I’m not sure how to phrase this, but having seen art from around the world, and listened to music from around the world, it seems to me (with my obvious western bias and layman’s perspective) that they are both far superior to art or music from anywhere else in the world.
e.g from the art world, we have this, this, or this
There are some very nice Asian paintings that, while pleasant and relaxing to look at, don’t approach the awe-inspiring technique and form achieved by the western master artists. Same goes for African or Native American art.
Similarly with music (western vs Asian/African/Native American/etc music). e.g. think of Beethoven, Mozart, etc
I would venture to say architecture also (are there any buildings outside the West that match the beauty of, say, the Parthenon?)
Specifically, I’m referring to art/music/architecture that cultures of the past have come up with, not things that are created today.
The reason I’m bringing this up is that
I recently came back from a museum visit with an exhibit of art from around the world, and, to me, the art from Europe put everyone else’s to shame (talking about stuff older than 100-200 years old)
There is a lot of talk about how all cultures are equal, in some sense, and you can’t judge one culture’s achievements (e.g. in art) as superior to another’s.
But, observation tells me otherwise.
Anyway, my question for you: Is art from around the world “equal” in beauty/value/achievement/whatever and I’m just horribly biased? Or is the level of achievement in the arts in the west acknowledged by experts to be superior (even though it may not be politically correct to say so)?
To answer your question quickly: Yes. Art from around the world can be equal to or better than European art, and I must admit that my first thought was that you were “horribly biased”.
I’ll give you a few examples from India:
Architecture: The Taj Mahal is absolutely stunning, and a fine example of superb craftmanship. And how about the Kailash Temple? - carved out of a mountain it is one of the world’s great architectural achievements. Or the Jain Temple in Ranakpur that has some of the most exquisitely carved columns and pillars you’ll ever find. Examples are, in other words, plenty.
Music: The Indian Classical music tradition is very old - codification of formal rules began in the first centuries AD. The music can beautifully evocative - much more than Western Classical IMO - and many Indian musicians have reached levels of performance that are absolutely stunning. Try searching youtube for names as Zakir Hussain, Vilayat Khan, Nikhil Banerjee… The thing is that - unlike architecture - it can be very difficult to “translate” music from one culture into another; often there are fundamental differences in the perception of what music is or should do, resulting in types of musical expression that are so unlike Western music that it can be difficult to truly appreciate.
The same thing goes for the visual arts, sculpture & painting - much of our inability to see the greatness stems from our lack of cultural & historical knowledge. If we try to view Indian art through Western eyes, we’ll probably be disappointed. (And I’ll admit that I have yet to see an Indian painting that matches the quality of expression that you find in the European masters.). A lot of the “art” from around the world was never ment to be percieved as such, and removed from their proper context and placed in a “World Art Exhibition” betrays the value of the piece and flattens the possibility for appreciating it in other ways than the purely aesthetic. YMMV of course.
I am sure that others will come around to show you examples of stunning art from all over the place - this thread could become a good one.
Ok, I’m a Renaissance art historian-- the most canonical of the canon–and while that’s my gig, I heartily disagree with you. I think your (not YOU but generic you-raised-presumably-in Europe or the US) brain has a set of Western standards that are programmed in as ‘criteria of excellence’-- linear perspective, ‘realism’, shiny oil paint, lots of detail, whatever. The three examples you provided, for example, make me shrug (especially the David painting-- ugh!). Awe-inspiring is pretty subjective.
Nonwestern things that blow my freakin’ mind:
The Kailashantha temple that Panurge mentions. THAT is absolutely amazing-- that thing is EXCAVATED that way.
Any of Mimar Sinan’s buildings-- splendid (but I’m not sure if you count Islamic/Ottoman stuff as western)
Borobodur.
Chinese and Japanese painting-- what really blows my socks off are the Song-era landscapes and the Rinzai Japanese works along those lines. Like Sesshu-- absolutely gorgeous evocative atmospheric stuff. A lot of the handscroll painting is great, too-- like the Choju Giga. And of course the Edo-period printmaking.
I find a bunch of the precolonial mesoamerican manuscripts to be completely brilliant. And the ritual complexes–like at La Venta or Tenochtitlan-- are amazing.
The sculpture from Sanxingdui-- a Chinese culture we don’t know much about. Tlingit and Haida sculpture! That’s stuff’s outstanding. Yoruba sculpture!
I find that the more I know about nonwestern art the more I see how awesome it is–it IS different in a thousand different individual ways from the European tradition, but it’s all great.
Which museum was that? Is there a website? One exhibit in one museum is hardly enough to make such a harsh judgement. You need to do some more observing. Art history books & educational TV are great. But seeing the works in person are better–any more museums in your area? Where do you live?
I’ll admit architecture is hard to appreciate from a distance–but even pointing & clicking will show the awesomeness of, say, Islamic Architecture.
What commonality is there in, say, a classical Greek sculpture and a La Tène brooch that would let you group them together, and oppose them with a Chinese Tang horse sculpture and an Aztec pectoral?
