Does "greatness" in music exist, and if so what defines it?

[no country for old wainds]

I think that two rival works can both be justifiably held above the other at the same time.

in relation to a set of values, yes, definitely. but surely those values themselves have no transcendent value.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

where is the "all of the above" option? lol

That's how I would see it.

 

[skeptik]

i'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but i really can't comprehend this kind of conception of anything, it doesn't make sense to me. i'm certain that shakespeare and beethoven are geniuses, and that they will die only with the end of mankind, but for such things as genius, universality, timelessness etc to be great in a transcendent sense there surely has to be some form of omniscient perspective, which just isn't an intelligible idea. nothing has transcendent value, words aren't signs for things which exist outside of language - the concepts themselves are linguistic, their only meaning lies in the way we use them to communicate. even a proven biological connection to stuff considered great wouldn't change this.

in relation to a set of values, yes, definitely. but surely those values themselves have no transcendent value.

I didn't state what I meant very clearly. What I meant to say was that great art has transcendent value, and what I meant by transcendent was something much more mundane. More like something that helps to reconstitute the way in which we think about things, or enlightens us to something in some significant way.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Art is that about which it makes sense to ask of it what it means.

Haha, this is an awesome definition of art (and one that would scare off anyone who had no preconceived notions of art in the world, assuredly).

 

[no country for old wainds]

fucking wizard says (06:44):
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
Art is that about which it makes sense to ask of it what it means.
Ockham says (06:51):
thats a terrible sentence
Ockham says (06:51):
i dont know what that means. i guess thats art. but maybe not. since i cant read what that says.
fucking wizard says (06:56):
well ill tell him his sentence might be art but might not therefore it is

 

[no country for old wainds]

Ockham says (06:58):
ask him about the holocaust
Ockham says (06:59):
he denies the holocaust but knows like half a wikipedia article about denying it
fucking wizard says (06:59):
i dont think he denies the holocaust
Ockham says (06:59):
no he does
Ockham says (06:59):
he had a big debate on sot2
Ockham says (06:59):
and um
fucking wizard says (06:59):
he probably feels it was exaggerated
fucking wizard says (06:59):
which, lets face it, is definitely true
Ockham says (06:59):
no he denies the holocaust happened in any capacity
fucking wizard says (06:59):
couple of million? maybe, maybe... 6 million?! youre pullin me leg mate
Ockham says (07:00):
but not strongly just questions it because of vague lapses
fucking wizard says (07:00):
i guess ill ask him about this

 

[Einherjar86]

nothing has transcendent value, words aren't signs for things which exist outside of language - the concepts themselves are linguistic, their only meaning lies in the way we use them to communicate.

I find this post very interesting, and I'm not sure I agree with it. Poetry as art is not meant to be communicative. As soon as a poet composes poetry with the intent that it be read, it becomes theatrical and loses a significant element that makes it poetry. Mill said that where eloquence is meant to be heard (thus, communicated) poetry is "overheard." Poetry is, as he defines it: "feeling confessing itself to itself... in symbols."

I think that, in poetry's case, words absolutely stand for something outside of language. They're not meant to be communicative; that's not a poet's intent. Poetry attempts to recreate the emotional intensity of a moment; to portray what the artist is feeling, but in a very internalized and private manner.

As for art being transcendent, I agree that it is in the way which Matt described.

 

[Zephyrus]

What about epic poetry, Pat?

 

[skeptik]

fucking wizard says (06:44):
Originally Posted by Dodens Grav View Post
Art is that about which it makes sense to ask of it what it means.
Ockham says (06:51):
thats a terrible sentence
Ockham says (06:51):
i dont know what that means. i guess thats art. but maybe not. since i cant read what that says.
fucking wizard says (06:56):
well ill tell him his sentence might be art but might not therefore it is

Ockham says (06:58):
ask him about the holocaust
Ockham says (06:59):
he denies the holocaust but knows like half a wikipedia article about denying it
fucking wizard says (06:59):
i dont think he denies the holocaust
Ockham says (06:59):
no he does
Ockham says (06:59):
he had a big debate on sot2
Ockham says (06:59):
and um
fucking wizard says (06:59):
he probably feels it was exaggerated
fucking wizard says (06:59):
which, lets face it, is definitely true
Ockham says (06:59):
no he denies the holocaust happened in any capacity
fucking wizard says (06:59):
couple of million? maybe, maybe... 6 million?! youre pullin me leg mate
Ockham says (07:00):
but not strongly just questions it because of vague lapses
fucking wizard says (07:00):
i guess ill ask him about this

What the fuck is this?

