Re: "Serious" IF (was Re: Gareth's competition comments)


20 Oct 1995 11:51:07 -0400

In article <464e6r$kb4@life.ai.mit.edu>, David Baggett <dmb@ai.mit.edu> wrote:
(First, my insightful comment...)
>>What's the "absolute sense?" Who decides what criteria are used to judge
>>a painting/book/game/whatever?
>
>The standard question!

Dismissive, aren't we? ;)

>Well, the reader/reviewer does, initially. Ultimately, the public at
>large.

So whether it's "good" is a HUMAN decision. I rest my case. Oh, wait,
there's more...

> At this point one can only predict that _HIStory_ will be unknown
>in 2500 while _Messiah_ will still be cherished. We certainly don't know
>for sure. But we *do* know the answers to the analogous question for Bach
>vs. (say) Telemann. So whether or not you or I can quantify this "absolute
>sense," it exists --- in the colective mind of the public.

Is that the criteria? Length of time that the work of art survives?
Heck, we know public tastes change from decade to decade. The "fashion"
in classical music shifts almost yearly. When Amadeus (the movie) came
out, it sparked a Mozart craze.

Some of the oldest English-language poetry, BTW, is essentially filthy
limericks and the like. But hey, they've proven their artistic worth -
right? They're OLD! (I'll stay away from what that implies about Bob Hope.)

>This seems to be the crux of the relativistic view of art --- that HIStory
>is just as good as (or not comparable to) _Messiah_ because they're
>fundamentally different things, and that each is as good at what it tries
>to be as the other. I think this is a cop-out.

Not what I said. I said the two aren't comparable.

>I don't think it's rigged if you look at the *fundamental* things that make
>Bach's music great. Look at form and content. Bach's music is intricate;
>it rewards extended study. It's also (in most cases) *about* something.
>HIStory is technically simple (i.e., in terms of the mechanics of the
>music; the craft) and isn't about anything compelling either.

Now you're guilty of exactly the thing I accused you of: judging HIStory
by standards more correctly applied to classical music. Listening to
Michael Jackson isn't about intricate melodies and extended study.

How did I end up defending Michael Jackson, anyway?

>HIStory doesn't lose because we view good music in terms of what Bach did.
>It loses because it's neither interesting from a technical point of view
>nor a thematic point of view. It's catchy, perhaps. Great. That gives it
>about 10 years of life. Maybe 50 if it's *really* catchy.

The length-of-time thing again. I'm not buyin' it. If that's the main
criterion, there's no way to judge art that's currently out there.

<Clippity-clip>
>>I fully agree, and I'm not saying all things are equally good.
>
>You didn't say that, I know, but my point is that this kind of relativism
>degenerates into the view that all things might as well be equal, because
>we can write off any absolute statements as differences in context, or
>intent, etc.

Doesn't have to, just so we define our terms in advance.

>>Now, is Bach better than, say, Handel? That's worth discussing.
>
>But it's still a pointless discussion, isn't it? Because you can convince
>yourself that since Bach was writing music for religious purposes alone
>while Handel was earning the public's affection and cash, that they were
>writing in different contexts, and that comparisons aren't fair.

Ahah! I knew you should have been the one to go to law school! That was
worthy of Johnny Cochran himself! :)

But you've hit upon the crux of the issue - how narrow do you make your
catagories? I don't claim to know the answers. Bach and Handel are more
comparable than Bach and Mozart. Bach and Mozart are more comparable
than Bach and Michael Jackson. I don't believe you can't make artistic
judgments (once again, THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY - YECH!) but I do
believe that the further and further apart the goals of two "artists"
are, the more meaningless such comparisons become.

These are fuzzy things here. You seem to want hard-and-fast numerical
ratings on things, and that just can't be done - it's ART!

(Perhaps we should continue this in e-mail; while it might be sort of
interesting to this group, since they might get an idea why you wrote
LEGEND and I wrote UNNKULIAN UNVENTURE 1, it's become sort of off-topic.)

-----
Dave Leary
(Nope, my views don't represent UMAB...good thing, huh?)

"I've been of thousand devils caught,
And thrust into that horrid place,
Where reign dismay, despair, disgrace." -- George Crabbe