The heritage of music

King Arthur and the Critics

Since it will be unhesitatingly agreed that some encounters with works of art in fact appreciate their worth only inchoately or not at all, the truth of the above (quasi-) statement can be readily demonstrated. Then, since whatever is actual is, necessarily, possible, the truth of the “possibility of aesthetic experience” is demonstrable, by implication. But meaning, not truth, has always been the philosopher’s game, his professions to the contrary notwithstanding, their outcomes sufficiently telltale. Because there is no agreement, least of all unhesitating, upon the meanings of the philosophical and therefore conceptually volatile terms, “aesthetic” and “non-aesthetic,” it will take some fair share of argument to show that all of us ought to believe that the concept, aesthetic disinterestedness, is the fundamentum divisionis. This is what we are here for. Analysis of this concept requires a further distinction, however. Since “disinterested” is often properly predicated of modes of experience into which art does not enter at all, the de-fining must also set boundaries between those experiences and aesthetic disinterestedness.

The heritage of music

Citations

King Arthur and the Critics

The Actualities of Non-Aesthetic Experience

Related Papers (5)

The heritage of music

In the round: the circular heritage of country music

Unauthorising popular music heritage: outline of a critical framework

Cultural Heritage, Diversity, Functionality, Education of Music in a European Context

Music as intangible cultural heritage