Concerning 'complexity', I would say that a masterpiece should make us aware that things can be more complex than we previously realized.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > "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" >
