opinions about them vary is all we can say, though we can poll to see which pieces get more votes. I know people hate my ice cream analogy, but which are the best flavors of ice cream? We can perform lab experiments, do polling, measure brain activity, analyze the ingredients, and thus understand that more people prefer vanilla to strawberry (if that's the case), and even why, if they fall into that category. But the person preferring pistachio still prefers pistachio, and need not defend nor necessarily seek outside "explanation" or validation for the choice. For that person, pistachio is the masterpiece.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Dave, re-read your own post #316 and ask yourself whether either of us has added anything profound to the discussion.


Could be true, but then, others seemed to appreciate it. It could be a masterpiece because I think it is.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Could be true, but then, others seemed to appreciate it. It could be a masterpiece because I think it is.


Now you're talkin' my language! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Now you're talkin' my language! :lol:


What language is that, total internet narcissism? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> What language is that, total internet narcissism? :lol:


You've drop into a discussion you haven't been participating in for the specific purpose of insulting someone? Why?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> You've drop into a discussion you haven't been participating in for the specific purpose of insulting someone? Why?


To speak up for MR, and to paraphrase (rather badly) Tom Brown's effort from 1680:

I do not like thee, Mr. Woodduck.
The reasons why, well, I really don't give a ******.
But this I know, though my reasons suck:
I do not like thee, Mr. Woodduck.

Scansion suffers, but that's a small price to pay.

Actually, of course, I love the dickens out of you! Except for the Wagner stuff, of course.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This is where the breakdown happens. It's all very well to work out group patterns, group phenomena in responses to music, and come up with broad generalizations about what moves certain clusters of people to regard certain artworks as bad, good, great, masterpieces. But it collapses when we deal with an individual example, whose list of good/bad is unique, differing from the next person over. Let's hypothesize that Sir Kenneth Clark looks upon the Mona Lisa and asserts that he does not regard it as a masterpiece. You mention the Michelangelo _David_ and he says it's adequate but he much prefers either the Donatello or the Bernini. What then? The pieces sit there, mute, unchanged. Opinions about them vary is all we can say, though we can poll to see which pieces get more votes. I know people hate my ice cream analogy, but which are the best flavors of ice cream? We can perform lab experiments, do polling, measure brain activity, analyze the ingredients, and thus understand that more people prefer vanilla to strawberry (if that's the case), and even why, if they fall into that category. But the person preferring pistachio still prefers pistachio, and need not defend nor necessarily seek outside "explanation" or validation for the choice. For that person, pistachio is the masterpiece.


You're ignoring the central message of my post. Let me try to state it succinctly.

Very strong empirical evidence exists to demonstrate that the perception and valuing of _specific aesthetic qualities_ is present in humanity, qua humanity, as a normal and universal aspect of human nature. The ability of individuals to perceive aesthetic qualities, and the importance each person attaches to particular qualities, obviously varies, subject to various factors internal and external, but variability is similarly present in all human faculties and applications of them.

Individual taste is not a basis for any statement about the existence either of aesthetic qualities or the faculties of cognition which perceive them. Those qualities do exist, and they are "cognized" and valued, not surprisingly in fundamentally similar forms, in humanity as a species, as cross-cultural observation clearly reveals. Differences in artistic traditions and personal preferences don't invalidate this. They are merely branches from a solid central trunk (although it's difficult in some cases to discern what they have in common). Humans appear to have evolved in such a way as to respond with particular kinds of affect to particular configurations of form and sensation.

Your analogy with tastes in food could apply to the purely sensory elements of art - preferences in colors, for example - but pure sensation is only one element of art, and the one least capable of conveying the complex meanings which art is capable of communicating and evoking. A song or a painting is a different order of thing entirely from a plate of ice cream; taste buds are not tools of cognition, and art is potentially one of the most cognitively complex of human phenomena. The "breakdown" appears to be in the fact that I'm asking why art does what it does, and you're answering with pistachio.

Maybe this conversation is just an exercise in dada.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> To speak up for MR, and to paraphrase (rather badly) Tom Brown's effort from 1680:
> 
> I do not like thee, Mr. Woodduck.
> The reasons why, well, I really don't give a ******.
> But this I know, though my reasons suck:
> I do not like thee, Mr. Woodduck.
> 
> Scansion suffers, but that's a small price to pay.
> 
> Actually, of course, I love the dickens out of you! Except for the Wagner stuff, of course.


Hey! My Wagner stuff is some of my best work! It's where I get to expose the dark underbelly of forum life and rout the trolls!

(What was it you wanted to say on behalf of MR's little stink bomb? I must have missed that part.)


----------



## science

Just to be concrete -

If, for example, we were to do empirical research and find strong results that an overwhelming majority of people find green more pleasing than orange, would that make those people who prefer orange _wrong_, would it make them an especially insightful elite, or would they just be different, deserving neither dismissal nor praise?


----------



## science

An idea that is probably latent in the question of the OP is that music that doesn't "last centuries" isn't as good as music that does. 

I wonder whether that's actually true.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Just to be concrete -
> 
> If, for example, we were to do empirical research and find strong results that an overwhelming majority of people find green more pleasing than orange, would that make those people who prefer orange _wrong_, would it make them an especially insightful elite, or would they just be different, deserving neither dismissal nor praise?


"Wrong" in what possible way? How could a preference for orange be insightful? Is dismissing people or praising them an issue here?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> "Wrong" in what possible way? How could a preference for orange be insightful?


I'm asking you!

Maybe it would be better if _you_ gave an example of an empirically verifiable objective aesthetic value.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I'm asking you!
> 
> Maybe it would be better if _you_ gave an example of an empirically verifiable objective aesthetic value.


Order. ..................


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Order. ..................


So what is happening when people like a little bit of disorder?


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> Why not just present your list of 6 atonal masterpieces in one place, with a statement that you believe these 6 are indeed atonal masterpieces, and ask for comments to either support or deny your assertion?


They were in two lists (but lots of other works could be substituted) -

Berg - Wozzeck, Violin Concerto
Schoenberg - String Trio and Piano Concerto
Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Vingt Regards

But I no longer think anyone who believes there are no atonal masterpieces is going to attempt an explanation for their view. The only response has been to request me to justify the choice. I have more or less done that and, of course, the "objectivists" (who are also the anti-atonalists) feel my view is too subjective. Fair enough, it was (informed but subjective). The discussion continues to be another one that is abstract and philosophical. I take away from this that those who dislike and even feel angry about atonal music have recognised that their opinion is entirely subjective and no more true than the view that there are many atonal masterpieces.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> An idea that is probably latent in the question of the OP is that music that doesn't "last centuries" isn't as good as music that does.
> 
> I wonder whether that's actually true.


All factors being equal, I'd say there's some validity to it, but all factors are never equal. Survival is just a more extended and stringent popularity contest - a sort of poll in perpetuity.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> So what is happening when people like a little bit of disorder?


Other values are in play. Maybe suspense, or a sense of mystery, or the feeling of creation in progress... Actually order and disorder are constantly dancing together in the universe, and art acknowledges that in various ways. Order is still the most essential value, though; it's the first source of aesthetic pleasure. It's the triumph of life, of something over nothing.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Other values are in play. Maybe suspense, or a sense of mystery, or the feeling of creation in progress... Actually order and disorder are constantly dancing together in the universe, and art acknowledges that in various ways. *Order is still the most essential value, though; it's the first source of aesthetic pleasure. It's the triumph of life, of something over nothing.*


Just to clarify, is all of that meant to be objectively true? Like if I don't see that "order is the first source of objective pleasure," do I simply have different values or am I objectively wrong?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> What language is that, total internet narcissism? :lol:


The language we share! :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Just to clarify, is all of that meant to be objectively true? Like if I don't see that "order is the first source of objective pleasure," do I simply have different values or am I objectively wrong?


No thanks, Mr. science. I don't submit to "tests" and passive-aggressive little "gotcha" games.

Do you disagree with my statement? Do you have a different idea? If so, why don't you just offer it, and I'll consider its merits, as I hope you'll consider the merits of mine.

It's past my bedtime, so I'm quitting for tonight. You have eight hours to think about what you're up to here and consider whether it's productive or respectful. I have doubts about both.


----------



## mikeh375

Woodduck said:


> Other values are in play. Maybe suspense, or a sense of mystery, or the feeling of creation in progress... Actually order and disorder are constantly dancing together in the universe, and art acknowledges that in various ways. Order is still the most essential value, though; it's the first source of aesthetic pleasure. It's the triumph of life, of something over nothing.


It's incumbent on the creative will to impose said order for those very reasons you've cited Woodduck, including, and often most fundamentally, aesthetic pleasure. A composer will choose and execute what he likes to hear and do with material, in that there is no choice.
One can somewhat fancifully liken the imposition of order to rebelling against the Second Law as you imply, i.e. an attempt to freeze in place order, forever keeping it immune from increased entropy and in the process preserving an essence of the creator and symbolising a resistance to and defiance of, mortality - your "triumph of life".

Disorder (may I say dissonance, rhythmic and/or tonal?) is a relative concept especially in the minds of a creative I'd say. One can use it as a foil or one can accept it as the norm. Familiarity with any material at the nascent and subsequent stages during composition has the potential to skew perceptions of what the common definitions of disorder (dissonance!) can be - resistance and inhibition is relaxed with familiarity and once potential avenues of progress are glimpsed, then the sense of creative adventure begins. A narrative is eventually constructed, one that, even in a completely dissonant environment, will exploit conceptual opposites, if only in the mind and ear of the composer.

When a composer likes disorder, creative options are greatly enhanced and the journey's breadth greatly widened imv. The question as always is whether or not he/she leaves enough crumbs for the listener to follow.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Order. ..................


Reminds me of the Speaker in our British parliament. He routinely shouts "order" when the MPs are misbehaving and not respecting each other.

(For the record, I don't think "order" in music is objectively verifiable as some people recognise patterns and order where others hear only mess and chaos. And - I do agree with Science - an absence of order (or the appearance of that absence) can also be a very effective aspect of some music (for some reason I have an accurate memory of the snare drum in Nielsen's 5th playing in my head).


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Order. ..................


This I can agree with, with the the understanding that, by affirming that "order", "pattern", "predictability" are key defining inherent properties of Art, then the term "Art" to many minds cannot any longer apply to a population of objects, events, entities involving entire or large measures of disorder, non-order, rapidly increasing entropy, aleatorism, randomness, white noise, static, Brownian motion. Or it will it apply on a graded scale? Jackson Pollock, etc. off the boat and into the water? How will this focus on order play into our discussion so far?


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> Reminds me of the Speaker in our British parliament. He routinely shouts "order" when the MPs are misbehaving and not respecting each other.
> 
> (For the record, I don't think "order" in music is objectively verifiable as some people recognise patterns and order where others hear only mess and chaos. And - I do agree with Science - an absence of order (or the appearance of that absence) can also be a very effective aspect of some music (for some reason I have an accurate memory of the snare drum in Nielsen's 5th playing in my head).


Funnily enough he's also been prone to shouting..."Division, clear the house" of late...apt?...


----------



## Strange Magic

Because individuals vary greatly in their acceptance of disorder within art, the case for the primacy of individualist, personal, "subjective" aesthetics is made yet more compelling.


----------



## mikeh375

Strange Magic said:


> Because individuals vary greatly in their acceptance of disorder within art, the case for the primacy of individualist, personal, "subjective" aesthetics is made yet more compelling.


I agree for sure, especially from my perspective. One could comfortably suggest that what you say was a (the) motivator responsible for the 19thC drive toward unique expression and the 20th and 21stC fault line.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> They were in two lists (but lots of other works could be substituted) -
> 
> Berg - Wozzeck, Violin Concerto
> Schoenberg - String Trio and Piano Concerto
> Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Vingt Regards
> 
> But I no longer think anyone who believes there are no atonal masterpieces is going to attempt an explanation for their view. The only response has been to request me to justify the choice. I have more or less done that and, of course, the "objectivists" (who are also the anti-atonalists) feel my view is too subjective. Fair enough, it was (informed but subjective). The discussion continues to be another one that is abstract and philosophical. I take away from this that those who dislike and even feel angry about atonal music have recognised that their opinion is entirely subjective and no more true than the view that there are many atonal masterpieces.


I believe we have a _modus vivendi_ here. You and those in the atonalist community who share your list of masterpieces (there may be atonalists who do not) can have masterpieces with pride and a clear conscience. Adherents to my view of the primacy and validity of one's unique, individual aesthetics can willingly grant (from our distance and at no real effort) that freedom to you in exchange for your willingness to have some of us reject your masterpieces--or anybody's masterpieces--in part or in whole. _De gustibus......_


----------



## Larkenfield

The problem is that certain masterpieces of non-tonality (I dislike the word "atonal") are not masterpieces of _tonality_, and that's what they've had to work against for some listeners. But here are the labels again where something could still excellent, masterfully well done, and worth hearing without it having to be considered a masterpiece in the traditional sense like in a previous century. Some of the moderns were out to destroy those standards and now some who enjoy the music want to resuscitated them again rather than to forget them and leave them buried in the dust. In some modern pieces it's difficult if not impossible to even know if those works are being played accurately or correctly, and that can cause a distrust of the music or the performers. But I generally trust them even if I feel they are misrepresenting or misinterpreting the composer.


----------



## samm

DaveM said:


> (Fwiw, I find it interesting that Asian cultures have absorbed Western European classical music to the extent they have. IMO, there is a special significance -that goes well beyond simple subjectivity- of this kind of cross-culture attraction and acceptance.)


I fear that a good deal of that is about a perception of a prestige culture, rather than just recognition of inherent artistic value.

Cynical, but true I think.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> No thanks, Mr. science. I don't submit to "tests" and passive-aggressive little "gotcha" games.
> 
> Do you disagree with my statement? Do you have a different idea? If so, why don't you just offer it, and I'll consider its merits, as I hope you'll consider the merits of mine.
> 
> It's past my bedtime, so I'm quitting for tonight. You have eight hours to think about what you're up to here and consider whether it's productive or respectful. I have doubts about both.


I don't think you have doubts - you've made up your mind!

Anyway, you're the one claiming to have objective aesthetic insights. The burden of proof is on you.

My position is obvious: aesthetic pleasure is subjective, and we should enjoy our differences without rancor.

Sure, we can study people's aesthetic responses and if we wanted to we could probably create algorithms that would accurately predict how much a given person or group of people will like a certain work or tradition of art. But that is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And therefore people who don't like modern music are wrong to insult people who do, and people who do like it are wrong to insult people who don't - no matter how cleverly euphemistic either side is.

You can say that people like me just don't have the kind of aesthetic insight that people like you have, but before I bow to your superiority, I want to see the evidence.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> In some modern pieces it's difficult if not impossible to even know if those works are being played accurately or correctly, and that can cause a distrust of the music or the performers. But I generally trust them even if I feel they are misrepresenting or misinterpreting the composer.


I'm put in mind of a story told by George Benjamin about his first meeting - a sort of interview - with Messiaen, who was to become his teacher. Messiaen asked him to play one of his pieces which he did. But being nervous he played it more slowly than he would normally have done. Messiaen could never have heard to piece before but observed that he had not played it at the proper speed and also described reasons why he liked the piece and felt it showed rare ability.


----------



## science

samm said:


> I fear that a good deal of that is about a perception of a prestige culture, rather than just recognition of inherent artistic value.
> 
> Cynical, but true I think.


Even more cynical and just as true - perceptions like that condition _all_ of our aesthetic experiences.


----------



## ManateeFL

Enthusiast said:


> the "objectivists" (who are also the anti-atonalists)


I'm not really sure that's a fair or accurate summary of the discussion. And I think there's a lot more nuance to aestehetics than "objective vs subjective". It seems to me that different posters on thread this are having different discussions, and there's a lot of mischaracterizing other's positions or taking implications from comments that were never intended.

For what it's worth, I happen to agree with many of the thoughts and points that Woodduck, DaveM and others have made, but like isorhythm and yourself happen to love a work like Wozzeck and believe it is anestablished masterpiece.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Fair enough but it is an attempt to summarise (severely so) how I read the thread. I think a summary at this stage in the debate could be useful so do have a go at capturing the important nuances. For myself I have always had a sympathy for the view that there are objective standards for judging "the value of art" but have finally become convinced by the arguments of science and Strange Magic that the view does not stand up to scrutiny. I was a little surprised to find the arguments advanced for objectivity to be so weak. I may have missed something (I tend to turn off when the discussion gets heated with insults flying) but do find the positions adopted for the subjective side to be very convincing. It's not often one gets to change one's mind - or even to shift a little more on a journey from one position to the other - but that has happened for me in this thread. 

But I do still wish the thread could get back to the main subject and do still feel that the greatness of many atonal works can be supported from either of the objective-subjective positions.


----------



## ManateeFL

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Fair enough but it is an attempt to summarise (severely so) how I read the thread. I think a summary at this stage in the debate could be useful so do have a go at capturing the important nuances. For myself I have always had a sympathy for the view that there are objective standards for judging "the value of art" but have finally become convinced by the arguments of science and Strange Magic that the view does not stand up to scrutiny. I was a little surprised to find the arguments advanced for objectivity to be so weak. I may have missed something (I tend to turn off when the discussion gets heated with insults flying) but do find the positions adopted for the subjective side to be very convincing. It's not often one gets to change one's mind - or even to shift a little more on a journey from one position to the other - but that has happened for me in this thread.


Of course there have been good points made by both sides -- which is why reducing aesthetics and aesthetic judgments to "objective" and "subjective" is an oversimplification, or at least, it doesn't get us very far. I mean, I don't know. I believe composers like Bach and Berg were aiming for and achieved a degree of excellence in their music, that excellence in art is observable and obtainable. And at the same time I'm not denying that art is inherently subjective. I find my 5 year old daughter's piano "compositions" to be absolutely irresistable -- it brings a smile to my face to hear her indulge in her creativity and her imagination. Subjectively, I think they are wonderful, bu I recognize they are not masterpieces.

But sure, let's get back to the main subject of the thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I composed a piece - a tune, really - as a 10 year old. Imagine my disappointment when I was playing my records of Die Zauberflote to hear "my" tune playing. I had composer Mozart. It sounds like your daughter may be more talented than I was!


----------



## Enthusiast

I was just reading some of the online edition of The Guardian and found a live webchat with readers asking questions to Simon Rattle. His response on a question about contemporary music was as follows.



> There are really great composers out there here and now. Probably in the same proportion that there always were - which is a very small percentage. And what we might thikn of as 'great' changes from decade to decade. It is clear now that Kurtag is one of the masters. 30 years ago it would not have been clear. But I can think of a goodly number of pieces that were written in this century that I know my great grandchildren will be playing and listening to. One we played last week - Hans Abrahmsen's Let Me Tell You. Haas In Vain is another obvious choice, as is George Benjamin's Written in Skin. Sofia Gubaidulina is still writing masterpieces at an advanced age. Betsy Jolas is a shamefully recent discovery for me but doesn't make her music any less extraordinary ... but i will fill too much space if i start on this.


The whole chat is still going on and can be found here - https://www.theguardian.com/music/live/2019/sep/09/simon-rattle-webchat


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast, I don't want to divert your thread, but given your post above I have to relate to you a tale from the golden days of Hollywood, just for some light relief.

Max Steiner was very pleased with himself about having just written the theme to Gone with the Wind and proceeded to tell his fellow composers at the studios about it. Steiner and two other house composers used to get together to play cards so the other two decided to give him a scare. (I wish I could remember who the other two were, but they were household names - one might have been David Raskin). Hollywood in those days had an orchestra on tap, along with copyists, orchestrators and composers. The two in question managed to 'borrow' Steiner's score when he wasn't around, quickly got it recorded by a band and managed to get it played on the radio whilst they where playing cards one night. When the theme came on the two composers said how much they loved this tune and had heard it often. Steiner of course, turned white fearing he had subconsciously plagiarised it from somewhere.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ What a dirty trick! Great story - thanks.

Not my thread by the way and I think it needs to be diverted!


----------



## millionrainbows

mikeh375 said:


> Enthusiast, I don't want to divert your thread, but given your post above I have to relate to you a tale from the golden days of Hollywood, just for some light relief.
> 
> Max Steiner was very pleased with himself about having just written the theme to Gone with the Wind and proceeded to tell his fellow composers at the studios about it. Steiner and two other house composers used to get together to play cards so the other two decided to give him a scare. (I wish I could remember who the other two were, but they were household names - one might have been David Raskin). Hollywood in those days had an orchestra on tap, along with copyists, orchestrators and composers. The two in question managed to 'borrow' Steiner's score when he wasn't around, quickly got it recorded by a band and managed to get it played on the radio whilst they where playing cards one night. When the theme came on the two composers said how much they loved this tune and had heard it often. Steiner of course, turned white fearing he had subconsciously plagiarised it from somewhere.


I had a very similar experience, which was created by two Scientologists!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I really don't appreciate the omnislashing tactic you're applying to my posts. It was short enough that such a tactic shouldn't be necessary.



vtpoet said:


> That's all anybody has been saying the entire time!


Now I dare say it's you that's been missing the point as I don't recall anyone saying or suggesting this. Feel free to go back and find any posts (at least since I entered the thread) that stated all they're doing/suggesting is creating objective data (essentially "polling data") from subjective tastes.



vtpoet said:


> That you draw objective conclusions about what "Masterpieces" have in common. If that weren't the case, conservatories wouldn't exist, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, let alone Salieri, would have had nothing to teach.


The problem here is that you can also draw objective conclusions about what masterpieces don't have in common, or what they have in common with non-masterpieces. If there was a formula for creating masterpieces then every artist would follow it. That's not how it works.



vtpoet said:


> The music industry does this every day. Any producer worth their salt can tell you, objectively, what is apt to appeal to the widest possible audience. Does that make it "objectively better"? Not as a rule. But Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (among other composers) grasped what made music objectively better, otherwise their music wouldn't be held up as masterpieces.


The music industry is vast and only a select few make it to the top. Meanwhile, nearly every producer and artist has access to the music that's massively appealing and it's pretty easy to point out a number of features they all share (there are numerous YouTube videos on this very subject). Yet this doesn't change the fact that the same names repeatedly find themselves at the top of the charts while most others, often doing the same thing (or close to it), do not. There's clearly more to it than whatever these broadly appealing features happen to be.

Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven grasped what kind of music they wanted to make, they made it, and a great many people over time have thought it good. There are others who've thought it bad. There's even more who've been indifferent or not cared at all. You have to take them into account to.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

toshiromifune said:


> But if you put sunglasses on, you don't see the sun the same way anymore. It's simmilar for music. Think of sunglasses as our bias (culture, familiarity, exposure, nostalgia, "coolness"...). Of course, it's much easier to remove your sunglasses than to remove your bias about music. Actually, it is impossible to listen to music objectively (without bias), but that doesn't mean that there is no objectively greater and lesser music.


To an extent I agree, but I also think you'd agree that putting sunglasses on doesn't change the nature of the sun. No matter how one is looking at it, it's still a giant ball of hydrogen and helium. But this isn't how many think of music. They think that their biases/sunglasses changes the nature of the music itself, that the music is innately good, bad, mediocre, a masterpiece, etc. They don't seem to understand that, objectively, music is just patterns of sound in time. You can describe these patterns of sound objectively in terms of rhythm, pitch, harmony, etc., but the moment you start calling it "good" or "bad" or "masterpiece" you're speaking to how your biases, your mind, your subjectivity, react to those things. Then, they fool themselves further in thinking that because a lot of people happen to share their reactions that this makes the reactions "more objective" or "closer to being objective" when that's nonsense; if everyone wore the same sunglasses it wouldn't make the sun any less objectively brighter or hotter, yet that's what many here are suggesting about music.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you think? I've heard some works by I believe Schoenberg that I think will last, but I think several will be forgotten. Such works just don't tend to have memorable hooks like the big three, and other composers, obviously.


Of course, as only a few composers of each period survived the ages, the same will happen to the music of the 20th and current century. Bach's KDF, Motetten or certain organ works are a bit too abstract for the general taste, as Beethoven's Grosse Fuge or, in general, his late quartets.

Music of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Bartok, Lutoslawski, Boulez, Gubaidulina, Ustvolskaja, Steve Reich, Frank Zappa, John Zorn will most certainly survive. Life would be very dull without them.


----------



## mikeh375

Enthusiast said:


> ^ What a dirty trick! Great story - thanks.
> 
> Not my thread by the way and I think it needs to be diverted!


oops apologies to Cap no36.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I never said that they can't have explanations: physiological, psychological, ideological, whatever. But who appeals to such things in trying to understand a piano concerto?


OK, you said it would make such explanations pointless, but why so? Why is explaining such things physiologically, psychologically, etc. more "pointless" than how we do it anyway? The way we do it now is, as I see it, just a rough approximation of laymen trying to put words to psychological states anyway.



Woodduck said:


> "Values" has more than one definition. Am I being a little archaic in using the word to describe a quality of excellence inherent in something? A thing has "value" in that sense if it ought to be valued, or appraised as excellent, by a reasonable, intelligent, informed person. This isn't the same, again, as personal liking. I recognize the artistic values in Milhaud's neoclassical works even though I don't much care for that style of music.


I don't think it matters what definition you pick because it would still ultimately come down to what we think about it. Hume laid this out clearly centuries ago and nobody has been able to refute it yet: you cannot get an "ought" from an "is;" or, in this context, you can't say how something "ought" to be valued merely by stating facts about it. You also can't reason or inform your way towards values, it just doesn't work like that.

Seriously, try to argue why we ought to value anything (in music or otherwise) merely by appealing to facts: "We ought to value X because Y(fact)." The moment someone asks "why" you're in a pickle, because you'll have to fall back on some other value, and then all one has to do is disagree with that value.



Woodduck said:


> In the quote above, by saying "any other music that people feel that way about," you're reducing my response to Beethoven's quartet to a "feeling." You surely realize that there is far more to the perception of art than "feeling." Plenty of things can make us "feel," but they don't all impress us as being great works of art. A relentless drum beat can induce ecstatic feelings around the village fire pit, but there isn't much to be said for it as music.


That's literally all it is is a feeling. Even your being impressed is a feeling. What else would it be? I'm not using "feeling" in the strictly emotional sense here. I understand the idea of being intellectually impressed by art that doesn't move me (I wrote of Alkan in this way, if you recall); that doesn't mean that my being intellectually impressed isn't, in itself, also a feeling. It's still a reaction I'm having to certain features in the work.



Woodduck said:


> Some kinds of music are inherently capable of greater complexity of form and richness of expression. I call "remarkable" composers and works that exploit those potentialities effectively. Things aren't "remarkable" just because someone likes them.


You consistently get this backwards; the way we judge what is remarkable, what counts as "richness of expression," is first and foremost determined by what we like. We have never, in the history of art, experienced something that nobody liked, and then proceed to say how it was remarkable and rich in expression. No, what happens is that people (some or many) like something first, and then they point to the features that thing possesses and say "this is a remarkable richness of expression" BECAUSE they liked it.

Now, you can argue that certain features in the art itself cause this reaction, but if it was only features in the art that caused such a thing then it would cause it in everyone, and it clearly doesn't. So the causal nexus also clearly includes subjectivities of those experiencing it. You can go on all you want about the features in the art, and this is great for folks like me who share your tastes and love to study/learn about art, but until you also explain why certain subjects perceive/react to these features as they do you've, at best, only got half the puzzle.



Woodduck said:


> No, not "done" at all. The things Beethoven's Op. 132 does are more complex, more expressively profound, and more difficult to imagine and realize in a work of art than the things a Strauss waltz does.


I will grant that "complexity," depending on precisely what we mean, can be an objective feature of music, but I would disagree that it's a universal positive. By most measures, many of Alkan's works are more complex than Schubert's late sonatas, but I doubt many agree they're better. As for "expressively profound," this is, again, very much just based on your feelings/reactions. Do we really care how "difficult to imagine and realize in a work of art" something is? I can think of plenty examples in art of works simple to imagine/realize being far better than works difficult to imagine/realize. Hard to do in music for the simple reason that, ultimately, composing is just writing notes on paper, so gauging how hard something is to imagine/realize has a huge subjective component to it, as in what comes easy/difficult to one composer may not to others.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I said "there are objective factors inherent in music which _CAN_ serve as a legitimate basis for aesthetic judgments." That they _CAN_ is indisputable, given the fact that they actually _DO!_ This is not dependent on anyone's opinion as to whether they _SHOULD._


The only way they _CAN_ and _DO_ is because some think they _SHOULD._ Otherwise, how else _WOULD_ they?

I mean, hypothetically, literally _ANY _feature of music _COULD_ serve as a basis for objective judgment, no matter how small/insignificant. That's because objective aspects of music just _ARE_ and the only reason any come to serve as a basis for aesthetic judgments is because _WE LIKE THEM._


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> This is a surprising perspective and I don't think it is supported by anything you've studied, because in taking the subjectivity-based argument to an extreme you have both made the evaluation of what is a masterpiece all about you and diminished the accomplishments of the humans who have created these masterpieces, accomplishments that are objective facts.
> 
> Perhaps somewhere back in time in cultures, say Europe in the 18th and 19th century, subjective factors had a part in defining what great classical music is. But that isn't just a matter of 'Gee, I like that, it's pretty.', it also involves physiological factors such as pattern-matching, something you've talked about. Over decades and centuries the music became something that was entrenched in the society and the works of the composers who create the works that are both highly original and unique -something no one else has done and something musicologists agree is extraordinary- became accepted as masterpieces.
> 
> (Fwiw, I find it interesting that Asian cultures have absorbed Western European classical music to the extent they have. IMO, there is a special significance -that goes well beyond simple subjectivity- of this kind of cross-culture attraction and acceptance.)
> 
> I don't totally dismiss subjectivity-related factors, but IMO you are taking it to an extreme that diminishes what is great about masterpieces and the people who make them.


The alternative to making the "evaluation of a masterpiece" "all about me" is making it "all about everyone else," and what is the purpose of doing that, other than the fear of going against the crowd? I've also diminished nothing. Such works are still considered masterpieces by a great many people. They don't need my approval to prevent their diminishment. Seriously, try to explain how my not thinking The Goldberg Variations is a masterpiece "diminishes" it.

I don't disagree with much in the rest of your post, but you seem to be confusing "subjective" with meaning "of the individual" rather than "of the mind." The subjective/objective distinction isn't that between the individual and the collective, but literally between what's "of the subject" (what only exists in our mind(s)) and what's "of the object" (what exists as properties of objects). Most of what you're making an argument for is the existence of collective standards. I agree collective standards exist for music (many standards, in fact, for all kinds of music and times and cultures), but not objective ones. I also agree that, due to the parts of subjectivity we share due to however-many years of evolution, certain aspects of music--like pattern finding--are innately appealing to us and our standards are built on such foundations.


----------



## toshiromifune

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To an extent I agree, but I also think you'd agree that putting sunglasses on doesn't change the nature of the sun. No matter how one is looking at it, it's still a giant ball of hydrogen and helium. But this isn't how many think of music. They think that their biases/sunglasses changes the nature of the music itself, that the music is innately good, bad, mediocre, a masterpiece, etc. They don't seem to understand that, objectively, music is just patterns of sound in time. You can describe these patterns of sound objectively in terms of rhythm, pitch, harmony, etc., but the moment you start calling it "good" or "bad" or "masterpiece" you're speaking to how your biases, your mind, your subjectivity, react to those things. Then, they fool themselves further in thinking that because a lot of people happen to share their reactions that this makes the reactions "more objective" or "closer to being objective" when that's nonsense; if everyone wore the same sunglasses it wouldn't make the sun any less objectively brighter or hotter, yet that's what many here are suggesting about music.


I agree with you that "the moment you start calling it "good" or "bad" or "masterpiece" you're speaking to how your biases, your mind, your subjectivity, react to those things. " I even said that it is practically impossible to be completely objective or unbiased about music. But I also said that it doesn't mean that there is no greater or lesser music. Of curse, there is no definite definition of 'greatness', so I talk about music quality here - how music affects our brains, our hypothetical unbiased brain. Because I believe that we are all born with the same ability to 'judge' music (to tell what sounds nice, pleasant, beautiful, sad, better, more powerful...). Composers don't compose some particular piece of music for my or your brain type, they compose for everyone who is willing to listen to it. So the difference in preferences in my opinion comes from our biases. The music quality stays the same, just like the sun stays the same when you open your eyes or remove your sunglasses.

Here's an example of what I mean. When I say "I like The Four Seasons" or "I like The Four Seasons more than The Goldberg Variations" I can't be right or wrong here. But when I say "The Four Seasons are better than The Goldberg Variations" I honestly believe that I can be objectively wrong here. But I also believe that it is impossible to prove which piece of music is better because our biases are too strong. Of course, it's not so black and white and I know that we can't really compare all music this way. Some songs are better for dancing, others for relaxation, but I don't think that it is right to say that music is entirely subjective and that there are no innate musical qualities.


----------



## samm

I'm pretty much confident that a goodly number of what might be called 'atonal works' have already made it into the arena of works that will stand the test of time. I don't know if that means popular as in 'music for the millions', but they are there.

Things have changed anyway. There is a lot of music for the media that has borrowed heavily from modern and contemporary music and is already deeply embedded int the popular psyche. So much so that when people chance upon the source works they feel they know them already. A lot of works of the so-called modernist era are already embedded into the concert repertoire, so they need no-one to fret over them.

Again, the game has kinda changed. The access to recorded media has put out a lot of work and a lot of music from the past that may well have been forgotten. It is not like the distant or even the recent past when the general listening pool was smaller. We no longer need to rely upon the recommendations of 'expert critics', though we may well consult them at times. There is more out there, so I guess there is more that will be listened to..and perhaps just as much forgotten.


----------



## DaveM

samm said:


> I fear that a good deal of that is about a perception of a prestige culture, rather than just recognition of inherent artistic value.
> Cynical, but true I think.


Haven't read much about what's going on with CM in China have you.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Enthusiast: "But I do still wish the thread could get back to the main subject and do still feel that the greatness of many atonal works can be supported from either of the objective-subjective positions."


I have good news. You can have your atonal masterpieces "objectively", and also eat them too "subjectively". All you need for the first is to gather your like-minded atonal objectivists and then decide and agree which objective criteria or properties make them masterpieces. Then, subjectively, just affirm that, in your opinion, these are masterpieces "because it is your pleasure" to do so.

In a previous post, I stated that the Ravel Left Hand concerto was a masterpiece and very briefly hinted why--every note seems perfectly chosen and placed. Had I academic musical training, I likely could couch my approval in technical terms. I also found the Schubert C-major symphony not a masterpiece, lovely as it is, because after stating the musical arguments, they never seemed to go anywhere. Similarly, I find the Bach D-minor keyboard concerto a stone-cold, drop dead masterpiece that has me weeping every time I hear it. The recognition and acknowledgement of the primacy and uniqueness of one's aesthetic sense is a liberating way of experiencing art and music, plus the arguments to the contrary do not convince. Don't convince me, anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ OK (I knew my masterpieces would be recognised by both camps) ... but I can't agree with you (and you don't need me to) on Schubert's 9th! It is widely recognised as great and who cares if its approach to development was innovative?


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't disagree with much in the rest of your post, but you seem to be confusing "subjective" with meaning "of the individual" rather than "of the mind." The subjective/objective distinction isn't that between the individual and the collective, but literally between what's "of the subject" (what only exists in our mind(s)) and what's "of the object" (what exists as properties of objects). Most of what you're making an argument for is the existence of collective standards. I agree collective standards exist for music (many standards, in fact, for all kinds of music and times and cultures), but not objective ones. I also agree that, due to the parts of subjectivity we share due to however-many years of evolution, certain aspects of music--like pattern finding--are innately appealing to us and our standards are built on such foundations.


Subjective clearly can not mean 'of the mind'. Otherwise, all axiomatic logic systems (like math) would be subjective definitionally. At that point, you might as well declare everything to be subjective and become a post-modernist.

Since you're so against collective standards (which I happen to belive is the only rational basis for objectivity), try this thought experiment. If everyone told you that they could in no way observe, see, or feel the sun, would you belive them all to be wrong or yourself insane?


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> Subjective clearly can not mean 'of the mind'. Otherwise, all axiomatic logic systems (like math) would be subjective definitionally. At that point, you might as well declare everything to be subjective and become a post-modernist.


For future reference:
Subjective = differs from my view.
Objective = agrees closely with my view.
:lol:


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> Subjective clearly can not mean 'of the mind'. Otherwise, all axiomatic logic systems (like math) would be subjective definitionally.


No. An axiom may be a truth of the world. The apprehension of it is a state of mind of course.

The issue here is what truth consists in, and there are some systems where it is identified with justifiable assertability, which is a sort of subjectivity at least to this extent: there is a subject involved.



BachIsBest said:


> Since you're so against collective standards (which I happen to belive is the only rational basis for objectivity), try this thought experiment. If everyone told you that they could in no way observe, see, or feel the sun, would you belive them all to be wrong or yourself insane?


The first thing I'd do is investigate how they explain the causes and effects of light in the day and dark in the night.

A more interesting example maybe is if someone held their hand in front of their face and said that they had no reason think that there is a hand in front of their face (it could be a dream etc.)


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> ^ OK (I knew my masterpieces would be recognised by both camps) ... but I can't agree with you (and you don't need me to) on Schubert's 9th! It is widely recognised as great and who cares if its approach to development was innovative?


This post is strictly a diversion from the OP but I am weak and cannot control myself. In response to those who, like Enthusiast, find Schubert's approach to development in the C-major "innovative", here are the Two Curmudgeons, Brockway and Weinstock, on that symphony (which, despite its flaws, they declare a masterpiece). After praising the work enthusiastically, they write:

"The main themes throughout...are the stuff of which great music can be made, utterly beautiful in themselves and susceptible of infinite development. Bur alas! it was again on the rock of development that Schubert foundered. After proving conclusively that he could write page after page of great symphonic music, he seems to have unfocused his attention on the extremely difficult business at hand, and to have lapsed into a vein of irrelevant garrulousness."

From their delightful, richly opinionated classic, _Men of Music_. Brahms and Liszt lovers and haters also will find much to engage their full interest in MoM. Addictive reading.


----------



## Blancrocher

Enthusiast said:


> They were in two lists (but lots of other works could be substituted) -
> 
> Berg - Wozzeck, Violin Concerto
> Schoenberg - String Trio and Piano Concerto
> Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Vingt Regards


Fwiw, I'd agree with each of those having masterpiece status--aside from the string trio, each of them is in my more-or-less-regular listening schedule.

As an aside, it's interesting when one reads reviews of the Vingt Regards. It's often called a masterpiece; others make invidious comparisons between it and the Catalogue d'oiseaux, often, I think, because they are concerned about the former's emotional content and religious purpose. It's always been easier for me to connect with the earlier music, regardless its ostensible subject matter.

I've recently been returning to the catalogue of birds, trying to come to personal terms with it, in part inspired by the recent release of the Aimard recording (which I don't think I like compared to earlier traversals, though that might be just because of a visceral response to his "noisier" interpretation).


----------



## vtpoet

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I really don't appreciate the omnislashing tactic you're applying to my posts.


Well, be sure and file your complaint with the proper Ministry of Internet Injustices.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't recall anyone saying or suggesting this. Feel free to go back and find any posts (at least since I entered the thread) that stated all they're doing/suggesting is creating objective data (essentially "polling data") from subjective tastes.


Which was in response to:

"Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes..."

First of all, the term "polling data" is your own interpolation. I don't know where you get that but I can't say as I care all that much. But as for not recalling anyone saying or suggesting this.... Here's a comment from Woodduck:

"The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments....can also be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself."

Or DaveM

"...musicological experts have evaluated a number of Beethoven's works (for instance) strictly on the basis of the originality of what he created and how he did it regardless of who likes them and who doesn't."

Or DaveM again:

"...experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective."



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem here is that you can also draw objective conclusions about what masterpieces don't have in common, or what they have in common with non-masterpieces. If there was a formula for creating masterpieces then every artist would follow it. That's not how it works.


Good grief, It actually works exactly that way. Artists have always learned from other artists, have always imitated them. The great artists actually produce their own masterpieces --- think of Beethoven's imitation of Mozart's piano quintet. As for why everyone doesn't produce a "masterpiece", it's not because the models aren't out there but for lack of talent. (And I know that will open a whole 'nother can of worms because there's a whole group of people who don't "believe" in talent (or genius for that matter) ---- generally the subjectivists."



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The music industry is vast and only a select few make it to the top. Meanwhile, nearly every producer and artist has access to the music that's massively appealing and it's pretty easy to point out a number of features they all share (there are numerous YouTube videos on this very subject). Yet this doesn't change the fact that the same names repeatedly find themselves at the top of the charts while most others, often doing the same thing (or close to it), do not.


Then they're not doing the same thing are they? I mean the explanation for this is self-evident.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven grasped what kind of music they wanted to make, they made it, and a great many people over time have thought it good. There are others who've thought it bad. There's even more who've been indifferent or not cared at all. You have to take them into account to.


So what? I mean you're saying nothing at all here. You could say the same thing about anything. There are people who like X and people who don't The question at hand is what the preponderance of people think and why.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> They were in two lists (but lots of other works could be substituted) -
> 
> Berg - Wozzeck, Violin Concerto
> Schoenberg - String Trio and Piano Concerto
> Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Vingt Regards
> 
> But I no longer think anyone who believes there are no atonal masterpieces is going to attempt an explanation for their view.


I came into this conversation somewhat later and took up arms against absolute subjectivism --- which I consider to be utter nonsense.

But getting to your original question....

I'm of an open mind on these pieces. Since I don't consider myself an expert on this period of music, or an aficionado, I'm willing to suspend my initial reaction and listen to the reasons one might consider them masterpieces.

*Edit:* My initial answer to the topic heading, by the way, was that atonal pieces would endure like earlier compositions, but will always be limited to niche devotées. My prediction anyways....


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hume laid this out clearly centuries ago and nobody has been able to refute it yet: you cannot get an "ought" from an "is;" or, in this context, you can't say how something "ought" to be valued merely by stating facts about it. You also can't reason or inform your way towards values, it just doesn't work like that.


The longer we talk about this, the more strongly I feel that you're not responding to me and my beliefs so much as to a straw man who holds a radical position standing opposite to your own radical subjectivism. Consider the possibility that I don't hold that position - that I'm not a radical objectivist in aesthetics - and some of my statements might then appear in a different light. I don't think anything I've said implies a belief that a subjective element is absent from aesthetic judgments. My beef is with the idea that nothing else matters in forming those judgments. A radical subjectivist criterion of aesthetic quality - "I consider it good only because I 'like' it" - leads us nowhere in understanding art, neither the processes of its creation, nor the forms in which it manifests itself, nor its function in human life.

In a sense, Hume is correct about deriving values from facts, but only if we begin from no assumptions whatever. That's fine for the ivory tower, but no good for living. If we begin with the assumption that living is the goal, then a great many values follow from a great many facts. Since art is one of the profoundest things humans do to enhance human life, Hume has nothing to offer here and can safely be left in his study.



> That's literally all it is is a feeling. Even your being impressed is a feeling. What else would it be? I'm not using "feeling" in the strictly emotional sense here. I understand the idea of being intellectually impressed by art that doesn't move me (I wrote of Alkan in this way, if you recall); that doesn't mean that my being intellectually impressed isn't, in itself, also a feeling. It's still a reaction I'm having to certain features in the work.


Being intellectually impressed is a "feeling"? That obliterates a necessary distinction. Being intellectually impressed is, of course, likely to be _accompanied by_ a feeling. To be intellectually impressed is, most essentially, to be convinced by the rightness or excellence of something. If that constitutes a feeling, then being convinced of the existence of the world or the truth of a statement is equally a feeling. I doubt you would describe it as such, but even if you would, it's unhelpful to call it that.

As I said before, there is much more involved in the perception of art than feeling. "Much more" doesn't imply that feeling plays no part. On the other hand, it's essential to realize that feelings, too, can and often should be evaluated.



> You consistently get this backwards; the way we judge what is remarkable, what counts as "richness of expression," is first and foremost determined by what we like. We have never, in the history of art, experienced something that nobody liked, and then proceed to say how it was remarkable and rich in expression. No, what happens is that people (some or many) like something first, and then they point to the features that thing possesses and say "this is a remarkable richness of expression" BECAUSE they liked it.


Liking art is only one aspect of evaluating it, and not always the most important one, or the one most determinative of our judgments. You're saying that we think Beethoven's late quartets rich in expression because we like them. This sounds silly to me. I say that one of the reasons - ONE of the reasons - I like (love) them is that they are rich (complex, diverse, subtle, surprising, original) in expressive qualities. Of course I couldn't know this without a feeling response to the music, but prior to anyone's feelings about it there have to be features of the music which both draw upon a complex musical language (in this case the complex vocabulary of the Western musical tradition) and, at the same time, activate complex responses in the human organism, to create the sense of a "richness of expression." It should be obvious that not all music explores the nooks, crannies, and outer reaches of expression to the same extent. As with verbal language, a complex musical "language" can express more nuances of meaning than a simpler one, and our perception of this richness is only partly affected by how much we like the work in question. Naturally we perceive more, in music as in most things, if we like what we're perceiving.



> Now, you can argue that certain features in the art itself cause this reaction, but if it was only features in the art that caused such a thing then it would cause it in everyone, and it clearly doesn't.


Yes, in any response to anything there must be causes both internal and external.



> So the causal nexus also clearly includes subjectivities of those experiencing it.


I've never denied it.



> You can go on all you want about the features in the art, and this is great for folks like me who share your tastes and love to study/learn about art, but until you also explain why certain subjects perceive/react to these features as they do you've, at best, only got half the puzzle.


We will never fully "explain" individual reactions. But so what? Since when was the explanation of differences between things a primary object of study? Understanding rests primarily on the identification of relationships, patterns, coherences, correspondences, causes. Until you find - or acknowledge - those, you haven't got ANY of the puzzle.



> I will grant that "complexity," depending on precisely what we mean, can be an objective feature of music, but I would disagree that it's a universal positive.


No one claims it is.



> As for "expressively profound," this is, again, very much just based on your feelings/reactions.


And where do those feelings/reactions come from? What are they reactions to? Alcohol? A break on my taxes? The anniversary of 9/11?



