Jonathan,
Lots of Mozart's work was written specifically for kings and princes, so it
was pandering in a way. Some of his own work he hated, but he needed money.
I can see how you find his stuff weak, but there's so much of his stuff that
sounds nothing like the typical Mozart sound you usually hear. Personally, i
think Beethoven's work is more life-affirming than Mozart's. But, Mozart
mostly wrote concertos, and Beethoven was all about string quartets and
symphonies, so maybe it's just apples over oranges.
And what ever happened to 'art pour l'art?' Art for art's sake? I know that
not all art can be this way; there has to be some social context or some
pointer to a higher purpose. But some art (I think of Dali here) is
expressive of emotions, desires, or dreams, and has no tangible social
message. It's my opinion that all it takes for good art to be produced, like
Pirsig says in ZAMM, is for the artist to enter the state of consciousness in
which nothing exists outside the work being done. Then the work produced will
have value. . . . Of course that doesnt exclude technical ability, which is
something one must develop with time.
But you are right in saying that art must have some kind of static Quality to
prevent it from being forgotten. Although the Dynamism is what sells a
piece, it must have value at a static level to be considered good art.
rasheed
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST