# Mozart&Beethoven



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I think that Beethoven wrote the greatest music that has been written so far, but i feel like that Mozart had more "musical freedom" on his music than Beethoven, more lighthearted more willing to compromise when i feel that Beethoven didn't allow any compromising at all and knew exactly what he wanted and never compromised on it.

Also both were geniuses but i still link the word genius more to Mozart than Beethoven, because Mozart music sounds much much more effortless and Beethovens sounds like he would be struggling at all times...

I know that all this can sound a little bit confusing but try to understand what i mean and i am curious to see does anyone of you agree with me.


----------



## Gangwolf (Apr 26, 2014)

It's true that Beethoven struggled more than Mozart which has only added to the perception of Beethoven as being "a grumpy old man". Mozart finished his works in his mind before he wrote them down. As only a true genius could do...


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

Mozart seems to have had a remarkable musical memory which allowed him to avoid the copious written sketches that were required by Beethoven. I'm not sure this makes him a greater genius. I would say he had the greater natural facility. Perhaps the core of Beethoven's genius was his self criticism (which I think Sibelius commented on) which meant quite mundane ideas could be worked on over time to produce musical gold. The amazing thing with Beethoven is that the finished works sound so spontaneous when in fact they were usually the product of a long gestation.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think the difference between them also lies in what they chose to depict in their music. Mozart seems to be writing tons and tons of great music - which is just great music, always graceful, always memorable, tight, brilliant and gigantically listenable. Mozart's emotional scope is wider but shallow - he never asks as many questions as Beethoven, and seems grateful for his talents.

Beethoven composed much fewer number of works, and he seems to be hammering at some deep and (personally) significant questions with his music - always the same questions, but with a never dying tenacity and strength of spirit.

I think you can highlight this difference by seeing how Beethoven was a lot less socially active than Mozart.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

All of the above is why I've never understood people saying Beethoven, especially early Beethoven, drew form Mozart as inspiration. Other than barely missing being contemporaries, they are nothing at all alike to my ears. Beethoven is musically so much more like Haydn than like Mozart.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Weston said:


> All of the above is why I've never understood people saying Beethoven, especially early Beethoven, drew form Mozart as inspiration. Other than barely missing being contemporaries, they are nothing at all alike to my ears. *Beethoven is musically so much more like Haydn than like Mozart*.


Indeed.

Haydn ----> Beethoven

Mozart ---> Schubert


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gangwolf said:


> Mozart finished his works in his mind before he wrote them down. As only a true genius could do...


This doesn't require genius, only a good memory and ears.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> This doesn't require genius, only a good memory and ears.


But when you compose say, the Jupiter symphony that way - yes, it's Genius, man.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Beethoven struggled more, and probably worked harder. That made him more human, and that is reflected in his music - and that is why I like Beethoven better. I can relate better.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I do like both composer's music but perhaps Beethoven's is more intellectually stimulating because of his struggles. And he worked on a higher moral plane than did Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven may have struggled more than Mozart did to achieve his results, but that struggle - the effort involved in the process of composing - shouldn't be confused with the artistic depiction of struggle which was part of Beethoven's sense of life and his aesthetic of heroic idealism (an aesthetic quite alien to Mozart). However long it took him to wrestle his materials into shape, the final result has an inevitability which belies the process. Leonard Bernstein believed that no composer excelled Beethoven in his musical rightness, his ability to find exactly the right note to follow the previous one. That inevitability is one of the defining traits of great art, and by its very nature it makes us unaware of the process, however arduous, by which it was attained.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Florestan said:


> I do like both composer's music but perhaps Beethoven's is more intellectually stimulating because of his struggles. And he worked on a higher moral plane than did Mozart.