> Do we really care how "difficult to imagine and realize in a work of art" something is? I can think of plenty examples in art of works simple to imagine/realize being far better than works difficult to imagine/realize.


Ever hear of the expressions, "taken in context" and "all else being equal"? Both apply here. Taken in context, and all else being equal, a thing which represents an exceptional feat of imagination and accomplishes something difficult is particularly to be admired, at least by normal human beings.

By the way, what do you mean by "far better"? 



> gauging how hard something is to imagine/realize has a huge subjective component to it, as in what comes easy/difficult to one composer may not to others.


Obviously. How does that make the work itself less impressive to the listener, or less impressive in the whole context of musical creation? Do you try to guess how difficult a given song was for Schubert to write? All we know is that some works of art are the products of creative powers exceeding those of most artists, and far exceeding those of the mass of humanity. And it isn't as hard as you seem to think to say what those works are. Innumerable humans, including you and I, have readily recognized and admired many of them.


----------



## BachIsBest

Mandryka said:


> No. An axiom may be a truth of the world. The apprehension of it is a state of mind of course.
> 
> The issue here is what truth consists in, and there are some systems where it is identified with justifiable assertability, which is a sort of subjectivity at least to this extent: there is a subject involved.


None of the axioms of mathematics are truths of the world. They are a construction of the human mind that happens (hence its utility) to be a useful approximation in the real world. Even the Greeks understood this. hey created the first axiomatic system as a sort of 'idealised world' (that approximated the 'real world') where things could be proven definitively true or false because they recognised that one cannot do this in the real world.



Mandryka said:


> The first thing I'd do is investigate how they explain the causes and effects of light in the day and dark in the night.
> 
> A more interesting example maybe is if someone held their hand in front of their face and said that they had no reason think that there is a hand in front of their face (it could be a dream etc.)


I fear you are missing the point. It is not in the nuances of the example. The question is: if you experienced phenomenological reality one way, and everyone else's purported experience of phenomenological reality was different (contradicted yours), would you then believe everyone else to be wrong, or rather, yourself insane.


----------



## Strange Magic

It goes on. 

It cannot be demonstrated that one piece of art is intrinsically better than another. What can be demonstrated easily is that one piece of art is different from another. What also can be demonstrated is whether a piece of art has been correctly labeled. What can be personally, individually affirmed is what "we" think about the piece of art--like it, rank it. We can also compare and contrast our reactions to a piece of art with those of others. That's what we do here on TC.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It cannot be demonstrated that one piece of art is intrinsically better than another.


That depends on what you think "demonstration" must consist of. A teacher of composition might have little difficulty demonstrating that a student's symphony is trite, opaquely scored, unnecessarily repetitive, overstuffed with poorly developed ideas, and lacking in contrast and narrative shape. If and when his aesthetic perceptiveness is sufficiently developed, the student may comprehend the demonstration rather well and, going back to the drawing board with clearer perceptions, find effective solutions to the work's problems. And if he can do that, he will know with certainty that what he's produced is an improvement, and not merely because he's been told that it is.

Obviously the composition teacher's demonstration of his student's incompetence would mean nothing whatsoever to a great many people. Similarly, they wouldn't understand what Beethoven was doing, writing and rewriting, scratching out and revising, revising again and losing sleep over the feeling that the notes just weren't _right._ They might even theorize that he was simply trying to "feel good," and that the more sleep he lost the better he felt! But what would we expect? There are people to whom it can't be "demonstrated" that green is different from red, or that a president should not take money from foreign heads of state, or that Jeffrey Daumer was a bad man, or that one's wife isn't living a secret life as a prostitute, or that the problem of evil presents an insuperable logical obstacle to holding certain religious beliefs, or - yes - that Beethoven was a greater composer than Ethelbert Nevin. There are all sorts of sensory, cognitive, emotional and moral impairments and peculiarities which prevent "demonstrations" of realities from reaching their intended recipients.

Well then... _Chacun a son "demonstration."_


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> None of the axioms of mathematics are truths of the world. They are a construction of the human mind that happens (hence its utility) to be a useful approximation in the real world. even the Greeks understood this. . .


This doesn't sound like Aristotle to me.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> A radical subjectivist criterion of aesthetic quality - "I consider it good only because I 'like' it"


But does any really thoughtful person actually think that?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I guess I have seen posts that seem to imply this argument. But were they examples of "radical subjectivism" or merely an easy response? It is easier to say something like that than to describe the process by which you judged the piece to be good. We all have tastes and these are, I guess, informed by our previous listening experience. So the radical subjectivist position as described is probably impossible.


----------



## Byron

science said:


> But does any really thoughtful person actually think that?


Strange Magic believes that, and I think we can both agree he's a thoughtful person. He's stated so himself in the past in one of the many discussions we've had on the subject.

https://www.talkclassical.com/56611-music-ok-deride-71.html#post1594931


----------



## science

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I guess I have seen posts that seem to imply this argument. But were they examples of "radical subjectivism" or merely an easy response? It is easier to say something like that than to describe the process by which you judged the piece to be good. We all have tastes and these are, I guess, informed by our previous listening experience. So the radical subjectivist position as described is probably impossible.


I would also guess that you respect other people enough to recognize that something could be good to them even if you don't personally like it.

There are basically three positions here:


Only my feelings matter. A work of art is only as good as I think it is, and no one else or their feelings matter. I alone am right; everyone who disagrees with me in any way is wrong. 
Only the feelings of people like me matter. A work of art is only as good as we think it is. No one else or their feelings matter. We are right; people who disagree with us are wrong. (Disagreement will be tolerated - but only when _we_ disagree with each other.) 
All our feelings matter, whether we agree or disagree. "Right" and "wrong" don't apply to feelings about art. 

We could debate whether the first option there is "radically subjective" or just a solipsistic version of the second option.

The second one is what people assume when they argue that their tastes are objectively correct, that people who have different tastes are objectively wrong.

The third one is the messy one, but it's the reality of free people. Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we'll disagree. Sometimes, a lot of us will agree for a very long time. Sometimes we'll disagree fervently - and forever!

We can discuss things, maybe you'll point out something about a work of art that I didn't notice myself, and it'll change my feeling about it. Our feelings will change over time. Of course some people have more information about a work of art, or be better at noticing things, and we'd be silly not to highly value their knowledge and insight. But we'll never elevate anyone to a such an extent that we dismiss the feelings of people who disagree with them.

It's messy, alright. If you thought you were in a world like the second option, and you thought you were one of the exclusive people whose feelings about art _really_ counted, and then you find yourself in a world where no one else thinks that, it's got to be really frustrating. It may even be more frustrating than if you find yourself arguing against someone who agrees with you that only some people's feelings about art are valid, but thinks that you are among the people whose feelings don't count! Some people would rather be peasants than citizens.

But freedom with messiness is better than even the cleanest oligarchy.

And until someone can demonstrate that beauty exists objectively, independent of human feeling, the fact - no matter how any of us feel about it - is that we live in the third option even if sometimes some people had enough power to make the rest of us pretend that we lived in the second option.


----------



## science

Byron said:


> Strange Magic believes that, and I think we can both agree he's a thoughtful person. He's stated so himself in the past in one of the many discussions we've had on the subject.
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/56611-music-ok-deride-71.html#post1594931


I bet that if we tried hard enough we could catch him respecting other people's feelings about works that he doesn't particularly like.

I bet what he meant is less "your feelings don't matter - I won't regard anything you like as good unless I like it too" and more "my feelings do matter - even if you don't like something, I'll regard it as good if I do."


----------



## Byron

science said:


> I bet that if we tried hard enough we could catch him respecting other people's feelings about works that he doesn't particularly like.


Well yes, he is respectful. He doesn't tell people directly that he feels art he does not like is bad. "So as not to hurt other's feelings, I tell people that I am not the audience for whom that particular piece or genre or whatever was intended. If you go back over my posts, you will find a vanishingly small number of instances where I knock somebody else's art or music. I cannot myself think of an example at this moment. "


----------



## Strange Magic

I combine affirming the primacy of my own responses to art--asserting the validity and legitimacy of my own subjective, individual, unique aesthetic structure within which I experience art, with granting to all others the selfsame equal right and privilege. We are all equals when facing Apollo. This is why, for as long as I have posted here on TC, I have refrained from blasting away at others' choices, others' favorites (there may be rare exceptions, and people are free to dig for them). There are indeed whole galaxies of music and art that "I am not the intended audience for", but generally I find such behavior--knocking, belittling someone's enthusiasm for X or Y--silly at best; almost certainly unproductive. My ideal view of the art experience as a public entity is that of shared pleasure, "understanding", enthusiasm, with others--even if the art/music seems dark and grim.


----------



## Enthusiast

science said:


> I would also guess that you respect other people enough to recognize that something could be good to them even if you don't personally like it.
> 
> There are basically three positions here:
> 
> 
> Only my feelings matter. A work of art is only as good as I think it is, and no one else or their feelings matter. I alone am right; everyone who disagrees with me in any way is wrong.
> Only the feelings of people like me matter. A work of art is only as good as we think it is. No one else or their feelings matter. We are right; people who disagree with us are wrong. (Disagreement will be tolerated - but only when _we_ disagree with each other.)
> All our feelings matter, whether we agree or disagree. "Right" and "wrong" don't apply to feelings about art.
> 
> We could debate whether the first option there is "radically subjective" or just a solipsistic version of the second option.
> 
> The second one is what people assume when they argue that their tastes are objectively correct, that people who have different tastes are objectively wrong.
> 
> The third one is the messy one, but it's the reality of free people. Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we'll disagree. Sometimes, a lot of us will agree for a very long time. Sometimes we'll disagree fervently - and forever!
> 
> We can discuss things, maybe you'll point out something about a work of art that I didn't notice myself, and it'll change my feeling about it. Our feelings will change over time. Of course some people have more information about a work of art, or be better at noticing things, and we'd be silly not to highly value their knowledge and insight. But we'll never elevate anyone to a such an extent that we dismiss the feelings of people who disagree with them.
> 
> It's messy, alright. If you thought you were in a world like the second option, and you thought you were one of the exclusive people whose feelings about art _really_ counted, and then you find yourself in a world where no one else thinks that, it's got to be really frustrating. It may even be more frustrating than if you find yourself arguing against someone who agrees with you that only some people's feelings about art are valid, but thinks that you are among the people whose feelings don't count! Some people would rather be peasants than citizens.
> 
> But freedom with messiness is better than even the cleanest oligarchy.
> 
> And until someone can demonstrate that beauty exists objectively, independent of human feeling, the fact - no matter how any of us feel about it - is that we live in the third option even if sometimes some people had enough power to make the rest of us pretend that we lived in the second option.


I do agree to your opening statement and (of course) think your third position is the one to adopt.


----------



## samm

DaveM said:


> Haven't read much about what's going on with CM in China have you.


I follow a YT channel, by Chinese musicians, which talks a lot about CM in China. The view I offered crops up very often there.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> It cannot be demonstrated that one piece of art is intrinsically better than another.


It's done all the time. Every day. In every field of art.


----------



## samm

The question in this thread has nothing to do with aesthetics in terms of subjective/objective standards of "beauty". This is all a red herring, as if to propose that unless works deemed "atonal" (which probably includes many modernist as well as later works) fit models of what individuals or groups judge to be beautiful or ugly, they are unlikely to make it into the category of 'masterpieces'.

This is surely false. And I think we kinda already know that a certain group consider "atonal" works to be by definition ugly and therefore not really suited to become masterpieces. What is a 'masterpiece' anyway if it hasn't become some undulating opinion from day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year? Or an opinion by one group and declared a universal opinion? If we listen to some people Bach or Mozart or Beethoven wrote nothing but masterpieces, which rather undermines the idea of a masterpiece.

Whether or not masterpieces are real or important, does that mean this is the only way we have to judge or experience works? Should it mean that, as some random example, Alfredo Casella's 'Nine Pieces' or 'Eleven Children's Pieces' or a cello concerto by someone like Kokkonen will and should fade away because they don't measure up to the traditional view of what the word 'masterpiece' is supposed to _mean_? And as if classical music is only judged by its supposed masterpieces alone?


----------



## vtpoet

samm said:


> And I think we kinda already know that a certain group consider "atonal" works to be by definition ugly and therefore not really suited to become masterpieces.


Just to be clear, I'm not one of those people.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> It's done all the time. Every day. In every field of art.


Maybe in terms of whether a work of art exemplifies certain values, but the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> It cannot be demonstrated that one piece of art is intrinsically better than another.


Okay, is one of the below better than the other?


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Okay, is one of the below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123918
> 
> 
> View attachment 123919


It depends on what you value.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> It depends on what you value.


Based on what you value, is one better than the other and, if so, which one?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

toshiromifune said:


> I agree with you that "the moment you start calling it "good" or "bad" or "masterpiece" you're speaking to how your biases, your mind, your subjectivity, react to those things. " I even said that it is practically impossible to be completely objective or unbiased about music. But I also said that it doesn't mean that there is no greater or lesser music. Of curse, there is no definite definition of 'greatness', so I talk about music quality here - how music affects our brains, our hypothetical unbiased brain. Because I believe that we are all born with the same ability to 'judge' music (to tell what sounds nice, pleasant, beautiful, sad, better, more powerful...). Composers don't compose some particular piece of music for my or your brain type, they compose for everyone who is willing to listen to it. So the difference in preferences in my opinion comes from our biases. The music quality stays the same, just like the sun stays the same when you open your eyes or remove your sunglasses.
> 
> *Here's an example of what I mean. When I say "I like The Four Seasons" or "I like The Four Seasons more than The Goldberg Variations" I can't be right or wrong here. But when I say "The Four Seasons are better than The Goldberg Variations" I honestly believe that I can be objectively wrong here. *But I also believe that it is impossible to prove which piece of music is better because our biases are too strong. Of course, it's not so black and white and I know that we can't really compare all music this way. Some songs are better for dancing, others for relaxation, but I don't think that it is right to say that music is entirely subjective and that there are no innate musical qualities.


I'm really curious as to how you think your first paragraph can square with what I bolded in the second paragraph. If we can't call things objectively good or bad, then how can we objectively call something better or worse than something else? Where does the standard for doing such a thing come from? I'm talking about even in theory, not practice. I mean, there are things with theoretically objective answers that we simply don't know ("is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?"), but understand how we could hypothetically know. With the issue of better/worse in art, I don't even see how that's theoretically possible.

FWIW, I don't believe what prevents us from doing this is our biases. There's no such thing as an unbiased audience for art; nor do I believe in Platonic ideals for art that we can perceive despite of our biases.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> Based on what you value, is one better than the other and, if so, which one?


Based on what I value the abstract one is much better than the portrait. The portrait has no mystery, no élan, no interesting juxtaposition of colour. The abstract is full of life and energy.

I'd go as far as to say that based on what I value, the portrait is utterly worthless as a work of art.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Based on what you value, is one better than the other and, if so, which one?


I'm with Mandryka. One I'd donate to the nearest museum ASAP, the other I'd put in my guest bedroom to show off.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Subjective clearly can not mean 'of the mind'. Otherwise, all axiomatic logic systems (like math) would be subjective definitionally. At that point, you might as well declare everything to be subjective and become a post-modernist.
> 
> Since you're so against collective standards (which I happen to belive is the only rational basis for objectivity), try this thought experiment. If everyone told you that they could in no way observe, see, or feel the sun, would you belive them all to be wrong or yourself insane?


Yet it "clearly can" because it always has. A good chunk of philosophy has (since the Greeks) revolved around delineating what only exists in the mind VS what exists as properties of reality. There have also been (and continue to be) many disagreements over this.

I actually wrote about axiomatic logic systems earlier and stated I do think they're subjective.* However, because many/most are designed to be models for reality we consider them true based on how well they allow us to model reality. Asking whether such a system is true is tantamount to asking whether a map is true when it allows to predict what we will experience before we reach our destination (see Alfred Korzybski's famous analogy).

I'm actually not against collective standards; I don't know what gave you that idea. Collective standards are necessary for a functioning society, and incredibly useful for all kinds of things. In art, they're useful for preserving art and offering road-maps to future audiences. Collective standards just aren't "true" or "false" because there's no map/territory correspondence as above; or, at best, the only way they can gain such a correspondence is if we define them to refer to objective properties. As an example, Sam Harris has attempted to do this with morality and well-being, though I think he misses the larger philosophical point.

If everyone but you can/can't perceive something then it's a good/probable assumption that the problem is with you rather than everyone else; Occam's Razor and all.

*FWIW, this is one of the "hotly debated issues" in the subjective/objective philosophical debate. Plenty of differing schools of thought across centuries.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> *There are basically three positions here:*
> 
> [*]*Only my feelings matter.* A work of art is only as good as I think it is, and no one else or their feelings matter. I alone am right; everyone who disagrees with me in any way is wrong.
> 
> [*]*Only the feelings of people like me matter.* A work of art is only as good as we think it is. No one else or their feelings matter. We are right; people who disagree with us are wrong. (Disagreement will be tolerated - but only when _we_ disagree with each other.)
> 
> [*]*All our feelings matter,* whether we agree or disagree. *"Right" and "wrong" don't apply to feelings about art. *


These are not the only "positions" represented here, and not the only ones possible. All three of them actually represent only one position, which is precisely the position I reject: that aesthetic questions are reducible to "feelings about art."



> We can discuss things, maybe you'll point out something about a work of art that I didn't notice myself, and it'll change my feeling about it. Our feelings will change over time. Of course some people have more information about a work of art, or be better at noticing things, and we'd be silly not to highly value their knowledge and insight. But we'll never elevate anyone to a such an extent that *we dismiss the feelings of people who disagree* with them.
> 
> It's messy, alright. If you thought you were in a world like the second option, and you thought you were one of *the exclusive people whose feelings about art really counted*, and then you find yourself in a world where no one else thinks that, it's got to be really frustrating. It may even be more frustrating than if you find yourself arguing against someone who agrees with you that *only some people's feelings about art are valid*, but thinks that you are among *the people whose feelings don't count!* Some people would rather be peasants than citizens.
> 
> But freedom with messiness is better than even the cleanest *oligarchy.*
> 
> And until someone can demonstrate that beauty exists objectively, independent of human feeling, the fact - no matter how any of us feel about it - is that we live in the third option *even if sometimes some people had enough power to make the rest of us pretend* that we lived in the second option.


What you're doing is reframing aesthetics as sociology and politics, in effect dismissing aesthetic questions as meaningless. Apparently this is out of a yearning for some kumbaya nirvana in which disagreements will disappear and everyone will be safe from the awful humiliation of facing an intellectual challenge. People who are actually just interested in the nature of art now find themselves and their views defined by you in terms of their "feelings" and how they "feel" about not only art but other people.

Yours is not the first effort I've seen on TC to reduce the debate of ideas to mere competition between factions or "sides," with the consequence that people with diverse and often interesting points of view have their ideas pigeonholed, oversimplified, transformed into something they don't recognize, and ultimately lost to view. It's an attempt to destroy discussion and debate, and to the extent that it succeeds, here or elsewhere, it's a triumph of subjectivism. But lucky for us we have free speech, and can at least try to keep real discussion of real questions on track.

You can relax, science. This is just a humble music forum! No tyrannical takeover is being planned by anyone. No one here has, or wants, the power to make anyone "pretend" anything. No one here is an "aesthetic supremacist" who wants to shoot up a concert hall full of artistic philistines. The clash of ideas is not war, the pursuit of truth is not aggression, and the winning of an argument - should it happen, which is unlikely - is not conquest, rapine, pillaging, or enslavement of the natives.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> Which was in response to:
> 
> "Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes..."
> 
> First of all, the term "polling data" is your own interpolation. I don't know where you get that but I can't say as I care all that much. But as for not recalling anyone saying or suggesting this.... Here's a comment from Woodduck:
> 
> "The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments....can also be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself."
> 
> Or DaveM
> 
> "...musicological experts have evaluated a number of Beethoven's works (for instance) strictly on the basis of the originality of what he created and how he did it regardless of who likes them and who doesn't."
> 
> Or DaveM again:
> 
> "...experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective."


Of these, none is about drawing objective conclusions from subjective tastes. The first is claiming that artistic values can be based on qualities inherent in the music (nothing about subjectivity); the second is about analyzing originality in Beethoven (nothing about subjectivity). The third claims that the collective opinions of experts counts as "evidence that (it's) more objective than subjective." So it's trying to claim that subjective tastes become objective when enough experts agree, which is just plain false.



vtpoet said:


> Good grief, It actually works exactly that way. Artists have always learned from other artists, have always imitated them. The great artists actually produce their own masterpieces...


I feel like you ignored my point. The issue was that while masterpieces may have certain things in common, you will never come up with a "checklist" that all masterpieces have that manages to exclude all non-masterpieces, especially when many masterpieces are such not because they were like other masterpieces, but because they were new/innovative/original, ie, UNLIKE other masterpieces.



vtpoet said:


> Then they're not doing the same thing are they? I mean the explanation for this is self-evident.


Well they aren't 1:1 copies or that would be plagiarism; but they do share almost all the same abstract features: same rhythms, harmonies, instrumentation, melodic/vocal styles, structure, etc.



vtpoet said:


> So what? I mean you're saying nothing at all here. You could say the same thing about anything. There are people who like X and people who don't The question at hand is what the preponderance of people think and why.


I'm actually saying everything there as that's how art works. If you want to just turn art into a popularity contest ("the question at hand is what the preponderance of people think") then pop music dominates classical music.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> These are not the only "positions" represented here, and not the only ones possible. All three of them actually represent only one position, which is precisely the position I reject: that aesthetic questions are reducible to "feelings about art."
> 
> What you're doing is reframing aesthetics as sociology and politics, in effect dismissing aesthetic questions as meaningless. Apparently this is out of a yearning for some kumbaya nirvana in which disagreements will disappear and everyone will be safe from the awful humiliation of facing an intellectual challenge. People who are actually just interested in the nature of art now find themselves and their views defined by you in terms of their "feelings" and how they "feel" about not only art but other people.
> 
> Yours is not the first effort I've seen on TC to reduce the debate of ideas to mere competition between factions or "sides," with the consequence that people with diverse and often interesting points of view have their ideas pigeonholed, oversimplified, transformed into something they don't recognize, and ultimately lost to view. It's an attempt to destroy discussion and debate, and to the extent that it succeeds, here or elsewhere, it's a triumph of subjectivism. But lucky for us we have free speech, and can at least try to keep real discussion of real questions on track.
> 
> You can relax, science. This is just a humble music forum! No tyrannical takeover is being planned by anyone. No one here has, or wants, the power to make anyone "pretend" anything. No one here is an "aesthetic supremacist" who wants to shoot up a concert hall full of artistic philistines. The clash of ideas is not war, the pursuit of truth is not aggression, and the winning of an argument - should it happen, which is unlikely - is not conquest, rapine, pillaging, or enslavement of the natives.


Not dismissing aesthetic questions as meaningless at all. I explicitly wrote about the discussions.

But hey, you can prove me wrong. Just prove that a single aesthetic value exists independently of an observer.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Not dismissing aesthetic questions as meaningless at all. I explicitly wrote about the discussions.
> 
> But hey, you can prove me wrong. Just prove that a single aesthetic value exists independently of an observer.


Just prove to me that you exist independent of an observer.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Just prove to me that you exist independent of an observer.


There's lots of empirical evidence of my existence. If giving evidence that aesthetic values exist objectively is as easy as giving evidence that a particular currently living person exists, you should have no problem.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to defeat Descartes's demons. Just to supply the kind of evidence or argument that would normally be accepted in a contemporary intellectual field (history, science, mathematics, economics...)


----------



## Mandryka

science said:


> There's lots of empirical evidence of my existence. If giving evidence that aesthetic values exist objectively is as easy as giving evidence that a particular currently living person exists, you should have no problem.
> 
> Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to defeat Descartes's demons. Just to supply the kind of evidence or argument that would normally be accepted in a contemporary intellectual field (history, science, mathematics, economics...)


I don't think he's being serious!


----------



## science

Mandryka said:


> I don't think he's being serious!


I don't know.... He's very suspicious of me, so he probably thinks I'm trying to set a trap.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The longer we talk about this, the more strongly I feel that you're not responding to me and my beliefs so much as to a straw man who holds a radical position standing opposite to your own radical subjectivism. Consider the possibility that I don't hold that position - that I'm not a radical objectivist in aesthetics - and some of my statements might then appear in a different light. I don't think anything I've said implies a belief that a subjective element is absent from aesthetic judgments. My beef is with the idea that nothing else matters in forming those judgments. A radical subjectivist criterion of aesthetic quality - "I consider it good only because I 'like' it" - leads us nowhere in understanding art, neither the processes of its creation, nor the forms in which it manifests itself, nor its function in human life.


Here's one problem: I don't believe there is such a thing as "radical objectivist" or "radical subjectivist" in this debate; it's simply one or the other. Things are either properties of reality (objective) or properties of the mind (subjective). There's no "radical" anything here. It's not Schrodinger's Cat where things can be both of and not-of the mind/reality. So trying to claim a middle-ground on an issue like this doesn't work, logically speaking, else you're breaking the law of non-contradiction.

FWIW, I also don't believe that "nothing else matters" when forming judgments, but we have to be careful in talking about HOW things matter. Let me go back to an old analogy I made: getting shot. When you get shot an object (a bullet) enters you, pain receptors in neurones send electrical signals through your body, eventually reaching your brain, and your brain reacts by creating the sensation of pain (a subjective experience). The pain, even though caused by an object, is still 100% subjective. The pain isn't IN the bullet, it's in your brain.

If we graph this onto the art debate, art is the bullet. It's the object that enters you via your senses, and your senses send that data to your brain, and your brain responds with thoughts and feelings. The thoughts and feelings (like pain) are not a part of the art/bullet (objective). When we create standards about what's good and bad, better or worse, we are fundamentally basing them on the feelings/thoughts about the object. Now, we may claim (rightly or wrongly) that these thoughts/feelings are caused by elements within the object--the same way a bullet causes pain, a Bach fugue might cause pleasure (or whatever positive experiences you want to ascribe to it)--and from that we may create standards and judge by referring to those objective qualities; but the important thing to understand is that the only reason we created the standards is because of the positive (subjective) experiences we had with those objects, and that the positivity (the "good" feelings/thoughts) are not inherent in the object.

However, all that assumes that the art-object even has such a lone causal relation to our experiences by itself. It clearly doesn't. Anyone with working pain sensors and a brain will respond to getting shot with pain, but not everyone experiencing the same work of art responds with the same thoughts and feelings. Considering that people experience the exact same object, the only way to explain the different outcomes is through differences in subjectivity, and these differences are due to a number of reasons including society, culture, and our individual psychologies. So it's clear that our differing psychologies play as much of a role in the outcome, the feeling that something is good/bad, better/worse, masterpiece-or-not, as does the art itself.

What I find most curious about your arguments (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like what you're arguing) is the notion that we can have standards independent of our (and by "our" I mean "human," not any individual) thoughts/feelings about art. As if we can experience art, be completely indifferent, and then just critique it based on some Platonic ideals that came about independently of how we thought/felt about it. To me, all I think you're doing (perhaps without realizing it) is deferring to the standards created by other people (maybe even other cultures/societies) because, at least in some cases, you have respect for them even if you feel differently. To you, this seems like you're being objective, but to me, all I see is you kowtowing to different subjectivities; which, FWIW, isn't even inherently bad. We do that instinctually with things like social morals, and doing such is probably necessary to keep society functioning as it does.

Look, I'm all for analyzing art objectively. I've done a great deal of this myself. I spent many years writing film reviews where the bulk of my writing centered on analyzing objective elements within films from structure to cinematography to editing to themes. I've done similar things with literature and with music. I love understanding how art functions as objects, how/why artists use the elements of their medium to express thoughts and feelings. All that's awesome for art geeks like myself; but ultimately all we're ever doing in such an endeavor is answering (at best) half the question. The other half (if not more) is absolutely down to our subjectivities, both their similarities (where our collective standards come from, why things like "order" seem to appeal regardless of time or cultures) and their differences.

Because this was rather long I think I'll just skip responding to the rest. I there's anything I missed you'd particularly like me to respond to, let me know/repost it.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> I don't think he's being serious!


On the contrary! There is in fact no proof that _anything_ exists independent of an observer. Who would be there to do the proving? A request for proof of something's existence begs the question of what will be accepted as proof. In this case, furthermore, there's the question of exactly what sort of thing science wants proof of.

It's pretty obvious to me that the only proof of anything's existence (as opposed to a logical proof) is the actual experience of it. If you've experienced the exquisitely calibrated coherence of the musical argument in a Mozart sonata-allegro movement, you will know that that aesthetic effect exists. If you haven't, or if you're unable to, nothing anyone can say will demonstrate it to you.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> There are basically three positions here:
> 
> [*]All our feelings matter, whether we agree or disagree. "Right" and "wrong" don't apply to feelings about art.


That's my position, though to slightly clarify: "right" and "wrong" can only exist relative to standards that are, themselves, based on our feelings (whether individual or collective). What's "right" in relation to one is "wrong" in relation to another, and we have no objective mans of choosing between standards.



science said:


> And until someone can demonstrate that beauty exists objectively, independent of human feeling, the fact - no matter how any of us feel about it - is that we live in the third option even if sometimes some people had enough power to make the rest of us pretend that we lived in the second option.


Perfectly said.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Okay, is one of the below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123918
> 
> 
> View attachment 123919


Sorry, not a fan of either piece. Besides, one can conjur up such comparisons _ad infinitum_, yet the principle remains inviolate. (Picture of big sea-swept rock with boats being dashed to pieces. Turner would be good.)


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> That's my position, though to slightly clarify: "right" and "wrong" can only exist relative to standards that are, themselves, based on our feelings (whether individual or collective). What's "right" in relation to one is "wrong" in relation to another, and we have no objective mans of choosing between standards.
> 
> 
> 
> science said:
> 
> 
> 
> And until someone can demonstrate that beauty exists objectively, independent of human feeling, the fact - no matter how any of us feel about it - is that we live in the third option even if sometimes some people had enough power to make the rest of us pretend that we lived in the second option.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly said.
Click to expand...

So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?


"Better" subjectively: in terms of what I value at this time, what I enjoy at this time, what I perceive in them at this time. Someone with different values would certainly have a different judgment.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> On the contrary! There is in fact no proof that _anything_ exists independent of an observer. Who would be there to do the proving? A request for proof of something's existence begs the question of what will be accepted as proof. In this case, furthermore, there's the question of exactly what sort of thing science wants proof of.
> 
> It's pretty obvious to me that the only proof of anything's existence (as opposed to a logical proof) is the actual experience of it. If you've experienced the exquisitely calibrated coherence of the musical argument in a Mozart sonata-allegro movement, you will know that that aesthetic effect exists. If you haven't, or if you're unable to, nothing anyone can say will demonstrate it to you.


Perhaps someone at some time has claimed something like, "I know that Jehovah exists because I have personally experienced Him, and I need no other evidence, nor do I deign to offer any to skeptics."

I do not want to debate the merits of that claim right now - JHWH forbid that this thread become one of those threads.

But I wonder whether there is a difference between that claim and, "I know that objective standards of beauty exist because I have personally experienced them and I need no other evidence, nor do I deign to offer any to skeptics."


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> "Better" subjectively: in terms of what I value at this time, what I enjoy at this time, what I perceive in them at this time. Someone with different values would certainly have a different judgment.


So, there is no objective way of saying that one of these is better than the other or a better creation than the other?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123921
> 
> View attachment 123922


"Better" in relation to what? My standards? Others? If you mean the former, I'm not a big fan of either, but I'm also not a big fan of the visual arts outside of a select few artists. The former strikes me as a technically quite accomplished but rather boring portrait. The kind of thing that photography largely made obsolete and made the creation of stuff like the latter possible/desirable. The latter seems pretty typical of lazy modern art where colors are randomly splashed on a canvass without much thought or intent (at least, none that I can perceive). I wouldn't be thrilled about hanging either on my wall, but I guess I'll give the edge to the former as at least I can admire the technique.

In terms of which is considered "better" by people more into visual art, I don't know. I don't know either piece, who painted them, if either is considered important, influential, etc. For all I know, the latter could be from some uber-famous modern artist and the former is the butt of jokes among the cognoscenti... or the reverse could be true.


----------



## Strange Magic

I have been blessed with a simple mind. I believe that some of us here are drifting away into nebulous, tenuous realms of philosophy/metaphysics/discussions on the borders of Berkeleyan Idealism, Hume, what is "real". But the question does boil down to which is the best flavor of ice cream. We can analyze the ice cream (or your favorite color, if you want to talk about color a la Jack Nicholson) for many characteristics, down to the molecular level. Yet we're still left to struggle with how to speak about ice cream, to compare the several flavors so we can tease out which is best, which worst. We can poll. Oenophiles are heavily into such talk about judging wine, yet usually flunk blind tests. I'm not saying CM aesthetes interact with music in that way (as they rarely flunk listening tests--who composed this piece and what is its name?). But it seems not to be enough to say you like a piece of music and tell others why; it seems the sanction of experts or The Group is required for some to be satisfied that their tastes are legitimate.

Science is different than art. Different rules, criteria, methodology. We have discussed those comparisons here in the past at great length, including a fine thread on profundity as I recall, but I'll let someone else dig for it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> So, there is no objective way of saying that one of these is better than the other or a better creation than the other?


No. To judge better we must create standards. The creation of standards depends on how we feel about things. You can't say it's "right" or "wrong" to create standards based on how well a painting represents reality, nor to create standards based on how abstract colors on canvass makes us feel. In fact, we generally have standards for both, and different art fans with different tastes choose one, or both, depending on their tastes. There could be a million other standards we could create and also apply as our tastes dictated.


----------



## samm

vtpoet said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not one of those people.


Defining a horse by saying what it is not?

- A Yiddish proverb


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> I have been blessed with a simple mind. I believe that some of us here are drifting away into nebulous, tenuous realms of philosophy/metaphysics/discussions on the borders of Berkeleyan Idealism, Hume, what is "real".


Apologies. It's difficult to read and participate in discussions like this without bringing to it the full history and knowledge that one has on the subject even if was written by long-dead long-wigged guys who thought too much and had sexual intercourse too little. I do try, however, even when referencing such fuddy-duddies, to keep things as simple as possible and not get too abstract or technical. I'm reminded of the saying that if you can't explain something to your grandmother you have no claim to understanding it yourself; though I often question that as I'm pretty sure I fully understand something like Bayes' Theorem (and brain-teasers like The Monty Hall Problem that utilize it), but it's remarkably difficult getting others to understand it! Fallible human intuition is an awfully big hurdle at times!


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> But it seems not to be enough to say you like a piece of music and tell others why; it seems the sanction of experts or The Group is required for some to be satisfied that their tastes are legitimate.


Exactly the problem.

To be fair to classical music fans, I think this is basically part of the human condition that can only ever be partially overcome with a great deal of awareness and discipline.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> So, there is no objective way of saying that one of these is better than the other or a better creation than the other?


Do _you_ know of any?

To be sure, art historians or artists or just people who are very perceptive could tell us lots of useful and interesting things about those two works of art, including why people have valued or not valued them in the past. They would probably change how I perceive the two works, and they might change how I feel about them.

But that doesn't mean that their opinions have become objectively correct - in fact, we constantly see that in the real world _even the most knowledgeable people, with very fine perception and acute sensitivity_ disagree passionately about art. It is possible to have all kinds of knowledge and still have different values.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Perhaps someone at some time has claimed something like, "I know that Jehovah exists because I have personally experienced Him, and I need no other evidence, nor do I deign to offer any to skeptics."
> 
> I do not want to debate the merits of that claim right now - JHWH forbid that this thread become one of those threads.
> 
> But I wonder whether there is a difference between that claim and, "I know that objective standards of beauty exist because I have personally experienced them and I need no other evidence, nor do I deign to offer any to skeptics."


Well, the first difference is that I can't show you Jehovah, while I can show you Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123921
> 
> View attachment 123922


I find it interesting, that the modern art piece you chose, is (as far as I can tell) the musical equivalent of purposely dropping a piano out of a 4th story window, and recording the sound it makes when it makes its inevitable collision with the ground. I am not making a judgement on the artistic merits of either the painting, or recording a falling piano, only that your particular choice of art is not equivalent to atonal music versus common practice, tonal music.

While, I don't believe any fan of atonal music, or even non-fans, believes that atonal music is anything like the random set of noises a dropped piano would make when hitting the pavement.


----------



## samm

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *No. To judge better we must create standards.* The creation of standards depends on how we feel about things. You can't say it's "right" or "wrong" to create standards based on how well a painting represents reality, nor to create standards based on how abstract colors on canvass makes us feel. In fact, we generally have standards for both, and different art fans with different tastes choose one, or both, depending on their tastes. There could be a million other standards we could create and also apply as our tastes dictated.


I doubt what you go on to describe (which in general I agree with) causes anyone to judge "better";it merely makes one judge according to those invented standards.

All this pseudo-philosophical claptrap in this thread, taking up huge numbers of paragraphs sheds not a particle (or wave if you prefer) of light on the factual matter at hand. That many such "atonal" compositions will last for many reasons similar to why works that aren't atonal have lasted, which is more than just their perceived (or imagined) beauty or ugliness. Repetition, notoriety, luck, personal favorites among conductors, pandering to audiences.

Get real.


----------



## toshiromifune

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm really curious as to how you think your first paragraph can square with what I bolded in the second paragraph. If we can't call things objectively good or bad, then how can we objectively call something better or worse than something else? Where does the standard for doing such a thing come from? I'm talking about even in theory, not practice. I mean, there are things with theoretically objective answers that we simply don't know ("is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?"), but understand how we could hypothetically know. With the issue of better/worse in art, I don't even see how that's theoretically possible.
> 
> FWIW, I don't believe what prevents us from doing this is our biases. There's no such thing as an unbiased audience for art; nor do I believe in Platonic ideals for art that we can perceive despite of our biases.


I answered all your questions in my previous post, or at least I tried to, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. English is not my native language, so it's not that easy for me to express my ideas about such a complicated problem.

I never said I can prove that piece X is better than Y. I said that I can state my opinion on which piece is better and that I can be right or wrong. I also tried and failed to explain in my previous post why I think that question "Is X better than Y" is not meaningles. I think that music is universal for all human beings, there is no music for my or your brain type, composers write for us all and the difference in preferences can be explained by our biases.

I see that you are familiar with Hume, so you probably know how difficult it is to 'really'
know or prove anything, but you have already said that our lack of proof dosn't imply that there is no correct answer.

You mentioned better and worse in art. I'm strictly talking abut pure music here, I have no opinion on subjectivity/objectivity in art in general. I can't say if my theory applies for the opera, plays, movies...

For music, I don't see it as Platonic ideals. I just don't think that there are innate differences in human brains on how we hear and judge music (what's more pleasant, beautiful, less powerful, more sad, better, worse...). But let's suppose I'm wrong here. Do you think that I'm born with a 'rock and classical brain' and some other guy with 'jazz brain'? No, my inability to 'get' jazz comes from my lack of exposure and from growing up in a culture with radically different types of music. Where do you think the difference in what we like comes from?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Well, the first difference is that I can't show you Jehovah, while I can show you Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony.


But you can't show me greatness or masterpiece.

In fact, people who claim to experience their deity actually experience something (a sensation, a feeling, a life-expereince) that they then credit to their deity. Other people can experience the same thing or something similar, but NOT attribute it to a deity (or attribute it to a different one). Same with Beethoven's Pastoral: two people can experience the same work but have two very different reactions, and you can no more show them "greatness" or "masterpiece" or "richness of expression" than the believer can show you their deity.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Well, the first difference is that I can't show you Jehovah, while I can show you Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony.


But the other guy would say the same kind of thing. "You can see God in sunsets and hear Him in the laughter of children."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

samm said:


> I doubt what you go on to describe (which in general I agree with) causes anyone to judge "better";it merely makes one judge according to those invented standards.


I'm really not sure what you're saying here... so one can judge according to invented standards, but this judging isn't judging "better?" Then what is?



samm said:


> All this pseudo-philosophical claptrap in this thread...


Hmmm, so quoting actual philosophers is now "pseudo-philosophical claptrap?" What, pray tell, do you consider actual philosophy that sheds light on the factual matter at hand?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Here's one problem: I don't believe there is such a thing as "radical objectivist" or "radical subjectivist" in this debate; it's simply one or the other. Things are either properties of reality (objective) or properties of the mind (subjective). There's no "radical" anything here. It's not Schrodinger's Cat where things can be both of and not-of the mind/reality. So trying to claim a middle-ground on an issue like this doesn't work, logically speaking, else you're breaking the law of non-contradiction.


I'm not claiming any "middle ground." I don't even think we're on the same ground! I find your insistent "objectivist-subjectivist" discussion unhelpful. Obviously, the experience of art is like every other experience in being an interaction of a subject with an object. But that knowledge doesn't tell us anything about aesthetic experience in particular, and how it is that we can tell that a work of art is well-made or poorly made. We _can,_ within the limits of our individual abilities, tell that, as every good artist knows as he struggles and loses sleep over finding the precise line, note or word that will finish his work. What he's searching for isn't a "feeling"; it's _rightness_ - rightness _of the object_ - and when he finds it the whole world makes sense (now _that's_ a feeling like no other!). His success isn't in having "expressed his feelings" - that can be achieved pretty well even in sloppy work - but in having solved a problem and made something fine, if not indeed perfect. It's as "objective" as 2 + 2 = 4.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I have been blessed with a simple mind. I believe that some of us here are drifting away into nebulous, tenuous realms of philosophy/metaphysics/discussions on the borders of Berkeleyan Idealism, Hume, what is "real". But the question does boil down to which is the best flavor of ice cream. We can analyze the ice cream (or your favorite color, if you want to talk about color a la Jack Nicholson) for many characteristics, down to the molecular level. Yet we're still left to struggle with how to speak about ice cream, to compare the several flavors so we can tease out which is best, which worst. We can poll. Oenophiles are heavily into such talk about judging wine, yet usually flunk blind tests. I'm not saying CM aesthetes interact with music in that way (as they rarely flunk listening tests--who composed this piece and what is its name?). But it seems not to be enough to say you like a piece of music and tell others why; it seems the sanction of experts or The Group is required for some to be satisfied that their tastes are legitimate.
> 
> Science is different than art. Different rules, criteria, methodology. We have discussed those comparisons here in the past at great length, including a fine thread on profundity as I recall, but I'll let someone else dig for it.


Hey SM, you haven't responded to my post #403.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> But the other guy would say the same kind of thing. "You can see God in sunsets and hear Him in the laughter of children."


It's not the same kind of thing. The other guy only knows about something called "Jehovah" from reading about Him in a book. I know about art from experiencing it directly and creating it myself.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> We _can,_ within the limits of our individual abilities, tell that, as every good artist knows as he struggles and loses sleep over finding the precise line, note or word that will finish his work. What he's searching for isn't a "feeling"; it's _rightness_ - rightness _of the object_ - and when he finds it the whole world makes sense.


But that _is_ a feeling. You're just using the word "feeling" in a narrower, shallower sense.

What word would you use to describe what the artist experiences (~feels) when he finds "the right line?"


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> It's as "objective" as 2 + 2 = 4.


It's not - this is the problem you run into. 2 + 2 = 4 for ALL subjects, ALL the time, regardless of individual personality, beliefs, cultural background, etc. (Ditto fundamental physics and chemistry).

That is just not true for art, so we are indeed left in a "middle ground" position.


----------



## samm

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm really not sure what you're saying here... so one can judge according to invented standards, but this judging isn't judging "better?" Then what is?


Maybe you've made yourself dizzy with all that typing? Judging to a standard is just judging according to a standard, not "better", as you put it. In fact, what is "better", since you are the one claiming no objective standards? Have an Alka Seltzer and maybe get back to basics.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hmmm, so quoting actual philosophers is now "pseudo-philosophical claptrap?" What, pray tell, do you consider actual philosophy that sheds light on the factual matter at hand?


Hmmm..name-dropping people you might have skim-read doesn't rub off into everything you might want to write on here. Actual philosophy is completely unnecessary to this question. It's not an esthetics matter.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It's not the same kind of thing. The other guy only knows about something called "Jehovah" from reading about Him in a book. I know about art from experiencing it directly and creating it myself.


But he _also_ says he knows Jehovah from experiencing Him directly. (People believed in spirits based on their personal experience long before anyone had books.)

It really seems to me you're both making exactly the same sort of claim. Your experience is just so powerful that you refuse to allow it to be labeled as anything but the absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees with you is just some kind of stubborn atheist.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I'm not claiming any "middle ground." I don't even think we're on the same ground! I find your insistent "objectivist-subjectivist" discussion unhelpful...


What's also unhelpful is when you ignore pretty much everything I said in a fairly lengthy, detailed post while continuing to argue things that I've already addressed.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> But that _is_ a feeling. You're just using the word "feeling" in a narrower, shallower sense.
> 
> What word would you use to describe what the artist experiences (~feels) when he finds "the right line?"


Finding the right note is _accompanied by_ a feeling of satisfaction, but what the composer has is _knowledge_ that the music is right. I would say that it's you who are defining _knowledge_ in a narrower, shallower sense.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What's also unhelpful is when you ignore pretty much everything I said in a fairly lengthy, detailed post while continuing to argue things that I've already addressed.


I didn't ignore you. I just think long descriptions of what's inside the mind and what's outside it are not objections to my contention that artistic excellence is real and discernible and not simply a matter of how an individual feels about the art.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

samm said:


> Maybe you've made yourself dizzy with all that typing? Judging to a standard is just judging according to a standard, not "better", as you put it. In fact, what is "better", since you are the one claiming no objective standards? Have an Alka Seltzer and maybe get back to basics.


No, I just have a working BS detector. How can you judge better without a standard? "Better" is when X > Y where ">" is determined by whatever standard you're using.



samm said:


> Hmmm..name-dropping people you might have skim-read doesn't rub off into everything you might want to write on here. Actual philosophy is completely unnecessary to this question. It's not an esthetics matter.


I'm not "name-dropping," I'm crediting the ideas to the people that proposed/addressed them. Hume's Is-Ought problem was a paragraph in his original writing. Anyone can read it in full (without skimming) in a minute. This is also absolutely a matter of aesthetics; what the hell else is it?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I didn't ignore you. I just think long descriptions of what's inside the mind and what's outside it are not objections to my contention that artistic excellence is real and discernible and not simply a matter of how an individual feels about the art.


