[MD] The Quality of Art

[Peter Corteen]

Hi Guys,

In the '70s on a trip to California from UK I was asked what I thought of a
new piece of music just before it was placed on the turntable. Never have I
had such a strong reaction to music; anger and loathing welled up in me and
I squirmed in my seat for about half a minute before asking for it to be
turned off; I seriously thought here was something that was base, evil and
should never have been created, so painful to my ears was it.

In very recent years I began listening to Captain Beefheart (aka Don van
Vliet) and his Magic Band; I'd heard that John Peel, the well loved radio
and TV  DJ, was a big fan.  I looked up Beefheart on the internet and found
that his fans thought one particular of his albums marked the pinnacle of
his achievements: 'Trout Mask Replica'. I bought it - on first listening I
persevered for about two tracks before I had to turn it off - was this the
piece of music I had heard in California all those years back? Egged on by
the many enthusiastic reviews I  tried repeatedly to listen to it and,
you've guessed it, I gradually began to like it and would now say it one of
my favourite pieces of music (along with Bach's  Goldberg Variations).

This question about 'Quality of Art' is purely subjective; art is a static
form of communication with a dynamic effect on the individual. If you ask
whether music has advanced since Mozart  you will never get a consensus
answer. Should we try to convince punk rock fans that their lives would be
better if they switched to Mozart?  To equate quality or art only with
beauty is simply narrow minded. I suggest the only useful measure of the
quality of art is for how long the artifact persists.

Peter