I think what someone finds more intellectually stimulating depends on what they already like. For example, I find Mozart's wit, subtlety and technical fluency more intellectually stimulating than Beethoven's struggling. I'm not sure I get what you mean by working on a higher moral plane.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

GioCar said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Haydn ----> Beethoven
> 
> Mozart ---> Schubert


When I listen to Schubert's 5th, I hear Mozart. When I listen to Schubert's 9th, I hear a man who blazed his own heavenly path. I find it astonishing that Schubert was so inspired by Beethoven yet created music that was so Schubert.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm sure it's not easy to make such varied and inventive composition look effortless! In any case, I'm very sorry Mozart passed away at a time when Beethoven himself may have started to make him sweat a bit more profusely!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

trazom said:


> I'm not sure I get what you mean by working on a higher moral plane.


Just look at the subject matter of Beethoven's opera compared to Mozart's operas. Winton Dean wrote that Beethoven "told Relistab in 1825 that he could never compose operas on subjects like _Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_, which he found frivolous and indeed repugnant" (quoted from _Beethoven and Opera_ in the Cambridge Opera Handbooks series on Fidelio).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Don Juan still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject." (A Beethoven remark reported by Seyfried)


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Florestan said:


> Just look at the subject matter of Beethoven's opera compared to Mozart's operas. Winton Dean wrote that Beethoven "told Relistab in 1825 that he could never compose operas on subjects like _Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_, which he found frivolous and indeed repugnant" (quoted from _Beethoven and Opera_ in the Cambridge Opera Handbooks series on Fidelio).


I thought his objections to Italian opera were more from Victorian prudishness and prevalent xenophobia common to that day, rather than morality.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

I think MOZART made BEETHOVEN great,without MOZART BEETHOVEN would not be that great to me.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

This sounds like a weird comparison, but imagine a conference room a company having a meeting Mozarts music is like the guy who tries to explain his view for others with words, when Beethovens music is the guy who punches his first to the table and says with a very assertive tone " This is the way it has to be done there is no other way. This is how it has to be done."


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

trazom said:


> I thought his objections to Italian opera were more from Victorian prudishness and prevalent xenophobia common to that day, rather than morality.


If you want to call it prudishness, but it is simple moral decency and respect for women. Not sure what xenophobia has to do with it.



mtmailey said:


> I think MOZART made BEETHOVEN great,without MOZART BEETHOVEN would not be that great to me.


Beethoven certainly used what Mozart (and Haydn) had done, but he left it behind and moved to greater heights. Romain Rolland in his Beethoven the Creator notes that when Beethoven created a masterpiece, he moved on to new things, but Haydn and Mozart would continue to rework the same batch of dough.

E.T. Jaynes in his book The Physical Basis of Music and Its Implications for Musical Performance says,



> In 1991 the writer heard a lecture by a pianist specializing in Mozart, in which he
> enthused over the variety of thematic material, claiming that with Mozart the listener
> always knows "where he is" in a movement because Mozart might use seven or eight
> different themes in it. He said that you get no such sense of position in Beethoven, because
> ...


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Beethoven definitely feels more linked to Haydn than to Mozart in my opinion. Beethoven's 10th Piano Sonata, Op 14 No 2, is really Haydenesque.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Florestan said:


> If you want to call it prudishness, but it is simple moral decency and respect for women. Not sure what xenophobia has to do with it.Beethoven certainly used what Mozart (and Haydn) had done, but he left it behind and moved to greater heights. Romain Rolland in his Beethoven the Creator notes that when Beethoven created a masterpiece, he moved on to new things, but Haydn and Mozart would continue to rework the same batch of dough.


 Beethoven's most frequently-quoted criticism was that it was "licentious," in other words sexually inappropriate, but they're not immoral, especially given the conclusion of Don Giovanni where the lecher is sent to Hell, and Cosi fan Tutte is critical of both women AND men. The xenophobia comment is from Beethoven's intense dislike of Rossini and Italian opera composers, and emphasis German music. When praising The Magic Flute, he said one of the things that made it so great was Mozart showed himself to be a German musician.