 

[Einherjar86]

What about epic poetry, Pat?

I was waiting for someone to ask this.

Obviously I've been quoting Mill simply to propose an argument (for argument's sake). I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

I love epic poetry, and some of my favorite poetic pieces include examples of epic poetry. Mill would say that in so far as a poem is "epic," it isn't poetry at all (the "epic" implies narrative). However, epic poetry has the capacity to include within it all other forms of personal poetry; and poetry that does this effectively earns its name.

 

[Dak]

Patently epic art is patently epic!

(Dodens+Einherjar)

 

[no country for old wainds]

I find this post very interesting, and I'm not sure I agree with it. Poetry as art is not meant to be communicative. As soon as a poet composes poetry with the intent that it be read, it becomes theatrical and loses a significant element that makes it poetry. Mill said that where eloquence is meant to be heard (thus, communicated) poetry is "overheard." Poetry is, as he defines it: "feeling confessing itself to itself... in symbols."

I think that, in poetry's case, words absolutely stand for something outside of language. They're not meant to be communicative; that's not a poet's intent. Poetry attempts to recreate the emotional intensity of a moment; to portray what the artist is feeling, but in a very internalized and private manner.

As for art being transcendent, I agree that it is in the way which Matt described.

good post. a potential rebuttal might be rooted in the idea that communication with the self is still communication, but i don't feel qualified to talk about how a wittgensteinian conception of language applies (or doesn't apply) to poetry, this is a wide ongoing debate. i dunno how familiar you are with wittgenstein but if you're not, give this a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language

still, my post was directed towards a discussion of greatness rather than towards poetic language itself, so it stands for that at least.

 

[skeptik]

I personally find Einherjar's notion of poetry fairly antiquated. It was applicable at one time, but is now seen as both limiting and limited. There is no necessary distinction between prose and poetry; there are no 'guidelines' for writing poetry. Poetry is as dynamic a field as prose, starting in the 20th century. I can understand people not enjoying the newer movements in poetry, but I don't think it's fair to deny that they exist or qualify as poetic.

 

[Einherjar86]

I am a bit old-fashioned. But I don't necessarily despise or ignore all forms of contemporary poetry; I enjoy several contemporary poets, Ashcroft and Moxley being two examples. Also, I completely agree that good prose (in its commonly accepted definition) is still comprised of "poetry." Mill even said this as well; he stated that poetry isn't necessarily defined by meter and rhyme. Typically, the best novels/examples of prose (he said) were ones that were written in a "poetic" manner.

@no country:
Yeah, I realized that you were speaking more towards the idea of greatness; I just was interested in that particular part of your post. And I haven't read Wittgenstein, I'll look into him.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Holy cock, I've got some catching up to do. I don't have much time today, but I'll start with Andypoo:

Grant, I am kind of appalled that you take the anti-aesthetic relativist stance because the alternative (i.e. what you and Tom seem to think) "feels more right." That is not a very objective way to think at all, which doesn't do much to provide anyone with confidence in your judgment on the subject.

That was kind of a figure of speech, so don't hold me to that. When it comes to art, though, I think subjective notions can be pretty compelling. There are some cases where it is overwhelmingly clear that one band has more artistic value than another (i.e. Black Sabbath vs. Wicked Wisdom). It's simply absurd to deny this. I'd rather not take the time to enumerate what makes Black Sabbath better than Wicked Wisdom due to the time and research such a comparison would demand, but I trust I don't have to go to such lengths to convince you.

An easy analogy would be to compare two essays on the history of the Roman Empire - one of which is poorly written and barely longer than a page, while the other is very well-written, detailed, and gives the reader a circumspect understanding of the time period. Clearly one of these essays has more value than the other. In a similar sense, some bands convey more ideas through their music than other bands do, or convey them in a clearer and more immersive way, or give the listener a kind of circumspect understanding of the subject matter, be it verbal or meta-verbal.

Even if aesthetic objectivism (or whatever the hell it would be called) tends to come across as "conjuring facts out of nothing", the above example and analogy should show that the pitfalls of relativism are at least as absurd, if not more so.