Except they are, and I don't understand why you don't realize how they are. You have repeatedly said that things like "excellence" are inherent in art, ie, are properties of the object. So my breakdown of the art/object-mind/subject relationship is absolutely an objection to the claim that excellence is inherent in the art. It's also an objection to claims like "What (an artist is) searching for isn't a "feeling"; it's rightness - rightness of the object."


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> But he _also_ says he knows Jehovah from experiencing Him directly. (People believed in spirits based on their personal experience long before anyone had books.)
> 
> It really seems to me you're both making exactly the same sort of claim. Your experience is just so powerful that you refuse to allow it to be labeled as anything but the absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees with you is just some kind of stubborn atheist.


Stubborn atheist? 

So you're saying that someone's claim to have experienced a supernatural entity derived from the scriptures of a religion is as valid as someone else's claim to have experienced a Beethoven symphony? And that the behavior imputed to this entity is as real and comprehensible as the melodic contours, harmonic textures, rhythmic drive, tonal organization, narrative logic and formal cohesiveness of a piece of music?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Finding the right note is _accompanied by_ a feeling of satisfaction, but what the composer has is _knowledge_ that the music is right. I would say that it's you who are defining _knowledge_ in a narrower, shallower sense.


How does an artist "know" this without the feeling? EG, I can know the sun exists without feeling anything. I just look at it and my senses report it to my brain, and no feeling is needed to confirm its existence.


----------



## mikeh375

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Except they are, and I don't understand why you don't realize how they are. You have repeatedly said that things like "excellence" are inherent in art, ie, are properties of the object. So my breakdown of the art/object-mind/subject relationship is absolutely an objection to the claim that excellence is inherent in the art. *It's also an objection to* *claims like "What (an artist is) searching for isn't a "feeling"; it's rightness - rightness of the object."*


Eva, fwiw, that is real close to what it _does_ feel like for me. When composing there are always times when one gets stuck and finding the way forward can take many roads. Choosing the correct way forward and eventually finding precisely what one searches for does have a feeling of 'rightness'. Other factors undoubtedly determine that decision too, but the sense of rightness is there.
Just sayin' as a humble composer, whilst trying to make sense of this thread and probably missing a million salient points...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

mikeh375 said:


> Eva, fwiw, that is real close to what it _does_ feel like for me. When composing there are always times when one gets stuck and finding the way forward can take many roads. Choosing the correct way forward and eventually finding precisely what one searches for does have a feeling of 'rightness'. Other factors undoubtedly determine that decision too, but the sense of rightness is there.
> Just sayin' as a humble composer, whilst trying to make sense of this thread and probably missing a million salient points...


I was actually quoting Woodduck there. you seem to be agreeing with me, as I also think that finding precisely what one is searching for has a "feeling of 'rightness.'" I don't compose, but I've written poetry for years, and my choices about words, rhythm, form, etc. also ultimately comes down to what I feel is right. Where Wooduck and I am disagreeing is that he seems to think the rightness can be determined without the feeling. I disagree.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Finding the right note is _accompanied by_ a feeling of satisfaction, but what the composer has is _knowledge_ that the music is right. I would say that it's you who are defining _knowledge_ in a narrower, shallower sense.


Exactly! But that's because I respect people who "_know_" different things than I do.

The art form that I know best (in terms of my own personal experience) is writing. I am _very_ familiar with the feeling that a certain element (word or phrase or italicization or punctuation mark or paragraph break or whatever) is perfect, and I constantly search for that feeling. I think carefully about whether an infinitive should be split, whether an adjective should be deleted, whether a sentence fragment would be better, or perhaps a run-on sentence. I consider as carefully as I can the differences between words that seem very similar to most people - considering rhythm, assonance, consonance, etymology, connotation, possible allusions - as many things as I can think of to consider. And sometimes I get it "right" and I know it's "right" no matter what anyone else in the universe thinks (unless they can show me something "better").

But I also know that writers far more skilled than I am would disagree with my choices - something else would "feel" "right" to them. Even the most skilled writers in the world do not agree: they have different styles. What's "true" and "right" for Cormac McCarthy isn't "true" and "right" for Annie Proulx. There isn't one true truth revealing itself to all of us, which some of us can just see better than others.

The differences are tremendous. I have written passages that I "know" are just fantastic in part precisely because I know that certain readers would find them vulgar, disgusting, offensive, or cheap.

These are very powerful and individual feelings - they _feel_ like knowledge - but they are not objective facts true for all beings at all times and places.

And, I think, maybe, if you think about it, you might decide that to call them objective knowledge is actually to belittle them. Something that comes from so deeply inside us is no mere fact.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I was actually quoting Woodduck there. you seem to be agreeing with me, as I also think that finding precisely what one is searching for has a "feeling of 'rightness.'" I don't compose, but I've written poetry for years, and *my choices about words, rhythm, form, etc. also ultimately comes down to what I feel is right.*


The thing that here seems incapable of explanation (or "proof") is that finding the right note in a musical composition or the right line or color in a painting brings not just a _feeling_ but a _knowledge._ An artist _knows_ when he's succeeding, when what he's creating is looking or sounding better or worse, right or wrong. It would be absurd for some random person off the street to tell Raphael or Brahms that her feelings about his paintings or music were as valid a standard as his experience in judging the quality of his work.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Stubborn atheist?
> 
> So you're saying that someone's claim to have experienced a supernatural entity derived from the scriptures of a religion is as valid as someone else's claim to have experienced a Beethoven symphony? And that the behavior imputed to this entity is as real and comprehensible as the melodic contours, harmonic textures, rhythmic drive, tonal organization, narrative logic and formal cohesiveness of a piece of music?


No, not at all. (First of all, the analogy was clearly not between a god and a work of art but between a god and aesthetic values. But we don't need to get distracted by that.)

I'm saying your argument has the same problem that a very particular kind of argument for the existence of god has. Both are essentially arguments from authority.


----------



## samm

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No, I just have a working BS detector. How can you judge better without a standard? "Better" is when X > Y where ">" is determined by whatever standard you're using.


Well it doesn't appear to be working on your own output. Don't try to fool me with pretend "logic". "Better" is a subjective, rather arbitrary notion.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not "name-dropping," I'm crediting the ideas to the people that proposed/addressed them. Hume's Is-Ought problem was a paragraph in his original writing. Anyone can read it in full (without skimming) in a minute. This is also absolutely a matter of aesthetics; what the hell else is it?


I know Hume's writing very well. Incorporating him doesn't mean this web you (and others) are weaving rests on his eminent shoulders; it means you dropped his name to give gravity to your posts. I'll also tell what 'the hell else' this is. It is at bottom a technical question about how pieces of music make it into the repertoire and stay there, which is not all about their magical effect upon listener's 'sense perceptions'. Rather there are simple decisions that have very little to nothing to do with esthetic musings. 
By all means write a series of amateur papers here about the latter, but that's not what this question is really about.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Exactly! But that's because I respect people who "_know_" different things than I do.
> 
> The art form that I know best (in terms of my own personal experience) is writing. I am _very_ familiar with the feeling that a certain element (word or phrase or italicization or punctuation mark or paragraph break or whatever) is perfect, and I constantly search for that feeling. I think carefully about whether an infinitive should be split, whether an adjective should be deleted, whether a sentence fragment would be better, or perhaps a run-on sentence. I consider as carefully as I can the differences between words that seem very similar to most people - considering rhythm, assonance, consonance, etymology, connotation, possible allusions - as many things as I can think of to consider. And sometimes I get it "right" and I know it's "right" no matter what anyone else in the universe thinks (unless they can show me something "better").
> 
> But I also know that writers far more skilled than I am would disagree with my choices - something else would "feel" "right" to them. Even the most skilled writers in the world do not agree: they have different styles. What's "true" and "right" for Cormac McCarthy isn't "true" and "right" for Annie Proulx. There isn't one true truth revealing itself to all of us, which some of us can just see better than others.
> 
> The differences are tremendous. I have written passages that I "know" are just fantastic in part precisely because I know that certain readers would find them vulgar, disgusting, offensive, or cheap.
> 
> These are very powerful and individual feelings - they _feel_ like knowledge - but they are not objective facts true for all beings at all times and places.
> 
> And, I think, maybe, if you think about it, you might decide that to call them objective knowledge is actually to belittle them. Something that comes from so deeply inside us is no mere fact.


As a writer who, at one time, at least, took writing poetry very seriously, I whole-heartedly agree (and sympathize) with all of this. I also bet you have stories of fussing over something--a paragraph, a chapter, a word, whatever--for a long time, found the thing that feels so right and so perfect, only to have it leave no impression (or a different impression) on readers. What's also funny is when you get feedback on all kinds of things that you never even considered, providing completely different ways of looking at it; and how rare is it that anyone sees it exactly as you did! Sometimes people may suggest or criticize something and you'll think "well, that's completely against my intentions," other times you may think "wow, maybe that is better," and others you might decide "nah, I like what I did better;" and what is any of this but our feelings and, what's more, those of whomever is reading and commenting? The problem is when we try to elevate any of these things to a position of authority when deciding what's good/bad, better/best. All we have are the feelings of rightness, goodness, betterness; and it's scary (for some) to think that everyone else has them too, and that we have no way of choosing between them without reference to our own.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Exactly! But that's because I respect people who "_know_" different things than I do.
> 
> The art form that I know best (in terms of my own personal experience) is writing. I am _very_ familiar with the feeling that a certain element (word or phrase or italicization or punctuation mark or paragraph break or whatever) is perfect, and I constantly search for that feeling. I think carefully about whether an infinitive should be split, whether an adjective should be deleted, whether a sentence fragment would be better, or perhaps a run-on sentence. I consider as carefully as I can the differences between words that seem very similar to most people - considering rhythm, assonance, consonance, etymology, connotation, possible allusions - as many things as I can think of to consider. And sometimes I get it "right" and I know it's "right" no matter what anyone else in the universe thinks (unless they can show me something "better").
> 
> But I also know that writers far more skilled than I am would disagree with my choices - something else would "feel" "right" to them. Even the most skilled writers in the world do not agree: they have different styles. What's "true" and "right" for Cormac McCarthy isn't "true" and "right" for Annie Proulx. There isn't one true truth revealing itself to all of us, which some of us can just see better than others.
> 
> The differences are tremendous. I have written passages that I "know" are just fantastic in part precisely because I know that certain readers would find them vulgar, disgusting, offensive, or cheap.
> 
> These are very powerful and individual feelings - they _feel_ like knowledge - but they are not objective facts true for all beings at all times and places.
> 
> And, I think, maybe, if you think about it, you might decide that to call them objective knowledge is actually to belittle them. Something that comes from so deeply inside us is no mere fact.


The problem with this is that other writers are not writing _your_ work. In the context of your own work - your style as a whole and the specific piece you may be writing - the decisions you make are likely to be the right ones, while others' different procedures and choices would be egregiously wrong. A work of art has to be judged on its own terms, and as an artist proceeds in a particular creation those terms become more and more clearly defined and impose ever stricter limits on what can be done as the work proceeds toward a conclusion. The final choices can be the hardest of all, precisely because the work has created standards for itself and the artist has to know how to meet them in order to make the whole thing right. On the other hand, the final touches may come easily, because the work up to that point has such a compelling "logic" and the artist is working in a state of great mental clarity.

I'm speaking from a lifetime of creative effort, having been at various times a painter, a composer, and a writer.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The thing that here seems incapable of explanation (or "proof") is that finding the right note in a musical composition or the right line or color in a painting brings not just a _feeling_ but a _knowledge._ An artist _knows_ when he's succeeding, when what he's creating is looking or sounding better or worse, right or wrong. It would be absurd for some random person off the street to tell Raphael or Brahms that her feeling about his paintings or music were as valid a standard as his experience in judging the quality of his work.


I think science's last post covered this pretty well. I do not consider this knowledge, I consider it only a feeling, for pretty much the reasons that I've been describing throughout this thread. Though I'm afraid if I started to explain why such a thing can't be "knowledge" I'd just be accused of going off in the philosophical weeds again, even though the literature on how to define knowledge is, itself, immense.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think science's last post covered this pretty well. I do not consider this knowledge, I consider it only a feeling, for pretty much the reasons that I've been describing throughout this thread. Though I'm afraid if I started to explain why such a thing can't be "knowledge" I'd just be accused of going off in the philosophical weeds again, even though the literature on how to define knowledge is, itself, immense.


Maybe we've arrived at the fundamental point where we differ. A discussion of what constitutes knowledge is probably necessary, but I'm pretty sure that at the moment I'm not up to it. Maybe I just need some lunch.


----------



## Strange Magic

Artist, composer labors for years putting down absolutely correct words, colors, notes. Is convinced beyond self-doubt that a thing of wonder is being conceived. Art/music is presented to world. Everybody hates it (well, a lot of "knowledgeable" people hate it). Or it's completely ignored. Think of examples. Respighi thought his Concerto in Modo Misolidio was the best thing he ever wrote. I like bits of it, actually.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> The thing that here seems incapable of explanation (or "proof") is that finding the right note in a musical composition or the right line or color in a painting brings not just a _feeling_ but a _knowledge._ An artist _knows_ when he's succeeding, when what he's creating is looking or sounding better or worse, right or wrong. It would be absurd for some random person off the street to tell Raphael or Brahms that her feelings about his paintings or music were as valid a standard as his experience in judging the quality of his work.


There's a distinction between knowledge and certainty. Simply put, to know X, x must be true, one simplistic definition, but not a bad place to start, is that knowledge is justified true belief. . But you can feel certain that X even if X is not true, or indeed even if X is the sort of thing which cannot have a truth value at all.

Maybe the artist is certain that the colour is right.

(By the way, I can't remember the details, it's either about Jackson Pollock or Willem de Kooning, where we have lots of photographic evidence of their studio, and so we can see work in progress and the state of the pieces at various stages before they decided it was finished. Art historians debate whether he made the right decision or not.

Another example is Henri-Georges Clouzot film _Le mystère Picasso_, where basically Picasso paints for the camera, I often prefer the earlier versions to the final ones.

And then there's the unfinished Michelangelo sculptures in the Academia in Florence. I'm really glad he never finished them because to me, they seem more modern like that.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

samm said:


> Well it doesn't appear to be working on your own output. Don't try to fool me with pretend "logic". "Better" is a subjective, rather arbitrary notion.


If you think me using "X," "Y," and ">" is "trying to fool you," then I feel sorry for your grade school teachers. Perhaps I'm not trying to fool you, but giving you too much credit. Anyway, I completely agree "better" is a subjective notion; what makes you think I didn't? You obviously haven't been paying attention.



samm said:


> I know Hume's writing very well. Incorporating him doesn't mean this web you (and others) are weaving rests on his eminent shoulders; it means you dropped his name to give gravity to your posts. I'll also tell what 'the hell else' this is. It is at bottom a technical question about how pieces of music make it into the repertoire and stay there, which is not all about their magical effect upon listener's 'sense perceptions'. Rather there are simple decisions that have very little to nothing to do with esthetic musings.
> By all means write a series of amateur papers here about the latter, but that's not what this question is really about.


Of course it doesn't "all rest on his eminent shoulders," but he's the crucial starting point; and I don't feel "dropping his name" is lending any "gravity" to my posts, it's just crediting the person who coined the issue we're discussing. It would be no different than discussing General Relativity and mentioning Einstein, which also wouldn't be adding gravity to the posts.

In any case, this discussion is only partly about how "pieces of music make it into the repertoire and stay there;" there are other discussions happening as well that are pure aesthetics. You also didn't bother to address the issue yourself. You've told us they're "simple decisions" that don't involve "effect(s) upon listener's 'sense perceptions,'" but you've said nothing beyond that.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> There's a distinction between knowledge and certainty. Simply put, to know X, x must be true, one simplistic definition, but not a bad place to start, is that knowledge is justified true belief. . But you can feel certain that X even if X is not true, or indeed even if X is the sort of thing which cannot have a truth value at all.
> 
> Maybe the artist is certain that the colour is right.


Probably a worthwhile technical distinction. Colloquially, we do use "I know" to mean "I'm certain." We can of course always be mistaken, in which case we say, "I was certain, but as it turns out I didn't really know what I thought I knew."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> Artist, composer labors for years putting down absolutely correct words, colors, notes. Is convinced beyond self-doubt that a thing of wonder is being conceived. Art/music is presented to world. Everybody hates it (well, a lot of "knowledgeable" people hate it). Or it's completely ignored. *Think of examples. *Respighi thought his Concerto in Modo Misolidio was the best thing he ever wrote. I like bits of it, actually.


William McGonagall is the famous poetry example. Some excerpts from the Wikipedia page:


> The turning point in McGonagall's life came in June 1877. Work as a weaver was more difficult to find, his oldest daughter had shamed the family by giving birth to an illegitimate child,[8]:vi, when he was seized with a new inspiration:
> 
> I seemed to feel as it were a strange kind of feeling stealing over me, and remained so for about five minutes. A flame, as Lord Byron has said, seemed to kindle up my entire frame, along with a strong desire to write poetry; and I felt so happy, so happy, that I was inclined to dance, then I began to pace backwards and forwards in the room, trying to shake off all thought of writing poetry; but the more I tried, the more strong the sensation became. It was so strong, I imagined that a pen was in my right hand, and a voice crying, "Write! Write!"[3]
> 
> ...
> 
> McGonagall realised if he were to succeed as a poet, he required a patron and wrote to Queen Victoria. He received a letter of rejection, written by a royal functionary, thanking him for his interest.[8]:vii McGonagall took this as praise for his work...
> 
> The letter gave McGonagall confidence in his "poetic abilities", and he felt his reputation could be enhanced further if he were to give a live performance before the Queen. In July 1878, he walked from Dundee to Balmoral, a distance of about 60 miles (97 km) over mountainous terrain and through a violent thunderstorm to perform for Queen Victoria. When he arrived, he announced himself as "The Queen's Poet". The guards informed him "You're not the Queen's poet! Tennyson is the Queen's poet!" (Alfred Lord Tennyson was the poet laureate)...
> 
> Throughout his life McGonagall seemed oblivious to the general opinion of his poems, even when his audience were pelting him with eggs and vegetables. Author Norman Watson speculates in his biography of McGonagall that he may have been on the "autism-Asperger's spectrum". Christopher Hart, writing in The Sunday Times, says that this seems "likely".[13]


I can almost guarantee that every time McGonagall rhymed a long-a ("Tay," "say," "away") he "knew" he'd done good work.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> The problem with this is that *other writers are not writing your work*. In the context of your own work - your style as a whole and the specific piece you may be writing - the decisions you make are likely to be the right ones, while others' different procedures and choices would be egregiously wrong. *A work of art has to be judged on its own terms*, and as an artist proceeds in a particular creation those terms become more and more clearly defined and impose ever stricter limits on what can be done as the work proceeds toward a conclusion. The final choices can be the hardest of all, precisely because *the work has created standards for itself* and the artist has to know how to meet them in order to make the whole thing right. On the other hand, the final touches may come easily, because the work up to that point has such a compelling "logic" and the artist is working in *a state of great mental clarity*.


I agree with all of that but none of it is an argument that any of us are "knowing" anything in an objective sense. In fact, all the phrases I've bolded sound _precisely_ like they're related to subjectivity rather than objectivity.



Woodduck said:


> I'm speaking from a lifetime of creative effort, having been at various times a painter, a composer, and a writer.


And this is an argument from authority. Do you really mean that my ideas must be wrong because of who you are and who I am?

I mean... even if an argument like that could be valid, are you even sure that you are who you think are and that I am who you think I am?


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I agree with all of that but none of it is an argument that any of us are "knowing" anything in an objective sense. In fact, all the phrases I've bolded sound _precisely_ like they're related to subjectivity rather than objectivity.
> 
> And this is an argument from authority. Do you really mean that my ideas must be wrong because of who you are and who I am?
> 
> I mean... even if an argument like that could be valid, are you even sure that you are who you think are and that I am who you think I am?


Why are you so obsessed with authority? My comment about my own experience as an artist wasn't offered as an argument. It simply identifies the context in which my thinking on the subject arises. That might be of interest to some people.


----------



## Luchesi

I hope this thread doesn't get deleted. I'd like to read these posts when I get time.

If objectivity is down-played in the musical experience, why do we study music?


----------



## science

Mandryka said:


> There's a distinction between knowledge and certainty. Simply put, to know X, x must be true, one simplistic definition, but not a bad place to start, is that knowledge is justified true belief. . But you can feel certain that X even if X is not true, or indeed even if X is the sort of thing which cannot have a truth value at all.
> 
> Maybe the artist is certain that the colour is right.


I do not like that definition of knowledge... (for reasons that are irrelevant now and boring at any time: it may not be technically circular but it is circular in the way that matters; and if accepted, I believe it leads to the conclusion that none of us really know anything, so that in the end it merely renders the word "knowledge" useless, and that's not how I want definitions to work)

... but I'm always very happy when people explicitly agree that certainty is a _feeling_!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> I hope this thread doesn't get deleted. I'd like to read these posts when I get time.
> 
> If objectivity is down-played in the musical experience, why do we study music?


Personally, I'm not trying to downplay objectivity. The object, the art, is absolutely responsible, in some significant amount, for the reactions we have to it. Plus, for those who love art, studying it is fun and rewarding in itself. However, when discussions move to talk of greatness, masterpiece, better/worse, etc., I think it's important to realize that these are things that don't exist within art, but are merely our subjective reactions to it. This doesn't sit well with many who think their reactions constitute knowledge of the object.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> Hey SM, you haven't responded to my post #403.


I thought I had when I said I wasn't a fan of either. Neither piece of artwork interests me; neither reaches a threshold where I could tell you which one I preferred. Maybe that's another whole subject to explore--the idea of a triggering threshold below which there is not enough to even begin to turn the wheels of engagement. One needs such to survive the daily onslaught of stimuli, artistic or otherwise.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Why are you so obsessed with authority? My comment about my own experience as an artist wasn't offered as an argument. It simply identifies the context in which my thinking on the subject arises. That might be of interest to some people.


Well, for what it's worth, I remember some things that you've written previously about your life, and I can tell that you've thought about these things extensively.

I fear that I've shared too much about myself here in the past and I don't want to repeat that mistake, but I believe that you would have more respect for me if you knew me, and would not try to justify your opinion in that way. No one who knows me in real life tries to do that to me. Some of the people here really are just, say, high school students thinking about this all for the first time. But quite a few of us have thought about these things approximately as much as you have, have read about them, have personal experience wrestling with them.

Anyway, this is distasteful to me. My posts represent me well enough, yours represent you well enough, and other people's represent them well enough. It's a flipping shame that we're discussing _this_ rather than:



science said:


> I agree with all of that but none of it is an argument that any of us are "knowing" anything in an objective sense. In fact, all the phrases I've bolded sound _precisely_ like they're related to subjectivity rather than objectivity.


----------



## Bulldog

I'm anti-authority except when I am in charge.


----------



## science

Bulldog said:


> I'm anti-authority except when I am in charge.


I'm far too married to be so frank.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mandryka said:


> There's a distinction between knowledge and certainty. Simply put, to know X, x must be true, *one simplistic definition, but not a bad place to start, is that knowledge is justified true belief. *. But you can feel certain that X even if X is not true, or indeed even if X is the sort of thing which cannot have a truth value at all.


Although we really are off in the philosophical weeds here, I dislike the JTB model of knowledge because I don't think you can solve Gettier problems. My intuition is that the problem is with the "true" part, though almost nobody focuses on that. When we speak of "true" in some objective sense it allows us to propose God's-eye view scenarios in which the observer can have a "JTB," but in ways that we wouldn't define as having knowledge. The way I'd solve this is to simply remove the "true" component. This seems radical, but I think works as long as you are extremely rigorous in "JB" parts. I basically think all knowledge reduces to a single mathematical theorem, and correctly applying it means never reaching a state of 100% certainty, and the acknowledgement of our subjective and limited perspectives are built right in. "Knowledge" then just becomes a probability spectrum that fluctuates based on evidence (basically the "justification"), and our "belief" is synonymous with where on that spectrum we are.

Personally, I find this one of the most interesting areas of philosophy, especially given how (relatively) new it is (less than 50 years old). Those interested in giving their noggin' a workout can read more here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Some of the people here really are just, say, high school students thinking about this all for the first time. But quite a few of us have thought about these things approximately as much as you have, have read about them, have personal experience wrestling with them.


I wouldn't even dismiss the hypothetical high school students, assuming they were here. I'm sure there are high school students out there that know things I don't, and I'd be just as willing to learn from them as the art-equivalent of Methuselah. I simply don't assume things about people online. I don't assume what they know, what they don't know, their life experiences, or anything else. If someone says something that seems obviously false to me, or suggests that they haven't read Y, are unaware of X, or don't know Z, then I'll just comment and say so without assuming farther. Nobody has read everything, is aware of everything, knows everything, or is perfect in their own thinking, so it's important to be open to correcting yourself regardless of where/who it's coming from. It's the whole "points, not people" mentality of debate/discussion.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> Maybe in terms of whether a work of art exemplifies certain values, but the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense.


Sure they can, and it's done all the time.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Sure they can, and it's done all the time.


Can you show me an example?


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Sorry, not a fan of either piece. Besides, one can conjur up such comparisons _ad infinitum_, yet the principle remains inviolate. (Picture of big sea-swept rock with boats being dashed to pieces. Turner would be good.)


But the question wasn't which you liked, it was whether one is better than the other.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> Can you show me an example?


Just Google it. Try mathematics, music, art, architecture. You could try googling mathematics and great art or Bach.

You might come up with something like this:

https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/features/deconstructing-the-genius-of-bach/


----------



## vtpoet

"Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes..."



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Of these [quotes], none is about drawing objective conclusions from subjective tastes. The first is claiming that artistic values can be based on qualities inherent in the music (nothing about subjectivity);


Here's the quote: "The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments....can also be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself."

Woodduck's reference to "qualities inherent in the music itself" is a reference to objective features within the music. Don't take my word for it, ask him yourself. You can't draw objective conclusions without those qualities inherent in the music itself.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...the second is about analyzing originality in Beethoven (nothing about subjectivity).


Here's the quote: "...musicological experts have evaluated a number of Beethoven's works (for instance) strictly on the basis of the originality of what he created and how he did it regardless of who likes them and who doesn't."

Here, DaveM is talking about objective qualities within Beethoven's music. Why else evaluate these works but for subjective reasons? I can't be bothered to connect the dots.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The third claims that the collective opinions of experts counts as "evidence that (it's) more objective than subjective." So it's trying to claim that subjective tastes become objective when enough experts agree, which is just plain false.


The quotes: "...experts in that field of art have, over time, designated certain works of art to be a masterpiece. Then add that, over time, there is a collective agreement among experts, those experienced in looking at or listening to those works of art and the common man/woman that these works of art are at a level that few or no others could equal and you now have evidence that is more objective than subjective."

He made no such claim. The evidence he is referring to was made clear in the prior quote.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I can almost guarantee that every time McGonagall rhymed a long-a ("Tay," "say," "away") he "knew" he'd done good work.


It's bizarre to cite a hack rhymester as evidence that Shakespeare and Keats couldn't really know that their poetry was good - or as evidence that there is no good poetry, only poetry that makes some people feel nice when they read it.

When my philosophy clashes with my experience of reality, I question my philosophy before I question my reality. Over my lifetime this has saved me from several ideologies, which now reside in a special trash bin reserved for discarded conceits.


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> It's bizarre to cite a hack rhymester as evidence that Shakespeare and Keats couldn't really know that their poetry was good - or as evidence that there is no good poetry, only poetry that makes some people feel nice when they read it.


He's evidently never heard of the Dunning-Krugger Effect. There were any number of composers, let alone poets, convinced they were God's gift to their art form.


----------



## Woodduck

vtpoet said:


> He's evidently never heard of the Dunning-Krugger Effect. There were any number of composers, let alone poets, convinced they were God's gift to their art form.


Yes, the D-C Effect applies to all areas of cognitive skill, which makes citing individual examples of it even less useful as proof of anything in the present conversation. "Feeling" that one's skills or accomplishments are better than they are is a very common, but far from universal, illusion. People of truly high achievement are much less likely to suffer from it.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Yes, the D-C Effect applies to all areas of cognitive skill, which makes citing individual examples of it even less useful as proof of anything in the present conversation. "Feeling" that one's skills or accomplishments are better than they are is a very common...


I see an example -actually the same example- of that on cable news everyday.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> But the question wasn't which you liked, it was whether one is better than the other.


No, I do not recognize one as ''better" than the other. They both fall beneath the threshold of generating sufficient interest to actually care. Is this important somehow? Please let me know how it is important; maybe I can supply a more useful or enlightening answer.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck: "When my philosophy clashes with my experience of reality, I question my philosophy before I question my reality. Over my lifetime this has saved me from several ideologies, which now reside in a special trash bin reserved for discarded conceits."


Amen to that! That is how and why my view of aesthetics is as it is.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Amen to that! That is how and why my view of aesthetics is as it is.


Which of your experiences of reality have caused you to discard which of your views of aesthetics?


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Just Google it. Try mathematics, music, art, architecture. You could try googling mathematics and great art or Bach.
> 
> You might come up with something like this:
> 
> https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/features/deconstructing-the-genius-of-bach/


The central theme of the first few paragraphs there is that Bach is influential. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer is influential?

Then the focus shifts to Bach's clever use of mathematics. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer cleverly used mathematics?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hypothetically, literally _ANY _feature of music _COULD_ serve as a basis for objective judgment, no matter how small/insignificant. That's because objective aspects of music just _ARE_ and the only reason any come to serve as a basis for aesthetic judgments is because _WE LIKE THEM._


Hypothetically, yes - but realistically, I would say that the explanation for why certain characteristics of art commonly serve as bases for aesthetic judgments lies not simply in the FACT that we like them, but in THE REASONS _WHY _WE LIKE THEM.

Order, coherence, unity, variety, balance, energy, strength, delicacy, power, subtlety, surprise, suspense, tension, resolution, expansion, contraction, repose - these and other qualities in art which give rise to a sense of pleasure, which are the devices by which art communicates meaning, and which we look for and praise as artistic values, are liked because THEY ARE THE PRODUCTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVELY EXISTING ATTRIBUTES, QUALITIES AND CONDITIONS OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND OUR LIVES AS HUMAN BEINGS. I say "objectively existing" because, although these factors are largely internal - they are functions and contents of consciousness - in the process of creating and experiencing art they, and the psyche which contains them, become objects: objects of abstract contemplation and, in the realized artwork, objects (in symbolic form) of actual perception. Art, in a way people have long felt to be magical, externalizes - objectifies - the forms and dynamics of the interior life and makes the soul of man visible to itself.

Thus art, almost uniquely among human pursuits, transcends the objective-subjective dichotomy. The distinction between inner and outer reality is philosophically necessary, but if a discussion of aesthetics gets stuck in it we miss the most important thing about art: the alchemy by which inner reality becomes outer reality - and returns us to our inner realty expanded and enriched - right before our eyes and ears. This, I think, is the source of art's power, and the primary reason for its existence and its importance in cultures throughout time and throughout the world.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Hypothetically, yes - but realistically, I would say that the explanation for why certain characteristics of art commonly serve as bases for aesthetic judgments lies not simply in the FACT that we like them, but in THE REASONS _WHY _WE LIKE THEM.
> 
> Order, coherence, unity, variety, balance, energy, strength, delicacy, power, subtlety, surprise, suspense, tension, resolution, expansion, contraction, repose - these and other qualities in art which give rise to a sense of pleasure, which are the devices by which art communicates meaning, and which we look for and praise as artistic values, are liked because THEY ARE THE PRODUCTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVELY EXISTING ATTRIBUTES, QUALITIES AND CONDITIONS OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND OUR LIVES AS HUMAN BEINGS. I say "objectively existing" because, although these factors are largely internal - they are functions and contents of consciousness - in the process of creating and experiencing art they, and the psyche which contains them, become objects: objects of abstract contemplation and, in the realized artwork, objects (in symbolic form) of actual perception. Art, in a way people have long felt to be magical, externalizes - objectifies - the forms and dynamics of the interior life and makes the soul of man visible to itself.
> 
> Thus art, almost uniquely among human pursuits, transcends the objective-subjective dichotomy. The distinction between inner and outer reality is philosophically necessary, but if a discussion of aesthetics gets stuck in it we miss the most important thing about art: the alchemy by which inner reality becomes outer reality - and returns us to our inner realty expanded and enriched - right before our eyes and ears. This, I think, is the source of art's power, and the primary reason for its existence and its importance in cultures throughout time and throughout the world.


I really don't think I could've written a better post explaining why art is fundamentally subjective.


----------



## mikeh375

Woodduck said:


> Hypothetically, yes - but realistically, I would say that the explanation for why certain characteristics of art commonly serve as bases for aesthetic judgments lies not simply in the FACT that we like them, but in THE REASONS _WHY _WE LIKE THEM.
> 
> Order, coherence, unity, variety, balance, energy, strength, delicacy, power, subtlety, surprise, suspense, tension, resolution, expansion, contraction, repose - these and other qualities in art which give rise to a sense of pleasure, which are the devices by which art communicates meaning, and which we look for and praise as artistic values, are liked because THEY ARE THE PRODUCTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVELY EXISTING ATTRIBUTES, QUALITIES AND CONDITIONS OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND OUR LIVES AS HUMAN BEINGS. I say "objectively existing" because, although these factors are largely internal - they are functions and contents of consciousness - in the process of creating and experiencing art they, and the psyche which contains them, become objects: objects of abstract contemplation and, in the realized artwork, objects (in symbolic form) of actual perception. Art, in a way people have long felt to be magical, externalizes - objectifies - the forms and dynamics of the interior life and makes the soul of man visible to itself.
> 
> Thus art, almost uniquely among human pursuits, transcends the objective-subjective dichotomy. The distinction between inner and outer reality is philosophically necessary, but if a discussion of aesthetics gets stuck in it we miss the most important thing about art: the alchemy by which inner reality becomes outer reality - and returns us to our inner realty expanded and enriched - right before our eyes and ears. This, I think, is the source of art's power, and the primary reason for its existence and its importance in cultures throughout time and throughout the world.


Another post of Wooduck's worth stealing and claiming as my own.....


----------



## mikeh375

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I was actually quoting Woodduck there. you seem to be agreeing with me, as I also think that finding precisely what one is searching for has a "feeling of 'rightness.'" I don't compose, but I've written poetry for years, and my choices about words, rhythm, form, etc. also ultimately comes down to what I feel is right. Where Wooduck and I am disagreeing is that he seems to think the rightness can be determined without the feeling. I disagree.


ok sorry for the confusion - I am only skimming which does the excellent posts here absolutely no justice whatsoever. I'll knuckle down and give them all the concentration they deserve. Please keep it up chaps and chapesses, it's a most edifying thread for this pleb at least.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123921
> 
> View attachment 123922


I think it is time, DaveM, for you to tell us what this was about. Were you demonstrating that it is impossible to say one is better than the other (and isn't that arguing against your position)?

I'm with others (who couldn't be?) in thinking it impossible to say which is the "better" work. They are so different, for a start. But noticing that just underlines the extent to which my judgment on the question is very much a personal preference. I do not like the picture of a musician. I almost find it ugly. I do not object to the abstract painting and quite like its airiness and balance and the feeling of an upward trajectory (helped a lot by the black splodges in the middle of the upper part). I don't know a lot about painting, though, and an expert might show me things in the figurative painting that leads to my appreciating it more (I think science has said something similar, here) or what is wrong with the abstract painting. Neither painting captivates me so far. I wonder how big they both are?


----------



## science

I keep waiting for him to say that his granddaughter did the second one in her preschool, and I'm gonna be like how much does she want for it?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm expecting something similar but I think it is better than that (but I know nothing!). Or maybe he has a talented granddaughter! I find it more difficult to find redeeming features in the musician painting. I am certainly not averse to the art of its apparent period.


----------



## science

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'm expecting something similar but I think it is better than that (but I know nothing!). Or maybe he has a talented granddaughter! I find it more difficult to find redeeming features in the musician painting. I am certainly not averse to the art of its apparent period.


Yeah, any one who can do that has a fantastic eye. I'm not sure that the artist will regard it as her best work, but I'd definitely like to hang it in my home. I really do have a perfect place for something like that in my guest room, assuming it's about the right size.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Maybe DaveM can sell copies signed by his granddaughter through this site.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123921
> 
> View attachment 123922


Better at what? I must say the first wins as a representation of Carl Friedrich Abel, but the second scores better as an abstract representation of his inner joy at meeting Gainsborough.


----------



## Enthusiast

Ooh. Well recognised!


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Ooh. Well recognised!


I take no credit. I used Google's image search facility.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh yeah. The identity of the abstract painting is wonderful! I now like the painting so much more and I've made it my avatar for now. Knowing the identity of the artist certainly helped me to my subjective opinion of the work.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Which of your experiences of reality have caused you to discard which of your views of aesthetics?


Situation A): I love this piece! Therefore, it must be great. I think everyone will agree, like they do about the paths through conic sections.

Situation B): I love this piece! I thought it must be great, but lots of people, including experts and many of my peers, did not agree--some thought X was great, some Y, others Z.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Oh yeah. The identity of the abstract painting is wonderful! I now like the painting so much more and I've made it my avatar for now. Knowing the identity of the artist certainly helped me to my subjective opinion of the work.


Ah, yes, the identity...I'm assuming someone's done that already? If not, here it is:

https://elephantartgallery.com/collections/value-line/products/tecc-2850



> We have been offering authentic abstract elephant art since 2000. Let our website guide you through selecting the perfect piece of artwork. Come Learn about the art and the elephant artists.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> Ah, yes, the identity...I'm assuming someone's done that already? If not, here it is:
> 
> https://elephantartgallery.com/collections/value-line/products/tecc-2850


I'm glad it was an adult elephant.


----------



## science

But I fear we've accidentally broached a bigger topic - do all minds share the same aesthetic values? If they are objective truths (like mathematics or empirically observable patterns) then all minds capable of perceiving them would agree.

I could imagine an argument from, say, bird and whale song and elephant painting (!), that all minds do in fact perceive (within the limits of their ability) the same objective values. We don't have to be alone as the pinnacle of everything: I could imagine bat art, for example, based on how sound echoes off various textures, embodying objective truths completely beyond our perceptual abilities.

But it'd be a hard argument to make. Although a hen's feeling about an egg - "what a lovely thing to sit on!" - must feel like an objective truth to her, so does the snake's feeling that the same egg deserves multiple Michelin stars. (I think I owe this example to Stephen Pinker, but I can't remember.) Clearly a bee's perception and "feelings" about flowers differ from ours. People have been imagining evolutionary explanations for our aesthetic values for some time now. It's just hard to imagine that aesthetic values exist independently of the kinds of minds that hold them.

These questions are going to be more interesting as AI gets better at creating art (or perhaps "art").

Anyway, enough theory! The practical question before us now is whether my wife agrees that a painting like that would look great in our guest room. I'll show the painting before telling her "who" the artist is, and _then_ I'll tell her how much it costs, and we'll see how that goes.


----------



## Enthusiast

They say they don't help the elephants but does the elephant know when to stop and who chooses the colours? Even Eliot needed a lot of help to knock The Wasteland into an effective shape.


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> Ah, yes, the identity...I'm assuming someone's done that already? If not, here it is:
> 
> https://elephantartgallery.com/collections/value-line/products/tecc-2850


The identity of the artist is completely irrelephant.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I really don't think I could've written a better post explaining why art is fundamentally subjective.


Thanks! 



> But I fear we've accidentally broached a bigger topic - *do all minds share the same aesthetic values? If they are objective truths (like mathematics or empirically observable patterns) then all minds capable of perceiving them would agree.
> *
> I could imagine an argument from, say, bird and whale song and elephant painting (!), that all minds do in fact perceive (within the limits of their ability) the same objective values. We don't have to be alone as the pinnacle of everything: I could imagine bat art, for example, based on how sound echoes off various textures, embodying objective truths completely beyond our perceptual abilities.
> 
> But it'd be a hard argument to make. Although a hen's feeling about an egg - "what a lovely thing to sit on!" - must feel like an objective truth to her, so does the snake's feeling that the same egg deserves multiple Michelin stars. (I think I owe this example to Stephen Pinker, but I can't remember.) Clearly a bee's perception and "feelings" about flowers differ from ours. People have been imagining evolutionary explanations for our aesthetic values for some time now. *It's just hard to imagine that aesthetic values exist independently of the kinds of minds that hold them.*


All minds do not share ANY values, not only aesthetic ones. We can go as far as to affirm that all normal minds can agree on the basic fact of existence and, probably, on the constancy of mathematical quantities - two plus two never equal five in basic arithmetic - but that is just about all. All experience - of everything, not just art - is "fundamentally subjective," in the strict sense of which Eva Yojimbo has repeatedly reminded us. Experience, by definition, takes place within the experiencer, where what's hopefully called "reality" can assume surprising aspects. The experience of art is subjective in the additional sense that through it we can experience, not merely something outside us, but aspects of ourselves echoed or embodied in something outside us.

I don't think the subjective dimensions of art, or their importance, have been the subject of disagreement here. However, I do think that the emphasis on those dimensions, manifested in part as a near-obsession with the objective-subjective dichotomy, has obscured the ways in which our reactions to and judgments about art can actually identify truths about it. A work of art will be experienced differently by different people, and differently by the same person at different times, but the things a work can reasonably be said to contain and to mean are not infinitely varied. This is not only because a work of art is a finite object of specific qualities, but because the nature of art's observers - human nature - is not infinitely varied. There are OBJECTIVE LIMITS TO SUBJECTIVITY, limits which can be violated - people can believe themselves to be Jesus Christ - but in the normal course of things are not. The great differences in what we _like_ can often obscure the nature of what we perceive (notoriously, in love as well as in art), but feelings are transient and are not in themselves tools of cognition; when feelings subside or change, the art (or the spouse) is still there, its nuances and potential meanings waiting to be further discerned and understood on their own terms. And they do have terms - objective terms - of their own.

The objective limits to subjectivity offer the only possible way of explaining why art has been called a "universal language." A shared human nature manifests in shared aesthetic values, values which transcend time and so easily cross lines of culture and genetics that people worldwide can embrace and understand (with more or less exposure and practice) the arts of the whole human world, from prehistory to the present. I've noticed that when this has been mentioned (a few times) in this thread, it's been completely ignored. Other evidence of art's universality, such as scholarly consensus about composers and consistency of public preference for certain music over time, has received casual acknowledgement, but no credible attempt at an explanation. My main motivation for writing last night's post (#492) was frustration over this, and you may also note that it offers a start at answering your challenge to me to offer "a single objective artistic value." I'm a little amused (see the emoji) that you find my post a fine confirmation of the "fundamental subjectivity of art," but I can object only to "fundamental"; as a philosophical objectivist (not an Objectivist) I'm not prepared to renounce the primacy of solid reality over man's not entirely reliable consciousness of it, and in this I believe I'm in agreement with the general run of humanity as it tries, through art, to make the ephemeral world of thoughts, emotions and aspirations into something concrete, perceptible and permanent.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Thanks!
> 
> All minds do not share ANY values, not only aesthetic ones. We can go as far as to affirm that all normal minds can agree on the basic fact of existence and, probably, on the constancy of mathematical quantities - two plus two never equal five in basic arithmetic - but that is just about all. All experience - of everything, not just art - is "fundamentally subjective," in the strict sense of which Eva Yojimbo has repeatedly reminded us. Experience, by definition, takes place within the experiencer, where what's hopefully called "reality" can assume surprising aspects. The experience of art is subjective in the additional sense that through it we can experience, not merely something outside us, but aspects of ourselves echoed or embodied in something outside us.
> 
> I don't think the subjective dimensions of art, or their importance, have been the subject of disagreement here. However, I do think that the emphasis on those dimensions, manifested in part as a near-obsession with the objective subjective dichotomy, has obscured the ways in which our reactions to and judgments about art can actually identify truths about it. A work of art will be experienced differently by different people, and differently by the same person at different times, but the things a work can reasonably be said to contain and to mean are not infinitely varied. This is not only because a work of art is a finite object of specific qualities, but because the nature of art's observers - human nature - is not infinitely varied. There are OBJECTIVE LIMITS TO SUBJECTIVITY, limits which can be violated - people can believe themselves to be Jesus Christ - but in the normal course of things are not. The great differences in what we _like_ can often obscure the nature of what we perceive (notoriously, in love as well as in art), but feelings are transient and are not in themselves tools of cognition; when feelings subside or change, the art (or the spouse) is still there, its nuances and potential meanings waiting to be further discerned and understood on their own terms. And they do have terms - objective terms - of their own.
> 
> The objective limits to subjectivity offer the only possible way of explaining why art has been called a "universal language." A shared human nature manifests in shared aesthetic values, values which transcend time and so easily cross lines of culture and genetics that people worldwide can embrace and understand (with more or less exposure and practice) the arts of the whole human world, from prehistory to the present. I've noticed that when this has been mentioned (a few times) in this thread, it's been completely ignored. Other evidence of art's universality, such as scholarly consensus about composers and consistency of public preference for certain music over time, has received casual acknowledgement, but no credible attempt at an explanation. My main motivation for writing last night's post (#492) was frustration over this, and you may also note that it offers a start at answering your challenge to me to offer "a single objective artistic value." I'm a little amused (see the emoji) that you find my post a fine confirmation of the "fundamental subjectivity of art," but I can object only to "fundamental"; as a philosophical objectivist (not an Objectivist) I'm not prepared to renounce the primacy of solid reality over man's not entirely reliable consciousness of it, and in this I believe I'm in agreement with the general run of humanity as it tries, through art, to make the ephemeral world of thoughts, emotions and aspirations into something concrete, perceptible and permanent.


Essentially you're objectifying human subjects, reifying aesthetic values, and classifying powerful emotions (including intuitions) as knowledge, so it's ultimately a semantic game. We agree about everything except the labels -- and part of that, I think, comes down to different aesthetic judgments about the words themselves.

I'd still prefer to rectify the names, but maybe it's no big deal... depending on how the names are put to use in other discussions.