You will note Rolland said "new" as in different, greater is a bit subjective and it depends on the genre of composition. In the article, Jaynes only seems to be contrasting his subjective listening experience(as a physicist?) with the pianist and Mozart specialist. I don't know which pieces he's referring to specifically, but suggesting there's no coherent plan in Mozart's music is incorrect. The concertos and symphonies pretty much follow the standard sonata form most of the time, even in the operas, which Charles Rosen said follow a coherent large scale plan in the arrangement of keys presented as the story progresses. In terms of development of specific themes, Mozart simply introduces more in the exposition, but he would still develop them in the section that calls for it, not merely repeat them unaltered; he'd manipulate their rhythm, ornamentation, or pitch. It only takes some musical memory and appreciation for detail to notice it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't see where the lecher being sent to Hell justifies the rest of the story. Nor does the fact that men and women both act immorally justify the story of Cosi fan tutte.

I did not consider xenophobia relevant since both Beethoven and Mozart were similarly Austrian. Beethoven even admired the Italian Luigi Cherubini as one of the greatest composers. He does not seem particularly xenophobic, perhaps only to certain foreigners.

Besides being a physicist, the author notes his many years of playing Beethoven's middle period piano sonatas. Jaynes' discussion is subjective, and he indicates at the end,



> In this Chapter we have departed from our presentation of established scientific facts, and indulged in tentative personal conjectures that seem plausible from our experience, in the hope of stimulating further thought on these issues. Perhaps readers with different knowledge and experience may be in a position to confirm or refute our conjectures.


You are correct that Rolland did not say greater. Nor did he say new. The actual quote is:



> ...he awards to the Appassionata, the first place among his sonatas.
> 
> After this, the conqueror does not renew the same combat. It is not in his nature to return on his own traces, after the manner of Haydn and Mozart, who, when a work pleased them, made a whole series of cakes out of the same flour. The end once attained, it interests him no more; he must look for others.


I have only read the one chapter of Jaynes (Chapter 7) but the whole book is available online:
The Physical Basis of Music


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Florestan said:


> I don't see where the lecher being sent to Hell justifies the rest of the story. Nor does the fact that men and women both act immorally justify the story of Cosi fan tutte.


Not that an opera libretto, especially those operas, need justifying but Cosi and Figaro are human comedies where the main character,being imperfect, make mistakes. In fact their character flaws are what justify the story; but I find the notion that because sex is suggested in Cosi or boasted about in Don Giovanni suddenly makes the ENTIRETY of the subject "immoral" somewhat narrowminded, sententious, and missing the point. What makes the finale of Don Giovanni even more interesting in this discussion is that after the 'bad man' goes to hell the other characters, who are equally flawed in their own ways, pat themselves on the back for their rectitude and portent that "Such is the end of the evildoer: the death of a sinner always reflects his life" unaware of how hollow they sound. It's ironic, not immoral.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

In the pantheon of great composers Mozart was the most perfect, but Beethoven the greatest.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

jani said:


> This sounds like a weird comparison, but imagine a conference room a company having a meeting Mozarts music is like the guy who tries to explain his view for others with words, when Beethovens music is the guy who punches his first to the table and says with a very assertive tone " This is the way it has to be done there is no other way. This is how it has to be done."


That's a little extreme - I would say Beethoven is the guy who refuses to work with the team, and ends up doing the job alone and more efficiently than anybody could imagine - except that he pissed everybody off with his attitude.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Hey look here. This topic has been visited numerous times on this site:

In 2013: mozart-vs-beethoven-1797

In 2012: beethoven-vs-mozart-vs. Bachl and

your-vote-mozart-vs.beethoven

in 2009: beethoven-vs-mozart.html

in 2007: Mozart vs Beethoven

Instead of posting more, we can read all these other threads first.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Florestan said:


> Hey look here. This topic has been visited numerous times on this site:
> 
> In 2013: mozart-vs-beethoven-1797
> 
> ...


History repeats itself. Wonder what the year 2099 Mozart vs Beethoven thread will look like?


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> This doesn't require genius, only a good memory and ears.


Also, it's not true. There are plenty of Mozart manuscripts with corrections and revisions.


