GreatArt

Context: AestheticRealism

I'm debating great art over in the comments here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u-IYE0oH9o&lc=UgwpSadljjzLvl4vNsJ4AaABAg.A3dhj2kz6X2A3fcLxb9CvR

I'm saying :

​ @michaelwu7678 I think we understand each other. In particular I understand the distinction you are making between the inherent intrinsic qualities of something vs their effects. (Or what I'd call the "relational" or external properties)

I'm just pushing back with, what you might consider, a rather unorthodox position, but one which now makes the most sense to me : that these external or relational properties of art ARE part of what constitutes the notion of "greatness".

Think about what art is FOR. It's a cultural phenomenon. Its job is, in some sense, to be circulated between / or a communication medium between us humans. It's how humans talk to each other and talk together.

Now consider the "internalist" position on "greatness of art" in that light. That art is a shared cultural artefact, and yet somehow, mysteriously, its criteria for "success" and "failure", and for "greatness" and otherwise are completely independent of, and detached from, its actual usage in those shared cultural activities.

When I contemplate that, I find it much more counter-intuitive.

In fact I think it's no wonder that people find it so difficult to come up with and articulate a theory of greatness of art, when they start by perversely detaching art from its embedding as a cultural phenomenon in society, and insist on focusing only on internal structural qualities. There is such a breadth of structural variation across different genres and cultures, that trying to pin down greatness to a particular set of those seems a lost cause.

Can you find similar internal structural properties in both "a great 3 minute punk single" AND "a great baroque opera"? Structural properties that are also NOT found in bad 3 minute punk singles and bad baroque operas? It's hard to come up with many ideas at that structural level for what the greatness shares that the non-greatness lacks. OTOH, you might well find commonalities in the affections that great works in both genres create in their respective audiences.

That doesn't mean this needs to be a naive relationship, where the top of the Spotify charts each week is "the best" music. Clearly other criteria are involved. But I think it's even more outlandish to think that greatness in art can be completely independent of how other humans receive it.

Does that mean that if the genius writes something on a piece of paper and locks it in the draw and it's never played and never heard then it is, by definition, "not great". I'll bite the bullet and accept that consequence. I'm happy to say that it "could have been" great. Or counterfactually in another possible world it would be great. But is it "great art" in this world? No.

Transcluded from BadMusic

See also :

• BadMusic