intrinsic value vs market value / popularity

To believe in intrinsic value regarding art, one needs to assume that an objective value of beauty also exists--one not based on market value or popularity.

Belief in afterlives, reincarnations, miracles, divinities, and so on, all fundamentally depend on a more basic belief in an immaterial soul - or at least in the existence of a nonphysical, nonmaterial realm. Likewise, a true belief in art is also predicated on an underlying conceptual framework that depends just as absolutely on a belief in abstract criteria of worth. This notion, which is profoundly out of fashion today, has formed the underpinning of artistic endeavor in the West for a very long time. Adherents of this idea believe that even if societal fashions or institutional structures are opposed to a particular artist or work, some essential greatness (or lack thereof) will ultimately determine the worth of the art object if given the chance. And even if the work is never recognized, it is still of equal (albeit latent) value. In other words, a Rembrandt hanging in the woods would still be great even if no one had the good fortune to see it.

Contrary to most contemporary ways of thinking, I believe that taste and social constructions are of decidedly secondary, importance if there is such a thing as intrinsic value or worth. Composers often speak of pieces being well constructed or clever, even sometimes brilliant - and then say that they don't particularly care for them. This is because they see personal preference as being much less important and enduring than these other, harder to define criteria of worth. This should not be an unfamiliar concept, because it is for this very reason that even real Shakespeare haters are unlikely to criticize the quality of his verse. We can all feel the genius even if we are not all sensitive to the charms.

Some composers have no doubt begun to bristle by this point, thinking that they are not so cavalier as to completely disregard public taste and societal demand. And though they may even believe this, ultimately they are wrong. If taste and society were the real yardstick, then the Billboard Hot 100 would be the true arbiter of worth and value and any "classical" composer holding that view is in the wrong business. This is not to say (as some have done) that success is a reflection of low cultural value: It is merely to say that the worth of a work is ultimately either intrinsic to it (as I believe) and therefore completely independent of success or a lack thereof, or it is determined by societal reception - in which case the most flash-in-the-pan "boy band" is "better" than just about any "classical" composer. From this point of view, while an individual composer may feel he is considering both his audience and posterity, the work will ultimately be valued either solely on its intrinsic merits (if there are such things) or solely on the reception it receives. Whether high ideals or low commerce motivated the work is ultimately irrelevant; the value or reception of the work will be what counts, not the creator's intentions or motivations.

- Josuha Fineberg