Could You Train Yourself To Enjoy...

[Town Heretic]

"Owe" is a strong word.

I'd hope so. I believe we owe people a level of civility absent offense and that if two people are having a back and forth they owe one another reasonable consideration and an attempt to respond in kind.

Anyway, when I wrote that Doser's post was a "fair question," I wasn't referring to his comment on people not liking Shakespeare (which seems to be what you responded to).

I only see Doser when he's echoed in someone else's posts and I don't tend to read that part. I did think Shakespeare would be a good way to speak to artistic greatness and how it impacts and is fathomed. Comparing his work with Jackie Collins, by way of. Or to go from one end to the other, comparing it with the average freshman composition.

Which you did not respond to.

I actually did go into his greatness and some of what makes his work great, though my treatment was meant to be an opening, not an exhaustive study.

So two queries, now.
What makes either Rothko's painting or Shakespeare's speech objectively great?

Shakespeare was a master of form, to begin with, but he took that form and placed his innovative stamp on it. So much so that the language changed because of his writing. Great painters, artists of all sorts leave their mark on their medium of expression, alter and influence it beyond their work. The greater the work, the more impactful and the longer that influence is sustained, rippling out even beyond the realm of art when you reach the transcendence of real genius, to influence the larger culture as it does individuals, artists and observers alike.

That's a starting point. It can make judging greatness by degree problematic, though there are some whose degree is largely understood within their lifetime. Mozart was like that. Shakespeare was like that. Van Gogh wasn't, for a number of reasons. His work was so outside the aesthetic of the day that people didn't know how to value it. But his revolutionary sensibility laid the groundwork for other radical artists to stretch that expectation and broaden the palate so that Picaso and others could enjoy renown within their lifetimes. Impressionists in general had a hard time getting people to understand what they were attempting to do to the form. Monet struggled initially, as did Gauguin.

 

[ok doser]

asked for objective criteria, town manages to fail:

(not a single objective criteria)

 

[glassjester]

So much so that the language changed because of his writing. Great painters, artists of all sorts leave their mark on their medium of expression, alter and influence it beyond their work. The greater the work, the more impactful and the longer that influence is sustained, rippling out even beyond the realm of art when you reach the transcendence of real genius, to influence the larger culture as it does individuals, artists and observers alike.

Those are all effects of greatness, not objective measures of greatness.

For a work of art to be objectively great, you would have to be able to measure its greatness even with zero societal impact. Even if no one ever saw the painting/ heard the symphony/ read the script, but you, alone in a room.

Otherwise, you're really just saying, "Well I don't know if it's great yet - let's see how people react to it." In which case, your "measure" is completely subjective.

 

[Town Heretic]

Those are all effects of greatness, not objective measures of greatness.

No, I noted a mastery of form as the beginning point and that's objective and technical in particulars. Do you want to talk about Shakespeare's grammar, his use of literary device, pacing, ect? Or would you rather examine his expansion of device and language? I'd say that's the foundation that begins to separate. An idea, even a great one, without seamless execution, suffers. Beyond that, genius impacts, and so my larger note on distinguishing between a work no one will think to remember and one that insinuates itself into the fabric of society and changes how we use language.

Greatness isn't about popularity, but it is about impact. Shakespeare isn't greatly popular in our age, but his impact remains and that impact is significant and ongoing.

For a work of art to be objectively great, you would have to be able to measure its greatness even with zero societal impact.

Only because you pigeon hole greatness. I don't think you can do that. I'm trying to answer you, not accommodate your expectation.

Even if no one ever saw the painting/ heard the symphony/ read the script, but you, alone in a room.

If no one ever sees, reads or hears it there's no point in talking about how it's valued, objectively or else.

Otherwise, you're really just saying, "Well I don't know if it's great yet - let's see how people react to it

No, that's what you appear to want it to say in order to sustain your desire on the point. People don't determine the greatness of art, but they will, one way or another, reflect it. So that even the guy who doesn't know Shakespeare speaks in a language that is still greatly shaped by his work and likely admires artists who are using that impact in their own work.

 

[ok doser]

...mastery of form ....

is that an objective measure?

Greatness isn't about popularity, but it is about impact.

by that measure, the author marx was great, the author hitler was great

and the author bammy is a miserable failure :chuckle:

 

[glassjester]

Yeah... I don't see how a master can be objectively defined as someone who has mastery. Seems circular.

 

[glassjester]

No, I noted a mastery of form as the beginning point and that's objective and technical in particulars. Do you want to talk about Shakespeare's grammar, his use of literary device, pacing, ect? Or would you rather examine his expansion of device and language?

We're just kicking the can down the road.
How can someone's use of grammar be objectively great?
How can someone's use of literary devices be objectively great?
How can someone's pacing be objectively great?

