The "Importance" of High Art

If you visualise art as a road that a bunch of artists are travelling down (ie doing work that is logically/thematically/technically connected) and then someone runs off the road into the bush heading up a hill (ie does some break the mould work) and a bunch of artists start following, or even jumping ahead heading toward an unknown destination on the other side of the hill, then, in retrospect, you can say the original 'new path' work was 'important'. It can be seen as the essential link between what was mainstream and the bunch of work created on the new path, without which the later work could not have been conceived (or appreciated)

Other works can be 'new path' but if no-one follows the lead it just becomes 'crap' or 'weird' or 'a failure' or 'ahead of its time'. Some paths become cul de sacs (eg dada).

Of course determining which work is the mould breaker is the source of much discussion in many forms of art.

Perhaps, but that metaphor doesn't seem pertinent anymore; there have been any number of roads to choose from for more than a century now.

It is simultaneously the most fascinating and (if you take such things seriously) the most confusing things about the 20th (and now the 21st) century: styles have a tendency not to replace each other anymore. New paths don't supplant old paths. Even the 19th century has tended to be described in terms of one or two prevailing styles, at the expense of other things that were going on. I was reading art criticisms from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and came across a literary critic who compared the proliferation of styles to a grocery store: choosing a style to work in was, he said, like choosing items from the produce section. Far from making certain choices seem "important," the sheer variety of choices made each one seem arbitrary.

I wasn't suggesting that there was one road, or that because some artists branch off that all do.

I've been thinking that maybe the 'road' is the audience. Does art exist if it doesn't have an audience? Can the artist themselves be the only audience?

I don't see why not... whatever else "art" may be, it's a status that is bestowed upon something, so I suppose all it needs is a bestower.

What I'm more curious about is if such art can be considered historically important. In the 1950s, Milton Babbitt lobbied to get university support for composition. He argued that classical music deserves to be thought of as a science, with all the prestige implied in that comparison: just as we wouldn't expect the layman to understand quantum physics, we shouldn't expect the layman to understand "advanced" music (by which he meant serial music in general, and his music in particular). Since quantum physics needs niether the comprehension nor the approval of society at large in order to be considered important or great, classical music shouldn't either. Therefore, composition deserves to receive all the academic prestige and privileges--especially in the form of financial support--of the hard sciences. The most infamous expression of this argument came in an article he wrote called "The Composer As Specialist"--a title which the editorial staff of High Fidelity, the journal that published it, aptly changed to "Who Cares If You Listen?"

It sounds ludicrous now (I would like to think), but the astounding thing is that he managed to convince Princeton that he was right. By the 1960s Princeton was conferring graduate degrees--and, broadly speaking, academic prestige--to composers who were writing in a style that was deliberately aimed at excluding as many listeners as possible. The more the better. And once Princeton was doing it, every major university had to do it.

(Babbitt has since claimed that High Fidelity's title change, made without his knowledge or approval, has horribly distorted what he was really trying to say... but he's published plenty of other stuff that's basically reinforced all this.)

I don't know about James Dillon, not being familiar with him or his music, but it sounds like the writers of the above article still endorse--whether consciously or not--this view of artistic "importance." And they're not the only ones. This is what the article got me thinking about, at any rate. Will this way of evaluating high art ever die? Should it? What would it take?

I don't want to sound like I'm over-simplifying, but the designation important work to me means that it is recognized as being significant in its content and well received by music authorities. this can refer to any number of subjects such as: Poetry, Literature, or even Architecture. It doesn't have to be a starting point for new tangents, although it usually is, it can just simply be good. Experts predict such works will stand the test of time, as is the case with "important works" of any time period.

I respectfully disagree, I think if it isn't a new starting point the words used aren't 'important' or 'significant' the words used are more likely 'great' or 'classic'. I'd further argue that the former only occasionally belongs to the latter and the latter never belongs to the former.

That's my question... does that "importance" mean much outside of those music authorities? In this context, is "importance" just a euphemism for a small group of people patting themselves on the back? It makes me think of, say, the Oscars: it's Hollywood giving itself awards for things it does. Does that make the concept of "recognition" a little hollow? I dunno.





This highlights one of the "dilemmas" of music history of the last 150 years or so: the degree to which innovation has supplanted most other criteria. It's one reason why current textbooks refer to the 1800s as the "Age of Beethoven," even though 19th century scholars referred to the era as the "Age of Beethoven and Rossini." Beethoven was an innovator while Rossini "merely" perfected existing forms; therefore the former gets to be in the academic AND the performing canon while the latter is just in the performing canon.

google Franz Liszt, and select the first site Franz Liszt commentary and documentary and the author talks about this very subject. My son is doing an essay for his 7th grade final, and he chose Liszt as his topic. It's quite ironic that this thread came up about the same time my son was doing research.

It is certainly appropriate, as Liszt was at the forefront of that generation of "Hegelian" German composers--The New German School--who coined the term "music of the future" and were obsessed with forward-looking, historically driven notions of artistic progress. I suppose they were right, since that way of thinking about music and art has become our default mode.

There is one point I would like to make about "importance" , It is important to breath, eat and drink, and give God his rightful praise, and part of that praise is by using our talents to their fullest for the praise of God and and to care for our fellow man, Everything else is secondary. So, the actual importance of what we do is two-fold; first it is judged by human standards, and secondly our work is truly important if it is for the glory of God. I know that the atheist will not agree with this, so the only thing left is the human factor, which only leads to frustration and unfulfillment. Therefore, this whole "importance" issue from a human perspective is really of minor significance. If you like something, enjoy it and spread your enthusiasm, but don't be disappointed by those who are not receptive, rather, enjoy the company of those who share your interests. There are critics on both sides of every issue. These issues do bring many people together in debate, such as on this forum, and communicating our thoughts with one another is an important way to keep us connected on a human, intellectual, and Spiritual level.

The atheist isn't the only one who would disagree, I imagine; you don't have to be an atheist to be skeptical about blanket statements concerning the one, universal reason why artists create art and why it appeals to us. Such a statement just isn't possible (nor, in my opinion, necessary, nor desirable). Of course, one can try to articulate why artists should create art and why it should appeal to us, but that brings us into the domain of dogma, no matter what one's reasons are, religious or otherwise. There's quite a lot of music that has nothing to do with the glory of God, either in my reception of it or in the composer's creation of it (so far as we are able to know) that has left me entirely fulfilled and has not led to frustration at all. But all this, I suspect, is an issue for another thread.

There are two reasons why artist create; for good and for evil.

And to pass the time of day.

And because someone asked them to. And because someone forced them to. And to make a few dollars. And for no reason at all. And for all of these reasons.

Any statement (or, less euphemistically, any arbitrary decree) that reduces art's creation to a single reason at best impoverishes it, at worst enslaves it. Indeed,



is frighteningly similar to what Soviet artists in the 1940s and 50s were being told, with the specter of the Gulag looming over their heads.