----------



## DaveM

Okay, others have already identified the paintings I posted. The first is a portrait by Gainsborough, a world-class reknown 18th century artist, painter of The Blue Boy. (This portrait of Carl Friedrich Abel and The Blue Boy, among others, hang in the Huntington Museum in San Marino, California.) His paintings are invaluable and exist in the major museums of the world. The second painting is by...an elephant. The following are some interesting quotes comparing the two paintings. Perhaps I'll comment on my view of the significance of some of them later. For the moment, I'll let them speak for themselves.



Mandryka said:


> (post #407) Based on what I value the abstract one is much better than the portrait. The portrait has no mystery, no élan, no interesting juxtaposition of colour. The abstract is full of life and energy. I'd go as far as to say that based on what I value, the portrait is utterly worthless as a work of art.





science said:


> (post #408) I'm with Mandryka. One I'd donate to the nearest museum ASAP, the other I'd put in my guest bedroom to show off.





Eva Yojimbo said:


> (post #425).. I'm not a big fan of either,... I wouldn't be thrilled about hanging either on my wall, but I guess I'll give the edge to the former as at least I can admire the technique. In terms of which is considered "better" by people more into visual art, I don't know. I don't know either piece, who painted them, if either is considered important, influential, etc. For all I know, the latter could be from some uber-famous modern artist and the former is the butt of jokes among the cognoscenti... or the reverse could be true.





Strange Magic said:


> (post #488) No, I do not recognize one as ''better" than the other. They both fall beneath the threshold of generating sufficient interest to actually care...





Enthusiast said:


> (post#496)I do not like the picture of a musician. I almost find it ugly. I do not object to the abstract painting and quite like its airiness and balance and the feeling of an upward trajectory (helped a lot by the black splodges in the middle of the upper part).


----------



## Enthusiast

You forgot to mention that once I knew it was by an elephant I liked it more. And you can buy it so cheaply, too. 

No surprise I didn't like the Gainsborough. Even with my very limited knowledge of art I have never found anything I like in his work.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> You forgot to mention that once I knew it was by an elephant I liked it more. And you can buy it so cheaply, too.
> 
> No surprise I didn't like the Gainsborough. Even with my very limited knowledge of art I have never found anything I like in his work.


Gainsborough is one of those mid-18th century portrait artists who can induce a severe case of museum leg fatigue if and when one walks among a critical mass of them together. Breathing also becomes labored, and there is a general sense of ennui and boredom.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> "Yes you can draw objective conclusions about subjective tastes..."


I don't know why you're just repeating the quotes as my objections still stand; none of them are mentioning "subjective tastes," and thus they aren't "drawing objective conclusions about subjective tastes." I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what that phrase means.



vtpoet said:


> Here, DaveM is talking about objective qualities within Beethoven's music. *Why else evaluate these works but for subjective reasons?* I can't be bothered to connect the dots.


Sure, I agree with this, but this is not what he's saying.



vtpoet said:


> He made no such claim. The evidence he is referring to was made clear in the prior quote.


What "prior quote?" The evidence he's referring to is in THAT quote. The part where he even mentions evidence is in a clause connected to a previous clause with the conjunction "and." Either he's referencing what he wrote in that sentence/paragraph, or this is awful grammar.


----------



## DaveM

A portrait of Johann Christian Bach by Gainsborough:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> It's bizarre to cite a hack rhymester as evidence that Shakespeare and Keats couldn't really know that their poetry was good - or as evidence that there is no good poetry, only poetry that makes some people feel nice when they read it.


It's not bizarre at all. It points out the obvious fact that artists we consider bad can just as easily feel their their work is right and good and audiences can vehemently disagree with them. The difference between McGonagall and Keats is that when the latter felt he'd done good work, most readers of poetry agreed with him. So clearly the feeling (or belief, or whatever you want to call it) of having done good work isn't enough. "Bad" and "good" artists alike feel it in "bad" and "good" works. Here's another kicker; I've often found that "good" artists' feelings about their work aren't even inline with what audiences think. Hitchcock thought Shadow of a Doubt was his best film. A great film, sure, but few think it rises to the level of Vertigo, Psycho, or Rear Window.



Woodduck said:


> When my philosophy clashes with my experience of reality, I question my philosophy before I question my reality. Over my lifetime this has saved me from several ideologies, which now reside in a special trash bin reserved for discarded conceits.


This may be a key point where we differ. I've read/studied too much science and know how poorly our experiences of reality accurately present that reality. Even taking something easy, our brains come with dozens, if not hundreds, of biases that prevent our rational parsing of reality. There are also things in science, like quantum physics, that are so far outside the realm of our experience of reality that it's completely counter-intuitive; yet quantum physics arguably presents the most complete/accurate model of how reality actually functions. You can't study stuff like that list of cognitive biases and walk away with complete trust in your experiences; or, if you do, I'd call you a damn fool.

Of course, any philosophy would have to account for WHY we experience reality one way if, indeed, it's another way; but the point is that plenty of counter-intuitive things, things that go against our experience of reality, are true; and that's not just philosophically speaking, but scientifically as well.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Hypothetically, yes - but realistically, I would say that the explanation for why certain characteristics of art commonly serve as bases for aesthetic judgments lies not simply in the FACT that we like them, but in THE REASONS _WHY _WE LIKE THEM.
> 
> Order, coherence, unity, variety, balance, energy, strength, delicacy, power, subtlety, surprise, suspense, tension, resolution, expansion, contraction, repose - these and other qualities in art which give rise to a sense of pleasure, which are the devices by which art communicates meaning, and which we look for and praise as artistic values, are liked because THEY ARE THE PRODUCTS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVELY EXISTING ATTRIBUTES, QUALITIES AND CONDITIONS OF OUR HUMAN NATURE AND OUR LIVES AS HUMAN BEINGS. I say "objectively existing" because, although these factors are largely internal - they are functions and contents of consciousness - in the process of creating and experiencing art they, and the psyche which contains them, become objects: objects of abstract contemplation and, in the realized artwork, objects (in symbolic form) of actual perception. Art, in a way people have long felt to be magical, externalizes - objectifies - the forms and dynamics of the interior life and makes the soul of man visible to itself.
> 
> Thus art, almost uniquely among human pursuits, transcends the objective-subjective dichotomy. The distinction between inner and outer reality is philosophically necessary, but if a discussion of aesthetics gets stuck in it we miss the most important thing about art: the alchemy by which inner reality becomes outer reality - and returns us to our inner realty expanded and enriched - right before our eyes and ears. This, I think, is the source of art's power, and the primary reason for its existence and its importance in cultures throughout time and throughout the world.


Literally the only problem I have with what you're talking about here is that I still think you're trying to claim that mind-only things are objective. I don't understand why you're doing this or what purpose you think it serves. If things are "functions and contents of consciousness" they are subjective, by definition. I don't understand how/why you think such things "become objects." We might say that we use art, the object, to represent such things, but, as the saying goes, the symbol isn't the substance; at best, the symbol can only evoke the substance. Art does this quite well, it's why we respond as we do to it, but I still think you have a fuzzy few of how this happens. Literally nothing, nothing, transcends the "objective-subjective" dichotomy, because all things are either in the mind or outside the mind. There's no "transcending" this.

Frankly, I don't like that these aesthetic discussions get "stuck" in this distinction, but they only do because people routinely fail to make the distinction, specifically when it comes to attributing mind-only things to the mind. People project these mind-only things onto objects, and that's when the debate happens and people get "stuck." I'd be pleased as punch if we could correctly separate the two, and then address each (or the relationship) as the discussion demands.


----------



## ido66667

Woodduck said:


> Bernstein doesn't really think that either. He was exaggerating to make a point.
> 
> I think I've stated my views pretty comprehensively in earlier posts.
> 
> That one is easy. The new is typically misunderstood. People are naturally attached to what they know, and that clouds their judgment. Time has a way of making things clear. Of course there are always some who understand immediately; they may grasp underlying principles and qualities of excellence even in things which are strange on the surface. And true greatness generally finds its way quickly: the "new monody" of the Florentines is a perfect example.


Artusi, in his treatise seemed perfectly capable of understanding exactly what makes Monteverdi's madrigals different, and infact analysed it's counterpoint. Both Artusi and Monteverdi heard the same thing, and noticed them same qualities, but they didn't agree of whether those qualities make the madrigal beautiful, or conversly, bad. From Artusi's point of view the exact same compositional decisions that Monteverdi found tasteful are actually just bad counterpoint. Why is that? Because there are no objective principles of counterpoint and harmony.

What you are saying here is the unfalsifiable theory that people who don't agree with you are either "blind" in some way, or perhaps deny their real feelings and opinions. In fact, this is exactly what Artusi tried to do. Instead of just thinking "Well, I don't like that music. It sounds bad to me" and calling it a day, he went and published a treatise alleging that Monteverdi is simply 
trying to cover up the fact that he is inept. Nowdays, we have other people saying the same about modernist music.



vtpoet said:


> Huh?
> That's an exceedingly small number of pieces. And I notice you're being exceedingly vague about the "number of pieces" for someone who professes to be "into early music". I'm guessing that you're referring to the Toccata and Fugue in D minor as one of the "famous pieces"?
> 
> Yeah, that's why it's called the baroque period.
> 
> Okay. Now we're into the straw man, _if you believe "x", then_ formulation. Which I don't, but do go on.
> 
> Right, gotta' stop you here. Couple things: I attended the conservatory of music at Cincinnati where I passed out of music history and composed fugues (among other pieces) because, you know, there's an untapped market for 21st century baroque composers.
> 
> Not.
> 
> I moved on to literature.
> 
> My point is: I have some idea what I'm talking about and it sounds like, based on your sweeping generalities, _you don't_. At all. When you're comparing Bach's fugues to those of his peers, it's not about referencing some fugual ideal. What makes Bach's fugues great is his encyclopedic knowledge of contrapuntal techniques and his ability to apply them with seeming effortlessness to the appropriate subjects. It's about his exploitation of key relationships or as his contemporaries would have put it: His knowledge of harmony. No other composer of the period compares. Not even Händel, who quit writing fugues in his youth and destroyed most of his efforts.
> 
> [Face palm.]
> 
> Another face palm because, you see, that is precisely what happens. There apparently _is_ just such a thing because in each musical genre, be it classical, jazz, rock or pop, listeners tend to agree on who's writing the best music --- the Beatles for example. And many scholars have devoted their ingenuity to teasing out just what all these pieces, _objectively_, have in common.
> 
> I cannot for the life of me understand what is so difficult about that to grasp-or so controversial?!?


No, not the Toccata and Fugue, specifically, although that's one piece that is an doubt. Something that comes to mind is BWV 1025, which was discovered to be a transcription of one of Silvius Leopold Weiss' lute sonantas. Probably the most famous is the two short Minuetes in G from the notebook for Anna Magdalena, which were actually composed by Christian Petzold. There are other works of dubious attribution, the ones we know of were moved to the appendixes of the BWV system (Anhang). Numbers Anh. 24-155 are works of dubious authorship, and numbers Anh. 156-189 are works once attributed to him but now known to be of other composers.

See, you use entirely subjective terms and phrases like "appropriate", "no other composer compares" like they are facts. What you actually should say, "in my opinion, no other Baroque composer compares to Bach". If someone says "Okay, I understand your opinion, but I always found Händle/Giovanni Zamboni/Marin Marais/Lully/Couperin's work more enjoyable", what can you really say? You can continue speaking in vague platitudes like citing "explotation of key relationships", but deep down, let's not kid ourselves, you actually mean "Harmony that I find pleasing".

Want to hear a little secret? While I like Bach, I don't particularly enjoy some of his works or consider them as highly as works of other composers, known or unknown. I for example, would much prefer to listen to Lute Ricercars or fantasies by da Milano or even simple Scottish folk dances and tunes beautifully and elegantly arranged and harmonised from the Balcarres manuscript over a Bach Cantata. In fact, I find some of his Cantatas rather tedious. Crucify me for not appreciating their "sublime" harmony.

Also, you confused finding objective similarities between pieces, and trying to futilely assess "objective greatness", as if in a kind of genital measuring contest. The first is objective, the second is aesthetical judgment and is therefore subjective, that is, entirely dependant on the person doing the assessment.

And finally, you missed the main point. Bach was amazing at counterpoint in my opinion; I still gawk at Die Kunst der Fuge and wish I had a quarter of his musicality, but what is considered "good" counterpoint is continuously changing and at the same time subject to personal taste. As I wrote above, at the end, when it comes for enjoyment and overall awe and appreciation, many other composers compare for me or offer me completely different amazing experiences.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> But I fear we've accidentally broached a bigger topic - do all minds share the same aesthetic values? If they are *objective truths (like mathematics* or empirically observable patterns) then all minds capable of perceiving them would agree.
> 
> I could imagine an argument from, say, bird and whale song and elephant painting (!), that all minds do in fact perceive (within the limits of their ability) the same objective values. We don't have to be alone as the pinnacle of everything: I could imagine bat art, for example, based on how sound echoes off various textures, embodying objective truths completely beyond our perceptual abilities.
> 
> But it'd be a hard argument to make. Although a hen's feeling about an egg - "what a lovely thing to sit on!" - must feel like an objective truth to her, so does the snake's feeling that the same egg deserves multiple Michelin stars. (I think I owe this example to Stephen Pinker, but I can't remember.) Clearly a bee's perception and "feelings" about flowers differ from ours. People have been imagining evolutionary explanations for our aesthetic values for some time now. It's just hard to imagine that aesthetic values exist independently of the kinds of minds that hold them.
> 
> These questions are going to be more interesting as AI gets better at creating art (or perhaps "art").
> 
> Anyway, enough theory! The practical question before us now is whether my wife agrees that a painting like that would look great in our guest room. I'll show the painting before telling her "who" the artist is, and _then_ I'll tell her how much it costs, and we'll see how that goes.


Excellent post overall, but to address the part in bold, I've said several times in this thread I don't believe math is objective. I believe math is a subjective construct typically designed to model objective reality, and thus we can say it's "true" based on how well it does this, but math itself isn't objective (ie, mind-independent). There is, for what it's worth, much controversy over this in philosophy, but that's my perspective.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> Okay, others have already identified the paintings I posted. The first is a portrait by Gainsborough, a world-class reknown 18th century artist, painter of The Blue Boy. (This portrait of Carl Friedrich Abel and The Blue Boy, among others, hang in the Huntington Museum in San Marino, California.) His paintings are invaluable and exist in the major museums of the world. The second painting is by...an elephant. The following are some interesting quotes comparing the two paintings. Perhaps I'll comment on my view of the significance of some of them later. For the moment, I'll let them speak for themselves.


I noticed how you did not include my comment, where I described it as the visual art equivalent of dropping a piano out of a 4th story window onto pavement.

Not in the least bit analogous to comparing tonal, common practice classical to atonal classical.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> *I don't think the subjective dimensions of art, or their importance, have been the subject of disagreement here.* However, I do think that the emphasis on those dimensions, manifested in part as a near-obsession with the objective-subjective dichotomy, has obscured the ways in which our reactions to and judgments about art can actually identify truths about it. A work of art will be experienced differently by different people, and differently by the same person at different times, but the things a work can reasonably be said to contain and to mean are not infinitely varied. This is not only because a work of art is a finite object of specific qualities, but because the nature of art's observers - human nature - is not infinitely varied. There are OBJECTIVE LIMITS TO SUBJECTIVITY, limits which can be violated - people can believe themselves to be Jesus Christ - but in the normal course of things are not. The great differences in what we _like_ can often obscure the nature of what we perceive (notoriously, in love as well as in art), but feelings are transient and are not in themselves tools of cognition; when feelings subside or change, the art (or the spouse) is still there, its nuances and potential meanings waiting to be further discerned and understood on their own terms. And they do have terms - objective terms - of their own.


I very much disagree with the part in bold. Let me offer as an example a quote from you earlier in this thread: "The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments... can be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself."

That is a complete dismissal of the subjective dimensions that are essential in assessing artistic value, and I'm sure I could find many more. If there's one point I'd like to stress it's that there is no music assessment or valuation in terms of judgment ("good," "bad," "better," "masterpiece") without the subjective dimension. What's more, I'd equally stress that the subjective dimension is down to feelings far more than anything else. To make the point, try to imagine something you're completely indifferent to, like a random rock/pebble on the street. Imagine having that same reaction to all art and then trying to judge good, bad, better, masterpiece. How and why would you do so? The entire reason we create standards for such judgments is because art moves us to do it. We don't react indifferently to it. In fact, we try to associate our reactions with qualities in the art--a Bach fugue, a Mozart melody, a Beethoven motivic development--and then way say "these things are good, they are the standards by which we will judge similar attempts." Why would such things ever serve as a standard of goodness, of a masterpiece, without us being moved by them in some way that made us care? If a Bach fugue struck as dully as a random pebble we'd kick on the street, nobody would bother declaring them masterpieces of any kind.

And, I also want to stress that it's fine, even great, that we do this! The only problem is that in recognizing the reason we do this is because music has subjectively moved us to do so, we must also recognize that all kinds of music, all kinds of art, move people differently. The same way we feel this way about a Bach fugue, a Mozart melody, a Beethoven motivic development, others can feel the same way about a Schoenberg tone row, a Glass minimalism, a Reich rhythm, a Beach Boys harmony, a Beatles melody, a Dylan lyric, a Taylor Swift hook, a Miles improvisational solo, a Metallica blast beat, a Pink Floyd soundscape, ... and that should also be fine, and great! We shouldn't have to then resort to asserting that there are objective hierarchies or values independent of our thoughts and feelings in order to feel that what moves us is objectively superior--and I'm not even accusing you of doing this; merely that the kind of thinking you routinely display where you dismiss or fail to recognize subjective dimensions, or claim subjective qualities as being objective ones, is the kind of thinking that allows, even provokes, many people to do precisely that.



Woodduck said:


> The objective limits to subjectivity offer the only possible way of explaining why art has been called a "universal language." A shared human nature manifests in shared aesthetic values, values which transcend time and so easily cross lines of culture and genetics that people worldwide can embrace and understand (with more or less exposure and practice) the arts of the whole human world, from prehistory to the present. I've noticed that when this has been mentioned (a few times) in this thread, it's been completely ignored. Other evidence of art's universality, such as scholarly consensus about composers and consistency of public preference for certain music over time, has received casual acknowledgement, but no credible attempt at an explanation. My main motivation for writing last night's post (#492) was frustration over this, and you may also note that it offers a start at answering your challenge to me to offer "a single objective artistic value." I'm a little amused (see the emoji) that you find my post a fine confirmation of the "fundamental subjectivity of art," but I can object only to "fundamental"; as a philosophical objectivist (not an Objectivist) I'm not prepared to renounce the primacy of solid reality over man's not entirely reliable consciousness of it, and in this I believe I'm in agreement with the general run of humanity as it tries, through art, to make the ephemeral world of thoughts, emotions and aspirations into something concrete, perceptible and permanent.


Well, I don't want to ignore any of this. In fact, I've addressed it before myself in other threads. The problem, however, is that I think to fully address such things will require more scientific investigation in relatively young fields like neuroaesthetics and cognitive aesthetic science. I absolutely acknowledge that there qualities in music, and all the arts, that seem to have near-universal appeal that isn't limited to time and cultures, and I also acknowledge broad consensuses in the arts as well. Explaining these things is a desirable endeavor, but I feel that the best answers will come in science that is essentially devoted to studying our brains/mind/subjectivities. I've even posted a few such studies in other threads pertaining to how we react to atonal music VS tonal music. It's interesting/fascinating stuff, indeed.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> I noticed how you did not include my comment, where I described it as the visual art equivalent of dropping a piano out of a 4th story window onto pavement. Not in the least bit analogous to comparing tonal, common practice classical to atonal classical.


I didn't include it because there was no plan to make that analogy. But now that you mention it...


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> So, with the above in mind, is one of the works below better than the other?
> 
> View attachment 123921
> 
> View attachment 123922


I can resist no longer! This is a bit like comparing haggis with kiwi fruit, which ought to be more challenging than it is.

The portrait of a musician is a dull piece of hack work by a painter who knew better. There are skills in evidence: the facial expression is lively, the upholstery is velvety, the dog is soft and pettable and its form is nicely suggested in the soft shadow. But this is obviously a commissioned portrait of the most mundane sort, and the overall effect is conventional and static. Worse, the background seems to have been filled in in a hurry, and is inexplicable except as a compositional expedient: the brutally dull column, the strange, perspectiveless blue curtain, the way it bulges weightlessly and sticks to the back of the almost legless chair which fails to crash to the floor mainly because it's glued to the cellist's derriere, the cello looking like a cutout pasted onto the picture plane...What was Thomas thinking? It's amateurish. Look at some of Vermeer's paintings of musicians and enter another universe of artistic brilliance.

Babar's (or is it Dumbo's?) unpretentious effort comes as blessed relief. It's nice the way our painterly pachyderm doesn't bunch any one color in one area, but lets the whole spectrum scatter and float free like blowing leaves, keeping the entire space in vibrant play. The large black mark at top center suggests a question - why is the strongest single mark in so dominant a location? - and we might ask the artist about it if we could expect to get a better answer than being sprayed by a trunk. But never mind. It looks as spontaneous and joyous as it probably was, and although it would be less pleasing if painted by an adult human calling himself an artist, it's still better than a cheap commission painted in a hurry on too little sleep.

I've never eaten haggis and it might be good, but in this case I'll order the kiwi fruit. It's raw and natural and no one's done anything cruel to an animal.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I very much disagree with the part in bold. Let me offer as an example a quote from you earlier in this thread: "The actual point behind the Scelsi remark was that our musical judgments... can be assessments of artistic value based on qualities inherent in the music itself."
> 
> That is a complete dismissal of the subjective dimensions that are essential in assessing artistic value


No it isn't. Parse my grammar again and see that's it's merely a denial that artistic judgments must be purely subjective.



> I think to fully address such things will require more scientific investigation in relatively young fields like neuroaesthetics and cognitive aesthetic science. I absolutely acknowledge that there qualities in music, and all the arts, that seem to have near-universal appeal that isn't limited to time and cultures, and I also acknowledge broad consensuses in the arts as well. Explaining these things is a desirable endeavor, but I feel that the best answers will come in science that is essentially devoted to studying our brains/mind/subjectivities. I've even posted a few such studies in other threads pertaining to how we react to atonal music VS tonal music. It's interesting/fascinating stuff, indeed.


I agree completely. There is much work to be done. Those objective subjective factors are complex.


----------



## DaveM

First, as a reminder, The Gainsborough:








Regarding the results of the comparison of a Gainsborough with an abstract-appearing work by an elephant:

It appears to me that the more one takes a subjectivist approach to evaluating a work of art, the more likely 'which one is better' is interpreted as 'which one I like more'. Obviously, a person has the right to prefer whatever work they like, but the unwillingness or inability to separate one's preference from obvious and objective evidence of creative superiority is surprising to me.

The Gainsborough painting is an example of the closest thing to a photograph available in the 18th century. One shouldn't have to be a expert to appreciate the skill required to create this work -for instance, notice the 'photographic' detail of the dog's fur. The dismissive comments about the Gainsborough relate to my previous position that a purely subjectivist approach diminishes appreciation of the skill of the artist and the concept of a masterpiece.

The evaluations of the work of the elephant that imply something profound are astonishing! Does that raise the question that the more abstract a work of art, painting or music, the greater the challenge to judge the skill of the artist?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> No it isn't. Parse my grammar again and see that's it's merely a denial that artistic judgments must be purely subjective.


I'm parsing as best as I can and I can detect no acknowledgement of subjectivity in that sentence. A denial that artistic judgments must be purely subjective isn't an acknowledgement that they must be partially subjective. What's more, the quote fails to mention that the only way you can get to "artistic judgments through qualities inherent in the (objective) music itself" is via subjective feelings/standards, as the rest of my post explained.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> One shouldn't have to be a expert to appreciate the skill required to create this work


So what? Why do we have to care about this?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm parsing as best as I can and I can detect no acknowledgement of subjectivity in that sentence. A denial that artistic judgments must be purely subjective isn't an acknowledgement that they must be partially subjective. What's more, the quote fails to mention that the only way you can get to "artistic judgments through qualities inherent in the (objective) music itself" is via subjective feelings/standards, as the rest of my post explained.


"Our musical judgments *can* be assessments of artistic value *based on* qualities inherent in the music itself."

I don't see how that statement excludes all subjectivity from the process of interpreting those "inherent qualities." I mean, really, how would one even do that? It's simply an assertion that those inherent qualities can be really better or worse and can have decisive significance in shaping one's assessments. It's a rejection of the "if it pleases me it's good art" school of music criticism. It's an affirmation of my belief that we really can say that a Vermeer portrait is aesthetically finer than a Gainsborough portrait (see my comments in post #527, and tell me that that hideous background is not objectively unworthy to set beside the magical spaces of the Master of Delft.)


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> The Gainsborough painting is an example of the closest thing to a photograph available in the 18th century. One shouldn't have to be a expert to appreciate the skill required to create this work -for instance, notice the 'photographic' detail of the dog's fur. The dismissive comments about the Gainsborough relate to my previous position that a purely subjectivist approach diminishes appreciation of the skill of the artist and the concept of a masterpiece.
> 
> The evaluations of the work of the elephant that imply something profound are astonishing! Does that raise the question that the more abstract a work of art, painting or music, the greater the challenge to judge the skill of the artist?


You're absolutely right that the Gainsborough is like a photograph and undoubtedly required much skill to achieve that standard; but why should that be the standard for what constitutes an artistically valuable work of art? I mean, it's fine if that's a standard you want to adopt. Or, more complex yet, we might accept that as one standard while also accepting many others that we feel the Gainborough fails on (see Woodduck's assessment above).

I think what abstract art does is raise the question about whether skill actually matters. If art moves us, why care about how skillfully it was made? I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems the appreciation of skill is closer to appealing to our competitive instincts rather than our artistic ones, a desire to be able to say "I can do what very few people can do." Often times great skill can be put towards great creativity, but other times not so much; and I'd say the same thing about a lack of skill. I used to be a part of a guitar forum where there were frequent "wars" between the "wankers" and the "floggers." The former were those who insisted on a certain level of technical skill in their guitar music, and the latter didn't care as long as they found the music appealing. Heroes of the former included guitarists like Malmsteen and Holdsworth; heroes of the latter included guitarists like Jack White and David Gilmour. I've preferred to remain in the middle. I can appreciate skill. I can accept it as one standard among many; but ultimately if a work of art doesn't move me I can admire the skill/talent but still find it bad. There are some guitar playing where the skill makes my jaw drop, but in which I'd never want to listen to the music. Case in point:




Go to 4:18. Should we consider this "good" just because the skill required to play these runs is almost superhuman, that there probably exists less than half-a-dozen people in the world capable of playing like that?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> "Our musical judgments *can* be assessments of artistic value *based on* qualities inherent in the music itself."
> 
> I don't see how that statement excludes all subjectivity from the process of interpreting those "inherent qualities." I mean, really, how would one even do that? It's simply an assertion that those inherent qualities can be really better or worse and can have decisive significance in shaping one's assessments. It's a rejection of the "if it pleases me it's good art" school of music criticism. It's an affirmation of my belief that we really can say that a Vermeer portrait is aesthetically finer than a Gainsborough portrait (see my comments in post #527, and tell me that that hideous background is not objectively unworthy to set beside the magical spaces of the Master of Delft.)


It doesn't exclude it but neither does it acknowledge its necessity nor the role it plays in determining what qualities we're basing our judgments on. Those qualities, eg, can only be "better or worse" once we subjectively decide what counts as such.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> First, as a reminder, The Gainsborough:
> View attachment 123961
> 
> 
> Regarding the results of the comparison of a Gainsborough with an abstract-appearing work by an elephant:
> 
> It appears to me that the more one takes a subjectivist approach to evaluating a work of art, the more likely 'which one is better' is interpreted as 'which one I like more'. Obviously, a person has the right to prefer whatever work they like, but the unwillingness or inability to separate one's preference from obvious and objective evidence of creative superiority is surprising to me.
> 
> The Gainsborough painting is an example of the closest thing to a photograph available in the 18th century. One shouldn't have to be a expert to appreciate the skill required to create this work -for instance, notice the 'photographic' detail of the dog's fur. The dismissive comments about the Gainsborough relate to my previous position that a purely subjectivist approach diminishes appreciation of the skill of the artist and the concept of a masterpiece.


I have to disagree with some of your statements about the Gainsborough. I've already criticized it in post #525 above, and I find it an inferior example of his work for the reasons stated there. I'll add that there were better renderings of "photographic" reality in or before the 18th century; Gainsborough's textures are nicely rendered, but so were plenty of other artists' from the Renaissance on, and his handling of spatial perspective isn't really photographic at all. Of course I'm not saying that he wasn't a fine painter, but he was by and large a portraitist taking commissions, which made him a living but which he felt constrained by. He would have preferred to spend his time on landscapes, and when he did them his poetic sensibility emerged more fully.



> The evaluations of the work of the elephant that imply something profound are astonishing! Does that raise the question that the more abstract a work of art, painting or music, the greater the challenge to judge the skill of the artist?


I don't think skill is the issue. The artist's skill can still be judged, but in terms of the requirements of the style. Some people prefer art that's less realistic because it's less constraining on the viewer's imagination. The prosaic literalness of that Gainsborough painting makes the viewer pretty much irrelevant, unless he's the subject of the portrait. My reaction to it is, "OK, so what?" Enough paintings like that and I'd be in a stupor, craving some strong coffee or a walk in the fresh air.

There's nothing profound about Babar's effort, but it's at least fresh and fun.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You're absolutely right that the Gainsborough is like a photograph and undoubtedly required much skill to achieve that standard; but why should that be the standard for what constitutes an artistically valuable work of art? I mean, it's fine if that's a standard you want to adopt. Or, more complex yet, we might accept that as one standard while also accepting many others that we feel the Gainborough fails on (see Woodduck's assessment above).
> 
> I think what abstract art does is raise the question about whether skill actually matters. If art moves us, why care about how skillfully it was made? I mentioned this in another thread, but it seems the appreciation of skill is closer to appealing to our competitive instincts rather than our artistic ones, a desire to be able to say "I can do what very few people can do."..


If you have dismissed the importance of skill in works of art to the point that if the work of an elephant moves us then it can have the same intrinsic value as that of a talented artist, then I see no reason to even bother to respond.

Except to say that regarding your view that appreciating skill in art amounts to appealing to competitive instincts: I find that the dismissing of the importance of skill in art appeals to the lowest common denominator of human creativity, "Why should I bother working hard to improve my artistic skills? They don't count for much. And no matter how hard I work, my work might be compared equally to that of an elephant."


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Those qualities, eg, can only be "better or worse" once we subjectively decide what counts as such.


I'll pass over the redundancy of "subjectively decide." Suffice to say, we will never entirely agree. Meanwhile I hope not to hear the terms "subjective" and "objective" again soon. It all reminds me why philosophy texts aren't in my bathroom reading stack.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I have to disagree with some of your statements about the Gainsborough. I've already criticized it in post #525 above, and I find it an inferior example of his work for the reasons stated there. I'll add that there were better renderings of "photographic" reality in or before the 18th century; Gainsborough's textures are nicely rendered, but so were plenty of other artists' from the Renaissance on, and his handling of spatial perspective isn't really photographic at all. Of course I'm not saying that he wasn't a fine painter, but he was by and large a portraitist taking commissions, which made him a living but which he felt constrained by. He would have preferred to spend his time on landscapes, and when he did them his poetic sensibility emerged more fully.
> 
> I don't think skill is the issue. The artist's skill can still be judged, but in terms of the requirements of the style. Some people prefer art that's less realistic because it's less constraining on the viewer's imagination. The prosaic literalness of that Gainsborough painting makes the viewer pretty much irrelevant, unless he's the subject of the portrait. My reaction to it is, "OK, so what?" Enough paintings like that and I'd be in a stupor, craving some strong coffee or a walk in the fresh air.
> 
> There's nothing profound about Babar's effort, but it's at least fresh and fun.


I think you're taking a right turn from the subject -at least the subject I was addressing- which has to do with the appreciation of the skill of an artist and whether there is such a thing as a masterpiece. Particularly, I was taking issue with the subjectivist approach that diminishes the value of skill and denies the presence of objective parameters in comparing artworks.

I'm not sure why you wish to inject the subject of Gainsborough's skills, motives for painting or the quality of this particular painting into an already withering discussion. Suffice it to say that the painter of The Blue Boy is accepted as a master of the craft. One can choose to argue ad infinitum how this painting compares with his others or where he stands compared to other masters. Fwiw, you might have a better perspective as to the quality of the Karl F. Abel portrait if you were to stand in front of it as I have. But if you prefer the elephant's work...


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> the subjectivist approach that diminishes the value of skill


Your subjective approach obviously does not diminish that at all. Clearly you value it a lot.

But you assume that everyone else should have the same values that you do.

Prove it!


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> The central theme of the first few paragraphs there is that Bach is influential. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer is influential?


Can you prove that you shouldn't?



science said:


> Then the focus shifts to Bach's clever use of mathematics. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer cleverly used mathematics?


Can you prove that you shouldn't?

I mean, at this point, all you're doing is trolling. You asked for an example. I gave you an example. Rather than say: You're right. They _are_ doing such and such. Your response is: Why should _we_/I care?

I don't even know what that means.... Decide for yourself what you do and don't want to know. I really don't care. At least you acknowledged, in a sot of backwards way, that the examples i gave you were legitimate. You just don't know whether you should care..........


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I think you're taking a right turn from the subject -at least the subject I was addressing- which has to do with the appreciation of the skill of an artist and whether there is such a thing as a masterpiece. Particularly, I was taking issue with the subjectivist approach that diminishes the value of skill and denies the presence of objective parameters in comparing artworks.


You posted the two paintings and asked whether one was "better." The nearest I could come to answering that was to say what I found good or bad in both. I pointed out where I think Gainsborough's skills succeeded and failed. I certainly would not call either painting a masterpiece (which is rather ridiculous anyway in the case of an elephant).



> I'm not sure why you wish to inject the subject of Gainsborough's skills, motives for painting or the quality of this particular painting into an already withering discussion.


You asked about this particular painting!



> Suffice it to say that the painter of The Blue Boy is accepted as a master of the craft.


Which, in the case of Blue Boy, he probably is.



> One can choose to argue ad infinitum how this painting compares with his others or where he stands compared to other masters.


I would not choose to argue ad infinitum. But I would think that drawing a comparison with Vermeer's pictures of musicians would be quite germane. There we really ARE talking about masterpieces.



> Fwiw, you might have a better perspective as to the quality of the Karl F. Abel portrait if you were to stand in front of it as I have. But if you prefer the elephant's work...


I don't doubt that the painting looks better in real life than in this reproduction on my computer screen. But that's all I have to go on here. In this format, I do award the gold peanut to Babar.

If I've failed to address the subject as you wanted it addressed, I'd be happy to respond to a specific remark or question.


----------



## Woodduck

.............................................


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Can you prove that you shouldn't?
> 
> Can you prove that you shouldn't?
> 
> I mean, at this point, all you're doing is trolling. You asked for an example. I gave you an example. Rather than say: You're right. They _are_ doing such and such. Your response is: Why should _we_/I care?
> 
> I don't even know what that means.... Decide for yourself what you do and don't want to know. I really don't care. At least you acknowledged, in a sot of backwards way, that the examples i gave you were legitimate. You just don't know whether you should care..........


If I were arguing that aesthetic values are objective truths and you have the wrong ones, then this post would be great.

But holy food waste, Batman.

No, I can't prove and wouldn't try to prove anything like that *BECAUSE THEY ARE SUBJECTIVE VALUES*. They are not susceptible to proof. Either you value them or you don't. It depends on what is in your heart. They are SUBJECTIVE.

I'm not trolling. YOU are the one who is trolling by pretending not to know what these words mean in order to pretend that you are right to scorn people who do not share your tastes.

YOU are one of the people saying over and over and over again that taste is objective. The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## vtpoet

ido66667 said:


> See, you use entirely subjective terms and phrases like "appropriate", "no other composer compares" like they are facts. What you actually should say, "in my opinion, no other Baroque composer compares to Bach". If someone says "Okay, I understand your opinion, but I always found Händle/Giovanni Zamboni/Marin Marais/Lully/Couperin's work more enjoyable", what can you really say? You can continue speaking in vague platitudes like citing "explotation of key relationships", but deep down, let's not kid ourselves, you actually mean "Harmony that I find pleasing".


Nah. Bach was a better and a greater composer than any that you listed whether you personally like the others more or not; and that's not just my opinion. That's based on the music itself (and demonstrated by better musical minds than mine). But these discussions are going nowhere. That's to be expected I suppose. It takes a background in music theory to understand the reasons why John Eliot Gardiner makes the same observations concerning Bach, and I don't get the sense that anyone making the subjectivist case in these threads has a background in music theory, musicology, etc... Lots of generalities based on scant knowledge. Nothing easier than sweeping aside all education and knowledge with the self-comforting-assertion that all is subjective so why bother ayway, the it-doesn't-matter/"prove that I should care" attitude.

As for myself: I love knowing what makes a poem or piece of music better than another one. It's how one learns to write poetry or compose music.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> YOU are the one who is trolling by pretending not to know what these words mean in order to pretend that you are right to scorn people who do not share your tastes.


Give me one example.



science said:


> YOU are one of the people saying over and over and over again that taste is objective.


And this one too, while you're at it.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Give me one example.
> 
> And this one too, while you're at it.


I wrote:



science said:


> ...the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense.


You responded:



vtpoet said:


> Sure they can, and it's done all the time.


I responded:



science said:


> Can you show me an example?


Then you responded:



vtpoet said:


> Just Google it. Try mathematics, music, art, architecture. You could try googling mathematics and great art or Bach.
> 
> You might come up with something like this:
> 
> https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/features/deconstructing-the-genius-of-bach/


Then I responded:



science said:


> The central theme of the first few paragraphs there is that Bach is influential. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer is influential?
> 
> Then the focus shifts to Bach's clever use of mathematics. Can you prove that we should care whether a composer cleverly used mathematics?


Then you responded:



vtpoet said:


> Can you prove that you shouldn't?


I mean, over the course of 3 posts, you literally went from arguing that aesthetic values are susceptible to proof in a mathematical (2+2=4) or empirical (the sky is blue) sense to arguing that I can't prove my aesthetic values.

If that's not trolling, the bridges are safe.

Come on.


----------



## vtpoet

Here's your original

"Maybe in terms of whether a work of art exemplifies certain values, but the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense."



science said:


> I mean, over the course of 3 posts, you literally went from arguing that aesthetic values are susceptible to proof in a mathematical (2+2=4) or empirical (the sky is blue) sense to arguing that I can't prove my aesthetic values.


I just wanted to compare your two quotes to show how you manipulate the discussion. You originally wrote "proven or evaluated". I took proven, based on the context, to be in the mathematical sense. I gave you one link (and invited you to Google the rest) providing an example of a mathematical_ evaluation_. You can also find mathematical evaluations of his music that attempt to identify those qualities that make his music _better_ than that of other composers. But I notice in your latest response you hastily drop "evaluate" and focus entirely on "prove", and not in the mathematical sense (but in the bizarre "prove why I should care" formulation? Should I do that mathematically? I still have no idea what you mean. Just sounds like trolling to me.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> Your subjective approach obviously does not diminish that at all. Clearly you value it a lot.
> 
> But you assume that everyone else should have the same values that you do.
> 
> Prove it!


Why would I discuss the subject of skill in the arts with someone who finds great meaning in the work of an elephant? That's your prerogative, of course, but it serves as useful information to me as to how you likely evaluate classical works.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Here's your original
> 
> "Maybe in terms of whether a work of art exemplifies certain values, but the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense."
> 
> I just wanted to compare your two quotes to show how you manipulate the discussion. You originally wrote "proven or evaluated". I took proven, based on the context, to be in the mathematical sense. I gave you one link (and invited you to Google the rest) providing an example of a mathematical_ evaluation_. You can also find mathematical evaluations of his music that attempt to identify those qualities that make his music _better_ than that of other composers. But I notice in your latest response you hastily drop "evaluate" and focus entirely on "prove", and not in the mathematical sense (but in the bizarre "prove why I should care" formulation? Should I do that mathematically? I still have no idea what you mean. Just sounds like trolling to me.


So first you pretend you don't know what I mean, and then you take the word "evaluate" completely out of context precisely in order to distort my meaning.

There is no point in trying to communicate with someone this ill-intentioned.

Aesthetic values depend on human feeling and are not susceptible to proof. Anyone who looks down on other people for having the wrong values is therefore at best misguided and probably ill-intentioned.


----------



## Larkenfield

I view the objective side of music as the invariably fixed published score. It's _exactly_ the same for everyone and some fixed scores are more objectively popular or masterful than others because the works continue to be sold and have lasted, sometimes for centuries, and are still played today. It's measurable. The subjective side is that the objective relationship between the fixed notes and intervals can be _interpreted_ and reacted to differently. But if the score is an accurate representation of the composer's intentions, it remains invariably fixed regardless of how it's played. I've heard nothing that hasn't both an objective and subjective dimension, but some want to argue only one side and will not take into account the genius that can be found in the fixed scores by certain composers. Some scores have an inherent genius whether they are played or not, though of course they're usually played because of the fixed relationship of the rhythm, intervals and notes put there by the composer that attracts great attention to those works. It's not all _subjective_. The score remains objectively fixed with something that's inherently put there by the composer or no composer would have any objectively recognizable identity.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Why would I discuss the subject of skill in the arts with someone who finds great meaning in the work of an elephant? That's your prerogative, of course, but it serves as useful information to me as to how you likely evaluate classical works.


Right. So because our aesthetic values differ, I am worth less as a person.

But before I agree to submit myself, I need to see the proof.

Until I see the proof, I conclude that you don't have any, and that your evaluation of our standing is merely wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> So first you pretend you don't know what I mean, and then you take the word "evaluate" completely out of context precisely in order to distort my meaning.


Out of context? Here are your words: "*the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense*"

You even state that you mean prove and evaluate "_*in either a mathematical or a scientific sense*_". It's right there. Your words.



science said:


> There is no point in trying to communicate with someone this ill-intentioned.


Trolling and projecting.



science said:


> Aesthetic values depend on human feeling and are not susceptible to proof. Anyone who looks down on other people for having the wrong values is therefore at best misguided and probably ill-intentioned.


There you go again. Leaving out "evaluation". If you you want to back off that assertion, just say so, but don't pretend you never made it.

As for predicting whether certain works of art or music will appeal to more people through mathematical proof and evaluation, it happens all the time. For instance, you may say that human attraction is completely subjective, but mathematics can predict what faces will be the most appealing (and which politicians are most likely to be elected based on the ratios of their facial features). The same can be done with music and with art, for example, based on what human beings have already deemed to be masterpieces.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> Right. So because our aesthetic values differ, I am worth less as a person.


Do you equate a negative opinion on the parameters you use to judge art works as a judgement of you as a person?


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> Right. So because our aesthetic values differ, I am worth less as a person.


Look, that's just you saying that. But you keep beating that straw man if it makes you feel better.



science said:


> But before I agree to submit myself, I need to see the proof.
> 
> Until I see the proof, I conclude that you don't have any, and that your evaluation of our standing is merely wishful thinking on your part.


Here you go:

https://singularityhub.com/2012/03/...ical-equation-predicts-musics-hits-and-flops/


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Out of context? Here are your words: "*the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense*"
> 
> You even state that you mean prove and evaluate "_*in either a mathematical or a scientific sense*_". It's right there. Your words.
> 
> Trolling and projecting.
> 
> There you go again. Leaving out "evaluation". If you you want to back off that assertion, just say so, but don't pretend you never made it.


You absolutely win, man. I should not have written "or evaluated" in that sentence. It created a little sliver of ambiguity into which you were able to slither.

Very clever. Admirably done.



vtpoet said:


> As for predicting whether certain works of art or music will appeal to more people through mathematical proof and evaluation, it happens all the time. For instance, you may say that human attraction is completely subjective, but mathematics can predict what faces will be the most appealing (and which politicians are most likely to be elected based on the ratios of their facial features). The same can be done with music and with art, for example, based on what human beings have already deemed to be masterpieces.
> 
> As for predicting whether certain works of art or music will appeal to more people through mathematical proof and evaluation, it happens all the time. For instance, you may say that human attraction is completely subjective, but mathematics can predict what faces will be the most appealing (and which politicians are most likely to be elected based on the ratios of their facial features). The same can be done with music and with art, for example, based on what human beings have already deemed to be masterpieces.


When we find these patterns, are they thereby normative? I mean, if there is someone who does not prefer the politician with the "right" facial dimensions, is that person _wrong_?


----------



## vtpoet

And again:

https://newatlas.com/predicting-hit-songs/20939/

It's all there: proof and evaluation in a mathematical and scientific sense, empiricism and reproducible results.

I don't see how this doesn't meet every criteria subjectivists have been demanding, and puts to rest, once and for all, this nonsensical notion that there's nothing that can be objectively stated about tastes and preferences.


----------



## KenOC

The value of atonal works can be measured, as always, by my patented Great-o-Meter -- although the Atonal Attachment is required. As described in the past, the greatness of a work is measured and displayed directly in Ludwigs – or more often, milli-Ludwigs or even micro-Ludwigs. The last, or even nano-Ludwigs*, would commonly be used to display the greatness of atonal works, as you might well imagine.

The price includes batteries and the first year’s calibration. Easy payments are available and PayPal is accepted.

*The Atonal Attachment includes circuitry to add a nano-Ludwig scale to your Great-o-Meter, a feature not generally required by other types of music.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> When we find these patterns, are they thereby normative? I mean, if there is someone who does not prefer the politician with the "right" facial dimensions, is that person _wrong_?


I've never taken a position on whether someone's tastes are right or wrong. But you repeatedly try to shoehorn the conversation into this false dilemma. My interest is only in establishing that there are objective reasons why masterpieces are masterpieces and why, less grandiosely, certain kinds of music are preferred over other kinds.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> Do you equate a negative opinion on the parameters you use to judge art works as a judgement of you as a person?


