[Kalessin]

Aiwendil, your reply illustrates perfectly the dichotomy I attempted to explain earlier, and my particular way out of it (or through it, or behind it etc. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). In Tolkien's works we have something that is arguably either popular or good, and naturally wish to settle the question.

It seems to me as though this debate engenders two antithetical arguments - one, that there is an absolute objective truth of art (even if it is so complex and multi-faceted that we cannot fully conceive it) in which aesthetic qualities can, in theory, be empirically measured as accurately and reliably as various physical properties (as in your analogy). In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties. In this way, art that is popular can to some degree at least be deemed 'good' because of the pleasure it brings to a larger number of individuals than other art. But equally, as far as the individual is concerned, they need not necessarily accept a collective consensus and can simply maintain their own valid, subjective experience of any particular work.

My position is that both of these arguments co-exist and are meaningful - not because the world of logic has gone mad, but because we are human beings and what we are talking about is art (in other words the world of logic has gone mad [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit. As I said, the expression of art, and our experience of it, is one of contradiction, duality, of inarticulacy, of emotion codified in abstract language. Cudae's point about the (often over-emphasized) mathematical aspect of music illustrates my point. Music could equally be seen as languistic, a form of abstraction - but one that remains rooted in the physical, in the senses we use to perceive it. You could say that if art is a language, some speak it more eloquently than others, and you could cite the rules of grammar ... but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar. It is not correct grammar that gives language conviction, passion or even imagination. What linguistic rules can be applied to decide whether something is imaginative? Or, more pertinently, that something will excite the imaginations of the audience?

I see it as a contradiction - that, clearly, works of art have qualities, that we can all recognise as inherent to art (even if we disagree about which art most exemplifies them), and which to some degree we can quantify in terms of aesthetic theory. Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid - remember, your relationship with a work of art can almost be like a private conversation ... the amazing thing is the artist made up his/her contribution without knowing what you were going to say! And I accept this contradiction as a means by which I can exercise both critical judgement and maintain a personal experience. As a musician, I would be gratified if my audience received my work in the same way (as long as they like it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).

As far as the passionate debate about Britney vs Mozart goes, I can only say that I am reminded of famous conductor Thomas Beecham's quip when asked "Have you heard any Stockhausen?", to which he replied "No, but I believe I may have trodden in some."

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin