- 最后登录
- 2023-6-26
- 在线时间
- 542 小时
- 寄托币
- 1153
- 声望
- 88
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-25
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 52
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 244
- UID
- 3137052
 
- 声望
- 88
- 寄托币
- 1153
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-25
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 52
|
本帖最后由 lizaozao 于 2011-11-2 23:51 编辑
Extraordinary creative activity has been characterized
as revolutionary, flying in the face of what is established
and producing not what is acceptable but what will
Line become accepted. According to this formulation, highly
5 creative activity transcends the limits of an existing form
and establishes a new principle of organization. How-
ever, the idea that extraordinary creativity transcends
established limits in misleading when it is applied to the
arts, even though it may be valid for the sciences.
10 Difference between highly creative art and highly creative
science arise in part from a difference in their goals. For the sciences, a new theory is the goal and end result of the
creative act. Innovative science produces new propositions in terms of which diverse phenomena can be
15 related to one another in more coherent ways. Such
phenomena as a brilliant diamond or a nesting bird are relegated to the role of data, serving as the means for formulating or testing a new theory. The goal of highly
creative art is very different: the phenomenon itself
20 becomes the direct product of the creative act. Shakespeare‘s Hamlet is not a tract about the behavior of
indecisive princes or the uses of political power; nor is
Picasso‘s painting Guernica primarily a propositional
statement about the Spanish Civil War or the evils of
25 fascism. What highly creative artistic activity produces is
not a new generalization that transcends established limits, but rather an aesthetic particular. Aesthetic particulars produced by the highly creative artist extend or
exploit, in an innovative way, the limits of an existing
30 form, rather than transcend that form.
This is not to deny that a highly creative artist some-
times establishes a new principle of organization in the
history of an artistic field; the composer Monteverdi,
who created music of the highest aesthetic value, comes
35 to mind. More generally, however, whether or not a
composition establishes a new principle in the history of
music has little bearing on its aesthetic worth. Because
they embody a new principle of organization, some
musical works, such as the operas of the Florentine
40 Camerata, are of signal historical importance, but few
listeners or musicologists would include these among the
great works of music. On the other hand, Mozart‘s The
Marriage of Figaro is surely among the masterpieces of
music even though its modest innovations are confined
45 to extending existing means. It has been said of
Beethoven that he toppled the rules and freed music
from the stifling confines of convention. But a close
study of his compositions reveals that Beethoven overturned no fundamental rules. Rather, he was an
50 incomparable strategist who exploited limits—the rules, forms, and conventions that he inherited from predecessors such as Haydn and Mozart, Handel and Bach—in strikingly original ways.
10. Which of the following statements would most
logically concluded the last paragraph of the
passage?
(A) Unlike Beethoven, however, even the greatest
of modern composers, such as Stravinsky, did
not transcend existing musical forms.
(B) In similar fashion, existing musical forms were
even further exploited by the next generation
of great European composers.
(C) Thus, many of the great composers displayed
the same combination of talents exhibited by
Monteverdi.
(D) By contrast, the view that creativity in the arts
exploits but does not transcend limits is sup-
ported in the field of literature.
(E) Actually, Beethoven‘s most original works were
largely unappreciated at the time that they
were first performed. |
|