Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> defends his recent uttrances:

>This is essentially a neo-Platonic or Augustinian view of art -- one, I
>add, which has had rather dangerous political fallout.  If art affects
>society in any way other than to reflect it or to transcend it, then
>one can understand that society or government would want to control it.
>Indeed, we see this happening all the time, and not just in Nazi Germany or
>Soviet Russia or any other obviously thuggish dictatorship, but in elective
>democracies as well.

We both know of examples were art has been used or misused to manipulate
society.  Ergo: Plotinos had a good point here.

>Therefore, I would be extremely careful about making such a statement.

Yes, you can be careful about dipping your gloves of silk in this at all,
but what I try to tell is that others will not.  And when it is raining I
will get wet if I go out, even if I close my eyes.

>For example, what's the harm of Beethoven?

None which I know of.  I wouldn't even hold it against Beethoven that his
"Eroica" symphony was the model for Schoenbergs first [published] String
Quartett.

>Schoenberg?

Because no one in any of the 8 flats of my house, to whom I have played
Schoenbergs avanti-guard music likes it, and they are all normal people.
One person is excluded from the statements of the latest sentence, as he
likes some and is not normal, and thats me.

And now, those who like 12-tone will chime in and say "But all people in
MY house likes 12-tone".

>the Pop Icon du jour?

Well, what do YOU think? S.D.

>What are the benefits?

I don't say that Pop Music can't function fourtunately as a Toynbeean model
of conscensus, but when its parallels has throughout world history, the
fortune has meant being the bridge to other and more refined forms.  A very
natural road as it seems to me.  I want to stress that this must be wiewed
as a deveopment to wider adaptibility and nothing else, else we will soon
wind up in the tedious and not particualry fruitful argument that Mozarts
music must have been more highqualiative than Bachs, as Mozart lived later
(and therefore had more experience and thinking to build his work on), a
"Sackgasse".  Bach, Mozart and Wagner all had high rate of adaptibility.
I do however wiew what was the storm troopers of 20th century music as
having lesser ability to adapt, and thereby being a retardation, which
ended in the great schism of Classical vs.  Pop which we see today.  I am
a sensetive man sometimes, I sence that the 20th century avantgarde has
many fans in this forum (a higher percent than in many groups I believe),
and to those I want to say that I understand that you get irritated on my
aggressive polemics against this music.  But don't misread me: I don't
believe in much of what music fought on the barricades of 20th century.
But that does not mean that I don't think that it as influence can work
positively on the future musicmaking, so that the composers of our century
will be able to compose new pieces of stunning beauty (and goodness!)
without we need to turn the clock back a compose like Bach or Mozart did.
Or Wagner.

>How does classical music -- listened to by a definite minority,
>if sales figures mean anything -- affect society at all?

Mr. Schwartz, You make me sigh.  And probably that was the only point you
had with writing this.

>I wish you would read more carefully and think a little longer before you
>type something onto your screen.

I don't type anything on my screen as I have no tippex at home at the moment.

>Yes, I have heard and even read of these
>things.  All of them are historical categories under which one can list
>certain works of art.  Now tell me how any of them establishes a paradigm
>of good art, which is, after all, what the paragraph was about.

Because I have the similar wiew of what a paradigm can be said to be and
how it "works" like the one you suggested.

>Probably not.  I see that there's something called a Western European
>tradition of art.  However, I also note that Shakespeare differs from
>Sophocles and Shaw differs from Shakespeare.  I myself would contend that
>perhaps this tradition changes with new art, that there might not be such
>a thing as eternal aesthetic principles (although I can't be sure),

Yes, Shaw differs a lot from Shakespeare, still I guess you would be ready
to classify both under "Western European tradition of art".  Also the
writer X, who isn't born yet and of whose writing we therefore don't know
anything in detail, you might also be ready to classify under "Western
European tradition of art" as long as he - these is harddescribed things,
next poster shall not juggle with my choice of words!  - affilates to his
forerunners under certain criteria - one important criteria is "wiewing
things with his cultures eyes" - may his style differ from both Shakespeare
and Shaw.  However I don't think you would ever systematisize a writer like
say Hafiz under "Western European tradition of art".

The issue about eternal aesthetic principles is then a bit trickier.
The question is here why all horses look like horses, or better said: our
ability so percieve visuals and audials stem from that man developed in a
certain milieu under certain condictions.  Kierkegaard said that "nature is
incredibly detailed", and this is an important observation.  Variation
in detail has always been important as the world shall proceed.  Back to
percieving it is interesting to argue that there is a certain form on
conscensus, that I think you have to agree with.  And that is that many
people think a rose smells fresh (or which postitive adjective they might
use to express their experience smelling it).  On the other hand few would
agree on that (excuse me) shit smells particulary nice.  With my inchime
with Kierkegaard I wanted to put this conscensus against variety, where
variety tend to occur on a microlevel (without being far diversified from
conscensuses macrolevel or not able to upgo in it).  It could need a while
to "see" how these two levels interact and both being necessary, and I
think the study of biology, but also art, is a good way of seeing this, as
it may sometimes fall out more clear.  So: It is waste with time to try to
argue that Mozart is greater than Bach or vice versa, because they both
phile to the same sence of variety and conscensus, where the conscensus is
roughly agreed that both are part of Western Art Tradition, but everyone
will choose different Mozarts of Bachs works as their favourite for a
number of reasons which has many to do with which experiences that
particular person has made in his life and without saying that a newborn
mind is an unprinted plate.  I think Mr.Schwartz would be so kind to agree
on this meaning of conscensus, but perhaps when Mr.Schwarz has read his
daily list posts, he walkes out in his kitchen and cooks a pile of shit for
his plate instead of a roast beef=?

>and that this says absolutely nothing about a paradigm of artistic goodness.

Jo, as a paradigm of artistic goodness can only be said to be actively
valid bound in time and geographical location.  You said this with the
words: "It seems to me that the paradigm is only historically, rather
than Platonically, true, only for a brief moment".  I mean roughly the
same thing.  And thats natural.  One might think Platon would have
mumbled something about that no horse is as beatiful as his "horse".

>I have no idea how any of this happens.  After all, I haven't been able
>to get much info from squirrels and worms.

One can learn much from squirrels and worms.  Of course they have never
been ready to take up a discussion like we have now, for natural reasons,
but they communicate in their way of being one with the mother nature.

>These do seem to me simpler questions than how the human mind apprehends art,
>however.  If I can't answer the easy questions, how can I answer the more
>difficult ones?

Why don't you try to do like the squirrels and worms?

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]