(These questions are a bit rhetorical.)

I'd say that's the foundation that begins to separate. An idea, even a great one, without seamless execution, suffers. Beyond that, genius impacts, and so my larger note on distinguishing between a work no one will think to remember and one that insinuates itself into the fabric of society and changes how we use language.

Greatness isn't about popularity, but it is about impact. Shakespeare isn't greatly popular in our age, but his impact remains and that impact is significant and ongoing.

And impact, no matter how large, is a subjective effect of a great work - not what makes it great... or is it? Are you arguing that The Tempest (or any other of Shakespeare's works) was not a great work at the moment it was written (prior to any societal impact), but only became great later on?

Only because you pigeon hole greatness. I don't think you can do that. I'm trying to answer you, not accommodate your expectation.

No, I don't think I should do that, either. And I'm not doing that. I'm not the one insisting that greatness is objective.

If no one ever sees, reads or hears it there's no point in talking about how it's valued, objectively or else.

So greatness is determined by "how it's valued" ?
If so, is that not completely subjective?

No, that's what you appear to want it to say in order to sustain your desire on the point. People don't determine the greatness of art, but they will, one way or another, reflect it.


So that even the guy who doesn't know Shakespeare speaks in a language that is still greatly shaped by his work and likely admires artists who are using that impact in their own work.

See above, about impact as effect rather than cause.

 

[ok doser]

We're just kicking the can down the road.
How can someone's use of grammar be objectively great?
How can someone's use of literary devices be objectively great?
How can someone's pacing be objectively great?

(These questions are a bit rhetorical.)

too late!


the parsemeister doesn't recognize "rhetorical"! :banana:

See above, about impact as effect rather than cause.

:doh: yer sposed to say "supra"

 

[ok doser]

folly though it's proven to be in the past, perhaps we should be defining terms

merriam webster Definition of objective 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

note: i picked 3a because it has "art" in the definition/example :banana:

 

[glassjester]

:doh: yer sposed to say "supra"

I understand that you're making some kind of joke here, but I do not understand what the joke is...

 

[ok doser]

it's a toyota joke

 

[Town Heretic]

We're just kicking the can down the road.

Good. That was my sense and approach.

How can someone's use of grammar be objectively great?
How can someone's use of literary devices be objectively great?
How can someone's pacing be objectively great?

I'd say (and argued prior) that greatness begins with a mastery of the form. A great musician has spent years on exercises that lead to precision and control of his instrument. A writer is a similar animal. Grammar, pacing/structure and usage are second nature, like key signatures to a musician. All artists learn the trade first, excepting some prodigies who appear to be born with near innate talent. Then the artist will inevitably process the works of others who came before him. Eventually he begins to find his voice.

And impact, no matter how large, is a subjective effect of a great work - not what makes it great... or is it?

I'd call it a reflection or grasping and appreciating the intrinsic quality of the work and how it speaks to the human condition.

I'm saying great art has an impact, first (and sometimes largely) within its discipline, which is why you hear musicians talking about artists that influenced their work. Individuals are similarly moved by and influenced to varying degrees. The cream of that crop transcend their medium and influence the culture. Some influence on a global level.

Are you arguing that The Tempest (or any other of Shakespeare's works) was not a great work at the moment it was written (prior to any societal impact), but only became great later on?

I'm saying it's pointless to speak about a piece of art without an observer, unless you're speaking to its historical impact.

Art exists as two things, the empirically observable components of the particular form and the impact of that form on the individual and the collective. So, is there a subjective element to art? Unquestionably, but there's something beyond that at work, which is why few confuse a Burma Shave ad with a sonnet in terms of quality and value, or a Hallmark commercial with Hamlet.

I'm not trying to reduce art to a particular set of principles. If you could do that, beyond the question and qualification of form, everyone with artistic aspirations and patience would produce timeless masterpieces. Art isn't really paint by numbers. I'd suggest it approaches the religious in that regard.

I'm not the one insisting that greatness is objective.

I think that's a hard term to apply to art except in observation of its impact.

So greatness is determined by "how it's valued" ?

I'd say how it's valued is a reflection of its greatness, which is why great art can survive transplanting to different languages and cultures that within them contain far different values and estimations of all sorts of things.

