Great works?

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread someone suggested that a person who stated that they did not appreciate what are known as "great works" (perhaps including art, music, literature) was "unfortunate".

I ask on what that statement is based.

If a person truly appreciates the art of Norman Rockwell or Robert Bateman (wildlife artist) MORE than the works of Michelangelo or Picasso, are they "unfortunate" (or "uneducated" or "unsophisticated" as some have stated elsewhere)?

If a person has little or no interest in music in general or for "great music", are they somehow deprived or deficient? If so, why?

If a person has little or no interest in fictional literature ("great" or otherwise), are they "unfortunate" somehow?

Who determines what constitutes a "great work"? Is it a matter of consensus or general acceptance? Is it history? Is it based upon the opinion of "experts" or "educated" or involved people? Is determination based upon popularity (or popularity among certain groups)?

[McCulloch]

In a current thread someone

Who would that someone have been ?

suggested that a person who stated that they did not appreciate what are known as "great works" (perhaps including art, music, literature) was "unfortunate".

I stand by that statement. A person who does not appreciate the greatness of humanity's achievements in the arts is missing out on a wonderful experience.

If a person truly appreciates the art of Norman Rockwell or Robert Bateman (wildlife artist) MORE than the works of Michelangelo or Picasso, are they "unfortunate" (or "uneducated" or "unsophisticated" as some have stated elsewhere)?

How you perceive greatness is necessarily subjective. To me, Bateman is great. Rockwell, not so much. My wife does not understand the greatness of Santana's Abraxas. Whereas John Dowland puts me to sleep.

The comment was intended to convey the idea that if there is nothing in the arts which you can see as being great, if there is no work of human creativity that you cannot keep returning to and finding new meaning, beauty or insight each time, then you are a poor unfortunate soul. Whether you find that subliminal greatness in the visual arts, performing arts, literature, music or cuisine, it immaterial. Whether you seek insight from the classical greats or something more contemporary is also not the point. I personally believe that we become richer by understanding and experiencing all of the greatest from as wide a variety of the arts as we can.

Those who limit themselves to what they perceive as sophisticated, also miss out. The exquisite sensation of dining on Ethiopian injera and and several portions of wat, in no way diminishes one's appreciation of a New York steak topped with grilled mushrooms, and served with an asparagus risotto.

If a person has little or no interest in music in general or for "great music", are they somehow deprived or deficient? If so, why?

Two questions. If a person has little or no interest in music, then I feel that person is missing out on a great pleasure in life. In a sense, then deprived. However, if a person does not appreciate the same music that I like, then that person merely has a different taste than I do.

Who determines what constitutes a "great work"?

Greatness is subjective and will change.

[Zzyzx]

.

suggested that a person who stated that they did not appreciate what are known as "great works" (perhaps including art, music, literature) was "unfortunate".

I stand by that statement. A person who does not appreciate the greatness of humanity's achievements in the arts is missing out on a wonderful experience.

No person’s idea of what others are “missing out� on has bearing beyond themselves. It is purely personal opinion.

Many religionists proclaim that those who do worship their “gods� are “missing out�. They set themselves or their preferences as the standard by which others are to be evaluated.

How is this issue different?

If a person truly appreciates the art of Norman Rockwell or Robert Bateman (wildlife artist) MORE than the works of Michelangelo or Picasso, are they "unfortunate" (or "uneducated" or "unsophisticated" as some have stated elsewhere)?

How you perceive greatness is necessarily subjective. To me, Bateman is great.

Of course, Bateman is Canadian (just kidding, just kidding)

Bateman’s work is not considered by anyone I know of as be among the “Great Works�, therefore those who appreciate his works more than recognized “masterpieces� are regarded as “unfortunate�. Correct?

My connect to Bateman stems from being married at one time to a wonderful woman and exceptional artist who painted in much the same intense detail that characterizes his work and who focused on much the same subject matter. He was one of her “mentors�.

The comment was intended to convey the idea that if there is nothing in the arts which you can see as being great, if there is no work of human creativity that you cannot keep returning to and finding new meaning, beauty or insight each time, then you are a poor unfortunate soul.

That is a matter of personal opinion – not a statement of fact.

If a person lives a happy, satisfying life without awareness of works of human creativity, how are they unfortunate? Let’s take as an example the man who raises crops and animals very successfully and lives well with a fulfilling life by his own standards but couldn’t tell a Rembrandt from a Warhol. Who is to say that he is “a poor unfortunate soul�?