Also, just because someone doesn't present an argument about something does not mean they are less educated about the subject than others who relentlessly formulate and present decisive opinions are. There may be many reasons such people hold back, and generalizing does nothing to formulate any objective theory about why they may or may not stand firm in any convictions they may have re: art or judgment of art.

First off, as Tom has already pointed out, critiquing art is not merely an exercise of generalising about it. It's about attempting to articulate the ideas and impressions the art conveys - to get at the 'essence' of the art. I think critique is an important part of being educated in a form of art - or, at least, in putting one's knowledge of it to use. One may certainly still have a great deal of artistic knowledge and merely refrain from expressing critique out of humility or worry that such efforts may "spoil the magic" of the art. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to explore through critique what makes a work of art magical, though - on the contrary, it can help others to see the value in a work that they may be unable to see on their own.

edit: as an addendum, my main problem with viewing aesthetics and their draws to human senses as "objective" effectively negates the reason and meaning of art as cultural, creative, diverse work. Humans want to categorize everything; statistics bombard people everyday, people obsessively make lists, etc. But art is, to me, the one thing that people cannot and should not ever want to be segmented into defined terms of "good" vs. "bad" as a chart or organizational tool would for everyday statistics and information. Art is the penultimate bastion of human expression, and, within this expression lies the beauty which anyone, from an infant to an elder, can recognize; yet no person recognizes all the same things as beautiful. I believe this is testament to the fact that I find aesthetic objectivity to be, in all cases, debasing and pretty much shameful. End of story (imo).

I understand your concern, but like I said, Wicked Wisdom is simply not as expressive and culturally meaningful as Black Sabbath. I don't see why you treat art critique like some scary, destructive thing that dehumanises art. On the contrary, I think it's a great disservice to humanity to allow highly expressive and highly meaningful art to fall to obscurity just out of some notion of equality. It's not just about 'forcing everyone to listen to the same thing' - there can be great art in any style.

 

[muzmaze]

convinced....greatness= PAGANS MIND and TYR in a different way. The only other bands I considered as great and that ruled me years ago was VH and IRON MAIDEN!

 

[Death Aflame]

Not sure why this thread was resurrected, but I'll throw in my two cents. I apologize if this is redundant to people already familiar with the thread (didn't bother reading through it all).

Greatness does exist, but it does not lie in the art object itself, as the initial question assumes rather it is the result of intersubjective deliberation and an eventual critical conclusion over the value of a particular piece of art. This does not mean that 'expert' opinion dictates greatness, merely that it (greatness) requires a consensus from various populations (including critics, experts, and scholars but also larger non-professional subgroups) that collectively come to a decision (synchronously or not) regarding the work's quality. In this way, what defines greatness is people responding to the work, as opposed to some sort of mystical and immaterial set of qualities inherent across all great works. Of course, many people will give well-reasoned and thought-out ideas as to why a work is indeed great (this in itself requires an assumption of innate qualities to art) but since most of it is utterly unverifiable (though not entirely useless), it is a fruitless task to try and determine some sort of set of essential principles of greatness in art. As such I see the initial question as slightly malformed. Reworded, it might be better to ask: How and why do people collectively appreciate certain works of art (canon) over others? What is the real impact of institutional decree and/or so-called expert opinion on art appreciation in culture at large? What about so-called hidden gems, that get little fanfare and popular attention but are regarded by small communities as seminal?

I should also note that because of my position I did not answer the poll, though it may seem that my view is congruent with the final suggestion, I echo Arthur Danto who makes an important distinction between relativity and intersubjectivity. I reject the former and adopt the latter for it retains the subjective nature of the first term, but also displaces its subtly nihilistic nature (i.e. the proposition that any band is as good as any other) since it still allows for informed debate of quality (here distinct from 'value') over particular art objects (there may be no universal criterion of greatness in art but this does not dissuade, in my view, critical comparison with regards to importance, cultural relevance, style, and yes, matters as crude and unscientific as 'taste'). To say Slumber of Sullen Eyes is quality death metal, is not to downplay or obscure other works so much as it is to recognize the uniqueness of the work unto its own--its clarity of expression, particular mode of melodic phrasing, etc.

 

[Vimana]

Relative to the listener.