You _intended_ it that way, pretending that you won't present proof that your values are objectively correct and mine are objectively wrong because I'm not the kind of person you'd share that kind of information with.


----------



## Bwv 1080

vtpoet said:


> I've never taken a position on whether someone's tastes are right or wrong. But you repeatedly try to shoehorn the conversation into this false dilemma. My interest is only in establishing that there are objective reasons why masterpieces are masterpieces and why, less grandiosely, certain kinds of music are preferred over other kinds.


So apply these objective criteria and tell me which Beethoven piano sonatas are masterpieces


----------



## vtpoet

KenOC said:


> The value of atonal works can be measured, as always, by my patented Great-o-Meter -- although the atonal attachment is required. As described in the past, the greatness of a work is measured and displayed directly in Ludwigs - or more often, milli-Ludwigs or even micro-Ludwigs. The last, or even nano-Ludwigs, would commonly be used to display the greatness of atonal works, as you might well imagine.
> 
> The price includes batteries and the first year's calibration. Easy payments are available and PayPal is accepted.


What about the patented Subjectivizor X.AOK (TM)? Do you sell that too? I understand that it's capable of turning elephant art into Mona Lisas and every composition into Beethoven's 9th?

I'd rather have that.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> I've never taken a position on whether someone's tastes are right or wrong. But you repeatedly try to shoehorn the conversation into this false dilemma. My interest is only in establishing that there are objective reasons why masterpieces are *WIDELY CONSIDERED* masterpieces and why, less grandiosely, certain kinds of music are preferred over other kinds.


FYP.

A description of those reasons is still not a prescription until you prove it is.


----------



## vtpoet

Bwv 1080 said:


> So apply these objective criteria and tell me which Beethoven piano sonatas are masterpieces


I'll re-post the link:

https://singularityhub.com/2012/03/...ical-equation-predicts-musics-hits-and-flops/

If they can feed the last 50 years of pop tunes into their AI database, then they could possibly do the same given enough piano sonatas.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> The value of atonal works can be measured, as always, by my patented Great-o-Meter -- although the atonal attachment is required. As described in the past, the greatness of a work is measured and displayed directly in Ludwigs - or more often, milli-Ludwigs or even micro-Ludwigs. The last, or even nano-Ludwigs, would commonly be used to display the greatness of atonal works, as you might well imagine.
> 
> The price includes batteries and the first year's calibration. Easy payments are available and PayPal is accepted.


So, one has to first buy your patented Great-o-Meter, but then be on the hook for separate attachments? Very 21st century!  Just to help in making my decision to buy and making sure that it would be accurate in judging atonal works, is the atonal attachment capable of measuring in fractions of nano-Ludwigs and, if so, to how many decimal points?


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> FYP.
> 
> A description of those reasons is still not a prescription until you prove it is.


Here's the link again:

https://singularityhub.com/2012/03/...ical-equation-predicts-musics-hits-and-flops/


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Here's the link again:
> 
> https://singularityhub.com/2012/03/...ical-equation-predicts-musics-hits-and-flops/


Do you intend to argue that people are wrong unless we like each of those songs as much as the thing says we should?


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> this nonsensical notion that there's nothing that can be objectively stated about tastes and preferences.


No one in their right mind would argue this. You can stop arguing against it - and stop pretending that it relates at all to anything anyone here has argued.


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> Do you intend to argue that people are wrong unless we like each of those songs as much as the thing says we should?


See my post above where I wrote:

"I've never taken a position on whether someone's tastes are right or wrong. But you repeatedly try to shoehorn the conversation into this false dilemma. My interest is only in establishing that there are objective reasons why masterpieces are masterpieces and why, less grandiosely, certain kinds of music are preferred over other kinds."


----------



## vtpoet

science said:


> No one in their right mind would argue this.


Glad to hear it.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> So, one has to first buy your patented Great-o-Meter, but then be on the hook for separate attachments? Very 21st century!  Just to help in making my decision to buy and making sure that it would be accurate in judging atonal works, is the atonal attachment capable of measuring in fractions of nano-Ludwigs and, if so, to how many decimal points?


The Great-o-Meter with the Atonal Attachment will measure and display down to .001 nano-Ludwigs. Accuracy is guaranteed to be +/- .001 nano-Ludwigs with annual calibration. We explored even more sensitive scales (femto-Ludwigs for instance) but determined that not more than four people in the world are interested in music that bad, though three of them are right here on Talk Classical.


----------



## DaveM

science said:


> You _intended_ it that way, pretending that you won't present proof that your values are objectively correct and mine are objectively wrong because I'm not the kind of person you'd share that kind of information with.


I'm beginning to see why you see some of these discussions as a personal attack. Fwiw, I am always aware that in the various discussions on this forum those who are vehemently against my views on some subjects may be very much in agreement with me on others. This is also true in real life. Likewise, in real life I can disagree strongly with a friend about how they evaluate art works and still be a friend, even a close friend. For all I know you and I might be great friends on the outside. All of this just isn't personal.


----------



## KenOC

vtpoet said:


> What about the patented Subjectivizor X.AOK (TM)? Do you sell that too? I understand that it's capable of turning elephant art into Mona Lisas and every composition into Beethoven's 9th?
> 
> I'd rather have that.


The Subjectivizor serves a totally different purpose. But before you buy, you may want to read the Amazon reviews. Many people who tried to turn minor works into Beethoven's 9th found instead that the results sounded suspiciously like The Monkees.

Some of course find this an acceptable level of performance.


----------



## science

DaveM said:


> I'm beginning to see why you see some of these discussions as a personal attack. Fwiw, I am always aware that in the various discussions on this forum those who are vehemently against my views on some subjects may be very much in agreement with me on others. This is also true in real life. Likewise, in real life I can disagree strongly with a friend about how they evaluate art works and still be a friend, even a close friend. For all I know you and I might be great friends on the outside. All of this just isn't personal.


Oh, I'm not offended at all. Not on my own behalf.

No matter how friendly we are, I need to see proof that aesthetic values could be objectively correct before I acknowledge that yours might be!


----------



## Strange Magic

> vtpoet: "As for predicting whether certain works of art or music will appeal to more people through mathematical proof and evaluation, it happens all the time. For instance, you may say that human attraction is completely subjective, but mathematics can predict what faces will be the most appealing (and which politicians are most likely to be elected based on the ratios of their facial features). The same can be done with music and with art, for example, based on what human beings have already deemed to be masterpieces.


Based on your thesis, can you tell us which is the best ice cream? Can you, more importantly, tell me which ice cream I will regard as the best ice cream? Basically all you are doing, though you don't recognize it, is conducting a poll, a vote to determine which flavors the most people prefer. The polling results are an objective fact, as are the studies in taste preferences, molecular structure of flavors, reaction of people to the appearance of the particular ice creams, etc., etc. Yet none of this clanking collection of objective facts and factoids brings anyone any closer to inseparably linking said polling data with demonstrating the intrinsic superiority of one ice cream flavor over another. People like what they like, the polling data and the opinions of "experts" be damned. In fact, these are often summoned up _ex post facto_ to justify and rationalize our choices, as many cannot seem to bear the weight of the validity of their own judgements. And the Count of T'ang hates ice cream, any flavor. Doesn't like the texture.

And when it comes to trolling......


----------



## vtpoet

KenOC said:


> The Subjectivizor serves a totally different purpose. But before you buy, you may want to read the Amazon reviews. Many people who tried to turn minor works into Beethoven's 9th found instead that the results sounded suspiciously like The Monkees.
> 
> Some of course find this an acceptable level of performance.


Then I want the Semi-Automatic Assault Subjectivizor so that I can mow down anybody who doesn't agree that The Monkees are just as good as Beethoven.


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> Yet none of this clanking collection of objective facts and factoids brings anyone any closer to inseparably linking said polling data with demonstrating the intrinsic superiority of one ice cream flavor over another.


If you consider "a masterpiece" to be "intrinsically superior" (do you?) then that's exactly what these objective facts do. If you _don't_ consider masterpieces (or simply hit songs) to be intrinsically superior, then they don't; they merely predict what is most likely to be a hit song or, as the case may be, a masterpiece.

https://newatlas.com/predicting-hit-songs/20939/


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> Then I want the Semi-Automatic Assault Subjectivizor so that I can mow down anybody who doesn't agree that The Monkees are just as good as Beethoven.


But can't it be shown that more people liked The Monkees? I liked The Monkees.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> But can't it be shown that more people liked The Monkees? I liked The Monkees.


I will sorely miss Rzewski, but from now on we have to love BTS above all.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> If you consider "a masterpiece" to be "intrinsically superior" (do you?) then that's exactly what these objective facts do. If you _don't_ consider masterpieces (or simply hit songs) to be intrinsically superior, then they don't; they merely predict what is most likely to be a hit song or, as the case may be, a masterpiece.
> 
> https://newatlas.com/predicting-hit-songs/20939/


The question is: Who Decides? In my thesis of personal, individual aesthetics as being the only aesthetics that actually matters for each person and case, I decide what are my masterpieces. As always, we ask: Who is to be master? And about the ice cream: best flavor, please?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Consensus of informed opinion decides


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> The question is: Who Decides? In my thesis of personal, individual aesthetics as being the only aesthetics that actually matters for each person and case, I decide what are my masterpieces. As always, we ask: Who is to be master?


But _surely_ you wouldn't dare disagree with the pious aesthetic bromides of the post-WWII middle class?

I mean, come on, man. Modern art stinks and everyone who denies that either has bad taste or is just affecting trendy rebelliousness.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> Consensus of informed opinion decides


But does the consensus of informed opinion demonstrate the direct and unbreakable link between the inherent properties of the art and how and why you or I must believe it to be great, a masterpiece, etc.? I think not.


----------



## Strange Magic

science said:


> But _surely_ you wouldn't dare disagree with the pious aesthetic bromides of the post-WWII middle class?
> 
> I mean, come on, man. Modern art stinks and everyone who denies that either has bad taste or is just affecting trendy rebelliousness.


I don't know about others, but I decide on a case-by-case basis if and when I am presented with a new piece of art/music.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know about others, but I decide on a case-by-case basis if and when I am presented with a new piece of art/music.


That's _very_ dangerous. The learned authorities may not approve!


----------



## Bwv 1080

Strange Magic said:


> But does the consensus of informed opinion demonstrate the direct and unbreakable link between the inherent properties of the art and how and why you or I must believe it to be great, a masterpiece, etc.? I think not.


No, nothing does, that is an impossible standard, which is why this thread is now up to 35 pages of bloviating Bvllsh1t. Its a market - individual idiosyncrasies in taste cancel out leaving a consensus that can be trusted. Sure, its fuzzy and imprecise, but if artistic greatness could be quantified it really wouldn't be art


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> And about the ice cream: best flavor, please?


Or as you wrote earlier:

"Based on your thesis, can you tell us which is the best ice cream? Can you, more importantly, tell me which ice cream I will regard as the best ice cream?"

Gish Galloping.

If you consider the _most popular_ ice cream flavors to be "the best", then yes. I (or a food scientist more likely) can/could easily tell you which is the most popular (or best if that's how you think of it).

And, more importantly, can one tell you which ice cream you will regard as the best? Absolutely. If I offer you the choice of eating ebola-vomit ice cream or vanilla ice cream, I can easily predict which you will regard as the best ice cream.


----------



## Woodduck

vtpoet said:


> And, more importantly, can one tell you which ice cream you will regard as the best? Absolutely. If I offer you the choice of eating ebola-vomit ice cream or vanilla ice cream, I can easily predict which you will regard as the best ice cream.


An interesting approach to exposing a flawed analogy. I like it. It amuses me.

Another approach - not intended to be amusing - is to point out the difference between taste and judgment, which rests on the difference between sensation and perception/understanding.

The crude comparison of art to food won't survive analysis of this difference.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> An interesting approach to exposing a flawed analogy. I like it. It amuses me.
> 
> Another approach - not intended to be amusing - is to point out the difference between taste and judgment, which rests on the difference between sensation and perception/understanding.
> 
> The crude comparison of art to food won't survive analysis of this difference.


Really? I regard at least some cooking as art. It's not like everyone out there is just following recipes.

By the way, I just want to make clear that I'm not challenging you in any personal sense. I just think it's interesting to ponder what counts and doesn't count as art.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Really? I regard at least some cooking as art. It's not like everyone out there is just following recipes.


Oh God... Now we have to examine the different meanings of "art."

Anyone for the art of negotiation? The art of self defense? The art of motorcycle maintenance?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Oh God... Now we have to examine the different meanings of "art."
> 
> Anyone for the art of negotiation? The art of self defense? The art of motorcycle maintenance?


We don't have to, man, but I think it's a really interesting question.

And, maybe, just maybe, we would learn something from each other. We might - if we approach the discussion respectfully and open-mindedly - we might even _enjoy ourselves_ a little.

Here! I'll go first just in case....

As a preliminary definition of art, I offer: art is anything that people try to do unnecessarily well.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> We don't have to, man, but I think it's a really interesting question.
> 
> And, maybe, just maybe, we would learn something from each other. We might - if we approach the discussion respectfully and open-mindedly - we might even _enjoy ourselves_ a little.
> 
> Here! I'll go first just in case....
> 
> As a preliminary definition of art, I offer: art is anything that people try to do unnecessarily well.


Nicely stated. That's probably the broadest possible definition. I suspect the giveaway is "anything." :lol:

Pretty far from what we've been talking about thus far, though, and the sort of thing I mean in the post above. Actual definitions are hard, so I can't claim to have settled on one that satisfies me, but I think my post #492 gets at what I'd consider the essential function of art as a perceptible externalization and objectivization of our feelings, values and ideas about existence. Actually, that may be a pretty good definition right there.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Nicely stated. That's probably the broadest possible definition. I suspect the giveaway is "anything." :lol:
> 
> Pretty far from what we've been talking about thus far, though, and the sort of thing I mean in the post above. Actual definitions are hard, so I can't claim to have settled on one that satisfies me, but I think my post #492 gets at what I'd consider the essential function of art as a perceptible externalization and objectivization of our feelings, values and ideas about existence. Actually, that may be a pretty good definition right there.


Would you know I was joking if I respond that, from an entirely neutral, unbiased, an in all other ways objective point of view, you're just wrong?

But I need to think about your definition for a while to figure out why.

Edit: The two definitions may turn out to mean the same thing.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ Take your time.


----------



## KenOC

The era of what we call “classical music” ended about half a century ago. There has been little since added to our repertoire. It’s like Dutch golden age painting – we all love to see these at the museum, but there’s nothing produced any more.

Something new will arise in time, if it hasn’t already, and doubtless we’ll all hate it. That’s the way things work!


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> The era of what we call "classical music" ended about half a century ago. There has been little since added to our repertoire...


The Great-o-Meter doesn't lie. There have been almost no measurable Ludwigs in the last half century.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> It appears to me that the more one takes a subjectivist approach to evaluating a work of art, the more likely 'which one is better' is interpreted as 'which one I like more'. Obviously, a person has the right to prefer whatever work they like, but the unwillingness or inability to separate one's preference from obvious and objective evidence of creative superiority is surprising to me.
> 
> The Gainsborough painting is an example of the closest thing to a photograph available in the 18th century. One shouldn't have to be a expert to appreciate the skill required to create this work -for instance, notice the 'photographic' detail of the dog's fur. The dismissive comments about the Gainsborough relate to my previous position that a purely subjectivist approach diminishes appreciation of the skill of the artist and the concept of a masterpiece.
> 
> The evaluations of the work of the elephant that imply something profound are astonishing! Does that raise the question that the more abstract a work of art, painting or music, the greater the challenge to judge the skill of the artist?


The irony is that asking us to compare and evaluate two paintings in this way is an _invitation _to offer a subjective response. Your assumption was that, whether we recognised the artists or not, we would recognise your invitation as entirely rhetorical: of course the painting of the man is better. Your question fails, however, as we mostly didn't take the bait. As someone said earlier, we lined up to offer our subjective preferences for the "objective" criteria we consider important in evaluating art.

I'm sure you enjoyed sniggering at those who unwittingly argued for the work of the elephant.

BTW, has anyone been able to establish that the paintings are actually done by elephants?

How Can I Spot a Fake Elephant Painting?


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> There's nothing profound about Babar's effort, but it's at least fresh and fun.


I agree. The picture put me in mind of a Unicef greetings card but seeing how cheap these paintings are has made me think that if I owned a hotel I would put one of the paintings in each of the bedrooms. I would not do that with most Gainsborough paintings, however skillfully painted they are.

Still, let's respect the artist. The abstract artist's name is not Babar (or Dumbo) but Phumphang. Here she is with her daughter (and her mahout):









Nor is she just an elephant. To get trained she had to demonstrate aptitude and it is during this training that



> the artist's natural instinctive style becomes evident. No two elephant artists have the same style and just like human artists, their style develops and matures over time.


 (_from the elephantartgallery website._)

The website does not tell us what the elephants mean by their paintings. Perhaps their intentions are merely decorative? Apparently, elephants only really enjoy painting abstract pictures:



> By contrast the training process to get elephants to paint 'portraits', 'landscapes' and similar recognizable images that are currently in vogue is quite different and we do NOT do this at The Elephant Art Gallery. To perform such tricks the elephant has to be trained away from what it can do naturally and instead has to be prompted by a mahout to perform strange repetitive acts.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> The Great-o-Meter doesn't lie. There have been almost no measurable Ludwigs in the last half century.


Aside from the Great-o-Meter (which is anyway shortly to become subject to a legal action over its failure to perform as advertised), can you provide some sort of objective proof of that assertion?

As someone who has long been trying to develop an accurate Great-o-Meter, I can tell you that our initial work, based on the assumption that an adequate meter would require an objective standard to be developed and codified into the machine, was disappointing. We got stuck on mathematical models that try to explain/predict popularity and how widespread a perception of beauty is but got no closer to matching the acknowledged greatness of the works we tested it with. We are now working with subjective models but it is hard to encode those into a machine. We are quite close to being able to approximate the perceptions of a few noted critics. But a general subjective judgment machine eludes us. The nearest we can get is a machine that researches (via the internet) popularity, critical acclaim and other properties. But we don't need a machine to do that for us.


----------



## Mandryka

What it shows is the difficulty of understanding the aesthetic value of the Gaisnsborough, at least without seeing the original canvas. 


The fact that it’s by an animal is neither here nor there IMO, just as objects produced by nature can by very inspirational - and children’s art - think Cy Twombly.


----------



## Strange Magic

People don't like my ice cream analogy. They don't even nibble at my color analogy (best color? What is the Best Color? "Are you going to ask me my favorite color?"). Let's try Davids

Four Davids: Donatello, Verrocchio, Michelangelo, Bernini

First, Donatello:








Next, Verrocchio:








Then, Michelangelo:








Finally, Bernini:








It should be perfectly clear to every observer that one of these is The Best David ("Be All You Can Be!"). Shouldn't it?
Which is it? Does the Count of T'ang agree with you? What do a large number of critics tell us over and over again? Which one(s) do we really like best? Which one would we like best if we had never seen any of them before or knew anything about their sculptors? Which shows David being David?


----------



## Guest

Obviously the Bernini, which tells a story, whereas the Donatello tells us more about Donatello than David. The Michaelangelo is just boring and the Verocchio just poor.

There. Sorted.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh dear. I like them all. I think I might like the Donatello best but somehow I know that is merely a personal preference. All this art (paintings and sculptures) is interesting to me as I know so little about art that I don't know what I am supposed to think and don't have the experience to make an informed judgment myself. So I end up choosing the one I like best. I know far more about music and do the same but I would probably not be choosing the pieces I liked best at first and when I was pig ignorant about music.


----------



## Mandryka

There’s a copy of the Michelangelo on a roundabout at Hyde Park Corner in London, if you approach it from from Marble Arch down Park Lane he has his back to you. I always think it’s the best bottom in London.

So I vote Michelangelo.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Oh dear. I like them all. I think I might like the Donatello best but somehow I know that is merely a personal preference. All this art (paintings and sculptures) is interesting to me as I know so little about art that I don't know what I am supposed to think and don't have the experience to make an informed judgment myself. So I end up choosing the one I like best. I know far more about music and do the same but I would probably not be choosing the pieces I liked best at first and when I was pig ignorant about music.


The beauty and utility of my aesthetics based on the primacy of one's unique individual, personal, subjective experience of art/music, is that you can have: bad/good/better/best comparisons and relationships. You can have masterpieces--your very own! Your views can change, evolve, as your experience and knowledge increase, and as you mature. You are free to like and dislike whatever, whenever. As there is no God of Art (except Apollo, and he is lenient), All is Permitted. This frightens some, like coloring outside the lines.

I prefer both the Donatello and the Bernini. The Donatello reminds me of the old Nat King Cole song _Nature Boy_, and he also looks like a kid who was confident he could tackle a big goon like Goliath. Bernini's David resembles Sting (I think), and also, as MacLeod also noted, is being David and actually getting ready to launch his missile. My views, anyway.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> The beauty and utility of my aesthetics based on the primacy of one's unique individual, personal, subjective experience of art/music, is that you can have: bad/good/better/best comparisons and relationships. You can have masterpieces--your very own! Your views can change, evolve, as your experience and knowledge increase, and as you mature. You are free to like and dislike whatever, whenever.


No, you're subverting the idea of "masterpiece," which is not subjective. It lies in the realm of ideas that are "out there" as consensus truths. Not at all subjective, but representing "status quo" agreements and ideas.


----------



## ido66667

DaveM said:


> intrinsic value


There is no intrinsic value, for anything at all. Objectively speaking, the intrinsic value of the portrait is exactly the same as the Elephant's painting's, nihil. That is to say, it does not exist outside of our minds.

Values, whether economical, or aesthetical are purely within our minds. There is no "valueton" or "masterpieceton" particle that lends an object an intrinsic value, which is then perceived by our value-sensing organs. It is something we came up with ourselves, and every person assigns their own value, and therefore there is wide disagreement about any one particular object's value.

I think something along this line was what everyone from the "subjectivist" side is trying to phrase, but no matter how we say it, it just doesn't come across.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Yes, the concept of intrinsic value in economics is the equivalent of the aether in physics, and has been dead about as long


----------



## science

I personally look most like Michelangelo's so that's the greatest.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> The irony is that asking us to compare and evaluate two paintings in this way is an _invitation _to offer a subjective response. Your assumption was that, whether we recognised the artists or not, we would recognise your invitation as entirely rhetorical: of course the painting of the man is better. Your question fails, however, as we mostly didn't take the bait.


Well no it didn't, because some did and it satisfied my suspicion that there are those here who evaluate an artwork purely on subjective parameters with little or no appreciation or care for what is objective evidence of skill of the human creator and also are likely to reject the concept of a masterpiece. The question raised was which one is better, not which one do you like more.


----------



## Mandryka

I must say looking at them again, the Donatello is an amazing thing!


----------



## DaveM

ido66667 said:


> There is no intrinsic value, for anything at all. Objectively speaking, the intrinsic value of the portrait is exactly the same as the Elephant's painting's, nihil. That is to say, it does not exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Values, whether economical, or aesthetical are purely within our minds. There is no "valueton" or "masterpieceton" particle that lends an object an intrinsic value, which is then perceived by our value-sensing organs. It is something we came up with ourselves, and every person assigns their own value, and therefore there is wide disagreement about any one particular object's value.
> 
> I think something along this line was what everyone from the "subjectivist" side is trying to phrase, but no matter how we say it, it just doesn't come across.


You mean your argument is not accepted by someone? Don't you just hate when that happens!


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> The question raised was which one is better,


And that was the question I answered insofar as it can be answered.



millionrainbows said:


> No, you're subverting the idea of "masterpiece,"


No, he isn't. He's pointing out that if "masterpiece" means "a supreme work", that's still open to debate, even if a general consensus can be reached. There's still no absolute standard.

Of course, if "masterpiece" means "the best piece by this particular artist, which shows he is a master of his craft", it might be easier to reach a consensus - but it ain't necessarily so.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> And that was the question I answered insofar as it can be answered.


Noted and placed in the record, if that's what you're concerned about.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Noted and placed in the record, if that's what you're concerned about.


It's not what I'm "concerned" about. It was the simplest part of your post to which I could respond. I saw no point in restating my contrary opinion to yours that your invitation was bound to get a "subjective" response, even if, like mine, one tries to answer the question, "Which is better?" (and which you prefer not to take account of, preferring to snigger).

But there, I have restated.


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> There's a copy of the Michelangelo on a roundabout at Hyde Park Corner in London, if you approach it from from Marble Arch down Park Lane he has his back to you. I always think it's the best bottom in London.
> 
> So I vote Michelangelo.


I'm struggling to find a picture of the Hyde Park Michelangelo...


----------



## Woodduck

Has it occurred to anyone else that different parties in this brouhaha are talking past one another and only imagining that they're addressing the same questions?

There never was only one question at issue here. But somehow it always comes down to ice cream.

I'm going to shut up for a while and eat my gelato before it melts. Ars longa, gelato brevis.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> It's not what I'm "concerned" about. It was the simplest part of your post to which I could respond. I saw no point in restating my contrary opinion to yours that your invitation was bound to get a "subjective" response, even if, like mine, one tries to answer the question, "Which is better?" (and which you prefer not to take account of, preferring to snigger).
> But there, I have restated.


And so you have. Does that satisfy the affirmation you're looking for?


----------



## Enthusiast

science said:


> I personally look most like Michelangelo's so that's the greatest.


Time to put some clothes on, science.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> No, you're subverting the idea of "masterpiece," which is not subjective. It lies in the realm of ideas that are "out there" as consensus truths. Not at all subjective, but representing "status quo" agreements and ideas.


Rather than individual subjectivity, we bind together the subjective views of the agree-ers, and somehow transform the idea of the masterpiece into something objective. OK, I'll go along. It is an objective "fact" (maybe) that more people like vanilla (I actually neither know nor care) than pistachio. Therefore, What? Should I therefore prefer vanilla also? Should you? What about the chocolate lovers? Your assertion is a pronunciamento, neither more nor less.


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Time to put some clothes on, science.


Or a fig leaf. How big?


----------



## Woodduck

ido66667 said:


> There is no intrinsic value, for anything at all. Objectively speaking, the intrinsic value of the portrait is exactly the same as the Elephant's painting's, nihil. That is to say, it does not exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Values, whether economical, or aesthetical are purely within our minds. There is no "valueton" or "masterpieceton" particle that lends an object an intrinsic value, which is then perceived by our value-sensing organs. It is something we came up with ourselves, and every person assigns their own value, and therefore there is wide disagreement about any one particular object's value.
> 
> I think something along this line was what everyone from the "subjectivist" side is trying to phrase, but no matter how we say it, it just doesn't come across.


"Value," as a philosophical concept, should not be confused with "merit," an appraisal of qualities. I'm not sure whether you're doing that, but when you mention "masterpieceton particles" I suspect you are. The conflation has plagued this discussion from the start.


----------



## Strange Magic

Appraise | Definition of Appraise by Merriam-Webster

Definition of appraise. transitive verb. 1 : to set a value on : to estimate the amount of, appraise, the damage. 2 : to evaluate the worth, significance, or status of especially : to give an expert judgment of the value or merit of appraise an actor's career.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> "Value," as a philosophical concept, should not be confused with "merit," an appraisal of qualities. I'm not sure whether you're doing that, but when you mention "masterpieceton particles" I suspect you are. The conflation has plagued this discussion from the start.


is it the "intrinsic/extrinsic" bit that is causing the problem, or a confusion of terms relating to value/worth, or to the process of identifying and explaining the criteria by which an evaluation may be made?


----------



## Mandryka

MacLeod said:


> I'm struggling to find a picture of the Hyde Park Michelangelo...


Yes so was I and now I think I'm confusing it with this one -- which is possibly based on the Michelangelo, unfortunately I can't find a picture of his bottom.









There's a wiki about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Gun_Corps_Memorial


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> ...regarding your view that appreciating skill in art amounts to appealing to competitive instincts: I find that the dismissing of the importance of skill in art appeals to the lowest common denominator of human creativity, "Why should I bother working hard to improve my artistic skills? They don't count for much. And no matter how hard I work, my work might be compared equally to that of an elephant."


There is great art that can only be created with much skill; there is also great art that can only be created with little skill. Art is about being creative and expressive with whatever tools one has to work with. Skill expands your tool-set, it expands your palette, but that doesn't mean what you create with it is automatically good. Do you seriously like that piece of guitar music I posted? It's mindless scale runs. It requires almost superhuman skills, but are you telling me it's good music?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> And again:
> 
> https://newatlas.com/predicting-hit-songs/20939/
> 
> It's all there: proof and evaluation in a mathematical and scientific sense, empiricism and reproducible results.
> 
> I don't see how this doesn't meet every criteria subjectivists have been demanding, and puts to rest, once and for all, this nonsensical notion that there's nothing that can be objectively stated about tastes and preferences.


I don't even think you bothered to read that article:



> Musical tastes evolve, which means our 'hit potential equation' needs to evolve as well. Indeed, we have found *the hit potential of a song depends on the era.*" For example, the ability to dance to a song was a huge determining factor of how well they would fare on the charts in the 1980s, but this characteristic became less and less important as music moved into the early 90s rock ballads.
> 
> In the 80s, when slower musical styles (tempo 70-89 beats per minute) were more likely to become a hit, Simply Red's version of If You Don't Know Me By Now, with its mix of slow tempo, harmonic simplicity, and sing-along chorus ticked many of the boxes for success - even before it was released.


And:


> the system's prediction accuracy of *60 percent*.


:lol: I also don't know how many songs it actually analyzed, but I bet I could find hundreds of songs that scored high on their "hit formula" and weren't hits, which would bring the predictability down significantly. There are significantly more artists working in the pop space than there are those that are scoring hits, despite the fact the former are often copying almost exactly what the latter are doing.

Also, this shows you haven't really been paying attention to subjectivists arguments. None of us ever stated that one couldn't, at least hypothetically, empirically study or predict subjective tastes (which is what this study is doing); the argument is whether such subjective tastes are required to make objective value judgments, or if objective value judgments are possible without reference to subjective tastes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Bwv 1080 said:


> Consensus of informed opinion decides


No such thing as a "consensus of informed opinion" on subjective matters because the information can't influence the conclusion. This is not like an informed medical opinion that can be right or wrong about a diagnosis.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> I just think it's interesting to ponder what counts and doesn't count as art.


Nah, it's just a word game. I think Yudkowsky wrote the definitive article on this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/d5NyJ2Lf6N22AD9PB/where-to-draw-the-boundary


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> Oh dear. I like them all. I think I might like the Donatello best but somehow I know that is merely a personal preference. All this art (paintings and sculptures) is interesting to me as *I know so little about art that I don't know what I am supposed to think and don't have the experience to make an informed judgment myself.* So I end up choosing the one I like best. I know far more about music and do the same but I would probably not be choosing the pieces I liked best at first and when I was pig ignorant about music.


I'm the same in knowing very little about the visual arts, but the point that I (and StrangeMagic, and others) have been making throughout this thread is that you aren't "supposed to think" anything and that there's really no such thing as "informed judgment" in art. You can be informed about art, but this doesn't dictate, or arguably even influence in itself, your judgments.

FWIW, I'm with you (and StrangeMagic) in preferring the Donatello (and Bernini).


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There is great art that can only be created with much skill; there is also great art that can only be created with little skill. Art is about being creative and expressive with whatever tools one has to work with. Skill expands your tool-set, it expands your palette*, but that doesn't mean what you create with it is automatically good*. *Do you seriously like that piece of guitar music I posted?* It's mindless scale runs. It requires almost superhuman skills, but are you telling me it's good music?


I think that sometimes you just want to argue something for the sake of arguing whether it was raised by the other party or not. The acknowledgement of skill comes when something impressive is created that few or no other people can create.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No such thing as a "consensus of informed opinion" on subjective matters because the information can't influence the conclusion. This is not like an informed medical opinion that can be right or wrong about a diagnosis.


Sure there is - the people here are informed about classical music, average people are not. Someone playing fast V7-i arpeggios on a piano might impress the average person, but likely no one here. Its not a matter of right or wrong, just experience and judgement.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

ido66667 said:


> I think something along this line was what everyone from the "subjectivist" side is trying to phrase, but no matter how we say it, it just doesn't come across.


Great post, but to address this part: I don't think it doesn't come across. I think most of the "objectivists" know what we're saying and they disagree. I think the reason they disagree is due to various cognitive biases that come very naturally to us as humans. I think the biggest one at work is the mind projection fallacy. That fallacy is rife in human thought, not just about art but about all kinds of subjects.

To take a completely neutral subject (last time we had this discussion I mentioned morality and that caused a long poopstorm of a tangent), look at probability. There are many that think a coin flip is objectively 50/50. They don't understand that the 50/50 probability is merely a projection of our knowledge/lack of knowledge about the flip. We know the coin has two sides, but we can't calculate the effects of gravity on the flip. Objectively speaking, the result of the flip is physically determined the moment we flip it. This is why the frequentist interpretation of statistics is stupid. It's why most people can't intuitively grasp the Monty Hall Problem.

At least with probability one has ways to show/prove how the mind projection fallacy leads to wrong/stupid conclusions. With art, it's not so easy. People just feel strongly that whenever they're moved by art that the "greatness" or "masterpiece" is in the art itself and not in their minds. The art might act as a partial causal agent for that reaction, but only in part, and we'll never have a complete understanding of why some art is considered great/masterpieces without understanding the subjective component as well.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Ars longa, gelato brevis.


OK, with this, Woodduck officially wins the thread. :lol:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I think that sometimes you just want to argue something for the sake of arguing whether it was raised by the other party or not. *The acknowledgement of skill comes when something impressive is created that few or no other people can create.*


Ignoring the ad hominem to address the bold: I posted a guitar piece that is "impressive" that "few or no other people can create." Is it good music, yes or no? I'm turning your own little game around on you.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Bwv 1080 said:


> Sure there is - the people here are informed about classical music, average people are not. Someone playing fast V7-i arpeggios on a piano might impress the average person, but likely no one here. Its not a matter of right or wrong, just experience and judgement.


I don't think you really addressed what I said. Being informed of objective facts doesn't/can't influence opinions on subjective values. This is the Is-Ought problem in another guise. I don't see how your example disproves what I said since "being impressed" is a subjective phenomena, it has to do with what someone's standards are, and knowledge/information doesn't dictate that standard.


----------



## DaveM

Okay, let’s try this: Can we agree that by the early 19th century classical music had developed -for whatever reason, subjective or otherwise- characteristics & structures (that included statement of a theme/melody and development) that were accepted as the primary or major music of interest in most European countries and beyond (Great Britain, Russia etc.)? That said, why wouldn’t there now be objective evidence that composers such as Schubert, Beethoven, Mendelssohn et al had special skills in creating music with those already accepted structures and characteristics, but with added value of their own individual originality? Not to mention that the music and the skill to create it was accepted as something special by the aforementioned countries.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Ignoring the ad hominem to address the bold: I posted a guitar piece that is "impressive" that "few or no other people can create." Is it good music, yes or no? I'm turning your own little game around on you.


Ad hominem? You can't be serious.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Okay, let's try this: Can we agree that by the early 19th century classical music had developed -for whatever reason, subjective or otherwise- characteristics & structures (that included statement of a theme/melody and development) that were accepted as the primary or major music of interest in most European countries and beyond (Great Britain, Russia etc.)?


I agree.



DaveM said:


> That said, why wouldn't there now be *objective evidence* that composers such as Schubert, Beethoven, Mendelssohn et al had *special skills* in creating music with those already accepted structures and characteristics, but with *added value* of there own individual originality? Not to mention that the music and the skill to create it was accepted as something special by the aforementioned countries.


The problem would be in defining "special skill" and "added value" in a way that doesn't refer to what we subjectively consider to be those things.

_IF _we (subjectively) agree that 19th century classical music characteristics & structures are worthwhile, and _IF _we (subjectively) agree on what counts as "special skills," and _IF _we (subjectively) agree what counts as "(valuable)... individual originality," THEN (an only then) can we look at any kind of objective qualities as being objective evidence that these composers qualified. That's a lot of "IFs" and a lot of subjectivity to get through!


----------



## Larkenfield

Q


Strange Magic said:


> People don't like my ice cream analogy. They don't even nibble at my color analogy (best color? What is the Best Color? "Are you going to ask me my favorite color?"). Let's try Davids
> 
> Four Davids: Donatello, Verrocchio, Michelangelo, Bernini
> 
> First, Donatello:
> View attachment 123973
> 
> 
> Next, Verrocchio:
> View attachment 123974
> 
> 
> Then, Michelangelo:
> View attachment 123975
> 
> 
> Finally, Bernini:
> View attachment 123976
> 
> 
> It should be perfectly clear to every observer that one of these is The Best David ("Be All You Can Be!"). Shouldn't it?
> Which is it? Does the Count of T'ang agree with you? What do a large number of critics tell us over and over again? Which one(s) do we really like best? Which one would we like best if we had never seen any of them before or knew anything about their sculptors? Which shows David being David?


IMO, it's not that they are always right, but the value of the art critics is that they are _experienced_ observers and not relative novices by comparison who think that their opinions are as influential as the expert's. Anyone is still free to agree or disagree with someone who has an informed opinion. Regardless of which David is the "greatest", it could be easily argued that all of them are masterpieces of power, refinement and detail, and well worth seeing. Otherwise, at this level of supreme artistic mastery, it can be like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin rather than simply enjoying such magnificent skill & beauty.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Ad hominem? You can't be serious.


Considering your first sentence was nothing but an accusation against me, what would you call it? It was also absurdly false considering I've been directly addressing the points raised in any post I've responded to, including yours. If anything, it looks like you "just want to argue" considering you just attacked me and then ignored the question I asked, which is directly relevant to the claim you are trying to make.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think you really addressed what I said. Being informed of objective facts doesn't/can't influence opinions on subjective values. This is the Is-Ought problem in another guise. I don't see how your example disproves what I said since "being impressed" is a subjective phenomena, it has to do with what someone's standards are, and knowledge/information doesn't dictate that standard.


By informed I don't mean objective facts, just familiarity and experience. The consensus of subjective values of people who are experienced and familiar with the repertoire, if you want to but it that way.


----------



## Luchesi

This question, how do we rank works has seemed quite simple to me. 

But I might be missing something that to a ‘modern’ philosopher or an amusement-seeking or sensually-oriented music listener would seem obvious.

I like the example of a very young composer imitating the sounds of Mozart and achieving recognition with a new concerto. Compare the child’s work with a mature Mozart work. ...Look for cleverness and innovation and surprises in enduring themes and the form. Some new harmony?, some development from the music of the previous decade etc.? There are many more angles for study from the score. No preferences for the sounds are involved.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Bwv 1080 said:


> By informed I don't mean objective facts, just familiarity and experience. The consensus of subjective values of people who are experienced and familiar with the repertoire, if you want to but it that way.


OK, so instead of "consensus of informed opinion" it's "the consensus of people with familiarity and experience." That I don't object to (not that I accept it as an objective standard of determining value; but I don't think you're arguing that).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Eva Yojimbo said:


> OK, so instead of "consensus of informed opinion" it's "the consensus of people with familiarity and experience." That I don't object to (not that I accept it as an objective standard of determining value; but I don't think you're arguing that).


What is the objective standard of value for, say, a house in a particular location or a painting of Van Gogh? It's the price, which reflects a consensus of subjective values. Same w music - it's a subjective consensus that values Beethoven (non-monetarily) more highly than, say, Hummel


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> What is the objective standard of value for, say, a house in a particular location or a painting of Van Gogh? It's the price, which reflects a consensus of subjective values. Same w music - it's a subjective consensus that values Beethoven (non-monetarily) more highly than, say, Hummel


More exactly, the value of any asset is the price at which it would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. It's subjective only to the extent that my preference for your asset or my money is subjective.

This is depressing to contemplate in a society where tickets to rap concerts cost more than to fine performances of classical music.


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> What is the objective standard of value for, say, a house in a particular location or a painting of Van Gogh? It's the price, which reflects a consensus of subjective values. Same w music - it's a subjective consensus that values Beethoven (non-monetarily) more highly than, say, Hummel


A consensus by experienced musicians?

A consensus by new CM listeners?

A consensus by teenage record buyers?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Luchesi said:


> A consensus by experienced musicians?
> 
> A consensus by new CM listeners?
> 
> A consensus by teenage record buyers?


Who has more 'voting power' with CM? It's musicians, people with money that care enough to donate, educators/academics, concert goers and purchasers of recordings


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> More exactly, the value of any asset is the price at which it would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. It's subjective only to the extent that my preference for your asset or my money is subjective.
> 
> This is depressing to contemplate in a society where tickets to rap concerts cost more than to fine performances of classical music.


If the masterpieces weren't cheaply available and shareable they would have stratospheric value.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Bwv 1080 said:


> What is the objective standard of value for, say, a house in a particular location or a painting of Van Gogh? It's the price, which reflects a consensus of subjective values. Same w music - it's a subjective consensus that values Beethoven (non-monetarily) more highly than, say, Hummel


My only objection is that I don't believe a "consensus of subjective values" amounts to an "objective standard of value." The only thing I can figure people mean by that is either that it's "objective data about subjective values" the way polling data might be, or they're using "objective" to mean "collective" in opposition to "subjective" meaning "individual." I'm fine with the former, but the latter is just, IMO, a mistaken/bad usage of those terms.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

KenOC said:


> This is depressing to contemplate in a society where tickets to rap concerts cost more than to fine performances of classical music.


It's simple supply and demand. Still, tickets to something like the Bayreuth festival can be as much as as most popular music concerts. If they were allowed to be resold I'm guessing the prices would be stratospheric given the decade-long wait list.


----------



## Luchesi

Bwv 1080 said:


> Who has more 'voting power' with CM? It's musicians, people with money that care enough to donate, educators/academics, concert goers and purchasers of recordings


Popularity in centuries past has never good predictor of what endures. This is because the audiences initially came to subjective conclusions. Aesthetics is an objective science.


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Popularity in centuries past has never good predictor of what endures. This is because the audiences initially came to subjective conclusions. Aesthetics is an objective science.


Starting with the Classical period, at least, popularity has been a pretty good predictor of what endures. There are exceptions, of course -- Schubert more widely recognized years after his death, Raff's fame quickly fading, and so forth -- but mostly it's pretty hard to find composers popular in their own times who have not endured. But easy to find the ones who have!


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Considering your first sentence was nothing but an accusation against me, what would you call it? It was also absurdly false considering I've been directly addressing the points raised in any post I've responded to, including yours. If anything, it looks like you "just want to argue" considering you just attacked me and then ignored the question I asked, which is directly relevant to the claim you are trying to make.


_
'You are stupid for raising that argument'_ is an ad hominem. Saying that someone is arguing just for the sake of arguing goes to the motive for raising 'straw arguments' in an apparent attempt to argue something for the sake of arguing rather than addressing the point the other person was attempting to make. You may not agree that you were doing that, but that doesn't make my comment an ad hominem. In a debate, you would never get away with pulling out the 'ad hominem' card for something like that.


----------



## Woodduck

"Value," as a philosophical concept, should not be confused with "merit," an appraisal of qualities.



Strange Magic said:


> Appraise | Definition of Appraise by Merriam-Webster
> 
> Definition of appraise. transitive verb. 1 : to set a value on : to estimate the amount of, appraise, the damage. 2 : to evaluate the worth, significance, or status of especially : to give an expert judgment of the value or merit of appraise an actor's career.


Meanings of many words overlap, and dictionaries try accurately to chronicle popular usage, which is often fuzzy and confused, to the detriment of discussions like this one.

To "value" a musical work is to like it or consider it more or less important to you, for any reason or none. Its value is its worth to you. To "appraise" a work is to judge it on the basis of certain criteria which you think are relevant or important. You assign "merit" to it to the extent that you find it fulfilling those criteria. You may appraise the string quartets of Brahms as meritorious without valuing them. For example, I find them to be extremely fine, as I'd expect from Brahms, but for whatever reason don't care much for them, while I love the chamber works for piano and strings.


----------



## vtpoet

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't even think you bothered to read that article


That's right, attack me rather than address the article....



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I also don't know how many songs it actually analyzed, but I bet I could find hundreds of songs that scored high on their "hit formula" and weren't hits...


Golly, you must be so confused by the internet. Let me help you. I did one search and the top result answered your how-could-I-ever-figure-this-out-by-myself question:

"We constructed a dataset with approximately 1.8 million hit and non-hit songs and extracted their audio features using the Spotify Web API. We test four models on our dataset. Our best model was random forest, which was able to predict Billboard song success with 88% accuracy. "



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Also, this shows you haven't really been paying attention to subjectivists arguments. None of us ever stated that one couldn't, at least hypothetically, empirically study or predict subjective tastes (which is what this study is doing); the argument is whether such subjective tastes are required to make objective value judgments, or if objective value judgments are possible without reference to subjective tastes.


Moving the goalposts just as quick as you can. Aaaaaaaand back to your words:

"the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense..."

Which is precisely what this software does.

And in the event that you're confused by your own words, you meant _prove and evaluate_ "in either a mathematical or a scientific sense". It's right there.

Again. Your words.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Starting with the Classical period, at least, popularity has been a pretty good predictor of what endures. There are exceptions, of course -- Schubert more widely recognized years after his death, Raff's fame quickly fading, and so forth -- but mostly it's pretty hard to find composers popular in their own times who have not endured. But easy to find the ones who have!


hummel raff moscheles thalberg salieri cimarosa, what happened?


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> hummel raff moscheles thalberg salieri cimarosa, what happened?


Mostly, they had their presences but weren't first rank even then. In the classical period, for instance, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven ruled. Salieri and Hummel were players, but never in the same league.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem would be in defining "special skill" and "added value" in a way that doesn't refer to what we subjectively consider to be those things.
> 
> _IF _we (subjectively) agree that 19th century classical music characteristics & structures are worthwhile, and _IF _we (subjectively) agree on what counts as "special skills," and _IF _we (subjectively) agree what counts as "(valuable)... individual originality," THEN (an only then) can we look at any kind of objective qualities as being objective evidence that these composers qualified. That's a lot of "IFs" and a lot of subjectivity to get through!


