Klarinet Archive - Posting 001481.txt from 2004/03

From: ormondtoby@-----.net (Ormondtoby Montoya)
Subj: RE: [kl] [OT] Potter
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:18:52 -0500

I wrote:

> When criticizing Harry Potter, perhaps it's
> better to think in terms of the power of myth.
> In many ways, Iliad and Odyssey are not
> 'great literature' nor 'believable literature',
> especially after having been translated from
> now-dead languages; but they have
> emotional power nonetheless.

> You could have the same argument about
> (say) 1812 Overture vs K.622. =A0 Is one or the
> other of them 'trash'? =A0 Or do they possess
> different sorts of emotional power?

Matthew replied:

> 1812 v K622? One (admittedly effective)
> potboiler against one of the greatest creations
> of mankind?

> Are you predicating your argument on the
> assumption that Iliad and Odyssey are
> examples of the greatest writing?

Matthew, my emphasis was on the word "myth", which means a concept that
is portable from one language (or form of art) to another because it
embodies fundamental outlooks on life that resonate with the human
psyche and across cultures.

Thus I **did* post (see quote above): "In many ways, Iliad and Odyssey
are not 'great literature' nor 'believable literature', especially after
having been translated from now-dead languages."

The question of whether 'good art' requires approval by an *educated* or
*elite* audience (or any audience at all, for that matter) is as old as
the hills; but without attempting to define 'good music' or 'good
literature', I submit that:

(1) Any work of art which people go out of their way to obtain
(including spending their money) cannot be dismissed as 'trash' or
'without artisitc value'.

(2) While K.622 is beautiful music, so is the 1812 Overture. [Some
would argue whether K.622 rises to the level of "one of the greatest
creations of mankind', but it's certainly better than many other
compositions.] The fact that a composition appeals to more fundamental
human responses and does not require training in order to appreciate
does not disqualify it as 'good' art --- no more than (say) a statue of
a nude figure should be dismissed because it appeals to fundamental
human lusts. If an American jazz piece or an Eastern microtonal
composition does not appeal to an educated Western classicist, is it
therefore 'bad art'? Must 'good' art include complexity?

NO, on all counts, imo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org