This post is written in response to an article about J. S. Bach, entitled Unity of the heart and mind in the music of J. S. Bach.

Though you may want to read the whole thing, I’ll summarize. The author introduces the article by noting the division that sometimes arises between intellect and emotion, heart and mind, thought and intuition. “The abstract and academic are seen as artificial, as if learning somehow interferes with the expression of one’s natural self.”

He places Bach’s work in context, where complex baroque music gave way to the simpler Galant style, which seeks to be easily accessible and pleasing to the listener. The remainder discusses Bach’s work and historical context, and the history of a frequent present-day assumption that nuanced thinking and intuition or direct experience are mutually exclusive, in more detail. He closes by noting that since Bach clearly did create work both beautiful to the casual listener and complexly nuanced to the scholar, that Bach’s work demonstrates that these two sides are not mutually exclusive.

Which brings us to my commentary. I wonder about the artist’s intent. Was Bach’s work meant to be beautiful? You’d think so. I might argue that the structure exists to support the music – just as beautiful poetry can be written in strict meter, and can be supported by form rather than bound by it. Certainly there’s plenty of modern art that has a similar relationship. And there’s plenty where the structure – intellectual structure – exists for its own sake, or that the artist did not insist that the art must also be beautiful, or it was impossible to have both, &c. I can appreciate those sorts of things… once I’ve read the placard on the wall, and don’t get me started on that.

Okay, I’ll start. An aside on my own preferences: when I see an object and I don’t know or care what it is, or who made it, or why, and I just like it, or am intrigued by it, or am mystified, or otherwise drawn to it – that’s the good stuff. Learning the details only adds a richness to my already-existing appreciation. I don’t want my work to depend upon the placard. Maybe it’s because architecture doesn’t provide them: I, the architect, walk away, and that’s it.

In the end, assuming adequate skill, I suspect it’s a question of intent.