Also, I’d be very hesitant to draw any conclusions from one museum exhibit. Especially one in a Western museum, where, IME, Western art is broken up into minute subcategories for all ages of art , while other cultures often are lucky to get a country and approximate century on their label.
It depends on what you mean by “superior”. There is no objective standard for judging good and bad in art. Only each viewer’s subjective opinion.
When we look at a piece of art we interpret it though our own framework of aesthetic rules: “more realistic is better”, “symmetry is important”, “simplicity is superior”, and so on. Your own aesthetic framework is influenced by the society you’ve grown up in, so it’s not surprising that Western art and music should feel superior to you.
Part of what art appreciation is is recognizing the fact that you have an aesthetic framework and learning how to shift between your natural framework and others. Instead of expecting African art to appeal to your American/European sensibilities, can you recalibrate your sensibilities to understand what Africans were getting out of African art?
Can people who brought up great examples of non-western art provides some links?
Agreed, to a degree.
Nevertheless, if we take the example of African art (e.g. masks/faces carved out of wood), I believe that, while they may be aesthetically pleasing to many in their own way,
(a) Europeans passed that level/type of art thousands of years ago,
(b) Almost any adult who is half-decent with his/her hands can get very close to creating one of those. How many can get close to creating a Pieta?
Also, it would be interesting to see what non-Westerners think of the works of the great masters of the arts from Europe, in comparison to great works from around the world. If there is a general consensus among people from other cultures that culture X’s art is of high quality, that would say a lot, since those people would not be operating under a Western-culture bias (I can’t think of a way to quantify this. Maybe the prices art works get at auctions, but that is not a good indicator, since it is mostly westerners who buy them)
By the way, even though western art reached the heights of achievement it did (e.g. the links I gave in the OP), that doesn’t mean I want to have those things in my house. In fact, in my house I have mostly abstract paintings (so no photo-realistic depictions of life). But I can still look at the works of the masters and appreciate the amazing heights of achievement that they represent.
You seem to be under the misconception that art is something that progresses (toward greater realism or just “forward” in some way) through a series of distinct phases. This is only true for a very limited segment of even European art, and the example you give (the Pieta) is not great art because it looks “real”, but because it conveys an idea (a rather complex one) in a stunning way. The same thing can be said about the African masks & figurines. You might think that it is easy to make, but the amount and complexity of ideas and concepts invested in one of these would probably surprise you (and me, too - I don’t know much about African art).
Remember that a lot of the stuff you (we) label as “art” (European or otherwise) was never meant to be percieved in a purely aesthetic frame of reference - this certainly goes for Michelangelo’s work, as it does for a lot of the “non-European” stuff.
Have you considered how the context in which you’re viewing these artworks might be influencing your impression? A lot of Western art (especially painting) has been conceived for display inside a building, and so a painting is naturally going to look good hanging on a wall.
Not every culture conceives of art in the same way. When you look at a West African mask (for instance) in a museum, you’re seeing it stripped from its original context and situated in a museum environment for which it was never intended. Compared to the high polish of the European sculptures that you cite, the African mask might appear less technically distinguished… but if you were able to experience the mask within its original cultural context, you might find a new appreciation of it.
Take a look at this clip of a Dogon masquerade from Mali: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1h6R1jQPmw&feature=related (it really gets going after the 12th second). You’ll notice that the masks are just one element within a much larger and intricate ensemble, which includes dance, drums, and ritual–not to mention the elaborate costume and headdresses, which are frequently separated from the masks when put on display in a Western museum. I can’t speak for you, but I know that I personally couldn’t choreograph such a ritualistic performance, and I can’t imagine dancing in one of those outfits (and trust me, you really don’t want to see me dance AT ALL. )
In most Western museums, non-Western art just doesn’t “work” as well as it would in its original context. To be fair, many museum curators are aware of this, and try to recreate some of the cultural environment for their exhibitions of non-Western art. However, it’s impossible to fully recapture the ambience of the Dogon dance that I linked, so as a result you’re often left with these decontextualized objects set up alongside lots of informative texts–which just isn’t the same thing.
Even though the mask is just part of a bigger ensemble, and even though European art was made specifically to be displayed, no matter the underlying reason, the latter still requires a skill level and represents a higher achievement (IMO) than the former
Your video brought up another point. Listen to the music. It’s just some people banging on some drums. No matter how you cut it, Mozart’s and Beethoven’s masterpieces are light years ahead in artistic achievement.
Artistic achievement is synonymous with greater ‘skill’?
If, listening to the music, you only hear ‘some drums’, then this very much demonstrates how your inherited and acquired cultural background simply does not provide you with the knowledge or understanding necessary to appreciate all artistic creation equally. And, by extension, how it is impossible to have a fair, impartial assessment of which is ‘ahead’ of others.
Do the people in the video think that Mozart’s music is un-worthy? Do they need to know the cultural background of Europeans to appreciate it? (Maybe so, I don’t know)
IMO, if I we were to transmit one piece of music to space, to show aliens our level of civilization, I would transmit something from Beethoven or Mozart and not someone banging on a drum, no matter how rhythmically he does it.
