TEXT D 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 become accepted.
According to this formulation, highly creative activity transcends the limits of
an existing form and establishes a new principle of organization. However, the
idea that extraordinary creativity transcends established limits is misleading
when it is applied to the arts, even though it may be valid for the science.
Differences 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 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 different: the
phenomenon itself 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 Guerniea primarily a propositional
statement about the Spanish Civil War or the evils of fascism. What highly
creative 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 expliot, rather than transcend
that form. This is not to deny that a highly creative artist
sometimes 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 to mind. More generally, however, whether or not a
composition establishes a new principle in the history of music has no bearing
on its aesthetic worth. Because they embody a new principle of organization,
some musical works, such as the operas of the Florentine Camerata, are of signal
historical importance, but few listeners or musicologists would include these
among the great works of music. On the ether hand, Mozart’s "The Marriage of
Figaro" is surely among the masterpiece of music even though its modest
innovations are confined to extending existing mens. 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 composition reveals that Beethoven
overturned no fundamental rules. Rather, he was an 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. Which of the following would most likely follow the final sentence of the passage
A.In the similar manner, several modern composers successfully established musical conventions. B.Similarly, the succeeding generation of composers manipulated accepted musical foms. C.In contrast to Beethoven, however, even great modern composers like Bela Bartok did not attempt to alter accepted musical conventions. D.Musicologists are continuing to study the compositional styles of composers in order to determine whether their contributions have been innovative.