[Kalessin]

I've been reading with interest and enjoyment the recent evolution of this thread into a more general discussion, both of what the essence of art is, and the creative act itself and the variations and contrasts in both. Many compliments to all for addressing complex areas with such articulacy and insight [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct. The most general tools of aesthetic evaluation - concepts such as 'form', 'style', and so on - are not empirical, and can be applied by different cultures (or traditions) to assert the superiority (or competing worth) of many different works of art. One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart. This can be deconstructed further, to the level of each individual that experiences and reflects on a work of art (or art in general), to each of whom these concepts of aesthetic appreciation may mean something slightly or subtly different.

All we can have, in the end, is (at best) a certain consensus through which we can share insight and appreciation of works of art. And yet the reference points will always be fluid, the ground continually shifting under our feet. And the extent to which we can collectively reach this consensus is, in a way, indicative of the state of our collective culture. As this thread illustrates, today this reflects an increasingly fragmented and also inclusive set of perceptions - which makes assertions based on some abstract, monolithic set of 'aesthetic criteria' almost impossible.

The key point is that "we" in the end define aesthetics - individually, collectively and culturally. It is the judgemental application of human perception to human creation. A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Now, the role - and purpose - of the artist IS also central here. The bottom line of art is that it is created by humans - and therefore subject to human aesthetics. It is possible to say that a cloud, or mountain, is not art. It is possible to say that a chair, or a car, is not art - although as a human creation there may be some artistry at work. Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work. This doesn't mean we all become pompous and self-important, but it means something cannot accidentally be art. Just because a poem seemed to come 'from nowhere', or with little effort - it is still a poem, and the poet knowingly records it.

In the end, our modern sensibility (and the finely-honed tools of philosophical reasoning that have developed over thousands of years) mean that we do automatically deconstruct to some degree, and at the same time attempt to rationalise (or legitimise) our subjective perceptions. We do this in different ways, of course, and with different language.

How do we resolve the essential contradictions that this leads us to -

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

- and so on [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I do not believe there is a 'right' answer, one particular mechanical system of perceptive evaluation that will enable us to resolve the issues of aesthetic criteria vs. enjoyment, and so on. There are lots of right answers. Which is part of what being human is all about - the ability to accommodate irreconcilable contradictions, and still get on with life. I could mention religion in this context, but recent experience suggests I will get in trouble [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] , so let's leave it there!

Keep up the good work, guys, it's really stimulating. And it does, tenuously, still relate to my original question. I'm in awe of (and full of admiration for) the intelligence and eloquence of the above contributors, too numerous to name, and truly appreciate your insightful participation in this debate.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]