----------



## Fratello (May 14, 2014)

For some reason I prefer Mozart ... whenever I listen to Beethoven music, it feels like he is trying to slap me in the face, I only let Bach slap me ! Mozart feels a lot more gentle.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Florestan said:


> Hey look here. This topic has been visited numerous times on this site:
> 
> In 2013: mozart-vs-beethoven-1797
> 
> ...


This thread isn't meant to be a cage match between Mozart&Beethoven.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

This one is much different. Instead of comparing Mozart to Beethoven, people are........ok. It's the exact same thread.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

A mathematical look at Mozart and Beethoven's music:
Mozart's Formula, Beethoven and Group Theory
A fascinating article, and it supports (but in a kinder way) the general supposition of the physicist's article in Mozart and Beethoven Compared, which I had quoted from before.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

For me, except for Bach, Wolfie and Luigi are the two best composers in history. And they are far ahead of the rest of the field IMHO, ahead of Schubert, Chopin, Wagner, Bruckner, Handel, Haydn, Brahms and everybody else...


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Fratello said:


> For some reason I prefer Mozart ... whenever I listen to Beethoven music, it feels like he is trying to slap me in the face, I only let Bach slap me ! Mozart feels a lot more gentle.


I have no idea what this means. But I feel compelled to "like" it. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Novelette said:


> I have no idea what this means. But I feel compelled to "like" it. :tiphat:


Can't remember where I read it, but somebody wrote (of the Kreutzer Sonata) that Beethoven grabs you by the throat and slams you up against the wall. Well, not always of course. :lol:


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Florestan said:


> Mozart and Beethoven Compared, which I had quoted from before.


Just read this and i wasn't sure if it was meant to be taken seriously. His comments that Mozart's music was awkward(using the Kegelsatt trio as an example, of all pieces!!), that he did not study the works of other composers as Beethoven did, the lack of relationship between the arias in his operas and structure in his music, and digs at his personality(as though this somehow diminishes his music) pretty much confirms my initial belief that he knows even less about Mozart and his music than you do.

Will you be posting an article by Robert Newman next?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Florestan said:


> A fascinating article, and it supports (but in a kinder way) the general supposition of the physicist's article in Mozart and Beethoven Compared, which I had quoted from before.


I have read as far as the first time he brings up "The Emperor's New Clothes" analogy*, and have given up any hope that this is any sort of reasonable critique. Already there are biased assertions under the guise of balancing the record, and the word hype was brought up. In my experience, the word "hype" doesn't generally appear in serious artistic critiques...

* Which is not an argument so much as an assertion that there is actually nothing to be argued about, and thus requires no actual evidence whatsoever to bring up, prompting many people to believe themselves experts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> ...that he did not study the works of other composers as Beethoven did...


Was it Rameau who, accused of not studying the works of his predecessors, said "Why should I? They never studied mine."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Florestan- (Beethoven) worked on a higher moral plane than did Mozart.

Ummm... what?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Florestan- If you want to call it prudishness, but it is simple moral decency and respect for women. Not sure what xenophobia has to do with it.

Oh please! The portrayal of characters who act one way or another has nothing... NOTHING... nothing whatsoever to do with the personality or morality of the artist. Ultimately morality has nothing to do with the artistic merit of given artists or art works.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Florestan- If you want to call it prudishness, but it is simple moral decency and respect for women. Not sure what xenophobia has to do with it.
> 
> Oh please! The portrayal of characters who act one way or another has nothing... NOTHING... nothing whatsoever to do with the personality or morality of the artist. Ultimately morality has nothing to do with the artistic merit of given artists or art works.


. . . aesthetic matters are 'good' or 'bad' but never 'moral' or 'immoral'-- as Wilde pointed out. How could they be? The artist either achieves what he set out to do; or he doesn't.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't see where the lecher being sent to Hell justifies the rest of the story. Nor does the fact that men and women both act immorally justify the story of Cosi fan tutte.