 

[ok doser]

I'd say (and argued prior) that greatness begins with a mastery of the form.

good


then you can show us explicitly where shakespeare demonstrates "mastery of the form" here:

KING HENRY V Call in the messengers sent from the Dauphin. Exeunt some Attendants Now are we well resolved; and, by God's help, And yours, the noble sinews of our power, France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe, Or break it all to pieces: or there we'll sit, Ruling in large and ample empery O'er France and all her almost kingly dukedoms, Or lay these bones in an unworthy urn, Tombless, with no remembrance over them: Either our history shall with full mouth Speak freely of our acts, or else our grave, Like Turkish mute, shall have a tongueless mouth, Not worshipp'd with a waxen epitaph. Enter Ambassadors of France Now are we well prepared to know the pleasure Of our fair cousin Dauphin; for we hear Your greeting is from him, not from the king. First Ambassador May't please your majesty to give us leave Freely to render what we have in charge; Or shall we sparingly show you far off The Dauphin's meaning and our embassy? KING HENRY V We are no tyrant, but a Christian king; Unto whose grace our passion is as subject As are our wretches fetter'd in our prisons: Therefore with frank and with uncurbed plainness Tell us the Dauphin's mind. First Ambassador Thus, then, in few. Your highness, lately sending into France, Did claim some certain dukedoms, in the right Of your great predecessor, King Edward the Third. In answer of which claim, the prince our master Says that you savour too much of your youth, And bids you be advised there's nought in France That can be with a nimble galliard won; You cannot revel into dukedoms there. He therefore sends you, meeter for your spirit, This tun of treasure; and, in lieu of this, Desires you let the dukedoms that you claim Hear no more of you. This the Dauphin speaks. KING HENRY V What treasure, uncle? EXETER Tennis-balls, my liege. KING HENRY V We are glad the Dauphin is so pleasant with us; His present and your pains we thank you for: When we have march'd our rackets to these balls, We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard. Tell him he hath made a match with such a wrangler That all the courts of France will be disturb'd With chaces. And we understand him well, How he comes o'er us with our wilder days, Not measuring what use we made of them. We never valued this poor seat of England; And therefore, living hence, did give ourself To barbarous licence; as 'tis ever common That men are merriest when they are from home. But tell the Dauphin I will keep my state, Be like a king and show my sail of greatness When I do rouse me in my throne of France: For that I have laid by my majesty And plodded like a man for working-days, But I will rise there with so full a glory That I will dazzle all the eyes of France, Yea, strike the Dauphin blind to look on us. And tell the pleasant prince this mock of his Hath turn'd his balls to gun-stones; and his soul Shall stand sore charged for the wasteful vengeance That shall fly with them: for many a thousand widows Shall this his mock mock out of their dear husbands; Mock mothers from their sons, mock castles down; And some are yet ungotten and unborn That shall have cause to curse the Dauphin's scorn. But this lies all within the will of God, To whom I do appeal; and in whose name Tell you the Dauphin I am coming on, To venge me as I may and to put forth My rightful hand in a well-hallow'd cause. So get you hence in peace; and tell the Dauphin His jest will savour but of shallow wit, When thousands weep more than did laugh at it. Convey them with safe conduct. Fare you well. Exeunt Ambassadors EXETER This was a merry message. KING HENRY V We hope to make the sender blush at it. Therefore, my lords, omit no happy hour That may give furtherance to our expedition; For we have now no thought in us but France, Save those to God, that run before our business. Therefore let our proportions for these wars Be soon collected and all things thought upon That may with reasonable swiftness add More feathers to our wings; for, God before, We'll chide this Dauphin at his father's door. Therefore let every man now task his thought, That this fair action may on foot be brought. Exeunt. Flourish

you can start by defining exactly what you mean by "the form"

I'm saying it's pointless to speak about a piece of art without an observer

in which case you are relying on the subjective opinion of the observer

as you learned with shakespeare, not all people have the same opinion of his work

 

[glassjester]

I'd say (and argued prior) that greatness begins with a mastery of the form. A great musician has spent years on exercises that lead to precision and control of his instrument.

Sure. He's spent years learning to make sounds that people (and/or the artist himself) tend to enjoy... quite subjectively.

A writer is a similar animal. Grammar, pacing/structure and usage are second nature, like key signatures to a musician. All artists learn the trade first, excepting some prodigies who appear to be born with near innate talent. Then the artist will inevitably process the works of others who came before him. Eventually he begins to find his voice.

Similarly - the "master" writer has spent years learning to put words together in a way that people (and/or the artist himself) tend to enjoy.

I'd call it a reflection or grasping and appreciating the intrinsic quality of the work and how it speaks to the human condition.

I'm saying great art has an impact, first (and sometimes largely) within its discipline, which is why you hear musicians talking about artists that influenced their work. Individuals are similarly moved by and influenced to varying degrees. The cream of that crop transcend their medium and influence the culture. Some influence on a global level.

That sounds about right.

I'm saying it's pointless to speak about a piece of art without an observer, unless you're speaking to its historical impact.

Art exists as two things, the empirically observable components of the particular form and the impact of that form on the individual and the collective. So, is there a subjective element to art? Unquestionably, but there's something beyond that at work, which is why few confuse a Burma Shave ad with a sonnet in terms of quality and value, or a Hallmark commercial with Hamlet.

