I've just noticed that our original quote does not specify for whom these
creative works are being measured:
> the best measure [of a creative work] judges complexity, finesse,
> cohesion of flavors, and an indefinable but unmistakable sense of
> originality.
I can think of four different queries:
1."how does this work measure up *for me*" -- and since all of us are asking
it all the time regarding every kind of man-made thing that's presented to us
-- all of the above criteria may be -- and probably are - just ignored.
2."how would this work measure up for my friend, Dan Smith" -- which is a more
difficult question -- though again, the above criteria are ignored -- and we
just have to guess what Dan likes. (this is what I'm doing every day in my
record shop -- guessing what my best, long-time customers are going to like -
and buying it for them)
3."how will this work measure up in the marketplace" -- this is the most
difficult question of all -- it's what publishers and producers ask when they
do their job -- and if they're good at it - they can get very rich. (recently
-- a Chicago producer guessed that the musical "Wicked" would do well in our
market -- and he made over a hundred million dollars.)
4."how does this work measure up to some kind of ideal" -- and this is the
impossible question that never stops being asked -- and never stops being
important -- even if it's far less important in a market economy than in some
kind of absolutist monarchy/theocracy.
And it's the one worth debating over in forums like this one.
Regarding the criteria listed above -- like Cheerskep -- I would dump
"originality" -- though, perhaps for a different reason -- i.e. I consider it
superficial.
While I would add something like "spiritual growth" -- a murky notion if ever
there was one -- but relevant, I think, to the greatest achievements in the
history of the arts around the world.
But.. I still wouldn't discount the importance of pleasure -- it's absolutely
necessary for success.
*********************
Cheerskep wrote:
"Believe it, a creative work can have all these characteristics and still be
a stiff."
My remark was prompted by a memory of many eamples of what I called "editors'
novels" when I was in publishing. They were -- like many dead-as-balsa-wood
"well-made" plays -- extremely canny, crafty, complex, integrated in style
and
event, and displayed a uniqueness of setting or character-mix or predicament.
But they lacked other necessary elements -- mainly a galvanic sense of life.
It always startled me to see experienced, capable editors and learned college
English profs produce novels that had all "the ingredients" -- except, say,
believability.
So it's hard to cite examples you are familiar with because they seldom saw
the light of day, or, when they did, they quickly disappeared.
The poems in the New Yorker for many years now often feel the same: the
product of a sophisticated "artisan", but inorganic, plastic, with no
conductivity.
"Originality" admits of no conclusive measure, in that no matter what is
unusual in a work, there will always be someone who says, "Oh, I've seen that
before." They will then cite some very general factor that is seen in many
"great"
works. No matter how freshly Marlowe, Shakespeare, O'Neill et al may display
the factor, the critic will respond, "It's still the same old 'great man
fails
because of fatal flaw' story."
_____________________________________________________________
Online Banking - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlcjFFx8qG0TAS3f7uhBZUid
miSlKe6RU7pAffax18mDf5re/?count=1234567890