What sort of criticism is this? Characters in a narrative act immorally, thus the work of art and the artist are immoral. This sounds like Tolstoy's ignorant critiques of Shakespeare who had the audacity to create "bad" or "immoral" characters who were also intelligent and wildly seductive. I'd hate to see your analysis of Baudelaire, Wilde, or Nabokov.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

For some reason I prefer Mozart ... whenever I listen to Beethoven music, it feels like he is trying to slap me in the face, I only let Bach slap me ! Mozart feels a lot more gentle.

Bach and S&M? Would that be a Bach-analia?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fratello said:


> For some reason I prefer Mozart ... whenever I listen to Beethoven music, it feels like he is trying to slap me in the face, I only let Bach slap me ! Mozart feels a lot more gentle.


Some like it rough...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

The author of the chapter, Mozart and Beethoven Compared, obviously has it out for Mozart. I apologize to any who were offended by what I posted from that book. The other chapters of his book are totally different and appear to have good discussion of music instrument history and physics applied to playing an instrument. But what about the other article, Mozart's Formula, Beethoven and Group Theory? It indicates a similar underlying structure to Mozart's music--and an underlying structure to Beethoven's music too.



> Oh please! The portrayal of characters who act one way or another has nothing... NOTHING... nothing whatsoever to do with the personality or morality of the artist. Ultimately morality has nothing to do with the artistic merit of given artists or art works.


My point is that Beethoven found these works unworthy of his setting music to and gave reasons that implied a view regarding those works that had a moral aspect. There are subject matters of a moral nature that some artists would refuse to address because the subject matter is against their moral values.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Florestan said:


> The author of the chapter, Mozart and Beethoven Compared, obviously has it out for Mozart. I apologize to any who were offended by what I posted from that book.


Hardly offended! I read most of the chapter and found it pretty silly overall. It's quite true BTW that Beethoven found the subject matter of Mozart's Figaro and Don Juan objectionable (no others that I know of) but he certainly never criticized the music. He seems to have been a bit of a prig by our standards today.

I wish he had written the opera Macbeth as he planned! Supposedly the eerie slow movement from the Ghost trio is based on sketches for the witches' scene....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I've been struck by how quick, and how vehement, some here have been in dismissing the question of moral values in art. The twentieth century seems to have bequeathed us a widespread consensus that the only things that matter in a work of art are its aesthetic coherence and its effectiveness in conveying the artist's intentions, and that we have no business bringing moral judgments to bear on the work or on the intentions, stated or unstated, behind it. I find this a very peculiar view to take of a human activity, the making and enjoyment of art, which people throughout most times and places have regarded as an indispensable expression of their individual and societal values and a constant accompaniment to the rituals and routines of their lives. 

The concept of "art for art's sake" has not existed, and would not have been understood, throughout most of human history. Indeed, art has traditionally been "for life's sake"; and aesthetic values, however enjoyable in themselves by those with an eye or an ear for them, have been implicitly or explicitly expected to embody some idea or purpose beyond mere sensuous or intellectual pleasure, an idea or purpose - in other words, a value - which can, in strict accuracy, be designated as "moral." Prior to the twentieth century it was a commonplace to judge works of art on the values embodied in their subject matter, and to admire works which served in some manner - though not necessarily a direct or obvious manner - to elevate the consciousness of the observer: to educate, to inspire, to move to deep reflection or emotion, to delight by means of beauty of form or beauty of sentiment. Not all works of art aspired to the same level of significance, or needed to; there have always been popular arts for sheer entertainment, such as dance music, and applied arts of pure design (which, still, served to make everyday life more aesthetically pleasing). But even the creators of such mundane arts as these were viewed as making some essential contribution to the society in which they lived. 