I'm not trying to reduce art to a particular set of principles. If you could do that, beyond the question and qualification of form, everyone with artistic aspirations and patience would produce timeless masterpieces. Art isn't really paint by numbers. I'd suggest it approaches the religious in that regard.


I think that's a hard term to apply to art except in observation of its impact.


I'd say how it's valued is a reflection of its greatness, which is why great art can survive transplanting to different languages and cultures that within them contain far different values and estimations of all sorts of things.

I think I agree with everything written above.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure. He's spent years learning to make sounds that people (and/or the artist himself) tend to enjoy... quite subjectively.

But objectively speaking there's a skill set in every art form that takes a great deal of time and effort to master. It's one important distinction between Yo-Yo Ma and someone's ninth grade recital. It takes years of training to reach a proficiency the masters of an art share.

On the larger issue of relationship between art and value, impact and origination.

That sounds about right.

I think I agree with everything written above.

Pleasure working through all of this...enjoyable. :cheers:

 

[ok doser]

Similarly - the "master" writer has spent years learning to put words together in a way that people (and/or the artist himself) tend to enjoy.

and so, "mastery of the form" includes such diverse forms as those used by Joyce, Carroll, Faulkner

“I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.” 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. “There was a wisteria vine blooming for the second time that summer on a wooden trellis before one window, into which sparrows came now and then in random gusts, making a dry vivid dusty sound before going away: and opposite Quentin, Miss Coldfield in the eternal black which she had worn for forty-three years now, whether for sister, father, or nothusband none knew, sitting so bolt upright in the straight hard chair that was so tall for her that her legs hung straight and rigid as if she had iron shinbones and ankles, clear of the floor with that air of impotent and static rage like children’s feet, and talking in that grim haggard amazed voice until at last listening would renege and hearing-sense self-confound and the long-dead object of her impotent yet indomitable frustration would appear, as though by outraged recapitulation evoked, quiet inattentive and harmless, out of the biding and dreamy and victorious dust.”

:darwinsm:


wait a tic, I believe Carroll wrote about town:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

:mock:humpty towny

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure. He's spent years learning to make sounds that people (and/or the artist himself) tend to enjoy... quite subjectively.

Well, no. He's spent years mastering a technical process that enables him/her to become greatly proficient in playing a musical instrument. For a prodigy that natural talent comes a lot easier for others and some could never reach certain echelons of that height at all. Bobby Fischer was an undisputed genius where it came to chess. People can study chess for their entire life and not come close to replicating that or other grand masters of the game, simply because not everyone has that innate ability to see all the permutations of a position on a board up to 28 moves ahead including their opponents best counter moves.

A concert pianist is expected to play to an incredibly high standard of accuracy, and that's not subjective. It seems as though this is just getting circular now as I think you'll continue to argue that any acclaimed piece in the field of the arts can be seen as 'subjective' on personal reaction or some such no matter what. That's up to you but I'm "choosing" to be bored by the thread now so best to leave things as they are I think. I'll find Beyonce songs boring no matter what so hey...

I'll leave the thread open for anyone who wants to continue and even the trolls if they're at that much of a loose end...

 

[ok doser]

challenged to provide objective measures of greatness in art, artie thrashes about like a flounder on the deck of a trawler and manages to come up with:

...spen(ding) years mastering a technical process....

congratulations!

that's an objective, measurable quality! :thumb:

:think: Beyonce's been working at her craft for 28 years

...that enables him/her to become greatly proficient...

ohhhh :doh:

sorry, that's a subjective evaluation :nono:

however, if we objectively measure proficiency by commercial success.....

All six of Beyonce's solo studio albums have surpassed a million in sales, and all of them also debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart. Beyoncé's net worth is around $450 million.

...play(ing) to an incredibly high standard of accuracy, and that's not subjective...

define "an incredibly high standard of accuracy"

:think: betcha Beyonce's studio work is all autotuned and is pitch perfect


so, by the two objective measures you managed to come up with (and the one subjective measure), Beyonce is a musical genius


good job artie! :thumb:

 

[The Horn]

A lot of people think they don't like opera , because they've seen ridiculous misleading caricatures of it , such as fat people in pseudo Viking costumes, and photos of rich people in opera boxes dressed to the nines, but then when somebody finally takes them to an opera performance, they're hooked, because they realize that opera is WAY COOL !
I became a huge opera fan when I was only about 13 , and discovered myself , and I've never regretted it .

 

[serpentdove]

A lot of people think they don't like opera , because they've seen ridiculous misleading caricatures of it...

:AMR:

The wickedness of Sodom ([Ex 20:14]

heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) was notorious (Gen. 13:13).