To continue the comparison with visual art...
I would argue that there is an element of "understanding" in non-representational art, which is the understanding of the intent. That is, you cannot grasp "subject matter" as in a picture of something, but you can grasp theoretical subject matter, for instance that an abstract painting might be intended to make one ponder on the universality of form (the canvas is blue because "blue" is going to be experienced more similarly by all different people than an actual scene, which is likely to be culture-specific, etc.). In my experience, this theoretical type of musing is often intended by "modern" art/literature. The problem is that much of it seems like nonsense unless the concept is fully explained. I think the question, therefore, is whether it is legitimate for "art" of any kind to need so much explanation; whether that hinders our appreciation.
Personally I would agree that a blend of meaning and interesting/innovative form is desirable. To emphasize form it is not necessary to isolate it from meaning--but perhaps in the course of art history artists have felt that such a radical divorce was necessary to prove a point.
::Marilyn::
|