The conception of the artist as a wholly independent being pursuing a private vision for purely personal purposes, in no way answerable to any moral or practical expectations of his culture, and producing objects which may embody or endorse any values whatsoever, admirable or repellent, or no values at all so long as the work is, or is said to be, "aesthetically" interesting - such a conception is so new in human history that it would seem we are still in nearly complete thrall to it. But, in light of the fact that the last century brought us to a point where the emptying out of all traditional value expectations from art ended up giving us paintings without images, poems without words, and music without melody, harmony, or rhythm, I wonder if it might be time for another look at the issue. 

What is art for, anyway? What is any human endeavor for? And do not our answers to these questions have moral implications?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

What really fascinates me about Mozart every time i listen to his music i get the feeling that he had perfect musical freedom and perfect controll over the music at alll times, which is something that every musician wants achieve ( Like me).
His music sounds so effortless&smooth like it wouldn't have any edges.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I've been struck by how quick, and how vehement, some here have been in dismissing the question of moral values in art. The twentieth century seems to have bequeathed us a widespread consensus that the only things that matter in a work of art are its aesthetic coherence and its effectiveness in conveying the artist's intentions, and that we have no business bringing moral judgments to bear on the work or on the intentions, stated or unstated, behind it. I find this a very peculiar view to take of a human activity, the making and enjoyment of art, which people throughout most times and places have regarded as an indispensable expression of their individual and societal values and a constant accompaniment to the rituals and routines of their lives.
> 
> The concept of "art for art's sake" has not existed, and would not have been understood, throughout most of human history. Indeed, art has traditionally been "for life's sake"; and aesthetic values, however enjoyable in themselves by those with an eye or an ear for them, have been implicitly or explicitly expected to embody some idea or purpose beyond mere sensuous or intellectual pleasure, an idea or purpose - in other words, a value - which can, in strict accuracy, be designated as "moral." Prior to the twentieth century it was a commonplace to judge works of art on the values embodied in their subject matter, and to admire works which served in some manner - though not necessarily a direct or obvious manner - to elevate the consciousness of the observer: to educate, to inspire, to move to deep reflection or emotion, to delight by means of beauty of form or beauty of sentiment. Not all works of art aspired to the same level of significance, or needed to; there have always been popular arts for sheer entertainment, such as dance music, and applied arts of pure design (which, still, served to make everyday life more aesthetically pleasing). But even the creators of such mundane arts as these were viewed as making some essential contribution to the society in which they lived.
> 
> ...


-- and. . . thank. . . you. . . Miss. . . Ayn. . . Rand; thank you for that exact view expounded at great length in your essay "What is Art?" from your book _The Romantic Manifesto_. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. --- a view I actually agree with.

I can find, say, the irrationalist and Slavophile side of Dostoevsky, as expounded in _The Brothers Karamazov _and _The Possessed_ as psychologically and dramatically-compelling art. . .and at the same time, pronounce moral judgment on his characters, themes, and viewpoints and find them evil. I don't read Dostoevsky because I 'agree' with his sense of life; but rather in spite of it. As a master psychologist and novelist he is absolutely unrivaled in analyzing and describing the irrational side of man; something any thinking human should take heed of.

The world is a more three-dimensional place than just Tchaikovsky and Victor Hugo novels. I think Shakespeare and Conrad showed that par excellence. . .

But as a personal matter, I must say that my favorite art is art that elevates man and celebrates his existence; certainly.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> -- and. . . thank. . . you. . . Miss. . . Ayn. . . Rand; thank you for that exact view expounded at great length in your essay "What is Art?" from your book _The Romantic Manifesto_. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. --- a view I actually agree with.


Of course, Ayn Rand also thought that Rachmaninoff was the absolute pinnacle of all music in all history...

(It's amusing, by the way, to see hardcore objectivists argue about Rand's views on music, as very few of them will, for once, automatically agree with them. They try to jump through all sorts of contortions to say that they agree with her in spirit...)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair
> 
> -- and. . . thank. . . you. . . Miss. . . Ayn. . . Rand; thank you for that exact view expounded at great length in your essay "What is Art?" from your book The Romantic Manifesto. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. --- a view I actually agree with.
> Of course, Ayn Rand also thought that Rachmaninoff was the absolute pinnacle of all music in all history...
> ...


