"from the very beginning of this book, my aim has been to elucidate general principles of the arts in terms of evolved adaptations"
"i want to sketch the general characteristics that inhere in the very greatest works of art, the masterpieces that have withstood Hume's test of time" 1. Complexity: "presenting audiences with the highest degree of meaning-complexity that the mind can grasp" "complexity does not mean complicatedness but rather the densely significant interrelations of, say, poetry, plotting, and dramatic rhythm in a play like "King Lear" "artistic masterpieces fuse layer upon layer of meaning into a single, unified, self-enhancing whole" "the greatest works of art unite every aspect of human experience: intellect and the will, but also emotions and human values of every kind (including ugliness and evil) "the finest works of art draw us into them in order to yield up the deep, intricate imaginative experiences. They are marked by the utmost lucidity and coherence" So Dutton's notion of "great art" is Romantic, and is best exemplified by the long, dramatic works that were popular in that era. It's hard to see how a piano sonata, lyric poem, Chardin still-life, or an abstract painting could ever qualify. Which doesn't mean that such lesser things cannot be valuable and important - but only that they offer less. And I would tend to agree. More is more. A full meal can be more satisfying than any snack. (even if you love snacks) 2.Serious Content: "The themes of great works are love, death, and human fate." "Artistic masterpieces need not be solemn and can end joyfully ...but even when they do, they are not merely jolly and amusing, and offer an implicit nod, if not to a darker side of human existence, then at least to what might be termed a realistic view of the finitude of life and aspiration" "the arts that do not attain greatness through prettiness or attractiveness can be illustrated by considering the ambiguous place of sexual acts in art" Which, again, would locate all purely instrumental music and abstract painting somewhere lower than "the high white peaks of art" That sounds a bit severe - but after all -- nobody, except Buddhist monks, can live on mountaintops forever. I do question his exclusion of eroticism, however - and Dutton goes on to explicate this further: "Sex itself is just too simple...pure eroticism by itself is no more likely as a theme for great art than purely green and pleasant Pleistocene calendar landscapes are a likely theme for the greatest paintings. An enduring masterpiece that presented a perfect, pretty landscape would probably use it as, say, a background for the Expulsion from Eden than as a central subject in its own right" Interesting comment, don't you think? Dutton's notion of great painting coincides with that of the French Academy, c. 1880. He'd let Manet;s bargirl in, but keep Monet's landscapes out. "The evolutionary implications of waist-to-hip ratios for art history are not unlike the evolutionary implications for the presence of sweetness in food. That sugars are in all cuisines -- does not mean that a bowl of corn syrup will ever be dinner" But while sugar may taste sweet to every human tongue -- the sexual act is not necessarily "simple", and is not portrayed that way in the sculptural programs of certain medieval Hindu temples, or in the pornographic themes of Ukyo-e. But overall, I still agree with Dutton's elevation of serious content (even if plenty of non-serious stuff has passed Hume's test of time - especially Chinese ceramcis, which I don't think have any theme at all) 3.Purpose: "authenticity of artistic purpose -- a sense that THE ARTIST MEANS IT" -- and Dutton goes to Libertarian and conservative columnist, Charles Murray for further explanations. (taken from his book "Human Accomplishment") "the greatest art tends to be created against a cultural backdrop of "transcendental goods" - a belief that real beauty exists, there is objective truth, and the good is a genuine value independent of human cultures and choices -- which enables the "moral vision" that is characteristic of the most enduring art" (Dutton) To quote Murray: "extract its moral vision, and Goya's "The Third of May, 1808" becomes a violent cartoon. Extract its moral vision and "Huckleberry Finn" becomes "Tom Sawyer"..... Art created in the absence of a well articulated conception of the good is likely to be arid and ephemeral" "Murray's conclusion that artistic masterpieces will be more likely found in cultures and times committed to transcendental goods that are justified by religious faith is backed up by the phenomenal strength of the arts in the Italian Renaissance, as it is by the decline in great art in cynical, ironic ages like our own" As I noted in my discussion of Chapter 9, these assertions would tend to contradict Duttons' claim that "The arts are not essentially religious, moral, or political", and I am just as impressed as he by the visual arts of Renaissance Italy , though I would extend that period by a few hundred years in both directions. Not only are the greatest painters of the 17th C. way above the best that our generations have offered - they are above the greatest names of the 20th and 19th Century as well. Manet may have admired Velasquez, but when the "Philosophers" that he painted in tribute are placed side-by-side with the Master's, they fall way, way short. But finally, Dutton does note that "absolute seriousness of purpose comes ultimately from an individual, not just a culture...and the committment of many of the greatest artists comes from within them and is addressed to their art, its problems and opportunities, and not to their philosophy or their religion" So in his final word, Dutton backs off from disparaging "art for art's sake" -- but I don't -- if we allow that every artistic mountain doesn't have to be as high as the Himalayas. 4. Distance: "There is a cool objectivity about the greatest works of art: the worlds they create have little direct regard for our insistent wants and needs; still less do they show any intention on the part of their creators to ingratiate themselves to us" "the polar opposite of which is "kitsch"" - and "a love of kitsch is essentiallly self-congratulatory" -- as exemplified by "The Doctor" painted by Luke Fildes where the painting gives us "not pity and admiration, but a sense of complacency in own own pitifulness and generosity" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Doctor_Luke_Fildes.jpg ) "The kitsch object openly declares itself to be "beautiful", "profound", "moving" or "important" . But it does not bother trying to achieve those qualities, because it is actually about its audience or its owner. The ultimate reference point for kitsch is always me: my needs, my tastes, my deep feeling, my worthy interests, my admirable morality" But I wonder -- are the themes of all "genre paintings" self congratulatory -- or is it specifically the theme of "Doctor attending to poor, sick,child" -- Or is it just that Fildes has treated it in this way ? This issue needs so much more discussion - and yet Dutton tosses it off with a few sentences at the end of his book. I might allow that a theme about the salvation of the world is greater than a theme about doctors trying to help sick children -- but I don't see why the latter theme should be necessarily scorned as self-congratulatory. What about the self-congratulation that's involved in the recognition of aesthetica superiority that Clive Bell seems to have had in spades? Dutton also raises the example of Durer's "Praying hands" as a sculpture. But why is the sculpture any more self-congratulatory than an original print ? Some people congratulate themselves for their wholesome piety -- others for their cynical sophistication. How is the one necessarily any better than the other? The issue of self-congratulation leads, itself, to more of same -- so isn't it better left alone? Isn't painting ownership always about self-congratuation? CONCLUSION: All of which finally leads Dutton to his final sentence: "Preoccupied as we are with the flash media and bussing gizmos of daily experience, we forget how close we remain to the prehistoric women and men who first found beauty in the world. Their blood runs in our veins. Our art instinct is theirs." Which is rather self-congratulatory , isn't it? At least it asserts that it's only natural for us to turn on the game station
