[MD] The Quality of Art

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


> I don't think one "understands" art any more
> than one understands the song of a bird or
> the sight of rosebud.

That's the difference between having a discriminating sense of art and a
simple knee-jerk reaction.  I'm not saying that one must attend art school
or a music conservatory to enjoy a work of art, although it helps to
understand the intricacies.  My point is that there is more to art than
meets the eye or ear, and the more we know about it, the better we are able
to appreciate its value.

This is true of any art form, whether it's reading Shakespeare or viewing
the Greek Parthenon.  If a person knows nothing about literature or fine
art, how can he render an intelligent judgment on its merits?   I'll wager
that you were led to Rachmininoff's 3rd Piano Concerto after hearing the
more popular 2nd, and that you have since explored other works of this
composer, and quite probably Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Khachaturian, as
well.  Music and art, like the enjoyment of fine wines, is an acquired
taste; the more we sample them the more we realize their value.  That's why
interactive exposure to music at an early age, such as taking piano lessons
or a music appreciation class, allows the child to establish personal
preferences -- the first step in developing discriminative judgment.

This is not to say that art is not designed to appeal to the senses, or that
one's first reaction to it isn't significant.  Esthetic judgments are
immediate, as Greenburg says; but why limit  your appreciation to the
passing view of a portrait hanging in an art gallery?  If you like the
masterpieces well enough, you'll want to purchase books about them -- 
perhaps even acquire prints of your preferences -- just as you collect
recordings of your favorite music.  Familiarity breeds appreciation.  This
is all part of the esthetic process, of deriving the most value from the
experience of beauty.

> For me art has no meaning beyond its presence.
> One must be present with the art for it to have impact.
> It is meaningless from a rational point of view, but
> highly valuable nevertheless. It's what we live for.

"Presence" -- interactive exposure -- is precisely what I'm talking about.
We all "identify" with the values that appeal to our particular esthetic
sense.  Immersing ourselves in the experiential sources of these values is,
indeed, "what we live for".

> IMO any art that has to be explained or understood is suspect.

All art is "suspect".  Only a discriminating observer has the sensibility to
discern its relative value.


Regards,
Ham