But just because we can't define or understand these things doesn't mean they don't exist. This has been a common fallacy in this thread. I see no contradiction in their being objective standards for music that no one currently can (or potentially ever) formulate in the English language.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I agree.
> 
> The problem would be in defining "special skill" and "added value" in a way that doesn't refer to what we subjectively consider to be those things.
> 
> _IF _we (subjectively) agree that 19th century classical music characteristics & structures are worthwhile, and _IF _we (subjectively) agree on what counts as "special skills," and _IF _we (subjectively) agree what counts as "(valuable)... individual originality," THEN (an only then) can we look at any kind of objective qualities as being objective evidence that these composers qualified. That's a lot of "IFs" and a lot of subjectivity to get through!


There is no doubt in my mind that once classical music was established in the early 19th century there was no IF as to what characteristics and structures (I mentioned) people were attracted to and which compromised the music they wanted to hear and buy to play. Likewise there were no IFs regarding their recognition and appreciation of the special composing skills of the composers and their individual originality. These parameters could now be objectively looked for and recognized. You can remain locked in the uncertainty of your IFs. I doubt that anybody who lived at that time were likewise that uncertain.


----------



## Bwv 1080

DaveM said:


> there were no IFs regarding their recognition and appreciation of the special composing skills of the composers and their individual originality. These parameters could now be objectively looked for and recognized. You can remain locked in the uncertainty of your IFs. I doubt that anybody who lived at that time were likewise that uncertain.


People of that time definitely were certain in their own opinions:

We recoil in horror before this rotting odor which rushes into our nostrils from the disharmonies of this putrefactive counterpoint. His imagination is so incurably sick and warped that anything like regularity in chord progress ssions and period structure simply do not exist for him. Bruckner composes like a drunkard!"

Heartless sterility, obliteration of all melody, all tonal charm, all music... This revelling in the destruction of all tonal essence, raging satanic fury in the orchestra, this demoniacal, lewd caterwauling, scandal-mongering, gun-toting music, with an orchestral accompaniment slapping you in the face... Hence, the secret fascination that makes it the darling of feeble-minded royalty...of the court monkeys covered with reptilian slime, and of the blasé hysterical female court parasites who need this galvanic stimulation by massive instrumental treatment to throw their pleasure-weary frog-legs into violent convulsion...the diabolical din of this pig-headed man, stuffed with brass and sawdust, inflated, in an insanely destructive self-aggrandizement, by Mephistopheles' mephitic and most venomous hellish miasma, into Beelzebub's Court Composer and General Director of Hell's Music -- Wagner!"

I can compare Le Carnavel Romain by Berlioz to nothing but the caperings and gibberings of a big baboon, over-excited by a dose of alcoholic stimulus."

Beethoven's Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, which refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the Finale, furiously beats about with its tail erect.
Beethoven, who is often bizarre and baroque, takes at times the majestic flight of an eagle, and then creeps in rocky pathways. He first fills the soul with sweet melancholy, and then shatters it by a mass of barbarous chords. He seems to harbor together doves and crocodiles.
[End of a long review of the Sonata op. 111] . . . and yet the publishers have, in their title, deemed it necessary to warn off all pirates by announcing the Sonata as a copyright. We do not think they are in much danger of having their property invaded.
The Heroic Symphony contains much to admire, but it is difficult to keep up admiration of this kind during three long quarters of an hour. It is infinitely too lengthy. . . If this symphony is not by some means abridged, it will soon fall into disuse.
The effect which the writings of Beethoven have had on the art must, I fear, be considered injurious. Led away by the force of his genius and dazzled by its creations, a crowd of imitators have arisen, who have displayed as much harshness, as much extravagance, and as much obscurity, with little or none of his beauty and grandeur. Thus music is no longer intended to soothe, to delight, to 'wrap the senses in Elysium'; it is absorbed in one principle-to astonish.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> The acknowledgement of skill comes when something impressive is created that few or no other people can create.


Just a brief note. I find, in painting anyway, skill--the ability to put paint onto canvas with great, almost photographic, result--is of only secondary importance to choice of subject and the creation of mood. The late 19th century saw artists of exquisite skill wasting their time (but some getting rich) on kitsch, mild pornography, and the bizarre. Kitsch is illustrated by Lawrence Alma-Tadema's work--paintings like _The Roses of Heliogabalus_; the mild pornography by Pierre-August Cot and _The Storm_; and the bizarre by certifiably insane artist Richard Dadd, and his hallucinatorily detailed _The Fairy-Feller's Master Stroke_, which depicts a fairy, watched by an enormous audience of his peers, attempting to split a nut with his axe. There are countless other paintings churned out by highly skilled painters of The Academy in both England and France. When you compare their work with Turner, the Impressionists, and visionaries such as Van Gogh, Ryder, and even Henri Rousseau, none of whom would paint or could paint or tried to paint and draw like the Academics, it's like moving from a musty room with thick, dark drapes into a much stranger but more engaging, living world of the liberated imagination. Music is a different effort entirely, but I am making a more general point about the importance of subject choice as well as its execution--again, an area where individual, subjective judgement powerfully controls our personal, unique reactions to art. Needless to say, critical reaction to the Academics and conversely to those others now regarded as important artists were exactly then just what one would expect (leaving Ruskin on Turner aside).


----------



## KenOC

Bwv 1080 said:


> People of that time definitely were certain in their own opinions: We recoil in horror before this rotting odor which rushes into our nostrils...


Etc. These entertaining musical opinions are often not at all representative of prevailing opinion in their times, but are usually the result of "reverse cherry picking". There is even a book of these.


----------



## Woodduck

The two meanings of "objective" are yet another definitional rock in the road here. The precise epistemological definition that EY insists on is not the one in popular usage. We commonly say, "I can't be objective" when what we mean is that our feelings are likely to distort our understanding of something or compromise our behavior toward it. We needn't be assessing something unrelated to our emotional lives, or something physically present or mathematically measurable. We might actually be assessing a relationship - technically quite a subjective affair! - or, for that matter, a piece of music. In common usage, the difference is not between "internal" and "external" phenomena, but between a careful, informed, reasonable, balanced assessment or action and one driven, blocked or distorted by emotions. We try to put our personal feelings aside in order to be as "objective" as possible in assessing a problem and finding the best solution.

By this ordinary definition, being objective about a work of art means, first of all, trying to put our visceral or sentimental reactions aside in order to understand the work on its own terms, discovering what the artist is trying to do and how well he does it. It also involves viewing and evaluating the work in wider contexts, contexts of values held by the culture and by humanity at large (which are naturally apt to constitute part of what the artist is trying - at least subconsciously - to do). These contexts are broad and complex, and can take us deep into the nature of what we human beings have valued through the millennia of our existence. Such understandings, brought to bear on art, require that we explore subjective phenomena as objectively as possible. I believe that much objectivity is possible.

Complete objectivity about a work of art is probably neither possible nor desirable (who wants to read criticism in which the critic has no personal feelings about the work?), but a great measure of objectivity is essential to good criticism and scholarship. The contribution of the best practitioners of these disciplines can do us a real service in helping us better understand what makes fine works of art outstanding and acclaimed, and, by adding to our knowledge and appreciation, adding to our own capacity to value the works in question. Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" and Leonard Meyer's "Emotion and meaning in Music" - to name two books which had a particularly strong influence on my thinking about music at a tender age - are justly acclaimed demonstrations of the insight and understanding that can result from scholarly and critical objectivity - i.e., the effort to perceive and describe what is actually going on in music and what it can mean to the listener able to hear it. In light of such work as theirs, I can't but find that ivory-tower disputations about "internal" versus "external" phenomena get us almost nowhere in coming to terms with the not-quite-universal languages of art. We do better to look at (or listen to) the art itself, long and hard, and watch in "objective" wonder as our "subjectivity" evolves under its spell.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I find, in painting anyway, skill--the ability to put paint onto canvas with great, almost photographic, result--is of only secondary importance to choice of subject and the creation of mood.


Surely you realize that that is not what skill is. The ability to create mood is also a skill, and we can judge how well a painter employs his medium in pursuit of that end. A painter who has mastered his means and used it consistently to create an effect is, all else being equal, a better painter than one who tries and falls short of what he's evidently aiming for. For every painter in the former category there are thousands in the latter.


----------



## Strange Magic

Larkenfield said:


> IMO, it's not that they are always right, but the value of the art critics is that they are _experienced_ observers and not relative novices by comparison who think that their opinions are as influential as the expert's. Anyone is still free to agree or disagree with someone who has an informed opinion. Regardless of which David is the "greatest", it could be easily argued that all of them are masterpieces of power, refinement and detail, and well worth seeing. Otherwise, at this level of supreme artistic mastery, it can be like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin rather than simply enjoying such magnificent skill & beauty.


The artist pours into the raw materials of his art his own personal view of what he wants to emerge from the creative. transformative act. And the artist sees his vision in that finished work. But once the piece is created, it "merely" exists--mute, void, inert--until each individual person comes along and then fills that void, creates anew their own unique, personal view of the art object, which may or may not correspond with what the artist saw or intended--the power to decide has been transferred from artist to audience. There may be clusters of those who say the piece is this or that or something else, critics who set up as experts on what they believe the artist intended and that that is important. But ultimately the responsibility, if you want to call it that, and the power and the right to decide what a piece's worth or value or merit or importance is, is reserved to each individual experiencing the work.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Surely you realize that that is not what skill is. The ability to create mood is also a skill, and we can judge how well a painter employs his medium in pursuit of that end. A painter who has mastered his means and used it consistently to create an effect is, all else being equal, a better painter than one who tries and falls short of what he's evidently aiming for. For every painter in the former category there are thousands in the latter.


I agree with this, except that I will decide whether the artist has fallen short or has indeed reached not perhaps his goal, but mine.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I agree with this, except that I will decide whether the artist has fallen short or has indeed reached not perhaps his goal, but mine.


"Not perhaps his goal"? OK...

It seems that your answer to every point is an assertion of rights. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a republican. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The artist pours into the raw materials of his art his own personal view of what he wants to emerge from the creative. transformative act. And the artist sees his vision in that finished work. But once the piece is created, it "merely" exists--mute, void, inert--until each individual person comes along and then fills that void, creates anew their own unique, personal view of the art object, which may or may not correspond with what the artist saw or intended--the power to decide has been transferred from artist to audience. There may be clusters of those who say the piece is this or that or something else, critics who set up as experts on what they believe the artist intended and that that is important. But ultimately the responsibility, if you want to call it that, and the power and the right to decide what a piece's worth or value or merit or importance is, is reserved to each individual experiencing the work.


Certainly (except for your concluding sentence). An artist should be delighted that his work can inspire original thoughts in his audience. It's arguable that a work's capacity to do that is one measure of greatness. Consider the amount of ink spilled over Shakespeare and Wagner, whose capacity to send people's minds soaring in ever widening spirals seems limitless.

"The responsibility, if you want to call it that, and the power and the right to decide what a piece's worth or value or merit or importance is" is not reserved exclusively to individuals. That's conceit bordering on solipsism. But don't worry. No one will take your right to your feelings from you.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> I agree with this, except that I will decide whether the artist has fallen short or has indeed reached not perhaps his goal, but mine.


So you don't think Gainsborough was a master craftsman and one of the great 18th century painters because you don't like the choice of subject or creation of mood? Gainsborough painted these people the way they wanted to be painted (wasn't 'austere' in during those days?); that's why he was so much in demand. His landscapes showed he could paint rather well beyond portraits.

Since I'm on the subject & related to previous comments by Woodduck: I actually prefer a Vermeer painting to a Gainsborough also, but IMO one can't easily judge one against the other: different century, different countries, different motives for painting, less than 40 paintings can be verified as by Vermeer whereas Gainsboroughs number over 4 times that number.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> "The responsibility, if you want to call it that, and the power and the right to decide what a piece's worth or value or merit or importance is" is not reserved exclusively to individuals. That's conceit bordering on solipsism. But don't worry. No one will take your right to your feelings from you.


If the right is not reserved exclusively to individuals, who else then is empowered to determine a piece's worth or value or merit or importance? If I didn't know you better, I would think you were a communist. :lol: Khrennikov, anyone?


----------



## KenOC

Strange Magic said:


> If the right is not reserved exclusively to individuals, who else then is empowered to determine a piece's worth or value or merit or importance?


I hesitate to mention once again my patented Great-o-Meter, for fear of being accused of crass commercialism.

FWIW I have used the Visual Arts Attachment for the Great-o-Meter (see our special on eBay) to evaluate these two fine artists. The averages of the top three paintings of each:

Gainsborough - 650 milliVincents
Vermeer - 725 milliVincents


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> So you don't think Gainsborough was a master craftsman and one of the great 18th century painters because you don't like the choice of subject or creation of mood? Gainsborough painted these people the way they wanted to be painted (wasn't 'austere' in during those days?); that's why he was so much in demand. His landscapes showed he could paint rather well beyond portraits.
> 
> Since I'm on the subject & related to previous comments by Woodduck: I actually prefer a Vermeer painting to a Gainsborough also, but IMO one can't easily judge one against the other: different century, different countries, different motives for painting, less than 40 paintings can be verified as by Vermeer whereas Gainsboroughs number over 4 times that number.


Why not judge and compare? You are free to do so. I'm also sure Gainsborough was a master craftsman. I'm just not at all moved by his paintings. He is a well-known 18th century painter. You also, like me and Woodduck, appear to prefer the paintings of Vermeer. Once we free ourselves from what the received opinion is of this or any art, we can really enjoy art and our experience of it without guilt, shame, obligation, necessity.....


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> If the right is not reserved exclusively to individuals, who else then is empowered to determine a piece's worth or value or merit or importance? If I didn't know you better, I would think you were a communist. :lol: Khrennikov, anyone?


The stature and importance of artists and works is as much a collective as an individual determination, and more so inasmuch as what individuals get to hear, and to a considerable extent what individuals _think _of what they hear, is heavily determined by social consensus. These facts, ironically, lend support to both subjectivist and objectivist perspectives on aesthetic judgment.


----------



## Mandryka

Judging paintings is really problematic for me, because they are luxury goods, institutions and even individuals have huge amounts of money tied up in them. Expert opinion is very much bound up with maintaining the increasing value of items on the art market. I personally am at a loss to know how to judge a painting on aesthetic terms, though I can see that some are well crafted, some are decorative in the right context etc, some intrigue me.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Why not judge and compare? You are free to do so. I'm also sure Gainsborough was a master craftsman. I'm just not at all moved by his paintings. He is a well-known 18th century painter. You also, like me and Woodduck, appear to prefer the paintings of Vermeer. Once we free ourselves from what the received opinion is of this or any art, we can really enjoy art and our experience of it without guilt, shame, obligation, necessity.....


To each his own. I prefer to compare apples with apples as much as possible. I don't tend to compare van Gogh with Warhol either.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> I hesitate to mention once again my patented Great-o-Meter, for fear of being accused of crass commercialism.
> 
> FWIW I have used the Visual Arts Attachment for the Great-o-Meter (see our special on eBay) to evaluate these two fine artists. The averages of the top three paintings of each:
> 
> Gainsborough - 650 milliVincents
> Vermeer - 725 milliVincents


Would it be possible to develop an attachment for the U.S. election as soon as possible? I'd like to be able to measure the number of milliWashingtons of each of the candidates.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Would it be possible to develop an attachment for the U.S. election as soon as possible? I'd like to be able to measure the number of milliWashingtons of each of the candidates.


We have considered that, but have determined that the issue is not the quality of the candidates but the quality of the voters. That presents certain difficulties.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Mostly, they had their presences but weren't first rank even then. In the classical period, for instance, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven ruled. Salieri and Hummel were players, but never in the same league.


They were very popular for a while. We can look at the scores and see why the elements etc. they used weren't pointing forward into the future. They pointed backward or toward empty virtuosity and predictable passage work.

Maybe you don't think that we can see it in the scores?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> The stature and importance of artists and works is as much a collective as an individual determination, and more so inasmuch as what individuals get to hear, and to a considerable extent what individuals _think _of what they hear, is heavily determined by social consensus. These facts, ironically, lend support to both subjectivist and objectivist perspectives on aesthetic judgment.


Not so much anymore. Now everything is available on the Internet--music and pictorial art of every kind and era, as well as every clashing viewpoint. All is both permitted and fully exposed. The New Stasis is now the era envisioned distantly by Ortega y Gasset and then more recently by Leonard Meyer. While groups and associations and critics and experts still can and do shriek their approval or disdain into the cacophony of public discourse, their views no longer bind with the strength of years past. Art and views about art are now a smorgasbord of almost infinite capacity rather than a fixed menu meal at an exclusive restaurant. Individual judgement reigns supreme, though brief mass motions, like the flight of flocks of starlings or the swirling conglomerations of fish, sweep through periodically. When we also consider what the critics think today and compare it with what they thought then, the case for the primacy of individual judgement is firmly established.


----------



## Strange Magic

Strange Magic said:


> I agree with this, except that I will decide whether the artist has fallen short or has indeed reached not perhaps his goal, but mine.


How about the case of Rachmaninoff's First Symphony? It certainly did not reach his goal, but it reached mine.


----------



## Strange Magic

Mandryka said:


> Judging paintings is really problematic for me, because they are luxury goods, institutions and even individuals have huge amounts of money tied up in them. Expert opinion is very much bound up with maintaining the increasing value of items on the art market. I personally am at a loss to know how to judge a painting on aesthetic terms, though I can see that some are well crafted, some are decorative in the right context etc, some intrigue me.


Luckily, I grew up in a home where I was surrounded by books depicting all sorts of artwork, from the contents of Tut's tomb and cave art to whatever was current in the art world of the 1940s and 1950s. So I became completely at ease in deciding for myself what I liked and didn't like, paying no attention to whatever critical thinking there was available to me on the individual artists and artworks, other than absorbing details of names, dates, similar works, schools, etc. Hence my freedom to pick and choose among artworks without consideration for fitting within a pre-existing exoskeleton of proper taste. I preach this attitude to all, though reading a number of overview well-illustrated art histories will serve to show the extent of the painting landscape and its major topographical highlights. We each have the power.


----------



## vtpoet

Mandryka said:


> Judging paintings is really problematic for me, because they are luxury goods, institutions and even individuals have huge amounts of money tied up in them. Expert opinion is very much bound up with maintaining the increasing value of items on the art market. I personally am at a loss to know how to judge a painting on aesthetic terms, though I can see that some are well crafted, some are decorative in the right context etc, some intrigue me.


For me too. It's not as if people can run out and buy (like CDs or books) original works of art. There's also no spotify for art, no weekly or monthly top 10 list. Possibly the closest one could come is by assessing what reproductions are most commonly sold---but what form of reproduction?

From what I can gather, the valuation of art is a completely artificial connivance subject to the self-appointed whims of a monied and priveleged few. That said, and until composers freed themselves from secular and sectarian patronage, that's how music was evaluated. If Colleredo [sic?] had had his way, Mozart would have been selling apples by the roadside.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> For me too. It's not as if people can run out and buy (like CDs or books) original works of art. There's also no spotify for art, no weekly or monthly top 10 list. Possibly the closest one could come is by assessing what reproductions are most commonly sold---but what form of reproduction?.


Besides high-quality 4 (or more) color offset printing, there are excellent giclée reproductions of many paintings available. You can get them framed to suit or not. I have a number of such for which I paid (years ago) about $150 each, framed, if memory serves. The only problem with either 4-color process offset prints or giclée reproductions is that you never get the full color intensity of the original. But you can have very pleasing reproductions of whatever paintings attract your eye to hang on your walls and make you happy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giclée


----------



## vtpoet

Strange Magic said:


> You can get them framed to suit or not. I have a number of such for which I paid (years ago) about $150 each, framed, if memory serves.


Yeah, but I can listen to any masterpiece, arguably better played than when directed by the composer, for pennies. $150 is still the province of the monied and privileged.


----------



## science

vtpoet said:


> Aaaaaaaand back to your words:
> 
> "the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense..."
> 
> Which is precisely what this software does.
> 
> And in the event that you're confused by your own words, you meant _prove and evaluate_ "in either a mathematical or a scientific sense". It's right there.
> 
> Again. Your words.


Actually, those were my words, and I believe you're _intentionally_ taking them out of context. It's very clever, but winning an argument isn't the same as being right.


----------



## Enthusiast

When an emperor has no clothes I'm sure most people can see it.


----------



## Strange Magic

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, but I can listen to any masterpiece, arguably better played than when directed by the composer, for pennies. $150 is still the province of the monied and privileged.


Actually, one can buy books on individual artists illustrating their works, or get them out of the library, buy paper prints and frame them yourself, and even look at such on the screen of your computer. Did your computer cost cost $150, or your sound system? If so, you must be monied and privileged.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Not so much anymore. Now everything is available on the Internet--music and pictorial art of every kind and era, as well as every clashing viewpoint. All is both permitted and fully exposed. The New Stasis is now the era envisioned distantly by Ortega y Gasset and then more recently by Leonard Meyer. While groups and associations and critics and experts still can and do shriek their approval or disdain into the cacophony of public discourse, their views no longer bind with the strength of years past. Art and views about art are now a smorgasbord of almost infinite capacity rather than a fixed menu meal at an exclusive restaurant. Individual judgement reigns supreme, though brief mass motions, like the flight of flocks of starlings or the swirling conglomerations of fish, sweep through periodically. When we also consider what the critics think today and compare it with what they thought then, the case for the primacy of individual judgement is firmly established.


The age of mass media and globalism has wrought changes and permitted people to go their own way - there's something for nearly everyone now, and someone for just about anything - but fashion is still and always will be a powerful force. Those of us who are immune to it are both amused and disgusted by it. Why can't I find that shade of green I want for my bathroom towel set? The old ones are fraying.


----------



## Larkenfield

It’s not that the opinions of experts are binding, but that expert or professional opinions with tremendous insight and experience behind it carries more weight in the history books than the opinion of somebody sitting in their bedroom in a T-shirt on the internet. Everyone has the right to an opinion, that’s a given. But not all opinions carry equal weight about music’s background and importance historically. Most people sitting in their bedrooms are not scholars and have access to certain background information that ends up in encyclopedias and books. There’s room for that kind of dedication rather than the opinion of the amateurs, no matter how fine they may be. If people are looking up something about a composer or the music, they’re going to be looking up those kinds of sources by the scholars and the professionals and not the internet amateurs, at least not as a first resort. Some have dedicated their entire lives to the study as professionals, though no one has to defer to them. Still, many are capable of providing tremendous historical background and insight into the music, and everyone else is still free to express their opinions, some of which may still be as insightful and valuable. But I see the heavy labor of scholarship done elsewhere, not as a casual past-time online.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^There is absolutely no _a priori_ reason why one (anyone) of any sort of philosophical persuasion regarding aesthetics cannot or should not acquaint themselves with the thoughts of critics and experts. Much of it is wonderful reading--often very informative; sometimes exceedingly droll or outrageous. I see no conflict here with the notion of embracing the primacy and validity of one's own choices.


----------



## Mandryka

Beckmesser was an expert.


----------



## KenOC

When we talk about how long music will “last”, I think of George Gershwin saying to Oscar Levant, "I wonder if my music will be played a hundred years from now." Oscar replied, “It certainly will be if you’re still around.”


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> When we talk about how long music will "last", I think of George Gershwin saying to Oscar Levant, "I wonder if my music will be played a hundred years from now." Oscar replied, "It certainly will be if you're still around."


In memory of the uniquely quirky and brilliant Oscar Levant...


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^There is absolutely no _a priori_ reason why one (anyone) of any sort of philosophical persuasion regarding aesthetics cannot or should not acquaint themselves with the thoughts of critics and experts. Much of it is wonderful reading--often very informative; sometimes exceedingly droll or outrageous. I see no conflict here with the notion of embracing the primacy and validity of one's own choices.


When you merely follow your own preferences you waste a lot of time and you miss a lot.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> _
> 'You are stupid for raising that argument'_ is an ad hominem. Saying that someone is arguing just for the sake of arguing goes to the motive for raising 'straw arguments' in an apparent attempt to argue something for the sake of arguing rather than addressing the point the other person was attempting to make. You may not agree that you were doing that, but that doesn't make my comment an ad hominem. In a debate, you would never get away with pulling out the 'ad hominem' card for something like that.


Colloquially, any argument that's only about someone (rather than some point they're making) is an ad hominem, and in an actual debate you would get called out for addressing my motive rather than my (relevant) point. I don't see what "straw argument" you thought I was making. The video I posted was an example of great skill but bad art, which was a counter to your point about the paintings that we should be recognizing/appreciating the skill of the Gainsborough painting enough to prefer it to that of the elephant's.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> To "value" a musical work is to like it or consider it more or less important to you, for any reason or none. Its value is its worth to you. To "appraise" a work is to judge it on the basis of certain criteria which you think are relevant or important. You assign "merit" to it to the extent that you find it fulfilling those criteria. You may appraise the string quartets of Brahms as meritorious without valuing them. For example, I find them to be extremely fine, as I'd expect from Brahms, but for whatever reason don't care much for them, while I love the chamber works for piano and strings.


It seems to me that you "appraise" something precisely in order to determine its "value" (to you). I'm curious as to how (or why) you'd set the standards in a way that you could appraise something as meritorious without valuing it. The best answer I could imagine is that we tend to have many such standards as works of art are multi-dimensional things, so we may feel they succeed on many levels, but fail on others, and still find them meritorious (due to their successes) but without much value (due to their failures).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

vtpoet said:


> That's right, attack me rather than address the article....


See, this is the problem with the omnislashing approach: I did address the article. My opening statement was implying that it's not countering any arguments the subjectivists are making (hence, the claim you didn't read it).



vtpoet said:


> Golly, you must be so confused by the internet. Let me help you. I did one search and the top result answered your how-could-I-ever-figure-this-out-by-myself question:
> 
> "We constructed a dataset with approximately 1.8 million hit and non-hit songs and extracted their audio features using the Spotify Web API. We test four models on our dataset. Our best model was random forest, which was able to predict Billboard song success with 88% accuracy. "


That's the total, but in order to counter what I said I'd need to know the ratio. The point was that there's greatly more non-hits than hits out there.



vtpoet said:


> Moving the goalposts just as quick as you can. Aaaaaaaand back to your words:
> 
> "the values themselves cannot be proven or evaluated in either a mathematical or a scientific (empirical) sense..."
> 
> Which is precisely what this software does.
> 
> And in the event that you're confused by your own words, you meant _prove and evaluate_ "in either a mathematical or a scientific sense". It's right there.
> 
> Again. Your words.


Not my words (science said that), and I'm moving no goalposts. In fact, this whole "objective data from subjective tastes" is you moving the goalposts as nobody here has been arguing against that.

This will be my last response to you. You don't seem to actually comprehend what people are saying, prefer responding to posts before reading them, can't even keep track of whom you're responding to and what they've said, and are just unpleasant in general.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> But just because we can't define or understand these things doesn't mean they don't exist. This has been a common fallacy in this thread. I see no contradiction in their being objective standards for music that no one currently can (or potentially ever) formulate in the English language.


I'm not arguing that we can't define/understand those things or that they don't exist; I'm arguing that they do exist, but only in our minds, and are thus subject to change and alteration, both individually, and collectively across time and cultures. It's not that we can't form and agree upon standards by which to judge art, it's that we can't (and thus shouldn't) pretend as if there's anything objective about doing so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that once classical music was established in the early 19th century there was no IF as to what characteristics and structures (I mentioned) people were attracted to and which compromised the music they wanted to hear and buy to play. Likewise there were no IFs regarding their recognition and appreciation of the special composing skills of the composers and their individual originality. These parameters could now be objectively looked for and recognized. You can remain locked in the uncertainty of your IFs. I doubt that anybody who lived at that time were likewise that uncertain.


There may not have been disagreements over basic things like structure, of people preferring the sonata form, but there was plenty of disagreement over what composers excelled at those standards (see tdc's post #658). Still, I accept the general thrust of your point: if we agree (precisely) on standards then it's just a matter of looking at the objects, the music, and seeing if they possess those qualities. The problem is that we frequently disagree, as is abundantly evident.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The two meanings of "objective" are yet another definitional rock in the road here. The precise epistemological definition that EY insists on is not the one in popular usage. We commonly say, "I can't be objective" when what we mean is that our feelings are likely to distort our understanding of something or compromise our behavior toward it. We needn't be assessing something unrelated to our emotional lives, or something physically present or mathematically measurable. We might actually be assessing a relationship - technically quite a subjective affair! - or, for that matter, a piece of music. In common usage, the difference is not between "internal" and "external" phenomena, but between a careful, informed, reasonable, balanced assessment or action and one driven, blocked or distorted by emotions. We try to put our personal feelings aside in order to be as "objective" as possible in assessing a problem and finding the best solution.


Actually, I don't really agree that these two definitions are different. What you're speaking of is essentially someone recognizing that subjective factors (emotions, eg) prevent them from rationally analyzing objective (external) facts. To use an example from law, if you were on the jury for a murder trial where a loved one was the accused, you'd almost certainly side with the defense's arguments and dismiss all evidence to the contrary due to your desire for your loved one to be innocent; so your subjective irrationality would be dismissing the rational assessment of objective evidence.

In the murder example, the question of guilt or innocence has an objective truth value; either your loved one murdered the person or they didn't, and this truth value isn't dependent on any subjective factors. This isn't the case with everything though. Art depends upon subjective standards before any kind of objective appraisal, valuation, judgment etc. can take place. Otherwise we're stuck with just analyzing the objective features/properties of art--like tempo or key in music--without judgment. As I said to DaveM, if (and only if) we agree on subjective standards can we then use objective analysis to argue whether a work succeeds or fails on those standards. Sports is the same way in that it requires us agreeing on subjectively-generated rules in order to judge success or failure. One way to look at the constant disagreements on this forum is people arguing over what "game" we're playing, what "rule set" we should be using by which to judge that success and failure.

I don't really disagree with anything in the rest of your post (in fact, we have many strong points of agreement), so I'll leave it here.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> It's not that the opinions of experts are binding, but that expert or professional opinions with tremendous insight and experience behind it carries more weight in the history books than the opinion of somebody sitting in their bedroom in a T-shirt on the internet.


It only carries "more weight" with people who are inclined to value those opinions, but why should they? I value expert analysis and insight, the way they're able to contextualize works, or analyze works and make me hear/see things I wouldn't/didn't on my own; but this isn't expert opinion, this is expert analysis. At the end of the day, whatever context or insights they're providing it still requires us (and them) to like those qualities in order to make a judgment; and why should I (or anyone) care whether they like those qualities or not? No amount of expert analysis can dictate the standards we use for judging good, great, better, masterpiece, etc.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, I don't really agree that these two definitions are different. What you're speaking of is essentially someone recognizing that subjective factors (emotions, eg) prevent them from rationally analyzing objective (external) facts. To use an example from law, if you were on the jury for a murder trial where a loved one was the accused, you'd almost certainly side with the defense's arguments and dismiss all evidence to the contrary due to your desire for your loved one to be innocent; so your subjective irrationality would be dismissing the rational assessment of objective evidence.
> 
> In the murder example, the question of guilt or innocence has an objective truth value; either your loved one murdered the person or they didn't, and this truth value isn't dependent on any subjective factors. This isn't the case with everything though. Art depends upon subjective standards before any kind of objective appraisal, valuation, judgment etc. can take place. Otherwise we're stuck with just analyzing the objective features/properties of art--like tempo or key in music--without judgment. As I said to DaveM, if (and only if) we agree on subjective standards can we then use objective analysis to argue whether a work succeeds or fails on those standards. Sports is the same way in that it requires us agreeing on subjectively-generated rules in order to judge success or failure. One way to look at the constant disagreements on this forum is people arguing over what "game" we're playing, what "rule set" we should be using by which to judge that success and failure.
> 
> I don't really disagree with anything in the rest of your post (in fact, we have many strong points of agreement), so I'll leave it here.


Think about this example of people out for a Sunday drive. They come across where the highway comes to a small hill which is cut to make room for the road they're on. They stop and look at the strata. Isn't it beautiful, the different colors and textures, look at the long lines, how perfectly charming they are.

Now a geologist looks at the same strata and he comes to objective conclusions from geology and paleontology, -- where the strata fits into billions of years of geological development and land forms, looks for details like datings, fossils and rarer minerals.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> Think about this example of people out for a Sunday drive. They come across where the highway comes to a small hill which is cut to make room for the road they're on. They stop and look at the strata. Isn't it beautiful, the different colors and textures, look at the long lines, how perfectly charming they are.
> 
> Now a geologist looks at the same strata and he comes to objective conclusions from geology and paleontology, -- where the strata fits into billions of years of geological development and land forms, looks for details like datings, fossils and rarer minerals.


Good example, and it can also serve to illustrate that no conclusions about objective geological/paleontological features can determine whether we have that aesthetic reaction to it. However, those very much interested in those aesthetic reactions may decide to consult the experts in order to understand the objective features underlying the aesthetic reaction.

I'm also reminded of what Richard Feynman said about scientists appreciating beauty: 




Or here's the full quote for people who'd prefer to read rather than listen:


> I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not arguing that we can't define/understand those things or that they don't exist; I'm arguing that they do exist, but only in our minds, and are thus subject to change and alteration, both individually, and collectively across time and cultures. It's not that we can't form and agree upon standards by which to judge art, it's that we can't (and thus shouldn't) pretend as if there's anything objective about doing so.


Pretty much everything that is objectively true is subject to change over time. The statement 'the Earth orbits the sun' is objectively true (as far as I know) and yet almost certainly won't be true in 100 billion years. I also believe that one of the things people arguing for the existence of objective standards in the arts used is precisely the fact that these standards seemingly don't change significantly over time and cultures once established. Beethoven was considered great 200 years ago and now. He is considered great by both Western and Eastern scholars. There doesn't seem to have been much of a shift in perception over time and cultures.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> Pretty much everything that is objectively true is subject to change over time. The statement 'the Earth orbits the sun' is objectively true (as far as I know) and yet almost certainly won't be true in 100 billion years. I also believe that one of the things people arguing for the existence of objective standards in the arts used is precisely the fact that these standards seemingly don't change significantly over time and cultures once established. Beethoven was considered great 200 years ago and now. He is considered great by both Western and Eastern scholars. There doesn't seem to have been much of a shift in perception over time and cultures.


Yes, the greatness of Beethoven's ideas. Subjective?
I can take a large section of the Appassionata Sonata and put it into the middle of something I've composed. Its power and such a sequence of great ideas, will work for me just like it did for Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> There may not have been disagreements over basic things like structure, of people preferring the sonata form, but there was plenty of disagreement over what composers excelled at those standards (see tdc's post #658). Still, I accept the general thrust of your point: if we agree (precisely) on standards then it's just a matter of looking at the objects, the music, and seeing if they possess those qualities. The problem is that we frequently disagree, as is abundantly evident.


tdc's post did prove that the implied 'nobody' in the statement, _'I doubt that anybody who lived at that time were likewise that uncertain.'_ was a bit of hyperbole, but such critiques and reviews from way in the past don't change the fact that there were important, relatively consistent, generally accepted standards that drove classical music in the latter 18th and almost the entire 19th century, the type of CM without which it is doubtful that Talk Classical would exist in its present form, if at all. I would challenge anybody to disagree with that.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It seems to me that you "appraise" something precisely in order to determine its "value" (to you). I'm curious as to how (or why) you'd set the standards in a way that you could appraise something as meritorious without valuing it. The best answer I could imagine is that we tend to have many such standards as works of art are multi-dimensional things, so we may feel they succeed on many levels, but fail on others, and still find them meritorious (due to their successes) but without much value (due to their failures).


I was in the midst of writing a full response to this, but it all suddenly disappeared upon the stroke of a key and appears to be irretrievable.

I hate computers. I should have been born a couple of generations earlier, when a "digital device" was a finger or a toe.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Actually, I don't really agree that these two definitions are different. What you're speaking of is essentially someone recognizing that subjective factors (emotions, eg) prevent them from rationally analyzing objective (external) facts.


There are also _internal_ facts - facts about our own psychological nature and feelings, and about those of other people - about which we can be more or less objective. Then there are those facts about art...


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> When you merely follow your own preferences you waste a lot of time and you miss a lot.


My friend, this is the second time you have expressed your opinion about the possibility of my wasting my time and missing a lot in the arts by following my own preferences. I want you to know I appreciate your concern, but I am content to wallow in my ignorance of art, music, science, politics, history as is glaringly evident to anyone following my posts over the years. Too late to improve me now.


----------



## DaveM

Alright, let's address your post #531:



Eva Yojimbo said:


> You're absolutely right that the Gainsborough is like a photograph and undoubtedly required much skill to achieve that standard; but why should that be the standard for what constitutes an artistically valuable work of art? I mean, it's fine if that's a standard you want to adopt.
> 
> I think what abstract art does is raise the question about whether skill actually matters. If art moves us, why care about how skillfully it was made?


When it comes to appreciation of art, you and I live in two different worlds. In your world, the quality of the art is not tied to the skill of the artist which means that when you view or hear an artwork, the skill of the artist is immaterial. That, by the way, is connected with why I have said that when subjectivity is taken to an extreme, the skill of the artist, the human creator, is diminished. At the extreme, an elephant's creation is comparable to the human's.

In my world, art (music, painting, sculpture etc.) is a product of human creativity. The better the work of art, the more creative and skilled the artist. Also, in my world, great skill does not always result in a great piece of art, but great artwork is always the result of great skill. And, by the way, this doesn't mean that everyone needs to like a given great piece of art -some here apparently don't want a Gainsborough hanging in their front room. But just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that the Gainsborough isn't a fine work of art.

Finally, the subjectivist defines a good work of art as one they like regardless of the skill of the artist. In my world, I judge art using parameters that make it more likely that a talented human, rather than an animal, created it.

Regarding the guitar video. Shawn Lane was a jazz/rock fusionist. The _Not Again track from the Powers of Ten album, from reviews, is apparently quite popular among people who like that sort of thing. The sequence at 4:18 is typical in live jazz-related performances and is meant to primarily show off the skill of the artist, somewhat like the cadenza in classical music. You're apparently into the guitar. I understand that you don't like that work; I'm surprised you would call it bad art. (fwiw, Personally, I rather liked it.)


----------



## Strange Magic

Question for DaveM: Is this great art?


----------



## Strange Magic

Second question: Is this great art?


----------



## Woodduck

Is a cat a large animal?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Is a cat a large animal?


Where I live, right in heavily populated SoCal, courgars occasionally attack and kill people. Quite near my home, in fact!


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My friend, this is the second time you have expressed your opinion about the possibility of my wasting my time and missing a lot in the arts by following my own preferences. I want you to know I appreciate your concern, but I am content to wallow in my ignorance of art, music, science, politics, history as is glaringly evident to anyone following my posts over the years. Too late to improve me now.


I've had students who've told me that learning the dry technical explanations of how music works (and works on us) might lessen the joy in it. They were concerned. An assistant and I wrote out the response to this, pointing out that there is some less 'joy', but it's replaced by the heightened appreciation. And it's a lengthy process, quite an interesting set of experiences.

It's not for everyone, and you might be one those CM fans..


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> Is a cat a large animal?


It probably depends on the size of the cat. If it is a large cat then yes; otherwise my answer would be in the negative.

I hope this clears things up.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Question for DaveM: Is this great art?
> 
> View attachment 124071


The original is by a contemporary of Gainsborough and his paintings have sold for millions of dollars. You tell me.


----------



## DaveM

T


Strange Magic said:


> Second question: Is this great art?
> 
> View attachment 124072


The original owner of the original, a well known art critic, wrote, "If I were reduced to rest [this artist's] immortality upon any single work, I should choose this.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Where I live, right in heavily populated SoCal, courgars occasionally attack and kill people. Quite near my home, in fact!


But are they beautiful cougars? Objectively or subjectively? And isn't what matters not whether they kill people but whether people feel that being killed by a cougar is a good thing? In matters of being tasted, non disputandum est.


----------



## KenOC

A colleague of mine, a few years back, asked: Why doesn’t somebody simply “forge” some music by Beethoven and make a lot of money? Two answers immediately occurred to me. First, the music is essentially worthless, unlike (say) a painting. Second, to be a convincing forgery, at least of a first-rank work, the composer would have to be as good as Beethoven. Again, this is different from painting.


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> It probably depends on the size of the cat. If it is a large cat then yes; otherwise my answer would be in the negative.
> 
> I hope this clears things up.


Only to the extent that it makes things less unclear.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> A colleague of mine, a few years back, asked: Why doesn't somebody simply "forge" some music by Beethoven and make a lot of money? Two answers immediately occurred to me. First, the music is essentially worthless, unlike (say) a painting. Second, to be a convincing forgery, at least of a first-rank work, the composer would have to be as good as Beethoven. Again, this is different from painting.


I know of no good musical forgeries of historically prominent composers, although Fritz Kreisler fooled some people with pseudo-Baroque pieces back when Baroque music was less familiar than it is now. I would guess, though, that some lesser, more generic-sounding composers of the Baroque and Classical periods could be imitated well by any number of musically talented people. But who would want to do it, except possibly as a student exercise? Talk about "essentially worthless"!


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> there were important, relatively consistent, generally accepted standards that drove classical music in the latter 18th and almost the entire 19th century, the type of CM without which it is doubtful that Talk Classical would exist in its present form, if at all. I would challenge anybody to disagree with that.


Even if it were true (and the "schism" between Brahms et al and Liszt et al suggests that it isn't)...so what? That was then. Whatever standards were "accepted" in 1800, they evolved over time, were not and are not immutable.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Even if it were true (and the "schism" between Brahms et al and Liszt et al suggests that it isn't)...so what? That was then. Whatever standards were "accepted" in 1800, they evolved over time, were not and are not immutable.


So what, back at you. You're ignoring the reason behind the statement. The schism 'business' is irrelevant.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> So what, back at you. You're ignoring the reason behind the statement. The schism 'business' is irrelevant.


I'm not ignoring it - I'm not getting it. What is the reason behind the statement?

[add]

The "schism business" is not irrelevant, if I've understood you correctly. You're claiming that a set of aesthetic standards were established during a certain period, that this has effectively set the standard for us all for all time, and all music must consequently be judged against those standards (even to the extent that music - such as rap - that does not even purport to resemble CM must be dismissed as falling short).

First, the schism business shows that the standards were not universally agreed. Second, the fact that standards were (allegedly) set does not _oblige _anyone to defer to them in either their composing or appraising of music, either now or in previous periods of musical development.

Where we might agree is that _if _classical music is defined by the standards set between (say) 1750 and 1880, then anything that falls outside of those standards (such as much of the "atonal" composition of the 20thC) can't claim to be classical music. I wholly agree with the idea that the definition of classical music is problematic, but it's a debate that happens here quite often and usually has an unsatisfactory outcome - not least because of the contribution from some members that begin with what it isn't, dismissing and disrespecting what they don't like.

How do you define Classical Music?


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> Second, to be a convincing forgery, at least of a first-rank work, the composer would have to be as good as Beethoven. Again, this is different from painting.


I wonder if this is true. In fact, I find it interesting that it is probably not true. Certainly, in the field of a painting (where forgers can make real money), there have been forgeries that purport to be works of great painters that experts accepted. Indeed, provenance is considered very important in establishing the genuineness of a painting. But no-one suggests that the forgers have the genius of the artists they are emulating.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaveM said:


> tdc's post did prove that the implied 'nobody' in the statement, _'I doubt that anybody who lived at that time were likewise that uncertain.'_ was a bit of hyperbole, but such critiques and reviews from way in the past don't change the fact that there were important, relatively consistent, generally accepted standards that drove classical music in the latter 18th and almost the entire 19th century, the type of CM without which it is doubtful that Talk Classical would exist in its present form, if at all. _*I would challenge anybody to disagree with that.*_


Tempting! :devil:

It is certainly true that there were few "strands" in the classical music of the period (1750 - 1899?). But that was a relatively short period as far as the history of classical music in concerned. If all that 150 years of music disappeared it would have been replaced by something that formed a bridge between Bach and Bartok. But, more importantly, we would still be left with a lot of our music. I am sure this forum or something similar would exist to celebrate and enjoy early, baroque and modern music but perhaps it wouldn't be in quite the same form and perhaps there would be little to interest you in it?

But then I wonder how much modern music would exist if so much great music from your period had never been written. A lot of modern and contemporary music was composed on the shoulders of the giants of that period so much of it would either go or would be very different to what we have now.


----------



## science

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Good example, and it can also serve to illustrate that no conclusions about objective geological/paleontological features can determine whether we have that aesthetic reaction to it. However, those very much interested in those aesthetic reactions may decide to consult the experts in order to understand the objective features underlying the aesthetic reaction.
> 
> I'm also reminded of what Richard Feynman said about scientists appreciating beauty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or here's the full quote for people who'd prefer to read rather than listen:


Richard Dawkins wrote an wonderful essay on rainbows in response to Keats's idea that science ruins the beauty of rainbows.

To me, if knowledge about something makes us appreciate it less, then it wasn't actually that good; but if knowledge enables us to appreciate it more, then it's good. So "great art" is art that appears better under informed scrutiny.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM, thank you for relaying clearly objective facts concerning the paintings by Stubbs and Turner. It is true that Stubbs was a contemporary of Turner and that, like those of Jean-Michel Basquiat, some of his works have sold for millions. And we know that John Ruskin, also among Turner's contemporaries, greatly praised his work while most other critics found many of Turner's pictures to be "soapsuds and whitewash", or paintings ''of nothing, and very like". But I was hoping that we could sense how these authentic data points and the experience of the paintings themselves translate into an experienced aesthetic personal reality for you. Ruskin is dead; also the critics who teased Turner by depicting him with a big brush and bucket of yellow paint in hand, while standing in front of one of his works. But what is alive is, or can be, your living interaction with and reaction to both paintings shown. Personal, direct, immediate, unmediated, "subjective".


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> I've had students who've told me that learning the dry technical explanations of how music works (and works on us) might lessen the joy in it. They were concerned. An assistant and I wrote out the response to this, pointing out that there is some less 'joy', but it's replaced by the heightened appreciation. And it's a lengthy process, quite an interesting set of experiences.
> 
> It's not for everyone, and you might be one those CM fans..


