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

[Einherjar86]

I find that the biggest thing that lessens the value of art is people who try to define it by specific criteria and create rules that govern what is and isn't artistic.

This is an excellent point.

However, art that breaks away from the norm must be measured against what has come before it. There is a tradition to all forms of art throughout history. Each tradition must be viewed in its entirety. Therefore, each age of an artistic tradition must be set against the one that came before it. The Moderns wanted to break away from the Romantics, the Romantics wanted to break away from the Classicists, etc. However, there is still inspiration drawn from these previous ages. Tenets of an art form are altered and changed based on what came before. There's a direct connection. A work that simply shoots off in a direction without any heed for its predecessors cannot be deemed "great" art, because it lacks the fundamental knowledge of its tradition.

Walt Whitman wrote in a free verse form that was very different from the Romantic meter of the Firesides. However, this isn't because he was unaware of them and simply crafting something free of all influence. He wrote the way he did for a reason, and he carefully chose how he crafted his lines.

 

[skeptik]

The objective greatness in art comes from the simple fact of how it is created.

There are many works of art that are considered great by the institution of art that do not meet your criteria at all; see Duchamp, my favorite example. There are so many various ways in which works of art that are considered great were made that I don't see how you can claim that the way a work of art is made necessitates that the final product of that work is great.

I should think that the simple fact that the creation of art is (or should be) a delicate, specific, difficult and tiring process makes clear the fact that it possesses inherent greatness.

Why? This doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm sure there are a plethora of examples of works of art that were created in the fashion that you insist that you would think are a gigantic pile of shit.

Art that lacks one of the primary components (that I've listed several times) falls short of being great.

Again, why is this the case? What are you basing your criteria on, and why?

I think that all art requires certain fundamental elements; if it lacks even one of them, its greatness is severely diminished.

What are these fundamental elements, why must a work contain all of them in order to not diminish its greatness, and how do you account for the vast amount of disagreement on what is great and what is not?

Based on what you're saying, Dodens, it would be possible for someone to claim that Shakespeare's writing did not possess greatness. I find that to be an impossible claim to make, once someone has taken the time and effort to actually study and interpret Shakespeare, and learn why and how he wrote.

It's true that it's possible for someone to claim that Shakespeare's writing did not possess greatness. I don't understand how such a claim is impossible to make. It's very possible for somebody to feel that way, and he's not necessarily wrong for feeling that way. The very definition and usage of the term greatness kind of necessitates the idea that it's at least somewhat subjective...something is great because somebody perceives it as great. You're not explaining where the objectivity or inherent nature of things comes from or into play.

 

[Einherjar86]

Can you ever explain where something's inherent nature comes from?

But yet I realize this response will only garner more skepticism. Art replaces religion for me. It's something I can worship that I see as redeeming, and it harbors significant innate qualities of greatness. Some people might find my argument odd given the fact that I encourage logical thinking and don't condone decisions based on things such as religion (or even morals, to some extent). But art isn't logical. There are simply certain things that art must have. It must fit in its tradition. It must draw inspiration, and it must possess passion and skill. Certainly the tenets of a certain tradition may change; but they change for reasons that rise from history. All art of a tradition is connected, and therefore it must adhere somehow to the influence of its past.

Furthermore, if you allow people to come to their own conclusions on art without indulging in the study of it, how can we justify studying art at all? Where do we draw the line at what art to study? There has to be an inherent nature to what constitutes art.

 

[Omni]

You're avoiding this question: What are the things art must have and why must art have them in order to be considered art?

Not to mention that no matter what your response is, there will always be examples of art that do not meet your critera, and notably many things that must be considered art that existed before your criteria came into existence. You're stating subjective opinions as facts to call something objective, but can't actually explain objectively why you're right.

 

[skeptik]

Can you explain what an inherent nature of greatness is and why you think it exists?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

But if you're looking for any definition of "greatness" either than something analogous to "the great books" then it should be the final option, pure individual value judgment.

I could accept that. Of course, anyone who believes it's all up to individual taste can still claim that all bands are equally valid even if some of them "stand the test of time" by remaining popular over time. The "great books" theory isn't really any more valid than the talent theory or the passion theory.

 

[skeptik]

What I'm not understanding is why people feel as though classic art is so under fire by this notion that there's no objective truth to their stature of greatness, as though the fact that they're nearly universally acclaimed as such by the institution of art is unimportant.

 

[Zephyrus]

This is turning into a debate on art in general. We need to keep within the subject of MUSIC. Music has fundamental differences from say poetry or sculpture. There are elements of music that cannot be expressed by non-aural media. I feel that these medium-specific elements play a major role in how music is valued by both the elite institutions and the independent listener.

To understand literature you need to be literate. To understand Renaissance painting you need cultural context. But to understand music you need no civilized convention, just the ears and brain given to you by nature.

That is why music shouldn't be assigned the same aesthetic measures as does poetry or theater. And that is why I chose the last option in this poll. The ultimate effect of music on the listener can be properly judged completely independently from context.

