Littlemanpoet - your insightful posts here lead me to wonder if we are trying to have it both ways when review the genre post-Tolkien? If a work is derivative or referential, we rightly criticise it as a pale imitation of the 'real thing' ... yet if a work does not follow the 'Tolkien template', we say it fails equally by not meeting the criteria of the master's work. Perhaps we are being a little possessive, or protective, or elitist ... bear in mind I speak as one who does NOT think LotR is the best book of the 20th century, for what it's worth, but I've been crucified elsewhere for that particular heresy [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I know that you are passionate about writing, and a great encourager of aspiring writers ... but do you think we are making the mountain higher than it actually is?
Aiwendil, bearing in mind my inability to conclusively prove the existence of anyone else, I think that I can have a personal objective standard of art, and that any agreement (or convergence) with another is more a matter of luck than any insight into Platonic forms [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. Ok, I'm joking.
In your excellent post, you said -
Quote:
|
Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).
|
I am not so sure that a sophisticated model that predicts what will be pleasing or not is a good thing. It sounds to me as though the record company releasing music by Britney Spears is obviously in possession of such a thing. And I still haven't quite reconciled the semantics behind "I like something therefore it is good".
Your example of perfect cadence illustrates my point. Traditional music theory perhaps, but only in relation to the diatonic tradition. If you factor in musical theory appropriate to classical Indian raga, or African pentatonic composition, or Balinese gamelan, and so on ... which is more valid? I agree that the presence of
form in all musics can be cited as evidence of at least a predisposition to the concept of aesthetic objectivity - but the diversity of those forms, and their equal theoretical depth and worth do not give us the security of a commonsense objectivity.
My feeling is more that we are in the grip of an exquisite contradiction. That music, and indeed all art, is recognisable and knowable through understanding or invocation of a universally comprehensible terminology (composition, counterpoint, harmony, rhythm and so on), yet our emotional experience is subject to a level of cultural, social and psychological variables that make it intensely personal (and thus unique). The terms in which we can describe and understand are indeed universal ... but our experience is not.
This may sound like a reduction to subjectivity, but that is not my intention. I believe that aesthetic theory is worthwhile, but that the worth of art is a reflection of the intent, content AND the experience of the audience. If I prefer Steve Reich to Mozart, it need not mean that I necessarily think Mozart is a worse composer, nor equally that my understanding of aesthetics is flawed. The line of absolute external objectivity in art is one where you end up painting yourself into a corner, and saying "well, because this (let's say Britney) meets the precise set of laws required to be good, I
am compelled to like it. If I do not like it then it does not meet those laws. If you prefer something else (say, Wagner) you are wrong, because only I truly understand the laws and the proof of that is that I do not prefer Wagner to Britney".
The lack of such external validation, in the presence of universal contingents, as always presents a certain irreconcilable tension. I contend as ever that such dichotomies are inherent in the human condition, of which art is such a fluent manifestation.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin