[MD] The Quality of Art

[Platt Holden]

Hi Peter,

> I agree very much with you when you say  'Great art, like beauty,
> transcends generations'., followed by your comparisons. I'm guilty of
> jumping to a conclusion here; to the question 'Has music advanced since
> Mozart' I guessed you would think that it has gotten worse; apologies.
> However, I still have a problem with your matching of quality and
> beauty. Take Picasso's 'Guernica' for instance, hardly beautiful; more
> like the jagged adjacencies you'd hear in Beefheart's 'Trout Mask
> Replica' than the flowing harmonies of Mozart.

About Picasso's 'Guernica' I believe it's more of a social statement 
than fine art, serving the same purpose as Edvard Munch's 'The Scream.' 
IMO both are more propaganda than art, as is much of "modern art" 
today, like songs by the Beatles. 

The purpose of art as I see it is release one from the shadows of the 
cave, if only for a moment, to be bathed in the light of boundless 
Dynamic Quality -- without the aid of psychedelic drugs. (I've never 
known a work of art to kill anybody.) Beauty IMO is a reflection of DQ.

 I'm not familiar with Beefheart's work.     

No doubt art is subjective. But, when you come right down to it, so is 
everything in the world viewed through the eyes of SOM (Subject-Object 
Metaphysics).

Platt