Kivy is quite happy to leave all the works of text-free music out of any discussion of subject and content, but he still wants to call them works of "fine art" -- so he allows that issues of "meaning, message, or sense" do not necessarily have to be raised for everything that is called 'art'.
But he does not apply this assertion to any of the other arts -- indeed, he allows that there may be many "philosophies of arts" (hence, the title of his book) and he does not write much about the others. What I find intriguing is Kivy's demand that expository prose (like that exhibited by philosophy) be the model for subject and content in all the other arts. Because, just as he cannot find a subject for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, I cannot find a subject for Shakespeare's Hamlet. That is, I'd be happy to propose one, but quite aware that it's an issue open to much more debate than, say, the subject of a technical paper about the properties of certain organic compounds. (BTW - C.S. Lewis wrote that the subject of Hamlet was death - that the "Awareness of the ambiguity of what transpires during death pervades Hamletbs thought throughout the play" Really? I'm more inclined to say that the subject is adulthood (Hamlet never achieves it), but I've got allow that the topic is as disputable as any statement about content) While, the possible subject matters for Kandinsky's "Composition Number 8" are so many -- and the rationale for each possibility is so weak -- there's no point to even having a debate. So, I think we must acknowledge that much more that just text-free music should be considered subject free, even as we allow that subject can sometimes be very important. Even if this does leave the importance of many works unprotected by any argument other than personal or institutional approval. ____________________________________________________________ Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9phuCORqjMW6l3thah6Xn 3Pq1oS73xkJgnE5LmjCcZznCxg7c8/
