Karl Miller wrote:

>I would be most interested to know the origin of the notion that art must
>be limited to that which has some subjective notion of "beauty." For me
>art can open my mind to different perspectives, it can be troubling,
>challenging, provocative, etc.  It can touch my emotions and my mind.
>While I may feel uncomfortable with another's anger, the expression of that
>anger can open me to my own emotion and thinking, and, from my perspective,
>that is ultimately good for the spirit.

A good point.  There is much great music which is not particularly
beautiful.  I don't think that Mozart's Fortieth Symphony is as "beautiful"
as the Concerto for Flute and Harp, yet it is by far the more interesting
and expressive work.  Vaugh Williams' Fourth Symphony is decidedly not
beautiful, but the Lark Ascending is IMHO the most beautiful piece ever
written.  Ives' The Unanswered Question is not noted for beauty but I don't
know of any other work which has so much food for thought (and ears) in
such a short duration.  But of course They say that beauty is in the ears
of the belistener.

Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University