Monologue On Postmodernism and Art - Part IV (final part)

Presence. Yes. This is the ultimate criterion for the evaluation of the great work of Art. Oh, there are just so many examples one can give: the traditionally great artists all have a kind of presence in their works, in particular their late works, as they have come to understand the nature of their mode of expression much better than in youthful times. Shakespeare's The Tempest, T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, Richard Strauss' Metamorphosen (regretfully, a much neglected work)...these are all late works which are particularly sublime: no longer do we have mere pleasant combinations of symbols; rather all these works are incredibly sublime - the work has an extra dimension of presence, which opens up when the audience pays attention to the work, allowing each other (the author and the audience) to feel the standing-forth of the other.

* * *

You: grand proclaimations, my friend. Granted that you are correct, that your "art" has somehow transcends the problem of language, that all visions of art are universally grounded in the experience of being. But what about the epistemological issue that you have put aside: in short, how do you guarantee that this "greatness" in art will actually reach a universal audience?
I: ...
You: For example, let us grant that Bruckner's Fourth Symphony is universally great art in virtue of its presence of "the romantic". But would an African drummer feel this presence, which is supposed to be universal? Conversely, would Bruckner feel the presence of some pagan god embodied by the rhythm of Africian drumming?
I:...
You: Why is it that the popular song listener does not like an 80 minute symphony? You might say that it is because that listener is not musically educated to understand the "art-ness" of it. Well, then, let us educate our listeners! But what are you doing in the act of education? You are imposing your own cultural values onto others such that others will understand your vision of being. There is no doubt that "presence" is important to "art"; but should we also impose just how all of us should experience being? You complain that the so call "lesser popular arts" do not give the audience the experience of being; why can't the argument be turned around? Why can't I say that you don't understand my modern popular stuff, that you are far too prejudiced in your way of presenting presence?
I: What can I say? Hasn't this monologue become a dialogue? Hasn't my attempt to come to unity failed? Haven't I deconstruct my own grand vision of Art?

I am falling; I have fell off the high ground...

*End*