I think you might be just the person, as was I many years ago, to benefit from both _Emotion and Meaning in Music_, and _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ by composer, teacher, and theorist Leonard Meyer, formerly head of the music department at the U. of Chicago. I also have read several histories of music (and other arts), biographies of composers and artists, and enjoy a small home library of such materials. My preferences lead me to many fascinating destinations, as does pure serendipity.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I think you might be just the person, as was I many years ago, to benefit from both _Emotion and Meaning in Music_, and _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ by composer, teacher, and theorist Leonard Meyer, formerly head of the music department at the U. of Chicago. I also have read several histories of music (and other arts), biographies of composers and artists, and enjoy a small home library of such materials. My preferences lead me to many fascinating destinations, as does pure serendipity.


Firing up young people by professors at universities is different.

Would you want to see laymen approach an appreciation of geology by being lead by 'wallowing' or serendipity?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I'm not ignoring it - I'm not getting it. What is the reason behind the statement?
> 
> [add]
> 
> The "schism business" is not irrelevant, if I've understood you correctly. You're claiming that a set of aesthetic standards were established during a certain period, that this has effectively set the standard for us all for all time, and all music must consequently be judged against those standards (even to the extent that music - such as rap - that does not even purport to resemble CM must be dismissed as falling short).
> 
> First, the schism business shows that the standards were not universally agreed. Second, the fact that standards were (allegedly) set does not _oblige _anyone to defer to them in either their composing or appraising of music, either now or in previous periods of musical development.
> 
> Where we might agree is that _if _classical music is defined by the standards set between (say) 1750 and 1880, then anything that falls outside of those standards (such as much of the "atonal" composition of the 20thC) can't claim to be classical music. I wholly agree with the idea that the definition of classical music is problematic, but it's a debate that happens here quite often and usually has an unsatisfactory outcome - not least because of the contribution from some members that begin with what it isn't, dismissing and disrespecting what they don't like.
> 
> How do you define Classical Music?


"First, the schism business shows that the standards were not universally agreed."

I see the argument the same way today. I side with Brahms. The standards are the same standards.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Firing up young people by professors at universities is different.
> 
> Would you want to see laymen approach an appreciation of geology by being lead by 'wallowing' or serendipity?


I would like to see the lay public gain an appreciation of geology by any means possible. If one is going to, as I did, major in geology, then a university education in the subject is, today, mandatory. We recall that William Smith, though, accomplished prodigies of geological mapping while planning the digging of canal routes in England. But we're discussing the appreciation and personal enjoyment of the arts and music as (mostly) laypeople, are we not? I think many of us have somehow found our way to an enjoyment of same in the normal course of pursuing our interests. I know I have.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> DaveM, thank you for relaying clearly objective facts concerning the paintings by Stubbs and Turner.* It is true that Stubbs was a contemporary of Turner* and that, like those of Jean-Michel Basquiat, some of his works have sold for millions. And we know that John Ruskin, also among Turner's contemporaries, greatly praised his work while most other critics found many of Turner's pictures to be "soapsuds and whitewash", or paintings ''of nothing, and very like". But I was hoping that we could sense how these authentic data points and the experience of the paintings themselves translate into an experienced aesthetic personal reality for you. Ruskin is dead; also the critics who teased Turner by depicting him with a big brush and bucket of yellow paint in hand, while standing in front of one of his works. But what is alive is, or can be, your living interaction with and reaction to both paintings shown. Personal, direct, immediate, unmediated, "subjective".


I don't usually point out typos, but I think you meant Gainsborough not Turner.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I would like to see the lay public gain an appreciation of geology by any means possible. If one is going to, as I did, major in geology, then a university education in the subject is, today, mandatory. We recall that William Smith, though, accomplished prodigies of geological mapping while planning the digging of canal routes in England. But we're discussing the appreciation and personal enjoyment of the arts and music as (mostly) laypeople, are we not? I think many of us have somehow found our way to an enjoyment of same in the normal course of pursuing our interests. I know I have.


You're an admirable example of the general public and its enjoyment of art. You've stuck with it against the odds. We understand each other. We can see by this how the appreciation of CM is dwindling.

There might be differences between personal enjoyment of a field of science and personal enjoyment of one of the arts. What the difference is - would be difficult to state.

I've treated every serious subject, in art or science, the same way. The learning begins with the fundamental elements which experts have discovered. Then the history is followed with those elements in mind. How they change, how they diverge into new pathways with their surprising accomplishments down through the centuries.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Even if it were true (and the "schism" between Brahms et al and Liszt et al suggests that it isn't)...so what? That was then. Whatever standards were "accepted" in 1800, they evolved over time, were not and are not immutable.


Agreed. "Standards" often turn out to be relatively specific traits of certain styles, rationalized as fundamental requirements of excellence, which broader knowledge and time reveal to be of limited applicability. I can't think of any "standards" appropriate for judging all music, or all specimens of any art. All artistic judgments (and all judgments of anything, I'm inclined to think) are made in the context of certain specific conditions and assumptions. Within such a context, though, judgments can be meaningful and legitimate. If a composer is trying to write a movement in variation form, we may evaluate his success in varying the theme and pacing the variations, and if a painter is trying to convey spatial relationships, we can see the ways in which he's successful or unsuccessful in using color, light, perspective, clarity of focus, and so forth. Attempts to apply "standards" outside of defined contexts often result in comparing apples to orangutans.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> I don't usually point out typos, but I think you meant Gainsborough not Turner.


Thank you; my error. Actually, we see that Stubbs' career overlaps that of both Gainsborough and Turner, as Gainsborough died young, and Turner was 30 or so and already becoming established when Stubbs died.

I would like to have learned of your assessment of the two paintings, though. Did you think either great art? Both? Neither? FWIW the Stubbs does nothing for me at all, and I prefer other Turners to the one depicted, in that Turner in those makes a greater effort to communicate visually the subject matter rather than relying upon the title carrying so much of the load. This is a tiny glimpse of the thinking that goes on inside my head as I look at art. Everyone is different. Note: I do like the Turner, though I cannot put it on a numbered scale. I can supply a list of the Turners I like (even) better.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Pretty much everything that is objectively true is subject to change over time. The statement 'the Earth orbits the sun' is objectively true (as far as I know) and yet almost certainly won't be true in 100 billion years. I also believe that one of the things people arguing for the existence of objective standards in the arts used is precisely the fact that these standards seemingly don't change significantly over time and cultures once established. Beethoven was considered great 200 years ago and now. He is considered great by both Western and Eastern scholars. There doesn't seem to have been much of a shift in perception over time and cultures.


It's true that objective truths are subject to change, but two contradictory truths aren't subject to be simultaneously true. That's how objective truths differ from subjective ones. With "subjective truths" (I hesitate to even call them truths, but I just mean "true for the individual.") one subject can believe X is good, and another can believe X is bad. Because things like "good" and "bad" rest on standards that we subjectively accept, you can't choose which is objectively true as the truth value isn't determined by anything objective.

As for standards not changing significantly, define "significantly." It seems to me that whatever standards are used to judge Elliot Carter, not to mention genres like hip-hop, are quite significantly different than those used to judge Beethoven. This isn't to say that the standards we used to judge Beethoven can't co-exist with the others and can't still be used for judging Beethoven, of course. For that it's just a matter of how long we choose to accept those standards and continue to judge Beethoven as good. They may last 250 years or 1000 years or until the end of humanity.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I was in the midst of writing a full response to this, but it all suddenly disappeared upon the stroke of a key and appears to be irretrievable.
> 
> I hate computers. I should have been born a couple of generations earlier, when a "digital device" was a finger or a toe.


Aw, that sucks. I've had that happen more times than I can count. If I plan to write anything long I type it up on Microsoft Word first as it auto-saves every few minutes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> There are also _internal_ facts - facts about our own psychological nature and feelings, and about those of other people - about which we can be more or less objective. Then there are those facts about art...


The only quibble I'd pick (to mix my metaphors) is that internal "facts" can only be factual in the respect that a person feels/thinks that way.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Aw, that sucks. I've had that happen more times than I can count. If I plan to write anything long I type it up on Microsoft Word first as it auto-saves every few minutes.


It happened to me the VERY FIRST TIME I wrote an email on a computer in 1999 (I'm a late-blooming ex-Luddite). It's a wonder I wasn't put off computers for life.

Usually when things vanish I can right-click "Undo" and bring them back, but not always. I wonder whether better-quality computers are less prone to this.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The only quibble I'd pick (to mix my metaphors) is that internal "facts" can only be factual in the respect that a person feels/thinks that way.


Being objective about internal facts means, I think, knowing which of a number of concurrent or conflicting feelings are important or pertinent, and should be heeded, in a given situation, and which ones are getting in the way of that perception. It occurs to me that we might apply a similar process of discrimination to feelings aroused by a work of art: which of our feelings arise as a result of our "emptying ourselves" to perceive qualities the artist has put into the work, and which arise from random associations, expectations and prejudices peculiar to us? People who succeed in making these determinations tend to find much agreement on what works of art are about, and the reputations of works over time reflect a "winnowing out" of the latter sorts of "extraneous," individual reactions and opinions.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Alright, let's address your post #531:
> 
> When it comes to appreciation of art, you and I live in two different worlds. In your world, the quality of the art is not tied to the skill of the artist which means that when you view or hear an artwork, the skill of the artist is immaterial. That, by the way, is connected with why I have said that when subjectivity is taken to an extreme, the skill of the artist, the human creator, is diminished. At the extreme, an elephant's creation is comparable to the human's.
> 
> In my world, art (music, painting, sculpture etc.) is a product of human creativity. The better the work of art, the more creative and skilled the artist. Also, in my world, great skill does not always result in a great piece of art, but great artwork is always the result of great skill. And, by the way, this doesn't mean that everyone needs to like a given great piece of art -some here apparently don't want a Gainsborough hanging in their front room. But just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that the Gainsborough isn't a fine work of art.
> 
> Finally, the subjectivist defines a good work of art as one they like regardless of the skill of the artist. In my world, I judge art using parameters that make it more likely that a talented human, rather than an animal, created it.
> 
> Regarding the guitar video. Shawn Lane was a jazz/rock fusionist. The _Not Again track from the Powers of Ten album, from reviews, is apparently quite popular among people who like that sort of thing. The sequence at 4:18 is typical in live jazz-related performances and is meant to primarily show off the skill of the artist, somewhat like the cadenza in classical music. You're apparently into the guitar. I understand that you don't like that work; I'm surprised you would call it bad art. (fwiw, Personally, I rather liked it.)


First, I'm rather uncomfortable that we keep using the word "skill" as if it refers to one thing rather than being an umbrella term that refers to many things. Pretty much any kind of work that goes into art could be categorized as a skill, and no artistic medium requires just a single skill. Second, the only kind of skill that's all that objectively measurable is technical skill, the simple ability to be able to do a thing, like trying to play a scale in 16th notes at 200bpm.

When I say the quality of art isn't tied to skill, I'm required to the kind of technical wizardry that might be required to do certain things, like the 16th/200bpm scale. However, there are other kinds of skills, far less objectively measurable, that go into art as well, like the ability to be able to evoke certain feelings and moods in an audience. I would consider this a skill as well, but if I think a composer is skillful at evoking a mood/feeling and you don't, so who's got the right to say if they possess that skill?

So it's not that I really disagree with "your world," it's that I'm recognizing that "your world" is mostly a subjective exercise in saying "I like X, so I consider X skillfully made." Likewise, other than "skill" of the "technical variety," I don't know why we'd set a standard for determining skill without reference to what we like, what appeals, either to us as individuals or to us as collections of human beings. Towards that point, you didn't really address my question about the Gainsborough: the fact that it requires technical skill to make photorealistic paintings like that is true, but why should we accept that as a standard for greatness?

Finally, I'm very familiar with Shawn Lane as I've heard just about everything the man recorded. There are few musicians I have more awe for. That said, I find his solo music, while often technically impressive, to be either bland elevator muzak, or technical show-off pieces like that Not Again video. The sequence at 4:18 is the musical equivalent of a phallus measuring contest, or a "look how high I can pee on this tree" contest. There's no musical value in it. Shawn Lane has other music that, IMO, is just as impressive while being far more musically substantial, like his work with Hellborg and Sipe.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

science said:


> Richard Dawkins wrote an wonderful essay on rainbows in response to Keats's idea that science ruins the beauty of rainbows.
> 
> To me, if knowledge about something makes us appreciate it less, then it wasn't actually that good; but if knowledge enables us to appreciate it more, then it's good. So "great art" is art that appears better under informed scrutiny.


I'll have to look that Dawkins piece up. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a great (and short) article in response to the Keats poem as well called Joy in the Merely Real: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x4dG4GhpZH2hgz59x/joy-in-the-merely-real

I've rarely found that knowledge of a thing changed my enjoyment of it, though I do feel that such understanding enriches the totality of experience because I'm then able to appreciate it from other perspectives, and the best art does tend to be that in which my enjoyment and appreciation are both at the highest level.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Being objective about internal facts means, I think, knowing which of a number of concurrent or conflicting feelings are important or pertinent, and should be heeded, in a given situation, and which ones are getting in the way of that perception. It occurs to me that we might apply a similar process of discrimination to feelings aroused by a work of art: which of our feelings arise as a result of our "emptying ourselves" to perceive qualities the artist has put into the work, and which arise from random associations, expectations and prejudices peculiar to us? People who succeed in making these determinations tend to find much agreement on what works of art are about, and the reputations of works over time reflect a "winnowing out" of the latter sorts of "extraneous," individual reactions and opinions.


I'd probably rather rephrase that as being rational about internal facts rather than objective; though even then I'm not sure how we're supposed to be rational about such things. Which feelings are important/pertinent would seem to vary greatly depending on the individual's values and the context of whatever the situation is. I don't even think it's possible to "empty ourselves." We are simply to profoundly shaped by our individual circumstances; and even if we were to strip ourselves of the biases of personal associations, expectations, and prejudices, that would still leave the impersonal biases that come naturally as being part of the human race. It seems to me that what happens in the "winnowing out" of art over time is closer to the notion that there's some art that manages to appeal to those universally human biases so that whatever new standards are adopted by new individuals, societies, and cultures at any time also manage to still accept those upon which the long-lasting art managed to appeal to as well. As Wallace Stevens said in The Man With the Blue Guitar:


> III
> 
> Ah, but to play man number one,
> To drive the dagger in his heart,
> 
> To lay his brain upon the board
> And pick the acrid colors out,
> 
> To nail his thought across the door,
> Its wings spread wide to rain and snow,
> 
> To strike his living hi and ho,
> To tick it, tock it, turn it true,
> 
> To bang from it a savage blue,
> Jangling the metal of the strings
> 
> IV
> 
> So that's life, then: things as they are?
> It picks its way on the blue guitar.
> 
> A million people on one string?
> And all their manner in the thing,
> 
> And all their manner, right and wrong,
> And all their manner, weak and strong?
> 
> The feelings crazily, craftily call,
> Like a buzzing of flies in autumn air,
> 
> And that's life, then: things as they are,
> This buzzing of the blue guitar.


The ability to "drive the dagger in the heart of man," rather than most art that just manages to drive the dagger through the fashion of the times.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've rarely found that knowledge of a thing changed my enjoyment of it, though I do feel that such understanding enriches the totality of experience because I'm then able to appreciate it from other perspectives, and the best art does tend to be that in which my enjoyment and appreciation are both at the highest level.


Isn't "enriching the totality of experience" by increasing one's knowledge sometimes equivalent to "changing one's enjoyment"?


----------



## DaveM

*[/*



Eva Yojimbo said:


> First, I'm rather uncomfortable that we keep using the word "skill" as if it refers to one thing rather than being an umbrella term that refers to many things. Pretty much any kind of work that goes into art could be categorized as a skill, and no artistic medium requires just a single skill. Second, the only kind of skill that's all that objectively measurable is technical skill, the simple ability to be able to do a thing, like trying to play a scale in 16th notes at 200bpm.


 Are you suggesting that the paintings by a Gainsborough, a Vermeer and a Caravaggio involves 'skill' that is one thing? Are you suggesting that the creation of Beethoven's 9th involved skill that is one thing? Are you suggesting anyone, including me, is suggesting that? Your discomfort is self-inflicted.



> When I say the quality of art isn't tied to skill, I'm required to the kind of technical wizardry that might be required to do certain things, like the 16th/200bpm scale. However, there are other kinds of skills, far less objectively measurable, that go into art as well, like the ability to be able to evoke certain feelings and moods in an audience. I would consider this a skill as well, but if I think a composer is skillful at evoking a mood/feeling and you don't, so who's got the right to say if they possess that skill?


I don't know how anyone can love (for instance) 19th century classical music and not see skill in the ability to create music that evokes the mood/feeling that many of us are familiar with. Again, this is an issue of your own making.



> So it's not that I really disagree with "your world," it's that I'm recognizing that "your world" is mostly a subjective exercise in saying "I like X, so I consider X skillfully made." Likewise, other than "skill" of the "technical variety.."


Subjective exercise? So you don't see objective evidence of skill, beyond one just liking it, in the works of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Gainsborough, Vermeer, Caravaggio et al? And you think anyone can do that? Do you think this is a perspective I came up with on my own?



> Towards that point, you didn't really address my question about the Gainsborough: the fact that it requires technical skill to make photorealistic paintings like that is true, but why should we accept that as a standard for greatness?


Apparently, humans, in general, seem to admire that sort of human artistic creativity that few others can match, accept it as a standard of greatness, and have for centuries. (You just may be in the minority in not doing so.) And perhaps that's why huge tapestries of that kind are hanging in museums all over the world.



> ...The sequence at 4:18 is the musical equivalent of a phallus measuring contest, or a "look how high I can pee on this tree" contest. There's no musical value in it.


Hmm, a guitarist showing off his/her technical skill with riffs etc. in the middle of a rock/jazz fusion song? How unusual! And at a live performance where people have come to be entertained by that performer! How self-serving -give them their money back! I'm sure the whole crowd left in disgust with that 'phallus measuring contest'!


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It seems to me that what happens in the "winnowing out" of art over time is closer to the notion that there's some art that manages to appeal to those universally human biases so that whatever new standards are adopted by new individuals, societies, and cultures at any time also manage to still accept those upon which the long-lasting art managed to appeal to as well. *As Wallace Stevens said in The Man With the Blue Guitar:The ability to "drive the dagger in the heart of man," rather than most art that just manages to drive the dagger through the fashion of the times.*


Yes, and the art that drives the dagger to the heart is the greater art, and to know that art, and to know that we know it, is to know a truth. Whether we call that knowledge "subjective" or "objective" is a matter of indifference to me. I'll call it "the objective subjective" and let the epistemologists bicker to doomsday.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Yes, and the art that drives the dagger to the heart is the greater art...


Beethoven said that Handel "knew how to draw blood."


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> I'm not ignoring it - I'm not getting it. What is the reason behind the statement?
> 
> The "schism business" is not irrelevant, if I've understood you correctly. You're claiming that a set of aesthetic standards were established during a certain period, that this has effectively set the standard for us all for all time, and all music must consequently be judged against those standards (even to the extent that music - such as rap - that does not even purport to resemble CM must be dismissed as falling short).


Well no, you didn't understand me correctly. My point was that particular 'standards/constructs' developed in classical music in the latter 18th and early 19th century such that later in the 19th century one had objective parameters with which to judge classical music. I said nothing about music beyond the 19th century or any music other than classical music. Fwiw, I have no idea whether there are any standards/constructs with which to objectively judge much of 20th and 21st century CM. If there are, they escape me.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Being objective about internal facts means, I think, knowing which of a number of concurrent or conflicting feelings are important or pertinent, and should be heeded, in a given situation, and which ones are getting in the way of that perception. It occurs to me that we might apply a similar process of discrimination to feelings aroused by a work of art: which of our feelings arise as a result of our "emptying ourselves" to perceive qualities the artist has put into the work, and which arise from random associations, expectations and prejudices peculiar to us? People who succeed in making these determinations tend to find much agreement on what works of art are about, and the reputations of works over time reflect a "winnowing out" of the latter sorts of "extraneous" individual reactions and opinions.


Again, this is a polling, voting approach to art. It also suggests that, if people could only fully "winnow out" those random associations, expectations, prejudices, "extraneous" individual reactions and opinions from their perception of art, then a True Assessment of the art object or experience would result. And this True Assessment, I should think, would be universally shared by all such purged and cleansed minds. But A) the likelihood of such a thoroughgoing purification of perception is low among real people, and B) this purification process, if successful, bleaches out each person's unique qualities and experiences that are brought to bear on the experience of art. The reason I, and I assume others, particularly like and respond to certain art objects and experiences is precisely because of the idiosyncratic background experiential/mental/neurological net that each of us spreads to catch the experience of the art.


----------



## science

Ironically, although I agree with Strange Magic that our aesthetic experiences of art are always fundamentally subjective, I have a completely different feeling about my role and others'. Of course whether I personally enjoy or admire a work matters to me, but I do not approach the arts looking for my own pleasure. I have horrible, catholic tastes: I enjoy almost anything, as long as it's not too melodramatic, sweet, or unreflective. As we've seen, I'm perfectly capable of finding an elephant's painting quite beautiful. 

Instead, I want to learn about what has been loved and why. Of course every judgment, whether by the greatest expert or the most naive child, is an uncountable multitude of (mostly subconscious) subjective responses to various aspects of the work, but so what? That's what makes it interesting. Art is a window into each other's subjectivity - not only into the artists', but into the community of people that has embraced and elevated the art. 

To be sure, because of my own biases (which is not, as I use either word, a simple synonym for subjectivity), I value some people's responses more than others.... Specifically, the more objective knowledge a person has, the more I value their subjective responses, because they are responding to more aspects of the work. This is because I'm fundamentally cerebral and don't place a very high value on unreflective emotion.

Edit: Except with regard to literature, where, because I have achieved a reasonable degree of expertise and insight, I trust my own judgment more than I trust just about anyone's.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Again, this is a polling, voting approach to art. It also suggests that, if people could only fully "winnow out" those random associations, expectations, prejudices, "extraneous", individual reactions and opinions from their perception of art, then a True Assessment of the art object or experience would result. And this True Assessment, I should think, would be universally shared by all such purged and cleansed minds. But A) the likelihood of such a thoroughgoing purification of perception is low among real people, and B) this purification process, if successful, bleaches out each person's unique qualities and experiences that are brought to bear on the experience of art. The reason I, and I assume others, particularly like and respond to certain art objects and experiences is precisely because of the idiosyncratic background experiential/mental/neurological net that each of us spreads to catch the experience of the art.


I wasn't implying that "polls" or "voting" were ways of establishing any truths, but merely observing that over time people tend to agree about certain things, in part because more idiosyncratic opinions are put in perspective by the much larger areas of agreement as people individually and collectively come to understand works of art for what they actually contain and intend.

We may react to the "Ride of the Valkyries" in a certain way because we first encountered it in "Apocalypse Now" or a Bugs Bunny Cartoon or a documentary about the Third Reich, but none of those has any bearing on the opera _Die Walkure,_ and we ought to be at least open to the possibility of getting past those extraneous associations to a true appreciation of Wagner's work. To refuse to do so out of some desire to confirm our cherished perception of who we are would be perverse and irrational: we would be choosing to limit our own identity to its present state, indifferent or hostile to the possibility that an immersion in the opera could expand our "experiential/mental/neurological net."

The notion of "emptying ourselves" in order to be filled with an artist's vision is hardly original, and even if doing that isn't and shouldn't be entirely possible, I've always thought it both the best approach to comprehending an artist's truth and the best way simply to enjoy it. Many works of art have enriched my sense of reality greatly by making me see and feel things I wouldn't have otherwise. It would be sad to be fearful of losing my identity in the process, but maybe some people really are.

If art doesn't make us larger, then it's merely entertainment and does indeed have no more meaning or value than your beloved ice cream.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> We may react to the "Ride of the Valkyries" in a certain way because we first encountered it in "Apocalypse Now" or a Bugs Bunny Cartoon or a documentary about the Third Reich, but none of those has any bearing on the opera _Die Walkure,_ and we ought to be at least open to the possibility of getting past those extraneous associations to a true appreciation of Wagner's work.


I disagree, of course!

While it's essential to try to imagine what _Die Walküre_ meant in 1870, it's also true that we're in 2019, and the intervening years have brought it to us. Wagner didn't personally lay it on our doorstep: millions of people have handled it since it left his hands and before it got to us, and at least a dozen of those hands - Fürtwangler's, for example - have been really influential on the way and even the fact that we hear it today. I'd rather acknowledge all those people and try to be aware of how they're affecting our experience, and of how we are affecting each other's experience right now.

I don't believe in the romantic individualism.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> I disagree, of course!
> 
> While it's essential to try to imagine what _Die Walküre_ meant in 1870, it's also true that we're in 2019, and the intervening years have brought it to us. Wagner didn't personally lay it on our doorstep: millions of people have handled it since it left his hands and before it got to us, and at least a dozen of those hands - Fürtwangler's, for example - have been really influential on the way and even the fact that we hear it today. I'd rather acknowledge all those people and try to be aware of how they're affecting our experience, and of how we are affecting each other's experience right now.
> 
> I don't believe in the romantic individualism.


So we _shouldn't_ be open to the possibility of getting past biases and preconceptions and experiencing art on its own terms? Why would you prefer, listening to an opera called _Die Walkure_, part two of an extaordinary tetralogy called "The Ring of the Nibelung" by a composer named Richard Wagner, to have your comprehension of the work influenced by random associations that may have nothing inherently to do with it and have accreted to it through the whims of fashion and the accidents of history? Do you really want to be thinking about Bugs Bunny or Hitler during the music? Why? And what does "romantic individualism" mean, or have to do with the question at hand?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> So we _shouldn't_ be open to the possibility of getting past biases and preconceptions and experiencing art on its own terms? Why would you prefer, listening to an opera called _Die Walkure_, part two of an extaordinary tetralogy called "The Ring of the Nibelung" by a composer named Richard Wagner, to have your comprehension of the work influenced by random associations that may have nothing inherently to do with it and have accreted to it through the whims of fashion and the accidents of history? Do you really want to be thinking about Bugs Bunny or Hitler during the music? Why? And what does "romantic individualism" mean, or have to do with the question at hand?


It doesn't even matter what I prefer; the latter is the situation I find myself in and I'd like to be as aware of it as possible.

Romantic individualism is manifesting itself, in this case, as the idea that I should try to face Wagner alone, his individual creation up against my individual ability to understand, as if the rest of the world doesn't exist between and around us.

Even simply at a neurological level, that will never be true or possible. All the "random associations" are in there somewhere whether any of us like it or not.

As it happens, though, I like it. My experience of a work of connects me, to a greater or lesser degree, to all the other people that have experienced it.


----------



## KenOC

From Alex Ross: "When in 1999, he (Boulez) was asked why so few major works of the fifties and sixties had become repertory pieces, he blandly replied, "Well, perhaps we did not take sufficiently into account the way music is perceived by the listener."


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> It doesn't even matter what I prefer; the latter is *the situation I find myself in and I'd like to be as aware of it as possible.*
> *
> Romantic individualism* is manifesting itself, in this case, as the idea that I should try to face Wagner alone, his individual creation up against my individual ability to understand, as if the rest of the world doesn't exist between and around us.
> 
> *My experience of a work of connects me, to a greater or lesser degree, to all the other people that have experienced it.*


Being AWARE of a work's "situation" is not the same as having your individual perception and understanding of the art limited and dictated by that situation. I too value being aware of art's cultural context, past and present. But I am an individual, the work of art is a particular work of art with characteristics that may have survived centuries of transient situations, and when I listen to a piece of music I hear the music. It's very interesting to know that Beethoven dedicated the "Eroica" to Napoleon and then tore up the dedication, and that Toscanini claimed to hear in the work nothing but "allegro con brio," but when I listen to it I hear none of that.

My desire to engage as directly as I can with what is actually presented in a work of art has nothing to do with any "romantic individualism." That concept implies a kind of egotism, and egotism is exactly what such an effort at engagement forbids. What I'm talking about is more akin to an experience of meditation, in which we virtually become the objects of our awareness. I could just as easily describe your view as a sort of "romantic collectivism" in which one could nurture the conceit, while looking at the Sistine Chapel, of being "connected to all the other people who have experienced it." You may very naturally feel yourself part of a grand historical procession of visitors to the chapel, but that's an experience of living in history, without regard to the particular nature of the painting on the ceiling of which, awash in "associations," you could miss essential aspects altogether, or imagine that you've seen Michelangelo's art when you've really seen what cultural tradition has made of it.

We can view a work of art from many perspectives, and those perspectives can, and probably will, shift in the very act of viewing it. We needn't be confined to a historical or an ahistorical or any other sort of perspective, and I'm not insisting that anyone should dispense with any perspective they find rewarding. But I will assert that, if we're to have the best possible understanding of a work, culturally determined perspectives have ultimately to be _put in perspective_ by means of an effort to transcend them, to stand outside our biases and confront the work as clearly, purely and directly as possible. For some people this comes naturally; it usually does to me, although it hasn't always: like everyone else, I've had plenty of associations and biases to identify and, hopefully, cease to identify _with._


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Well no, you didn't understand me correctly.


I did understand this bit though



DaveM said:


> My point was that particular 'standards/constructs' developed in classical music in the latter 18th and early 19th century such that later in the 19th century one had objective parameters with which to judge classical music.


Isn't that what I said? My objection to it is that I don't believe it it led to "objective parameters."



DaveM said:


> I said nothing about music beyond the 19th century or any music other than classical music. Fwiw, I have no idea whether there are any standards/constructs with which to objectively judge much of 20th and 21st century CM. If there are, they escape me.


True, you didn't, so I inferred too much. But the OP is about atonal music, isn't it, so what was the relevance of "objective parameters" to whether atonal music will last?


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> True, you didn't, so I inferred too much. But the OP is about atonal music, isn't it, so what was the relevance of "objective parameters" to whether atonal music will last?


Having already inferred something incorrectly about my post, why are you doubling down on the distortion by inferring that there should have been relevance to atonal music? You've been aware of the discussion about subjectivity and objectivity in the past several pages involving art and music in general. Regardless of the OP no one was talking about atonal music at the time of my post you responded to. If you want to get back to that topic then do so yourself instead of retrospectively making it my responsibility. Sheesh!


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Having already inferred something incorrectly about my post, why are you doubling down on the distortion by inferring that there should have been relevance to atonal music? You've been aware of the discussion about subjectivity and objectivity in the past several pages involving art and music in general. Regardless of the OP no one was talking about atonal music at the time of my post you responded to. If you want to get back to that topic then do so yourself instead of retrospectively making it my responsibility. Sheesh!


"Get back to that topic"? It _is _the topic, isn't it? The whole lengthy discussion about objective and subjective standards goes back to the idea that atonal music either broke the (allegedly) established standards, or had none. That atonal music doesn't measure up qualitatively to the works of the CP period.

If you've lost the thread of the topic, don't blame me. Sheesh!

[add]

I think your post from way back shows where we've come from.

Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?



> Since the modernists, to this point, pale in comparison to a Beethoven in the discussion of masterpieces, dismiss the prevailing concept of a masterpiece and separate modernist music from the music that came before when determining what is a masterpiece.
> 
> IMO, the concept of a masterpiece hasn't changed.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> "Get back to that topic"? It _is _the topic, isn't it? The whole lengthy discussion about objective and subjective standards goes back to the idea that atonal music either broke the (allegedly) established standards, or had none. That atonal music doesn't measure up qualitatively to the works of the CP period.
> 
> If you've lost the thread of the topic, don't blame me. Sheesh!
> 
> [add]
> 
> I think your post from way back shows where we've come from.
> 
> Will Atonal Compositions Last Centuries like Past Works?


That doesn't change the fact that the post(s) of mine that you're referring to occurred during a period where the thread went off-topic. You know it as well as I do. Besides I responded to you with the below and that's all I have to say about atonal music at the moment.



DaveM said:


> Well no, you didn't understand me correctly. My point was that particular 'standards/constructs' developed in classical music in the latter 18th and early 19th century such that later in the 19th century one had objective parameters with which to judge classical music. I said nothing about music beyond the 19th century or any music other than classical music.* Fwiw, I have no idea whether there are any standards/constructs with which to objectively judge much of 20th and 21st century CM. If there are, they escape me.*


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> From Alex Ross: "When in 1999, he (Boulez) was asked why so few major works of the fifties and sixties had become repertory pieces, he blandly replied, "Well, perhaps we did not take sufficiently into account the way music is perceived by the listener."


He might not want to say it, but I don't think it's for the average listener when they compose it. That would be like doing research in higher mathematics for laypeople. Whooosh!


----------



## Strange Magic

A brilliant thought came to me today while out kayaking, out of nowhere! Why not make the purification and cleansing and emptying of our personal experiences, histories, neurologies, idiosyncrasies complete and have the judging of music and art be removed from human frailty entirely. We can have robot audiences and critics scan all the objective data points for works of art and music--become the audience in our place--then, free of personal bias, they can report back to us their findings, with rankings of bad, good, best, masterpieces, etc. I visualized classic robots from 1950s and 1960s sci-fi films and TV shows gliding through art galleries, scanning paintings, and filling concert hall seats. We could settle the Britney Spears/Milton Babbitt thing once and for all.

:tiphat:


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> From Alex Ross: "When in 1999, he (Boulez) was asked why so few major works of the fifties and sixties had become repertory pieces, he blandly replied, "Well, perhaps we did not take sufficiently into account the way music is perceived by the listener."


And how! Good quote. Boulez makes no distinction in the type of listener exposed to such modern works ... only "the listener."... I find a great deal of unsettledness, neurosis, and anxiety in many modern 20th century works, and not everyone is interested in the abnormal, the neurotic, and works the appeal more to the intellect than to satisfy the heart. Much of it lacks spirituality and emotional uplift and I'm not going to waste time trying to define those words for the uninitiated or the disinterested. I blame much of the dissatisfaction on the repercussions of the wars and that certain modern composers didn't seem to want to feel anything associated with sentiment or the emotions-they seemed to split off of that. They also seemed to be trying to make people smart through the music because so much of it is highly intellectual and yet it's not what many listeners wanted. They wanted music with more humanity and not just experiments and abstractions in sound. I have heard my share of it and much of it does not have lasting value for _me_. But it did greatly expand the musical vocabulary and it was greatly needed in a turbulent century full of man's inhumanity to man that also sought expression in sound. Much of it is being reassessed now and I believe that much of it will fall away but never entirely because it's part of the indelible history of 20th-century music.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> A brilliant thought came to me today while out kayaking, out of nowhere! Why not make the purification and cleansing and emptying of our personal experiences, histories, neurologies, idiosyncrasies complete and have the judging of music and art be removed from human frailty entirely. We can have robot audiences and critics scan all the objective data points for works of art and music--become the audience in our place--then, free of personal bias, they can report back to us their findings, with rankings of bad, good, best, masterpieces, etc. I visualized classic robots from 1950s and 1960s sci-fi films and TV shows gliding through art galleries, scanning paintings, and filling concert hall seats. We could settle the Britney Spears/Milton Babbitt thing once and for all.
> 
> :tiphat:


If people doubt that aestheticians are objective I don't know what will convince them.

Maybe they 'like' Babbitt more than Britney? That's pretty funny, Strange.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> And how! Good quote. Boulez makes no distinction in the type of listener exposed to such modern works ... only "the listener."... I find a great deal of unsettledness, neurosis, and anxiety in many modern 20th century works, and not everyone is interested in the abnormal, the neurotic, and works the appeal more to the intellect than to satisfy the heart. Much of it lacks spirituality and emotional uplift and I'm not going to waste time trying to define those words for the uninitiated or the disinterested. I blame much of the dissatisfaction on the repercussions of the war and that certain modern composers didn't seem to want to feel anything associated with sentiment or the emotions-they seemed to split off of that. They also seemed to be trying to make people smart through the music because so much of it is highly intellectual and yet it's not what many listeners wanted. They wanted music with more humanity and not just experiments and abstractions in sound. I have heard my share of it and much of it does not have lasting value for _me_. But it did greatly expand the musical vocabulary and it was greatly needed in a turbulent century full of man's inhumanity to man that also sought expression in sound. Much of it is being reassessed now and I believe that much of it will fall away but never entirely because it's part of the indelible history of 20th-century music.


"I find a great deal of unsettledness, neurosis, and anxiety in many modern 20th century works, and not everyone is interested in the abnormal, the neurotic..."

Art should reflect all of reality. It finally has. Success.
It's not about what people are 'interested in". That's a strange notion.


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Art should reflect all of reality. It finally has. Success.


General rule: The word "should" is usually followed by a value judgment.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> ...it was greatly needed in a turbulent century full of man's inhumanity to man that also sought expression in sound.


The actual rate of "man's inhumanity to man" in the 20th century was pretty much on par with previous centuries. Although the peak period (the 1940s) was higher than most past periods, the second half of the century was lower.









In the current century, the death rate has dropped to near zero, an unprecedented event and one not even noticed by our mass media.










More in the Vox article *600 years of war and peace, in one amazing chart*.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> The actual rate of "man's inhumanity to man" in the 20th century was pretty much on par with previous centuries. Although the peak period (the 1940s) was higher than most past periods, the second half of the century was lower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the current century, the death rate has dropped to near zero, an unprecedented event and one not even noticed by our mass media.


Very disturbing figures, thanks for posting. Things aren't getting better.

In second half of c20 we learned that the most advanced western civilisation is the least humane, viz the USA in Guantanamo. That gives pause for thought not so much about the nature of man, but the effectiveness of western civilisation from a moral point of view, especially given that Germany was such an advanced culture in the 1930s.

When you combine that thought with the effects of science - global warming for example - it's not surprising that people are concerned about out culture.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Very disturbing figures, thanks for posting. Things aren't getting better.
> In second half of c20 we learned that the most advanced western civilisation is the least humane, viz the USA in Guantanamo...


Uh-huh. Leading the fight for better living standards in the developing world, allowing African population to double in 20 years. Encouraging the adoption of democracy around the world -- well over half the people in the world now have democratic governments. Smallpox and rinderpest totally eliminated, polio getting pretty close! A smaller proportion of desperately poor than at any time in history. I could go on and on about the evils of western civilization...let me know if you want me to.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Uh-huh. Leading the fight for better living standards in the developing world, allowing African population to double in 20 years. Encouraging the adoption of democracy around the world -- well over half the people in the world now have democratic governments. Smallpox and rinderpest totally eliminated, polio getting pretty close! A smaller proportion of desperately poor than at any time in history. I could go on and on about the evils of western civilization...let me know if you want me to.


But the world is approaching a catastrophe due to global warming and the USA isn't being very helpful about averting the disaster. The most advanced of western cultures not only uses water boarding, it also is destroying the planet through its irresponsibility. This doesn't inspire confidence in western civilisation in my opinion.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> But the world is approaching a catastrophe due to global warming and the USA isn't being very helpful about averting the disaster. The most advanced of western cultures not only uses water boarding, it also is destroying the planet through its irresponsibility. This doesn't inspire confidence in western civilisation in my opinion.


You may want to join this *72-page thread* which addresses your issues.


----------



## Strange Magic

And we're off to the races! Maestro, some atonal music please!


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> From Alex Ross: "When in 1999, he (Boulez) was asked why so few major works of the fifties and sixties had become repertory pieces, he blandly replied, "Well, perhaps we did not take sufficiently into account the way music is perceived by the listener."


Why "blandly"? Is that the word Ross uses? It seems quite a telling quote from Boulez late in his life. Nothing bland about it. It would be interesting to explore it further, particularly so as I feel that many of the Boulez works that once seemed so extreme now seem rather approachable.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> In the current century, the death rate has dropped to near zero, an unprecedented event and one not even noticed by our mass media.


This is nice but quite meaningless as it covers only a short period. It shows how deadly WW2 was (most especially for Russia) and the reaction against that ... a reaction that many feel is now breaking down in a way that could lead into a new spike (probably the biggest yet). This pattern is cyclical and it means little to use a small segment of a cycle to justify your complacent point. The small spike in the 60s and early 70s has a lot to teach us but I am not sure we are learning, are we? I presume it represents mostly Vietnam (and its spin offs) - a war that the US kept escalating even though the leadership (Kennedy and Johnson) knew that it could not be won. If it made little sense to those who perpetrated it (and rallied people to support it) what hope is there for our avoiding future wars?

The chart does show how the cold war - with the big powers fighting proxy wars as a way of avoiding real war - killed a lot of people but I don't think it tells us much about the future. A study of the challenges we face now, interpreted in the light of sound historical knowledge, does not feed optimism even though some people with their own narrow agendas can produce statistics that purport to.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Are you suggesting that the paintings by a Gainsborough, a Vermeer and a Caravaggio involves 'skill' that is one thing? Are you suggesting that the creation of Beethoven's 9th involved skill that is one thing? Are you suggesting anyone, including me, is suggesting that? Your discomfort is self-inflicted.


I'm not suggesting any of those things. What I'm suggesting is that we keep using one word, "skill," that in reality describes many different things. This is a problem given that many "skills" rely on thoroughly subjective impressions.



DaveM said:


> I don't know how anyone can love (for instance) 19th century classical music and not see skill in the ability to create music that evokes the mood/feeling that many of us are familiar with. Again, *this is an issue of your own making.*


Except it's clearly not. We disagree on this forum all the time, including on 19th century classical music. There's one poster that takes every chance possible to denigrate Chopin by claiming (with factual evidence, mind) that he was unskillful. Clearly all the people who love Chopin disagree; how do you propose we settle such a dispute?



DaveM said:


> Subjective exercise? So you don't see objective evidence of skill, beyond one just liking it, in the works of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Gainsborough, Vermeer, Caravaggio et al? And you think anyone can do that? Do you think this is a perspective I came up with on my own?


Again, it depends on what "skill" we're talking about. If we're defining "skill" as some objectively measurable aspect, then I could probably see it; if, on the other hand, we're talking about "skill" that requires the work to have some kind of subjective impact, then I may or may not see that skill in any of these artists. With the Gainsborough, if the "skill" we're talking about is the ability to paint something with photorealism, then that's an objective quality; just look at the painting and see how close to reality it is; but that's clearly not the only standard or definition of skill we're working with.



DaveM said:


> Apparently, humans, in general, seem to admire that sort of human artistic creativity that few others can match, accept it as a standard of greatness, and have for centuries. (You just may be in the minority in not doing so.) And perhaps that's why huge tapestries of that kind are hanging in museums all over the world.


You said it exactly right: some humans "admire that sort of human artistic creativity," but you do realize that's a thoroughly subjective thing, right? All you're saying is "photorealism should be a standard because some/many humans like it." I'm not even arguing it SHOULDN'T be a standard, I'm just pointing out the obvious that the only reason it is is because some people like it; but it's perfectly possible (and fine) that some don't care about it much, or even at all.



DaveM said:


> Hmm, a guitarist showing off his/her technical skill with riffs etc. in the middle of a rock/jazz fusion song? How unusual! And at a live performance where people have come to be entertained by that performer! How self-serving -give them their money back! I'm sure the whole crowd left in disgust with that 'phallus measuring contest'!


There are ways to solo in jazz and rock that compliment/add to the song and show off one's technical skill. If all you're doing is the latter then it is, indeed, a phallus measuring contest and would be more at home in sports than art.

EDIT: Honestly, I feel like this talk of skill as a standard for critiquing music would make a pretty interesting thread in its own right. Perhaps we should considering starting a new thread?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Yes, and the art that drives the dagger to the heart is the greater art, and to know that art, and to know that we know it, is to know a truth. Whether we call that knowledge "subjective" or "objective" is a matter of indifference to me. I'll call it "the objective subjective" and let the epistemologists bicker to doomsday.


I would hesitate to agree that art that's universal is definitively greater. Part of my thinking here is influenced by the film critic Robin Wood who wrote very persuasively (in regards to Hitchcock) that art that deals with contemporary issues, even if those issues are only temporary in the large scheme, has as much value as art that deals with universal issues. I think there's a reason that general audiences generally tend to prefer contemporary art, and that's because they intuitively understand that it's more likely to be speaking specifically to and for them, rather than generally about everyone.

As for the "knowing" stuff, I'd rather word that like this: because there's some art that survives changes of cultures, trends, and fashions, we can reasonably infer that it possesses qualities that manage to appeal to universally human themes and concerns, and does so in a way that each new generation/culture find compelling.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> Why "blandly"? Is that the word Ross uses? It seems quite a telling quote from Boulez late in his life. Nothing bland about it. It would be interesting to explore it further, particularly so as I feel that many of the Boulez works that once seemed so extreme now seem rather approachable.


Maybe Ken can find the source and context for the quote, I don't have the book. Was it an interview in English? On the web I can find lots of references to the English quote, none with any context apart from the Ross book. And when I look for analogous things in French I come up with nothing.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not suggesting any of those things. What I'm suggesting is that we keep using one word, "skill," that in reality describes many different things. This is a problem given that many "skills" rely on thoroughly subjective impressions.


It's your problem. Take yourself to one of the good museums with some great works of art from the 18th century and try running the above by an expert there. Note that I will agree that some aspects of evaluating great works are subjective, but the objective evidence of several skills that make a great painting of that period are not a mystery for most if not all viewers...you being apparently an exception.



> Except it's clearly not. We disagree on this forum all the time, including on 19th century classical music. There's one poster that takes every chance possible to denigrate Chopin by claiming (with factual evidence, mind) that he was unskillful. Clearly all the people who love Chopin disagree; how do you propose we settle such a dispute?


The fact that there is a clear consensus is all that is necessary and important. No need to spend time disputing with naysayers.



> You said it exactly right: some humans "admire that sort of human artistic creativity," but you do realize that's a thoroughly subjective thing, right? All you're saying is "photorealism should be a standard because some/many humans like it." I'm not even arguing it SHOULDN'T be a standard, I'm just pointing out the obvious that the only reason it is is because some people like it; but it's perfectly possible (and fine) that some don't care about it much, or even at all.


Well, I actually said 'humans in general'. You are pushing an absolute extreme in all of this. I've acknowledged some subjectivity, but while, very rarely, you give a little lip service to objectivity, you always revert to the extreme subjectivity position.



> There are ways to solo in jazz and rock that compliment/add to the song and show off one's technical skill. If all you're doing is the latter then it is, indeed, a phallus measuring contest and would be more at home in sports than art.


