One of the great problems of the modern era is how to determine artistic excellence from artistic mediocrity. What are the properties that separate a great piece of music from a good one or even a poor one? Does popularity define greatness or does it defy it? Why is the music of Bach considered better than the music of Meyerbeer (a composer few have ever heard)? Why is the art of Rembrandt better--if it is?--than the art of Thomas Kinkade?
According to Kant, a combination of knowledge from experts, time, personal interests, taste, and subjective beauty determine quality. Yet personal preference is somehow unsatisfactory in making objective decisions regarding excellence due to the imposition of concepts. "There can be no objective rule of taste by which what is beautiful may be defined by means of concepts. For every judgment from that source is aesthetic, i.e., its determining ground is the feeling of the subject, and not any concept of an object. It is only throwing away labour to look for a principle of taste that affords a universal criterion of the beautiful by definite concepts; because what is sought is a thing impossible and inherently contradictory--Emmanuel Kant.
Every time we attempt to pass judgment on an object of beauty, we are limited by our own interests and our own narrow concepts of what beauty is. This accounts, therefore, for the discrepancy between those who value the art of Kinkade over the art of Duchamp. If one's concept of beauty is based on what is seen or what is imagined from having seen realistic photographs, then all abstract art does not measure up to any kind of beauty. Imagination then decides the concepts and forms the interest that make up the criteria for determining excellence.
Let us take a look at a simple example: the dinner. If one's imagination of a good dinner is a hamburger, fries, and a coke, then any variation of that or even a total departure from that concept takes a lesser role. If we imagine the hamburger from the local fast-food restaurant as representing the finest in culinary experiences, we expect to feast upon the meal that exists in our minds. It becomes necessary, therefore, to broaden our concept of a meal and to expand our interest. It also becomes valuable to seek the wisdom of those more experienced in cooking and eating food other than the hamburger. If our imagination goes beyond that of a hamburger and ventures into unknown regions of food--salad, steak, fish, poultry, vegetables--then we inadvertently broaden our interests and ultimately our concept of what dinner can be. But imagination is often limited by experience and knowledge, making it useful to find those whose concepts have already been expanded, namely the chef, the recipe author, the restaurant reviewer, and other experts.
While we tend to minimize our own interest and narrow our concept by virtue of our own ignorance, the person who values a hamburger above all foods who has indeed experienced other foods and simply makes a choice to reject that which does not meet his taste buds requirements is making a preference based primarily on knowledge. While he may not be in agreement with the experts, we must acknowledge his decision as being worthwhile to him albeit an unusual decision.
Back to the question at hand, what determines great music? Is it rhythm, is it harmony, is it instrumentation or text? Why do we acknowledge Beethoven's 7th Symphony as better music than Turkey in the Straw? Certainly complexity must play a role in the decision and no doubt the combination of judgments from experts helps the process, but is there more to judging music than personal preference or opinions of critics, or a concept of what good music is or even personal interests? Ultimately, the genius of Beethoven is exhibited through craft, expression, emotional power, mathematical balance, and aesthetic appeal. Concepts, interests, critics, and personal taste all demonstrate the excellence but ultimately it is the test of time over centuries and over wide geographical space that proves its worth.
Time, however, in terms of art often takes years, decades, and centuries for it to become the ultimate determining factor. But without the passage of time, we must revert back to cogitating on the criteria--namely craft, complexity, expression, balance, originality, and aesthetic appeal. During this process, it is valuable to attempt to eradicate interests and personal concepts and narrow imaginations. I urge the person seeking for help in finding excellence in artistic expression to broaden his perspective, listen to the experts, seek out specific objective criteria, and make decisions based on several factors rather than simply personal preference. If one does choose to decide excellence based on self motives, open acknowledgment of that criterion is the most appropriate response.
Mostly, it is justifiable to make judgments and to search for excellence when dealing with art. We grow and improve from criticism and artistic standards remain high due to rejection and effort in seeking excellence. Back to the original question: how do we determine excellence in art? Through intelligent examination of a suggested list of criteria, through the broadening of concepts and interests, and through the meditative reflection of personal taste and need for expression. From this practice, we can come closer to knowing which pieces of music will withstand the test of time and which ones are worth our effort today.
Obviously, this is a major topic that has only been skimmed in this essay. Let's discuss this further at some point!
No comments:
Post a Comment