My best friend is a sort-of renegade Austro-anarcho-Objectivist, and though he of course loves Rachmaninov and Chopin-- stellar "sense-of-life" composers in Rand's view--- he also loves such _un_-Randian fare as Beethoven, Wagner, and Shostakovich-- all of whom would have a "malevolent sense of life" to her. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

-- So, yeah, I know what you mean about the contortions an orthodox Objectivist would have to go to accomodate her idiosyncratic views on music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've been struck by how quick, and how vehement, some here have been in dismissing the question of moral values in art. 

An artist can express whatever he or she desires... but this has nothing whatsoever with the aesthetic merits of the work of art.

The twentieth century seems to have bequeathed us a widespread consensus that the only things that matter in a work of art are its aesthetic coherence and its effectiveness in conveying the artist's intentions, and that we have no business bringing moral judgments to bear on the work or on the intentions, stated or unstated, behind it.

Actually, Art pour l'Art was bequeathed to us by the 19th century: Baudelaire, Theophile Gautier, Oscar Wilde, Mallarme, Walter Pater, etc...

So should questions of morality effect our aesthetic judgment? Who then defines what is or is not moral? If I find homosexuality immoral or religions other than Roman Catholicism to be heretical, than I cannot appreciate Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Bach, Firdowsi, etc... to be of any artistic worth?

I find this a very peculiar view to take of a human activity, the making and enjoyment of art, which people throughout most times and places have regarded as an indispensable expression of their individual and societal values and a constant accompaniment to the rituals and routines of their lives.

The concept of "art for art's sake" has not existed, and would not have been understood, throughout most of human history.

The idea of _Art pour l'Art_ evolved in response to the earlier notions that art could and should be measured in terms of non-artistic elements such as theology and religion, morality, politics, social class, Nationality, etc... It was fully acceptable for past generations to dismiss or denigrate works of art because they were Jewish or Islamic, because they conveyed ideas that challenged the powers that be in a given culture, because the work expressed ideas about sexuality that were unacceptable, etc... _"Art pour l'art"_ or art for arts sake is often poorly understood as meaning that art should only be about artistic/aesthetic concerns. This is not what it means. Non-Artistic concerns... politics, religion, sexuality, morality, etc... are still valid concerns of art and open to discussion. What "Art pour l'Art" means is that our judgment of the aesthetic merits of a work of art is not based upon these issues. I can wholly recognize the brilliance of Plato's _Republic_ in spite of the fact that I disagree with a great majority of his conclusions. I can recognize the genius of the _Shanameh_, the _Qur'an_, and the Persian illuminated manuscripts in spite of the fact that I don't share their religious beliefs.

Indeed, art has traditionally been "for life's sake"; and aesthetic values, however enjoyable in themselves by those with an eye or an ear for them, have been implicitly or explicitly expected to embody some idea or purpose beyond mere sensuous or intellectual pleasure, an idea or purpose - in other words, a value - which can, in strict accuracy, be designated as "moral."

The content of art can and has been nearly anything. Historically, it has conveyed the something of the values, standards, beliefs, ideas, feelings of the patrons and the artist. A great deal of art involves little or no attempt at making a moral statement or judgment.

Prior to the twentieth century it was a commonplace to judge works of art on the values embodied in their subject matter, and to admire works which served in some manner - though not necessarily a direct or obvious manner - to elevate the consciousness of the observer: to educate, to inspire, to move to deep reflection or emotion, to delight by means of beauty of form or beauty of sentiment.

Yes, art employed as a means of reinforcing the messages of the Church and State aimed to educate, pontificate, lecture, or inspire. Even then, the strongest of such art was often obliquely... or even quite obviously subversive of these aims. One reason that artists of the Art pour l'art movement and later Modernists rejected such is that it reduced art to a mere handmaiden of other ideals: political/social/religious, etc... Utilitarian Art is what governments have historically sought, whether we are speaking of the Church, the Soviets, the Nazis, or Western propaganda.

