But Oliver we will never again have high art like Raphael or Bach;so why try to make the comparsion?
For instance: Bach was devout Lutheran required to produce huge quantities of music for his various princes. Have we had any composers like that since 1800 ?
You are right he is high art, but we don't even experience his music any more in the way he intended it to be heard.
Ha! As if I had anything much to say about Damien Hirst and his timewasting ilk. Lucian Freud is miles better--of course there isn't really a comparison on the same scale. He is skilled and puts genuine effort into every painting. But to me calling something 'high art' has to stand a comparison with the greats. Much of the work of Raphael or Bach is high art, for instance. Too lofty? Maybe. But that we don't have a painter, musician, or other kind of artist of that sort around nowadays is not a reason to elevate the low contemporary standard beyond what it really is, which isn't very remarkable at all.
But Oliver we will never again have high art like Raphael or Bach;so why try to make the comparsion?
For instance: Bach was devout Lutheran required to produce huge quantities of music for his various princes. Have we had any composers like that since 1800 ?
You are right he is high art, but we don't even experience his music any more in the way he intended it to be heard.