Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!allegra!dep
From: dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry)
Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Progress, the Arts, Razor Blades and Bull
Message-ID: <3096@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 13:49:38 EST
Article-I.D.: allegra.3096
Posted: Thu Feb 28 13:49:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 20:34:26 EST
References: <8347@brl-tgr.ARPA>, <109@spar.UUCP> <963@hound.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.music:6294 net.music.classical:935

<progress: eating the good stuff and leaving the bull>

Given some (esthetic?) standard of what represents the high point
in the arts, you can talk of progress towards that goal and decline
from it as well.  The problem seems to be that the definition of
the standard keeps changing in the arts (as in other fields as well).

There certainly seems to be devlopment along particular lines of
thought (eg, the romantic development from von Weber - or Beethoven -
through to Scriabin) where there is nothing more to be done, youve
taken that line as far as it can go.  In one sense you can call
that progress.  But what do you call the jump from the height of
romanticism to the atonality of Schoenberg, etc.  That is really
taking a different path.  Further, while I am willing to admit that
there may be some sense of development from the earlier to the
later, that has very little to do with which I prefer.  So, it seems
to me that one could say that there has not been progress but
regress. 

I'll settle for exploration and development of different
musical theories.  I am not sure that you can make a case for
progress in the underlying theories at all, though there is
very much the flavor of constant revaluation of works of art
in the light of different esthetic theories.

Esthetically yours - Dewayne