Not all works of art aspired to the same level of significance, or needed to; there have always been popular arts for sheer entertainment, such as dance music, and applied arts of pure design (which, still, served to make everyday life more aesthetically pleasing). But even the creators of such mundane arts as these were viewed as making some essential contribution to the society in which they lived.

This idea... the so-called "hierarchy of painting (or art)"... was long ago relegated to the dust-bin of history... and good riddance. The idea that a painting of Napoleon Crossing the Alps is inherently superior to a sensuous nude, a beautiful landscape, or a still life is pure bunk.

The conception of the artist as a wholly independent being pursuing a private vision for purely personal purposes, in no way answerable to any moral or practical expectations of his culture, and producing objects which may embody or endorse any values whatsoever, admirable or repellent, or no values at all so long as the work is, or is said to be, "aesthetically" interesting - such a conception is so new in human history that it would seem we are still in nearly complete thrall to it. But, in light of the fact that the last century brought us to a point where the emptying out of all traditional value expectations from art ended up giving us paintings without images, poems without words, and music without melody, harmony, or rhythm, I wonder if it might be time for another look at the issue.

Modernism (c. 1850/Courbet-1955 Abstract Expressionism) never came anywhere near eliminating the figure or "reality" from art. Modernism was undoubtedly the greatest paradigm shift in art since the Renaissance and like the Renaissance it brought about an incredible wealth of new possibilities and brilliant artists... but regardless of the ranting of certain theorists, the traditional values of art were in no danger of disappearing. There remain a wealth of brilliant figurative and realistic painters. These individual artists all hold a unique set of values, beliefs, interests, ideas, etc... Quite obviously, many of these artistic views are in direct opposition to each other. Judging the work of these artists based upon whether one shares an artist's views is a judgment based upon external values and not based upon artistic merit.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can find, say, the irrationalist and Slavophile side of Dostoevsky, as expounded in The Brothers Karamazov and The Possessed as psychologically and dramatically-compelling art. . .and at the same time, pronounce moral judgment on his characters, themes, and viewpoints and find them evil. I don't read Dostoevsky because I 'agree' with his sense of life; but rather in spite of it.

Exactly. I don't read or look to painting to reinforce my own experiences, beliefs, values, standards, values, morals, etc... I look to art to experience the visions of "others"... powerfully voiced through their art. I can disagree with their views... but fully appreciate how brilliantly they voiced these. Art lies in the "How" not the "What".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I've been struck by how quick, and how vehement, some here have been in dismissing the question of moral values in art.


Not at all surprising. I started a thread here some time ago, suggesting that music be subject to social controls and even censorship, as so wisely advised by the ancients -- who well understood the powerful influence of music on society. Sadly, there was little support among this crowd, evidently wholly given over to license and depravity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I've been struck by how quick, and how vehement, some here have been in dismissing the question of moral values in art.
> 
> An artist can express whatever he or she desires... but this has nothing whatsoever with the aesthetic merits of the work of art.
> 
> ...


I thank you for taking the time to respond at length to my inquiry, and for correcting me about the origins of the expression "art for art's sake." I do recall that it originated early in the 19th century, although I would contend that it reached its fullest expression in practice in the 20th. However, many of your comments seem to be aimed at refuting what I specifically did _not_ suggest, i.e that the aesthetic quality of a work of art can be judged by non-aesthetic criteria. I made the distinction between aesthetic judgments and other value judgments in my very first paragraph, and the whole thrust of my inquiry was to ask whether moral questions, questions of value other than purely aesthetic ones, ought to be excluded from judgments of the overall value of works of art. It is admittedly a rather broad question, but I tried to be careful not to limit the ways in which it might be approached by anyone interested in taking it up.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah. Mozart and Beethoven. Bach was nobody.


----------



## Deontologist (May 18, 2014)

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between "late"-Mozart and early-Beethoven--specifically in the String Quartets and Piano Sonatas.


----------