Is it because the “non-appreciators� have “missed out on� what others consider significant human achievement? Is appreciation of “human achievement� a necessary and important component of being other than “unfortunate�?


My interests are very different from what are expressed by most people – and are of no interest to them. For instance, I am very interested in the Earth’s landscape and landforms – and have studied intensively how landscape features are formed. River terraces, drumlins, eskers, cirques, faults, rock strata, etc, etc occupy my attention and have been the subject of intensive research in the past. To most people those things mean nothing at all. Who am I to say that they should be interested or appreciative?

I have absolutely no interest in commercial “sports� and am not a spectator at “events� of any kind – and watch no television or movies. Am I somehow deprived or unfortunate? Who decides? Do the preferences of others obligate me to perform to their standards or be considered “unfortunate�?

Whether you find that subliminal greatness in the visual arts, performing arts, literature, music or cuisine, it immaterial.

And, if I find “subliminal greatness� in nature – every day -- that is where I live – (as a resident of a rural Ozark Mountain area of Arkansas), surrounded by beauty of nature that I deeply appreciate.

Whether you seek insight from the classical greats or something more contemporary is also not the point.

Why is either important to keep me from being “unfortunate�?

I personally believe that we become richer by understanding and experiencing all of the greatest from as wide a variety of the arts as we can.

You are entitled to experience and appreciate the arts and to consider yourself fortunate. However, that does NOT entitle you to deem others “a poor unfortunate soul� if their interests are different.

Those who limit themselves to what they perceive as sophisticated, also miss out. The exquisite sensation of dining on Ethiopian injera and and several portions of wat, in no way diminishes one's appreciation of a New York steak topped with grilled mushrooms, and served with an asparagus risotto.

My equivalents for eating fancy foods (or at famous or renowned restaurants – which mean nothing at all to me) are fly fishing for trout in mountain streams, hiking mountains, canoeing quiet (or fast) streams, enjoying the solitude of the few acres my wife and I own, working in our garden or our workshop.

If a person has little or no interest in music in general or for "great music", are they somehow deprived or deficient? If so, why?

Two questions. If a person has little or no interest in music, then I feel that person is missing out on a great pleasure in life.

That is your personal opinion. It might be prudent to say, “If I did not appreciate music I would feel that I was missing out on a great pleasure in life� (and thereby not attempt to project one’s personal preferences onto others).

“Missing out on a great pleasure in life� is no valid criteria for evaluation of the tastes and preferences of others. A great pleasure in life for some may be watching dog fights – are others “missing out on a great pleasure in life� if they do not participate? Is this done by consensus, popularity, majority vote?

In a sense, then deprived. However, if a person does not appreciate the same music that I like, then that person merely has a different taste than I do.

How is that different from a religionist saying, “Everybody should worship some “god� even if it isn’t the one I worship. If they do not do so, they are deprived or unfortunate.�

What of the person who prefers the sounds of nature over man-made noise (including rhythmic noise identified as music)?

Who determines what constitutes a "great work"?

Greatness is subjective and will change.

Thus, there is no such thing as universal “great works�, correct? What some consider great may mean nothing to them at a later time and may mean nothing to others – subjective and subject to change.


It seems to me as though many or most people are inclined to think along the lines, “What is important to me should be important to others� (and perhaps regard non-appreciators� as deprived or unfortunate) – whether the item of concern is religion, music, art, history, nature or trout fishing.

“I and my compadres (or those with whom I agree) set the standards of what should be regarded as important in life and those who differ are unfortunate.�

[McCulloch]

That is a matter of personal opinion – not a statement of fact.

Yes, it is.

[Abraxas]

My wife does not understand the greatness of Santana's Abraxas.

Wait, what?

Anyhow, I have always considered the idea of "great works" to be a subjective one at best, especially the field dedicated to analyzing them and finding new hidden meanings and dimensions on every examination.

At the same time, I think unfortunate is not an inaccurate description, of someone who cannot enjoy or appreciate a work of art or literature that so many others do, just for having less enjoyment in general.

[Lux]

Personally, I have found some art pieces commonly denominated as "great works" to be overrated. The most clear and famous example I can think of is the Mona Lisa (I think I might have caused my Louvre tour guide a small stroke when I mentioned that).

[McCulloch]

Personally, I have found some art pieces commonly denominated as "great works" to be overrated. The most clear and famous example I can think of is the Mona Lisa (I think I might have caused my Louvre tour guide a small stroke when I mentioned that).

In my opinion, James Joyce, Ulysses it the most overrated crap going.