[MD] The Quality of Art

[Ham Priday]

[Sorry, Horse.  The message I'd started disappeared somewhere in the margin
of my screen and got posted as incomplete.]

Peter and Platt --

I find myself generally agreeing with what you both say about the
"experience" of art, but there is some disagreement about the purpose of art
(including music).

For example, Peter described having come to enjoy a certain piece of music
he had previously detested after he heard it performed by Beefheart (also
unknown to me).  When I was studying music I had a composition class under
Vincent Persichetti, an American composer who was a student of Aaron
Copland.  Most of this course was a detailed analysis of the Roy Harris 3rd
Symphony, which I had heard at least once but dismissed as strident,
bombastic, and unmusical.  By the time I finished this course, the Harris
3rd had become one of my favorite contemporary works.  Additionally, I found
much more value in other contemporary music than I had realized before.
What I learned from this experience was that one can be "conditioned" to
like a work of art merely by immersing himself in it.

Now what does that say about the value (or quality) of the work?  Here's
where I side with Peter.  The value of a musical composition or painting is
the affect of the work on the individual -- and that affect can vary
considerably, depending on one's understanding of its construction,
repetition of the experience (leading to familiarity), and personal
involvement in or associations with the work over time.

Now, Platt believes that what I'm calling Value is intrinsic to the work
itself, and that one must be immediately perceptive to that value or quality
in order to appreciate it.  "Beauty" is his criterion.

Peter said:
> To equate quality or art only with beauty
>  is simply narrow minded.

Platt responded:
> Why narrow minded?  Even scientists look to
> beauty as a measure of the validity of their equations.

But that's a different kind of "beauty", Platt; it refers to the the
scientist's pleasure in reducing a complex problem of nature into a neat
formula.  Since beauty is recognized by most of us, it's easy to reject a
work of art that is asymmetrical, ugly, or whose subject is unpleasant.  By
that standard, a love ballad sung by Frank Sinatra should represent the
epitome of quality in music.  Peter is correct in acknowledging that both
harmony and discord are fundamental to music, as complementary colors and
garish colors or splashes of darkness are fundamental to a painting.  Platt,
you'll find discords being resolved in music from Bach to Bartok -- yes,
even in Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto.

Platt also said:
> Great art, like beauty, transcends generations. There's no
> "progress" in either.

That's not exactly true, either.  The techniques of music composition -- its
forms, chordal structure, key relationships, orchestration, and acoustical
reproduction -- have evolved through the centuries.  I think one could say
that, in the classical repertoire, music is considerably more sophisticated
today than in the Baroque period.  This doesn't speak for its Quality or
value to the listener; that is still very much a subjective matter.

Where I take issue with Peter is in the idea that we can compare a Beethoven
symphony with a song like "It's Hard for a Pimp Out There" which was sung?
by a rapper on the Academy Awards show last night.  There is just no
comparision between these disparate genras.

Peter said:
> 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.

It's not that music has "gotten worse", Peter: it has turned into something
else entirely.  A message intended for the "hip" crowd, perhaps...or a
"social statement" punctuated by expletives, with a rythmic beat as
accompaniment.  Often an expression of outrage, it seems more akin to the
jungle drum message system of the African natives.  It doesn't belong in the
traditional art form that has evolved as contemporary music.

I don't attempt to judge the quality of what I don't understand.  Jazz
improvization started this trend, and it is probably "borderline" music,
although I can't identify with jazz either.  I liked some of the Beetles
songs; these guys were primarily entertainers with a modicum of musical
talent.  As for rap music, obviously this nerve-racking sonic boom has much
appeal, especially to our youth, and they will determine its ultimate value.
Speaking for myself, however, I can live very nicely without it.

Anyway, I'm pleased that we can have an intelligent discussion about
something besides politics for a change.

Regards,
Ham