I would be willing to bet that every single person who attended that performance loved it all. That's what they were for. Your description of that sequence is unsettling -some might even call it snide sexism.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Maybe Ken can find the source and context for the quote, I don't have the book. Was it an interview in English? On the web I can find lots of references to the English quote, none with any context apart from the Ross book. And when I look for analogous things in French I come up with nothing.


Some context is provided on *this page*, near the bottom.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Some context is provided on *this page*, near the bottom.


That seems to be just about structures I, or have I missed something?

(How strange to read that, I know many of the people there!)

If I remember rightly Boulez came to feel negatively about Structures I as early as the late 1950s, I think partly because he became more interested in chance, _The Music of Changes_ was a big influence.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> That seems to be just about structures I, or have I missed something?


You're in the wrong place.



> I may enshrine Stephen J's witness to a Q&A with Boulez, which apparently made it into Alex Ross's 'The Rest is Noise', here, as he sent it to me:
> 
> 'A woman...in the audience asked why virtually none of the music produced by the Darmstadt and associated total serialists had gained even a toe-hold on the repertoire - I think she added something admirably simple like, "Why haven't people taken to it?"
> 
> 'Boulez replied very equably, in his nicest Oncle Pierre tones: "Well, perhaps we did not take into account sufficiently the way music is perceived by the listener" '.


----------



## Strange Magic

One of the reasons that discussions of the role of skill in artworks are often difficult comes, I think, from our tendency to establish _ex post facto_ rationales for already-established (by us or by others we respect) determinations of greatness in art. We assume that, because an assessment of artistic excellence has been promulgated, great skill must have been employed in the creation of the artwork. Even when the skill level of the artist is not immediately visible or even--to the fresh viewer--not evident at all, there will be a strong impulse to invoke skill in its creation: careful choice of subject or colors, placement of masses, etc.; any number of characteristics of the artwork's power over us will be imputed to "skill". Sometimes the search appears to be desparate, but skill can always be found....

But the circles of skill and "greatness" in art do not necessarily overlap. The later 19th century English and French Academy painters produced very skillfully-executed paintings of, as I have noted, kitsch and mild pornography:

Here is Pierre Auguste Cot's _The Storm_. Wonderful brushwork!:








Contrarily, the Willendorf Venus does not appear to have been fashioned by a skilled artisan:








And when we move from the art of 30,000 years ago and return to that of the late 19th century, we encounter the works of the reclusive American Albert Pinkham Ryder. Here is _Toilers of the Sea_. Skill level?








And we finish with our contemporary Jean-Michel Basquiat and his recently sold (for $110 million) work _Untitled_:








The point here is not to judge among these pieces (though I have always loved Ryder's art since childhood) but to re-examine the role of skill in their appeal to greatness.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> It's your problem. Take yourself to one of the good museums with some great works of art from the 18th century and try running the above by an expert there.


I would have no difficulty running the above by an art expert as the probability that any given art expert would be as informed on aesthetic philosophy as myself would be rather low.



DaveM said:


> The fact that there is a clear consensus is all that is necessary and important. No need to spend time disputing with naysayers.


This is a blatant argumentum ad populum.



DaveM said:


> Well, I actually said 'humans in general'. You are pushing an absolute extreme in all of this.


How am I "pushing the extreme?" You posted the paintings in this thread and the "humans in general" here by-and-large preferred what you considered to be the "less skillful" painting. Imagine that. The irony in all this is that I was the only respondent who picked the Gainsborough precisely because I said I could appreciate the skill! But the fact is that your "experiment" rather backfired and actually served to illustrate the point I've been making.



DaveM said:


> I would be willing to bet that every single person who attended that performance loved it all. That's what they were for. Your description of that sequence is unsettling -some might even call it snide sexism.


I don't think anyone "attended that performance" as it was part of an instructional DVD Shawn did called Power Licks, so the only people there would've been whatever technical crew they had. I have no idea what "sexism" you're seeing; you do realize that "phallus measuring contest" is a common saying about the absurdity of a competitive mind-set in situations where it doesn't matter?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> One of the reasons that discussions of the role of skill in artworks are often difficult comes, I think, from our tendency to establish _ex post facto_ rationales for already-established (by us or by others we respect) determinations of greatness in art. We assume that, because an assessment of artistic excellence has been promulgated, great skill must have been employed in the creation of the artwork. Even when the skill level of the artist is not immediately visible or even--to the fresh viewer--not evident at all, there will be a strong impulse to invoke skill in its creation: careful choice of subject or colors, placement of masses, etc.; any number of characteristics of the artwork's power over us will be imputed to "skill". Sometimes the search appears to be desparate, but skill can always be found....


Great post. I'm reminded what TS Eliot said in response to a certain critic's reading of The Waste Land that (paraphrased) the critic was accusing him of being much cleverer than he was, that in the writing he was mostly just thinking about rhythm and sound. I think a good chunk, if not even a majority, of what we deem great or even skillful in art comes through strokes of lucky inspiration rather than intentional skill. Of course, there's truth to the famous saying that inspiration exists, but it must find you working (or perhaps just as important this saying from sports: skill is what one uses to put themselves in the position to get lucky). How does one measure, eg, the skill used in crafting a melody? Melodies are those things that seem to strike a composer/songwriter's mind's ear out of the blue, and then listeners either like it or not. A composer/songwriter may refine the melody in the actual writing, but how much of the greatness must come from that initial inspirational stroke? What's more, it seems that some composers/songwriters have a tremendous facility with such things, as if they're regularly fed striking melodies from heaven's conveyor belt, while others simply don't.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Isn't "enriching the totality of experience" by increasing one's knowledge sometimes equivalent to "changing one's enjoyment"?


I think of "enjoyment" as something one feels while experiencing the work itself, while the totality of the experience can extend beyond that to everything involving the work, including things like the discussions we have on here or, indeed, reading/studying/learning about/analyzing the work. So what I'm saying is that I don't think the latter enhances the enjoyment of experiencing the work itself, it's merely a different type of enjoyable experience related to the work.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I would have no difficulty running the above by an art expert as the probability that any given art expert would be as informed on aesthetic philosophy as myself would be rather low.


I'm sure that any self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy would know more about the evaluation of art than any given art expert. What would those art experts know? Dummies!



> How am I "pushing the extreme?" You posted the paintings in this thread and the "humans in general" here by-and-large preferred what you considered to be the "less skillful" painting. Imagine that. The irony in all this is that I was the only respondent who picked the Gainsborough precisely because I said I could appreciate the skill!


Well, yes, you did actually say the dirty word 'skill'. I had this picture in my mind that were almost choking on it. And you were the only one!



> But the fact is that your "experiment" rather backfired and actually served to illustrate the point I've been making.


Backfired? Interesting. It answered some of my concerns about how some evaluate art and music.

Carry on. Love your Latin...Given your description of that guitar sequence, you'll love the below for the former and the latter:


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> I'm sure that any self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy would know more about the evaluation of art than any given art expert.


On what evidence do you base your evaluation of EY's credentials as a "self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy" or an "art expert"?



DaveM said:


> That doesn't change the fact that


I'm sorry. I don't understand what this means. _What _doesn't change the fact that?



DaveM said:


> the post(s) of mine that you're referring to occurred during a period where the thread went off-topic.


The post of yours I've referred to shows, IMO, how we got from the OP's question to a discussion about masterpieces, to a discussion about subjectivity and objectivity, to a discussion about objective parameters. None of this was "off-topic". My reason for asking about how your post related to the OP was not to imply that you had gone off-topic, but to try and check that I was following your overall argument. I'm satisfied that my understanding of your position is accurate, despite your protestations to the contrary.



DaveM said:


> You know it as well as I do.


What does this have to do with anything?



DaveM said:


> that's all I have to say about atonal music at the moment.


I'm not asking you to say any more, so that's all right.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> And we're off to the races! Maestro, some atonal music please!


Without an interest in the history of music and especially the history of dissonance you won't just fall into an appreciation of atonal music. Also it helps to know harmony and be fascinated with the physics. And know the experience of playing atonal note relationships on an instrument. From that general background you can go on to understand the intentions of the modern composers, otherwise you're just wallowing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Without an interest in the history of music and especially the history of dissonance you won't just fall into an appreciation of atonal music. Also it helps to know harmony and be fascinated with the physics. And know the experience of playing atonal note relationships on an instrument. From that general background you can go on to understand the intentions of the modern composers, otherwise you're just wallowing.


There I am, wallowing again. But if I do develop an interest in the history of music (do you know that I don't have such an interest?) and in the history of dissonance, and of playing atonal note relationships on an instrument, will I then just fall into an appreciation of atonal music? Your criteria seem to mandate that atonal music is strictly an acquired taste, for the cognoscenti alone. And maybe it is.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> There I am, wallowing again. But if I do develop an interest in the history of music (do you know that I don't have such an interest?) and in the history of dissonance, and of playing atonal note relationships on an instrument, will I then just fall into an appreciation of atonal music? Your criteria seem to mandate that atonal music is strictly an acquired taste, for the cognoscenti alone. And maybe it is.


Do you appreciate their achievements without participating and studying? I've never seen it in others. Do you understand their artistic intentions without delving into music theory?

I ask you because I don't think we disagree about anything else (which is rare for me).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> I'm sure that any self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy would know more about the evaluation of art than any given art expert. What would those art experts know? Dummies!


Depends on what any self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy had actually read. The art experts will know plenty about art, but unless they've read aesthetic philosophy they won't know exactly what's going on in the evaluation of that art.



DaveM said:


> Well, yes, you did actually say the dirty word 'skill'. I had this picture in my mind that were almost choking on it. And you were the only one!


This speaks to your imagination more than anything else.



DaveM said:


> Carry on. Love your Latin...Given your description of that guitar sequence, you'll love the below for the former and the latter:


I have no idea what you're saying here, but I've loved that scene since I first saw the film as a kid! I can't help but feel like Doc Holiday in that scenario, mocking the silly display of Ringo's ability to sling their pistol around. That's not what it's for!


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Do you appreciate their achievements without participating and studying? I've never seen it in others. Do you understand their artistic intentions without delving into music theory?
> 
> I ask you because I don't think we disagree about anything else (which is rare for me).


I get the impression from your critiques of my ability to enjoy, understand, find meaningful, love, be fulfilled by art and music, that you have (or wish to) set Olympian, stratospheric, rigorously defined requirements for me--or anyone and everyone--to be properly receptive to art/music. To be, by analogy, a serious oenophile, one must have grown many varieties of grapes in several microclimates, made many sorts of wines adding a variety of herbal ingredients (or not), and developed an extremely sensitive nose and palate capable of properly indentify country of origin, vineyard, and vintage. Otherwise one is just dabbling in (either fine wines or) the arts, and ought to stay home on concert night, unplug the radio or CD player or other device, put away the art books, and shun the museum. But it is impossible to measure, at a distance or even up close, the intensity of another's commitment to art/music, or the unique abilities, backgrounds, and gifts they might bring to the endeavor.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> Without an interest in the history of music and especially the history of dissonance you won't just fall into an appreciation of atonal music. Also it helps to know harmony and be fascinated with the physics. And know the experience of playing atonal note relationships on an instrument. From that general background you can go on to understand the intentions of the modern composers, otherwise you're just wallowing.


That is not my experience at all. I am not sure I fell into appreciating atonal music but I found it interesting from the start. Once I had heard a piece or two once or twice I would know when I was in the mood to hear it again. And once I knew a few pieces quite well I was able to continue exploring more without any knowledge of the context or what the composers thought they were doing. I would almost say that a historical understanding is an obstacle for me. It is about the music. History and context comes later.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Depends on what any self-proclaimed expert in aesthetic philosophy had actually read. The art experts will know plenty about art, but unless they've read aesthetic philosophy they won't know exactly what's going on in the evaluation of that art.


But how could you possibly know all that aesthetic philosophy you read is true? All aesthetic philosophy is 'of the mind' and thus cannot be objectively true. The art expert could have another opinion on aesthetic philosophy that's as perfectly valid as preferring blue to green or an elephant's painting to that of a professional human painter.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> But how could you possibly know all that aesthetic philosophy you read is true? All aesthetic philosophy is 'of the mind' and thus cannot be objectively true. The art expert could have another opinion on aesthetic philosophy that's as perfectly valid as preferring blue to green or an elephant's painting to that of a professional human painter.


First, how can anyone know anything they read is true? The simple answer is they can't, not just by reading it. We can, however, utilize rationality to try to assess whether it's likely to be true, and the form that takes will be entirely dependent on the claim and the evidence we have available. Other than trying to boil it down to Bayes's Theorem (which is great in general, messy in practice), there's no one-size fits all solution to this. So the simple answer is that I don't "know" it's all true, but what I've accepted as likely to be true is that which has stood up to my attempts at rationally analyzing it.

Second, I don't actually disagree that aesthetic philosophy is "of the mind," but saying that it IS of the mind is, indeed, a true statement. I think you've misunderstood me and my perspective in this thread if you think I disagree with the notion that others can't have valid aesthetic opinions like preferring green to blue, or elephant's painting to a human's. Indeed, I've been the one arguing that all such tastes (and the standards we make from them) are of the mind, can't be true, and are thus just as valid as any other. It's DaveM who's trying to argue that we can objectively judge art based on skill alone.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> First, how can anyone know anything they read is true? The simple answer is they can't, not just by reading it. We can, however, utilize rationality to try to assess whether it's likely to be true, and the form that takes will be entirely dependent on the claim and the evidence we have available. Other than trying to boil it down to Bayes's Theorem (which is great in general, messy in practice), there's no one-size fits all solution to this. So the simple answer is that I don't "know" it's all true, but what I've accepted as likely to be true is that which has stood up to my attempts at rationally analyzing it.


Isn't this exactly how people arguing for (some) objectivity in the arts have been suggesting you evaluate art. There is no one-size-fits all solution, rather, we can rationally look at the techniques, and the competence with which the composer employs these techniques, and find that it is likely to be true that this music is more successful than other music.

That you can't 'really' know anything is true is exactly my point. You thus have to figure out a rational basis for evaluating truth (necessarily involving some sort of boot-strapping and likely a healthy dose of circular logic that at least demonstrates internal consistency) and I see no reason why it shouldn't be true that some music is 'better' than other music in a very literal sense. In fact, I have come to belive that this makes more sense than the alternative.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Second, I don't actually disagree that aesthetic philosophy is "of the mind," but saying that it IS of the mind is, indeed, a true statement. I think you've misunderstood me and my perspective in this thread if you think I disagree with the notion that others can't have valid aesthetic opinions like preferring green to blue, or elephant's painting to a human's. Indeed, I've been the one arguing that all such tastes (and the standards we make from them) are of the mind, can't be true, and are thus just as valid as any other. It's DaveM who's trying to argue that we can objectively judge art based on skill alone.


I was being slightly facetious in my post. If this didn't come across I'm sorry; it is, after all, a natural hazard in internet land.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> Isn't this exactly how people arguing for (some) objectivity in the arts have been suggesting you evaluate art. There is no one-size-fits all solution, rather, we can rationally look at the techniques, and the competence with which the composer employs these techniques, and find that it is likely to be true that this music is more successful than other music.
> 
> That you can't 'really' know anything is true is exactly my point. You thus have to figure out a rational basis for evaluating truth (necessarily involving some sort of boot-strapping and likely a healthy dose of circular logic that at least demonstrates internal consistency) and I see no reason why it shouldn't be true that some music is 'better' than other music in a very literal sense. In fact, I have come to belive that this makes more sense than the alternative.


The problem is that those arguing for objectivity in the arts fail to realize that you can't have a basis for such objective evaluation without first deciding what the standards are, and those standards must ultimately be subjectively decided on (even if they refer to objective factors). So no matter what "techniques" we look at, it ultimately comes down to us saying "yes, I/we like those techniques, they should be the standard for measuring quality." People seem to regularly overlook this crucial step.

I do see a reason it can't be true that some music is "better" and it has to do precisely with how the nature of truth works. Truth is a correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory. For there to be a correspondence there has to be something "out there" for a belief to correspond to. If correspondence only exists in your mind (or in the mind of humans), the only "truth" value you can have is in the "it's true that you/people think that." This is how it is with arts. Notions of good/better/masterpiece entirely depend on standards we create in our minds. The standards aren't found in external reality, so they have no truth value that could correspond to such objective reality.

Now, if you see some problem with this, some statement that's factually incorrect or irrational (containing some kind of bias), then feel free to point it out. The reason I accept it as true is because I've yet to see anyone point it out yet, despite having this discussion countless times across countless forums.


----------



## BachIsBest

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem is that those arguing for objectivity in the arts fail to realize that you can't have a basis for such objective evaluation without first deciding what the standards are, and those standards must ultimately be subjectively decided on (even if they refer to objective factors). So no matter what "techniques" we look at, it ultimately comes down to us saying "yes, I/we like those techniques, they should be the standard for measuring quality." People seem to regularly overlook this crucial step.
> 
> I do see a reason it can't be true that some music is "better" and it has to do precisely with how the nature of truth works. Truth is a correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory. For there to be a correspondence there has to be something "out there" for a belief to correspond to. If correspondence only exists in your mind (or in the mind of humans), the only "truth" value you can have is in the "it's true that you/people think that." This is how it is with arts. Notions of good/better/masterpiece entirely depend on standards we create in our minds. The standards aren't found in external reality, so they have no truth value that could correspond to such objective reality.
> 
> Now, if you see some problem with this, some statement that's factually incorrect or irrational (containing some kind of bias), then feel free to point it out. The reason I accept it as true is because I've yet to see anyone point it out yet, despite having this discussion countless times across countless forums.


I'm not sure it's clear that our conceptions of good/better/masterpiece rely purely on standards we create within the confines of our minds. To see this I'll take an example where I think it is clear we have standards in our mind not created by our mind. Think of someone who randomly kills people on the streets; as far as I can tell every society or culture that has ever existed would consider this wrong. As far as I can tell the only people that see nothing wrong with this are psychopaths who have different brain structures. A regular human being innately sees something wrong with this and I don't think it is reasonable to argue that this belief is created by every human being (even interdependently) because of the universality of the belief. Rather, I think the only reasonable explanation is that humans are instinctually pre-wired (born with the notion) that such murderous behaviour is wrong. Of course, you could consider such instinctual beliefs to only be subjectively true as they still only exist in the minds of humans, but, assuming we are both, indeed, human beings, an attempt to define truth independent of the human mind seems like a pretty stupid exercise.


----------



## Captainnumber36

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure it's clear that our conceptions of good/better/masterpiece rely purely on standards we create within the confines of our minds. To see this I'll take an example where I think it is clear we have standards in our mind not created by our mind. Think of someone who randomly kills people on the streets; as far as I can tell every society or culture that has ever existed would consider this wrong. As far as I can tell the only people that see nothing wrong with this are psychopaths who have different brain structures. A regular human being innately sees something wrong with this and I don't think it is reasonable to argue that this belief is created by every human being (even interdependently) because of the universality of the belief. Rather, I think the only reasonable explanation is that humans are instinctually pre-wired (born with the notion) that such murderous behaviour is wrong. Of course, you could consider such instinctual beliefs to only be subjectively true as they still only exist in the minds of humans, but, assuming we are both, indeed, human beings, an attempt to define truth independent of the human mind seems like a pretty stupid exercise.


You don't think there is conditioning involved in thinking it's wrong to kill others from society at a young age? (Not to come off as a psychopath or anything, ).


----------



## Strange Magic

If a really ugly, dangerous piece of artwork or music threatened me or my family, I might think about killing it.


----------



## BachIsBest

Captainnumber36 said:


> You don't think there is conditioning involved in thinking it's wrong to kill others from society at a young age? (Not to come off as a psychopath or anything, ).


Sure. But if it was exclusively social conditioning it would be fairly hard to explain why every human society ever has socially conditioned everyone this way.


----------



## Captainnumber36

BachIsBest said:


> Sure. But if it was exclusively social conditioning it would be fairly hard to explain why every human society ever has socially conditioned everyone this way.


Pretty much every society ever has also created some form of religion too, that doesn't mean there is anything more to it than conditioning.

It's all conditioning. Allow yourself to enjoy what Art you've been conditioned to enjoy, unless there are negative psychological factors involved.


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> Sure. But if it was exclusively social conditioning it would be fairly hard to explain why every human society ever has socially conditioned everyone this way.


Easy. Societies that condemn killing others survive as societies. Those that don't, well, don't. Of course such prohibitions apply only _within _the societies. Killing others _outside _those societies is usually quite OK. That hasn't changed in a very long time.


----------



## BachIsBest

KenOC said:


> Easy. Societies that condemn killing others survive as societies. Those that don't, well, don't. Of course such prohibitions apply only _within _the societies. Killing others _outside _those societies is usually quite OK. That hasn't changed in a very long time.


This is somewhat correct, and is a likely evolutionary pressure behind why not murdering other humans is an instinctual behaviour. However, there have been many societies in the past that have done things (see many religions) that have been positively counter-productive to the operating of society but nevertheless continued due to some sort of social conditioning or learned behaviour. If not randomly murdering was truly a learned or taught behaviour it seems like there would be a very remote chance that it would be so universally ratified to such a degree amongst human society.


----------



## Guest

I'm not sure why the possibility that aversion to killing is genetic gives rise to the possibility that aversion to atonal is also genetic...or have I missed something here?


----------



## Captainnumber36

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure why the possibility that aversion to killing is genetic gives rise to the possibility that aversion to atonal is also genetic...or have I missed something here?


The first gives rise to the possibility of genetic dispositions towards any concept which includes aversion to atonal music.


----------



## Enthusiast

The one (aversion to atonal music) is rather specific and unlikely in itself to have arisen from evolution. The other is a big matter (killing) and _is _likely to be a product of evolution. Further, what is my genetic disposition as far as atonal music is concerned? I used to dislike it but now I enjoy much of it a lot.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Pretty much every society ever has also created some form of religion too, that doesn't mean there is anything more to it than conditioning.
> 
> It's all conditioning. Allow yourself to enjoy what Art you've been conditioned to enjoy, unless there are negative psychological factors involved.


I think there are some wrong associations made here. That there is a form of conditioning that leads societies to form religions. It is not conditioning to stop in one's tracks and want an answer or meaning to Life, but rather the opposite: to continue in each course without question. Also enjoying Art is not necessarily a result of conditioning. Conditioning only makes it possible to enjoy a certain Art. If I condition my ears to either sweet melodies or dissonance, it doesn't mean if I hear them, I would automatically enjoy. There is way more to the process.



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure why the possibility that aversion to killing is genetic gives rise to the possibility that aversion to atonal is also genetic...or have I missed something here?





Captainnumber36 said:


> The first gives rise to the possibility of genetic dispositions towards any concept which includes aversion to atonal music.


More false associations. Aversion to killing is not the same as aversion to conflict. Aversion to killing usually involves want wanting to take a life away who doesn't want to be taken away. It may involve just not wanting conflict, or it may involve more like compassion. I have an aversion to killing (taking a life away that doesn't want to be taken away), but not aversion to conflict or atonal music.


----------



## Luchesi

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The problem is that those arguing for objectivity in the arts fail to realize that you can't have a basis for such objective evaluation without first deciding what the standards are, and those standards must ultimately be subjectively decided on (even if they refer to objective factors). So no matter what "techniques" we look at, it ultimately comes down to us saying "yes, I/we like those techniques, they should be the standard for measuring quality." People seem to regularly overlook this crucial step.
> 
> I do see a reason it can't be true that some music is "better" and it has to do precisely with how the nature of truth works. Truth is a correspondence between belief and reality, the map and the territory. For there to be a correspondence there has to be something "out there" for a belief to correspond to. If correspondence only exists in your mind (or in the mind of humans), the only "truth" value you can have is in the "it's true that you/people think that." This is how it is with arts. Notions of good/better/masterpiece entirely depend on standards we create in our minds. The standards aren't found in external reality, so they have no truth value that could correspond to such objective reality.
> 
> Now, if you see some problem with this, some statement that's factually incorrect or irrational (containing some kind of bias), then feel free to point it out. The reason I accept it as true is because I've yet to see anyone point it out yet, despite having this discussion countless times across countless forums.


" The reason I accept it as true is because I've yet to see anyone point it out yet, despite having this discussion countless times across countless forums."

You've been making good points. What about the history showing us objective and unchanging values? Like it does showing us facts about the difficult problem of evaluating political systems. I mean the history and developments in Western music theory, and applying ONLY those guidelines for appraising Western Music. I think objectivists follow this approach, consciously or unconsciously. Would this approach give us a different ranking than subjectivism? I'm wondering what would be the differences.

In the century of popular music it's always interesting to see how things panned out. Which are the few best songs which stand out? You and I would probably agree about many of them. So how is it we do this?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure it's clear that our conceptions of good/better/masterpiece rely purely on standards we create within the confines of our minds. To see this I'll take an example where I think it is clear we have standards in our mind not created by our mind. Think of someone who randomly kills people on the streets; as far as I can tell every society or culture that has ever existed would consider this wrong. As far as I can tell the only people that see nothing wrong with this are psychopaths who have different brain structures. A regular human being innately sees something wrong with this and I don't think it is reasonable to argue that this belief is created by every human being (even interdependently) because of the universality of the belief. Rather, I think the only reasonable explanation is that humans are instinctually pre-wired (born with the notion) that such murderous behaviour is wrong. Of course, you could consider such instinctual beliefs to only be subjectively true as they still only exist in the minds of humans, but, assuming we are both, indeed, human beings, an attempt to define truth independent of the human mind seems like a pretty stupid exercise.


You're making the point I've objected to previously: the fact that everyone or every society agrees on something doesn't make it objective. You (and others who've made this argument) are conflating "objective" with "collective," and "subjective" with "individual." These aren't the same things. The objective/subjective distinction is between stuff within the mind (thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires, likes, dislikes, etc.) and stuff outside the mind (the properties of objects, like the molecular structure of an apple). The desire to survive is a subjective thing, and that's what drives the instincts to protect society (we're more likely to survive within societies) and outlaw things like murder that harms society. That's a subjective desire shaped by the objective process of evolution.

For another example to make the distinction clear, if I say "the rules of football are subjective," I don't mean that any individual can decide to play the game however they want, I mean that the rules were invented by human minds, they weren't found in nature, they aren't properties of external objects. We all agree on those rules collectively to make playing the game possible, but this makes them a collective agreement regarding subjectively created things. Morality (and standards in art) are the same way, though the ways they come about and the variations differ. With art, there are as many standards for what counts as good as there are genres and the people who like them, and even among those who like the same genres there are tremendous variations. This is so obviously because the primary thing driving the standards we use to judge art is how we react (emotionally and intellectually) to that art and that reaction obviously varies due to the differences in people, not properties of the art.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Luchesi said:


> " The reason I accept it as true is because I've yet to see anyone point it out yet, despite having this discussion countless times across countless forums."
> 
> You've been making good points. What about the history showing us objective and unchanging values? Like it does showing us facts about the difficult problem of evaluating political systems. I mean the history and developments in Western music theory, and applying ONLY those guidelines for appraising Western Music. I think objectivists follow this approach, consciously or unconsciously. Would this approach give us a different ranking than subjectivism? I'm wondering what would be the differences.
> 
> In the century of popular music it's always interesting to see how things panned out. Which are the few best songs which stand out? You and I would probably agree about many of them. So how is it we do this?


When it comes to history and enduring value systems they endure precisely because they continue to speak to the parts of our subjectivity that are themselves universal and enduring and aren't merely affected by the fashions of the time. It's absolutely possible to create standards for art that are adopted by each successive generation. Of course, many others are disinclined to adopt those standards, or even adopt them while also adopting many others. The reason we'd agree on some of the best songs from the last century are for a similar reasons: you and I share similar subjectivities by the sheer fact of being part of the human race, so we're going to have some points of agreement. If we both happen to like the same genres, we'll likely have many points of agreement. This is essentially a Venn diagram of human minds/tastes/values/standards. The reason we've all gathered on this forum is because all our human subjectivities overlap on the "likes classical music/likes talking about classical music" Venn diagram.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I think there are some wrong associations made here. That there is a form of conditioning that leads societies to form religions. It is not conditioning to stop in one's tracks and want an answer or meaning to Life, but rather the opposite: to continue in each course without question. Also enjoying Art is not necessarily a result of conditioning. Conditioning only makes it possible to enjoy a certain Art. If I condition my ears to either sweet melodies or dissonance, it doesn't mean if I hear them, I would automatically enjoy. There is way more to the process.
> 
> More false associations. Aversion to killing is not the same as aversion to conflict. Aversion to killing usually involves want wanting to take a life away who doesn't want to be taken away. It may involve just not wanting conflict, or it may involve more like compassion. I have an aversion to killing (taking a life away that doesn't want to be taken away), but not aversion to conflict or atonal music.


I take back my comment that it is all conditioning, for there is nature and nurture. What I meant to say was, much of how we conceive of religion is conditioned, not the act of creating it.

I think much conditioning, in how we choose to conduct our lives, both internally and externally, contributes greatly to our personal tastes in Art.

For example, somewhere down the line, you were conditioned to think ceasing to have hooks and traditional rhythms in composition is positive. Based on what I know about you, I think this is because it reinforces the value in your brain that you are listening to highly creative, compelling and intellectual music; those are attributes you associate with atonal music I believe.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> I take back my comment that it is all conditioning, for there is nature and nurture. What I meant to say was, much of how we conceive of religion is conditioned, not the act of creating it.
> 
> I think much conditioning, in how we choose to conduct our lives, both internally and externally, contributes greatly to our personal tastes in Art.
> 
> For example, somewhere down the line, you were conditioned to think ceasing to have hooks and traditional rhythms in composition is positive. Based on what I know about you, I think this is because it reinforces the value in your brain that you are listening to highly creative, compelling and intellectual music; those are attributes you associate with atonal music I believe.


I agree with your revised statement on religion. I can agree your second statement on Art applies to some (maybe most) people.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I don't like hooks that are repeated unchanged or not part of a development. That is one of the big differences between Pop/New Age and Classical, one that you may not be able to read about anywhere. Also about traditional rhythms. I conditioned myself (or just plainly learned) to accept music that don't have hooks or traditional rhythms, but I still haven't lost value in music that does. It is just a different style. The conditioning was part of branching out, rather than evolving.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *When it comes to history and enduring value systems they endure precisely because they continue to speak to the parts of our subjectivity that are themselves universal and enduring and aren't merely affected by the fashions of the time.*...
> 
> The reason we'd agree on some of the best songs from the last century are for a similar reasons: you and I share similar subjectivities by the sheer fact of being part of the human race, so we're going to have some points of agreement. If we both happen to like the same genres, we'll likely have many points of agreement.
> 
> This is essentially a Venn diagram of human minds/tastes/values/standards. The reason we've all gathered on this forum is because all our human subjectivities overlap on the "likes classical music/likes talking about classical music" Venn diagram.


I take the usual exception to your statement that art speaks only to our "subjectivities." The "reason we've all gathered on this forum" exists ultimately in objectively observable facts of human life of which art is an expression, and which we recognize as expressed metaphorically in it. Art is about more than feelings and appeals to more than "taste."

Aesthetic principles - ways of ordering the sensual and conceptual elements of art - which arise from, express, and speak to fundamental aspects of human nature and experience, occur over and over in the art of mankind, transcending time, place, and style. They're the universal substructure of art that endures, and the sole inarguable basis of aesthetic judgment, which seeks to perceive them in more and more complex and refined manifestations. Beethoven could say, in his later years, that he was only beginning to grasp the fundamentals of his art, not because his earlier work was aesthetically deficient, but because he was discovering ways to bring more and more disparate elements of form and expression into relationship through deeper, subtler procedures of ordering based not on convention but on his intuitive perception of basic principles.

Thanks to our interminable back-and-forth about "subjectivity" and "objectivity," in which people have argued for different things and imagined that they were disagreeing with each other )), I've come to refer to the realm of our cognitive processes of aesthetic ordering and perception, along with the archetypal principles and forms which are the objects of that perception and of transmission through art, as the "aesthetic objective subjective." It's an important part of the realm psychologists call "cross-domain mapping," an area of study which apparently began with the recognition by cognitive linguists that metaphor, by expressing elements of experience across diverse perceptual modes, was fundamental not only to language but to cognition in general. I would say that cross-domain mapping is fundamental to both the creation and appreciation of art, and particularly of music, in which the representation of concrete reality is essentially absent but movements, patterns and relationships inherent in both the objective and subjective realms are presented in great variety and with great impact.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> but because he was discovering ways to bring more and more disparate elements of form and expression into relationship through deeper, subtler procedures of ordering based not on convention but on his intuitive perception of basic principles.


That's an interesting idea, which I've never come across before in the context of Beethoven (I have heard that idea in the context of Debussy's _Jeux _and the first movement of Cage's _String Quartet in Four Parts_.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I take the usual exception to your statement that art speaks only to our "subjectivities." The "reason we've all gathered on this forum" exists ultimately in objectively observable facts of human life of which art is an expression, and which we recognize as expressed metaphorically in it. Art is about more than feelings and appeals to more than "taste."


That's true to an extent, but incomplete, and ultimately misleading. The artist creates a "map" or template which he overlays on to our experience, and this is conveyed via accepted or proven methods, and agreed-upon meanings. But these methods become exceedingly difficult to identify as being 'objective methods' because they are in many cases intrinsically linked to universal human experience: big things sound big and low, small things sound small and high, abrupt sounds startle, quiet sounds may be relaxing or full of tension, etc.



> Aesthetic principles - ways of ordering the sensual and conceptual elements of art - which arise from, express, and speak to fundamental aspects of human nature and experience, occur over and over in the art of mankind, transcending time, place, and style. They're the universal substructure of art that endures, and the sole inarguable basis of aesthetic judgment, which seeks to perceive them in more and more complex and refined manifestations. Beethoven could say, in his later years, that he was only beginning to grasp the fundamentals of his art, not because his earlier work was aesthetically deficient, but because he was discovering ways to bring more and more disparate elements of form and expression into relationship through deeper, subtler procedures of ordering based not on convention but on his intuitive perception of basic principles.


This is an argument in which "_ways of ordering_ the sensual and conceptual elements of art" begins to subsume the source of these "ways" which arise from, express, and speak to fundamental aspects of human nature and experience. This is an exaggeration.



> Thanks to our interminable back-and-forth about "subjectivity" and "objectivity," in which people have argued for different things and imagined that they were disagreeing with each other )), I've come to refer to the realm of our cognitive processes of aesthetic ordering and perception, along with the archetypal principles and forms which are the objects of that perception and of transmission through art, as the "aesthetic objective subjective." It's an important part of the realm psychologists call "cross-domain mapping," an area of study which apparently began with the recognition by cognitive linguists that metaphor, by expressing elements of experience across diverse perceptual modes, was fundamental not only to language but to cognition in general. I would say that cross-domain mapping is fundamental to both the creation and appreciation of art, and particularly of music, in which the representation of concrete reality is essentially absent but movements, patterns and relationships inherent in both the objective and subjective realms are presented in great variety and with great impact.


I largely agree, but there is a danger of "mistaking the map for the territory." It must be remembered that art is tied to 'being,' and the more complex and seemingly autonomous these "ways" of art aspire to be, the more danger that the essence of 'being' gets lost in the process, and a specialized "elite" language is created, which is penetrable only through "insider knowledge." if this happens, art begins to lose its universal qualities, and becomes a specialized language of an elite group of "aesthetes."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I take the usual exception to your statement that art speaks only to our "subjectivities." The "reason we've all gathered on this forum" exists ultimately in objectively observable facts of human life of which art is an expression, and which we recognize as expressed metaphorically in it. Art is about more than feelings and appeals to more than "taste."
> 
> Aesthetic principles - ways of ordering the sensual and conceptual elements of art - which arise from, express, and speak to fundamental aspects of human nature and experience, occur over and over in the art of mankind, transcending time, place, and style. They're the universal substructure of art that endures, and the sole inarguable basis of aesthetic judgment, which seeks to perceive them in more and more complex and refined manifestations. Beethoven could say, in his later years, that he was only beginning to grasp the fundamentals of his art, not because his earlier work was aesthetically deficient, but because he was discovering ways to bring more and more disparate elements of form and expression into relationship through deeper, subtler procedures of ordering based not on convention but on his intuitive perception of basic principles.
> 
> Thanks to our interminable back-and-forth about "subjectivity" and "objectivity," in which people have argued for different things and imagined that they were disagreeing with each other )), I've come to refer to the realm of our cognitive processes of aesthetic ordering and perception, along with the archetypal principles and forms which are the objects of that perception and of transmission through art, as the "aesthetic objective subjective." It's an important part of the realm psychologists call "cross-domain mapping," an area of study which apparently began with the recognition by cognitive linguists that metaphor, by expressing elements of experience across diverse perceptual modes, was fundamental not only to language but to cognition in general. I would say that cross-domain mapping is fundamental to both the creation and appreciation of art, and particularly of music, in which the representation of concrete reality is essentially absent but movements, patterns and relationships inherent in both the objective and subjective realms are presented in great variety and with great impact.


So often I suspect we're disagreeing over little more than semantics; to me, all your first paragraph is really talking about is the reasons why art appeals to our subjective feelings and tastes, reasons that I don't and have never denied.

As for the rest, I don't disagree with much, excepting the "sole inarguable basis of aesthetic judgment." Literally any basis for aesthetic judgment can be (and has been) argued. As I said in my previous posts, plenty of later generations don't see or care about past art that speaks to these "fundamental aspects of human nature and experience," perhaps because most people feel more connected to their own specific natures and experiences shaped by their own specific times and various socio-historical/political/cultural contexts. I don't think there's anything wrong with that either and, indeed, we're bound to miss out on much great art were we to only focus on that which speaks to the fundamental aspects of human nature and experience.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> indeed, we're bound to miss out on *much great art* were we to only focus on that which speaks to the fundamental aspects of human nature and experience.


We'll miss out on a lot of _art,_ anyway...

There's a lot of art - or stuff some people call art - that I'm happy to have missed out on, not to mention some I wish I had.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> We'll miss out on a lot of _art,_ anyway...
> 
> There's a lot of art - or stuff some people call art - that I'm happy to have missed out on, not to mention some I wish I had.


Point taken. I just know I've found many hidden gems that I would've missed if all I was looking for was whatever spoke to the fundamental/universal aspects of human nature.


----------



## Strange Magic

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Point taken. I just know I've found many hidden gems that I would've missed if all I was looking for was whatever spoke to the fundamental/universal aspects of human nature.


I agree. "Great" art--art that can suddenly or powerfully grip us--is where you find it and it often comes to us unbidden, unlooked-for, in strange ways and places. It may not necessarily speak to fundamental/universal aspects of human nature, actually, unless of course we (or others) persuade ourselves/us retrospectively that, somehow, it does. I think, for example, of a favorite painting of mine, Henri Rousseau's enigmatic _The Sleeping Gypsy_. I think we all could come up with hundreds--many hundreds, nay thousands--of similar favorites, each uniquely dear to us individually.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Point taken. I just know I've found many hidden gems that I would've missed if all I was looking for was whatever spoke to the fundamental/universal aspects of human nature.


Perhaps you're defining those fundamental/universal aspects of human nature more narrowly than I am.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you're defining those fundamental/universal aspects of human nature more narrowly than I am.


Is there not the possibility that "we"--amateurs, aficionados, experts, critics--contrive after the fact to find the necessary and inherent virtues and qualities within the art that we love that validate our selection of a piece of art or music as great, good, excellent? Are our criteria always found to be sufficiently elastic such that they can be fitted tightly to conform to the shape of the most ungainly effort? I'll bet all of us can thus fine-tune our definition of fundamental/universal aspects of human nature to fit the most exacting requirements.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you're defining those fundamental/universal aspects of human nature more narrowly than I am.


That could be true as well, though I'd caution that in trying to define it I'd hope that we'd neither define it so broadly that it could apply to all art (to some extent), nor so narrowly that only our favorite art applied (or then it would just be an exercise of justifying one's tastes; see StrangeMagic above).

Personally, the only way I know to define it is art that seems to find appeal across generations and cultures. I don't really know of any empirical tests beyond that. For the opposite, I think of art I personally love, but which, for any number of reasons, has very limited appeal. Unlike you, I'm disinclined to say the former is automatically greater just because it seems to have this universal appeal. What I might say is that, were we to try to concoct some kind of communally agreed-upon standards for judging greatness, that would probably have to be the one we went with, because otherwise it would just be down to individuals (which I'm also ultimately fine with, even prefer).


----------



## Strange Magic

It might be useful/helpful--certainly interesting--to see someone (here) give some examples of art or music they like for which they can articulate no justification. We always have our reasons.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It might be useful/helpful--certainly interesting--to see someone (here) give some examples of art or music they like for which they can articulate no justification. We always have our reasons.


How does one "justify" liking things?


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Unlike you, I'm disinclined to say the former is automatically greater just because it seems to have this universal appeal.


I don't recall ever saying that.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> How does one "justify" liking things?


OK, we'll substitute "explain": "There is a reason/are reasons I like X, think it's great, am moved by it, and that reason is/those reasons are......"


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It might be useful/helpful--certainly interesting--to see someone (here) give some examples of art or music they like for which they can articulate no explanation. We always have our reasons.


I've replaced your original word "justification" with "explanation," as you suggested.

I don't agree that "we" always have our reasons for liking things. I suspect that we usually don't, especially regarding music, if by "we" you mean people in general and not some select group of aesthetic philosophers or other cerebral types. Most people are content to enjoy music without trying to explain why they like it - to analyze it and/or themselves - and some would even feel that an attempt to conceptualize their experience would spoil it. I think they have a point, since an adequate "explanation" for a musical preference would entail more information than anyone has access to. Against that, it's normal (isn't it? ) to want to understand things, and many people who come to a forum like this are here partly to do just that. But those who've given a lot of thought to questions of aesthetics - the origins of art, its purposes, the reasons it takes the forms it does, how it "works" - are a small minority.

I suspect it would be easy for most people to name something in music they enjoy but be unable to give a reason for their enjoyment. But even if they could give some reason, it would never be a full "explanation." The usual way of answering the question, "Why do you like this chorale prelude," would be to translate the question into "What do you like about this chorale prelude?" We could then say, for instance, "I like the counterpoint between the chorale tune in long notes and the countermelodies based on it." We might then be asked, "Why do you like that sort of counterpoint?" We could answer in a number of ways, but our answer could be met with "And why do you like _that?_" or "Why do you feel _that_ way?" This would result in a regress of causes, ending at the limit of our understanding. Pursuing such a process of explanation would be as distasteful to some people as it would be fascinating to others.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Is there not the possibility that "we"--amateurs, aficionados, experts, critics--contrive after the fact to find the necessary and inherent virtues and qualities within the art that we love that validate our selection of a piece of art or music as great, good, excellent? Are our criteria always found to be sufficiently elastic such that they can be fitted tightly to conform to the shape of the most ungainly effort? I'll bet all of us can thus fine-tune our definition of fundamental/universal aspects of human nature to fit the most exacting requirements.


The history should guide us to save time. I think people could learn the history of music theory and the history of Western music in a few years, casually, on their own. I think of the history of chess and the interesting games that were played about a century ago and how today's worldclass strategies will consider them clever but naïve. In any case you need to have the historical view to appreciate those of then and now.

Added
To me, it's the same with every serious subject from geology to meteorology to astronomy. Clever ideas but naive.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck, I think we actually agree here, or, perhaps, have no reason to disagree. The reality is that the experience of the music or art comes first, is the _sine qua non_. At some later time. either simultaneously or over a more or less protracted period of time, comes liking a piece, barring immediately being repelled by it. Deep indifference/noninterest over time is another possible outcome. Then can come analysis and retrospection as to how/why/what about the art that "causes" us to like it. We both appreciate Meyer's work on this but he excluded or chose not to discuss certain other aspects (the "sensual") and the powerful factor of individual variability among people. As you point out, some of us like to think about "reasons why"; others prefer to just focus on the primacy of the experience of art. And some of us enjoy discussing such phenomena as discussing art. It's all good, until we ascribe things to the art itself that suggest others ought to like something when they don't (no matter how hard they try).


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> The history should guide us to save time. I think people could learn the history of music theory and the history of Western music in a few years, casually, on their own. I think of the history of chess and the interesting games that were played about a century ago and how today's worldclass strategies will consider them clever but naïve. In any case you need to have the historical view to appreciate those of then and now.
> 
> Added
> To me, it's the same with every serious subject from geology to meteorology to astronomy. Clever ideas but naive.


Luchesi, I confess here that there is a certain opacity to your remarks that I can often never entirely penetrate. I'm sure the flaw is mine and that you will understand then why my replies to some of your posts seem unsatisfactory to you.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Luchesi, I confess here that there is a certain opacity to your remarks that I can often never entirely penetrate. I'm sure the flaw is mine and that you will understand then why my replies to some of your posts seem unsatisfactory to you.


I've had this discussion with many types of people with many backgrounds for many decades and you have obviously thought about these issues, so your posts don't seem unsatisfactory to me.

We definitely have different approaches for evaluating. When you say you like something, I immediately think in my own mind, did you like it 50 years ago? I can't help it. At what age were you experienced enough to appreciate Bach or Beethoven? Doesn't it matter to the evaluation? I mean, do you appreciate it all by the same qualities as a young person would, or as an educated musician would?

Do you LIKE this majestic mountain range better than that majestic mountain range? Because of your background you might actually have some very thoughtful reasons, but how would I LIKE one more than the other?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Strange Magic said:


> It might be useful/helpful--certainly interesting--to see someone (here) give some examples of art or music they like for which they can articulate no justification. We always have our reasons.


The difficulty is avoiding false rationalizations. I suspect the real reasons why we like things are far more complicated than most people suspect and usually we're just the proverbial blind men feeling around the elephant.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> I don't recall ever saying that.


Hmmm, my mistake. I had the impression you thought the art that taps into those universal qualities was better than that which just appealed to certain individuals or smaller groups/times/cultures.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hmmm, my mistake. I had the impression you thought the art that taps into those universal qualities was better than that which just appealed to certain individuals or smaller groups/times/cultures.


As a generality, I'd say it is. That's different from what you said before: "automatically greater just because it seems to have this universal appeal." Simple rhythms seem to have universal appeal, but nobody thinks a drummer going "rat-a tat-bang-boom" is producing great art.


----------