Not surprisingly (based on the responses in this thread), NASA disagrees with me, and when they sent music on the Voyager spacecraft, they included many types of music.. However, I wonder what they would send if they could only send *one *piece of music.
By the way, is there no one who, at least partially, has an opinion in line with the OP?
When I wrote the OP, I knew there would be many defenders of “all art is equal”, but I wanted to get some feedback from anyone who thought otherwise. No one?
The OP might want to read The Creators by Daniel J. Boorstin, who advances a similar theory that Western art distinguishes itself from other parts of the world because of religious and political roots that advance the notion of democracy and individualism to encourage innovation and imagination instead of a fiercer adherency to cultural tropes and traditions. I don’t want to be overly reductive in his thesis (and its certainly not an inarguable one), but he makes a case that art should always be exploring new perspectives, and while individual examples of art from other cultures and countries may show exemplary craftsmanship, insight, and emotion, they still come from a larger tradition that’s resistant to change and more devoted to formal rules and conventions. I hesitate to state (since it’s been years since I read it) that he claims Western art is “better”; but he does make the case that western art has a greater sense of progress, momentum, and pluralism in style and technique that make it unique in global history (though, obviously, that is inextricably tied to advancements in technology and communication). Now of course, those aren’t necessarily the only things of value in artistic works, but they are the values that he chooses to focus on.
Have you ever heard of Google? Click on that word, then type in a word or phrase. Hit Enter & many links will appear. Point & Click. That’s how I found the link to Islamic Art, above. Here’s the first result of a search on Non Western Art; there are a few dead links, but Google indicates there are many similar sites. People actually teach classes on appreciating Non-Western Art. Check other posts here for interesting subjects; how about the amazing & mysterious art of Sanxingdui, China? (You could do well just clicking around Wikipedia, in fact.)
Have you ever heard of Pablo Picasso? He was practically a prodigy, creating extremely skillful art quite young. But he didn’t stop there. In fact, he was strongly influenced by African art.
Are you good with your hands? Just how easy is it to make a wooden sculpture? Learning about the practical aspects of art will help you appreciate it. In your spare time, learn some history & anthropology.
I live in Houston, Texas. The MFAHis too new to have huge collections of antiquities & “native” arts looted from their home countries. But prosperous, cultured immigrants have begun sponsoring non-western collections. The Menil’s holdings include African & Pacific art; the de Menils loved the Surrealists–who loved the Pacific cultures. Our Museum of Natural Science includes non-Western art–usually in environments that explain the societies that created the art.
Where do you live? What museum figured in your OP? You need to use your local resources to expand your education.
What’s your background in western art? Have you taken a class, read a book or watched educational TV? Phrases like “amazing heights of achievement” make me think not.
An orchestral symphony is certainly more complicated. It requires large groups of people working together to execute properly. Because of the difficulty of the the individual parts, most of the participants have trained their whole life for their roles, so clearly its the product of a stable, prosperous society.
The thing is, you could say the same thing about a professional football match.
Would a video of a professional football match communicate to space aliens “our level of civilization”? Would it be “superior” to a concert by a Balinese gamelan orchestra? Or a reggae jam session? Or an orchestral concert by a modern minimalist like Steve Reich?
Yes, Mozart’s music could sound thoroughly and completely alien, perhaps incomprehensible or meaningless, to somebody who has a background which has not led them to encounter European classical music in any form (perhaps tangentially, musicians in Mali will have myriad influences including African pop music, with all sorts of western influences along the way).
This phrase really does seem to show an unwillingness to attempt to understand or involve oneself with unfamiliar art forms, rather than a wish to explore the reasons cultures have for developing their own self-expression.
In any case, what’s the obsession with people who’ve been dead for hundreds of years, if you want to show the pinnacle of cultural progression?
“It’s the sort of thing you’ll like, if you like that sort of thing.”
Depending on the critical framwork you pick, you can make any work of art “superior” to the rest. Let’s pretend the most important criteria for a true work of art are “authenticity, community & continuity”. “Individual expression, sponteneity & originality” are mere distractions. True Art is the expression of the soul of a culture, not the narcissistic noodlings of an individual.
By these standads, the Malinese Dogon dance is True Art. Mozart is not.
It’s a pointless game to play, arguing which is superior. Each has its own charms and strengths.
It could sound thoroughly and completely alien, but do you have a cite or personal anecdotes to show that it does?
Two reasons
When we talk about today, with all the globalization, it’s hard to say what is European, what is Asian, etc. Going back 100 -200 years ago makes it much more easy to compare art and music genres that evolved in each culture.
Cultural progression isn’t a monotonic function. That is, it doesn’t always go up as time goes by. For example, I consider “modern” symphonies (not sure what the proper term is, but symphonies where there isn’t much melody and just some instruments playing at seemingly random times) to be vastly inferior to the classical ones.
FTR, I listen to modern pop, rock, techno, etc, and I don’t listen all that much to classical music.
)