 

[skeptik]

Well the issue of objective greatness in art is a debate on art in general, so it's unavoidable.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're avoiding this question: What are the things art must have and why must art have them in order to be considered art?

Not to mention that no matter what your response is, there will always be examples of art that do not meet your critera, and notably many things that must be considered art that existed before your criteria came into existence. You're stating subjective opinions as facts to call something objective, but can't actually explain objectively why you're right.

Can you explain what an inherent nature of greatness is and why you think it exists?

All art is part of its tradition, as I've said. Even art that breaks away from previously practiced tenets (as Blackmail brought up) can still be great. Art that breaks away from previously held tenets is doing so because of those previously held tenets. Art that is created without any knowledge of that which came before it cannot be deemed "great" because it has no fundamental knowledge about its nature (where it came from, what its tradition is, who its practitioners were, etc.). Men like Shakespeare and Duchamp were not ignorant of their tradition. They studied their predecessors; they were influenced by them. They honed their skills and perfected their art (although whether it was "perfect" is another matter). This response to and engagement with the previous work of their tradition is what instills greatness in art. Someone who creates something without any (or with very little) knowledge of the art is not creating art.

EDIT: however, as I said in an earlier post, it's difficult to fit modern music into this debate of greatness, mostly because it's still so new. The tenets of modern music are very different than those of classical. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to distinguish greatness in some of it...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

At this point I'm willing to concede that it's probably impossible to establish an objective standard for artistic validity. However, this also means that the individual preference theory which so many people subscribe to here is no more valid than the talent theory or anything else.

Despite this, I do believe that each of these theories holds weight for at least some percentage of people, so as long as you're discussing music with someone who shares your theory you can reach a fairly accurate consensus which transcends the intractability of personal preference.

The very existence of quantified music reviews (along with the fact that many people find such reviews useful to them) shows that there are at least some people out there who subscribe to some theory of music evaluation other than personal preference. It's not like you can just dismiss these theories entirely.

What I'm not understanding is why people feel as though classic art is so under fire by this notion that there's no objective truth to their stature of greatness, as though the fact that they're nearly universally acclaimed as such by the institution of art is unimportant.

Because, according to the personal preference theory, it IS unimportant. But as I've stated above, there are plenty of people who don't subscribe to that theory.

 

[skeptik]

Einherjar, if art is objectively great, then it doesn't need history to prove it.

Edit: Also, this:

"Someone who creates something without any (or with very little) knowledge of the art is not creating art."

is very wrong.

 

[Zephyrus]

Well the issue of objective greatness in art is a debate on art in general, so it's unavoidable.

I needed to read Plato's Republic before I could call Shakespeare's Tempest "great".

I needed to read the Bible before I could call the Sistine Chapel ceiling "great".

I did NOT need to read history to call the 1812 overture "great" and I didn't need to read the lyrics to call In the Nightside Eclipse "great".

 

[skeptik]

None of that has anything to do with objective greatness you homo. There are other problems with what you said but they're not worth addressing.

 

[Zephyrus]

At this point I'm willing to concede that it's probably impossible to establish an objective standard for artistic validity. However, this also means that the individual preference theory which so many people subscribe to here is no more valid than the talent theory or anything else.

Again, you're fooling yourself if you let any "theory" take precedent over your personal subjectivity.

 

[Zephyrus]

None of that has anything to do with objective greatness you homo. There are other problems with what you said but they're not worth addressing.

I'm saying that if there is a way to measure objective greatness in music, it is not measured the same way as literature or visual arts. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Einherjar86]

To understand literature you need to be literate. To understand Renaissance painting you need cultural context. But to understand music you need no civilized convention, just the ears and brain given to you by nature.

That is why music shouldn't be assigned the same aesthetic measures as does poetry or theater. And that is why I chose the last option in this poll. The ultimate effect of music on the listener can be properly judged completely independently from context.

This may be true for modern music, but not classical music. There are distinct traits and characteristics than can only be appreciated by studying the history of the composer and his time period.

 

[Zephyrus]

This may be true for modern music, but not classical music. There are distinct traits and characteristics than can only be appreciated by studying the history of the composer and his time period.

Bullshit. I grew up listening to classical music having no idea of context, and I loved it and still do.

You can train your ear to hear the depth of music, but again, you don't need context to focus in on it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Einherjar, if art is objectively great, then it doesn't need history to prove it.

Yes it does, because it is the historical tradition that instills the greatness in art.

Edit: Also, this:

"Someone who creates something without any (or with very little) knowledge of the art is not creating art."

is very wrong.

Well, that's very nice that you think so; but I don't know why you think so...

All artists fit into a movement within their tradition. They cannot succeed in doing so without having knowledge of their tradition.

 

[skeptik]

I'm saying that if there is a way to measure objective greatness in music, it is not measured the same way as literature or visual arts. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Your examples, for starters, reflect a superficial appreciation of the music, but that should be obvious and not even need addressing.

Secondly, if art could be identified as objectively great, there would be at the very least some overlapping between the arts as to what entails greatness.