Not to derail Max’s thread, but Quincy poses fascinating questions. It would be fun (I think) to have a thread on these sometime if we could stay out of political arguments (which I don’t think are such fun -- and I don't mean anything here to be politically provocative). I have nothing to lose professionally from answering, or personally, I hope, so I’d venture this for the nonce:
Painting does not need to be representational. But why can I appreciate late de Kooning, and Rothko and Still, but Twombly and Newman and Pollock leave me pretty cold? Related questions: why do I love Marina Abramovic’s performance art, but most conceptual art elicits a ‘meh’ from me? Why do I adore Warhol, but not Rauschenberg?
Music does not need to be melodic -- I love e.g., Philip Glass. But, for me to like polyphonic music, it seems it must obey the precepts of harmony to some degree. That’s why I dislike serialism or 12-tonal music: to me it is ugly at a 'visceral' level, and the epitome of intellect whelming feeling or emotion in art: indeed, I see it as a predominantly intellectual exercise. BTW Mann’s
Doctor Faustus includes his description of the composition process. Is there something innate or 'objective' in the rules of harmony, or are they only learned? I don’t know. It’s a great question. I wonder, though,
ex ante, if the question can be finally answered: we’re still arguing in philosophy about whether mathematical objects have 'real' or only 'ideal' existence. But I’m not nearly well-read enough in musical theory (musical philosophy?) to begin to answer the question. And to quote the Eagles: the more I know, it seems the less I understand...
As an aside, I prize JS Bach above all others, and I’m caught on this
fugue in B minor from the Well-Tempered Clavier. It seems to me that Bach here anticipates Schoenberg – but he resolves into passages of harmony that are (for me) ecstatic.
Forgive me, Max! I hope this detour isn’t just a tl;dr.