[MD] The Quality of Art

[Platt Holden]

Hello Peter,
 
> do you think those cavemen who did the Lascaux  animals were seeking
> transcendence or merely  diversion? We'll never know for sure.

We're told that the paintings had religious meaning in that by painting 
the animals the cavemen felt they magically exerted some control over 
them. But, as you say, we'll never know for sure.

> You say Guernica is more social statement  than art; I say most fine art
> is just technical craftsmanship and composition skill, often indicating
> the neurotic mindset of the artist or commissioner. 

For many, so-called fine art just sits there having no effect. Others 
are profoundly moved by it, and by that I mean it shatters their static 
patterns so that the Dynamic shines through. The technique, the 
composition and other elements of the work don't have to be superior 
for the effect to occur, though they help. As for the mindset of the 
artist or her sponsor, who can say?   

> The Beatles were
> accomplished musicians, entertaining and often with a strong, sometimes
> political, message;  they were artists, but you are entitled not to like
> them.

I don't think to be popular and entertaining has a lot to do with 
artistic merit though fine art can sometimes be both.  

> Art is about more than beauty; mainly it is about triggering
> fresh associations in the minds of the audience.

Don't think that is the main purpose of art. A small plastic crucifix 
emerged in urine is a fresh association, but hardly inspiring.   
Advertisers constantly create fresh associations, like two cavemen 
discussing FedEx, but its hardly what I would call fine art.    

For me beauty is the lodestar of fine art which can apply to almost any 
worthwhile activity. Of a quality mechanic such as described in ZAMM, 
one can say legitimately say of his work, "Beautifully done."

Platt