Talk:Magnum opus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Magnum opus is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
 |
This article is supported by the Kabbalah WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Kabbalah-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] Clarification
"most renowned achievement of an author, artist, or composer" - this term can also refer to the creator of a video game who may have not "authored" the story line, drawn the art or scored the music.
Unonimus Zero 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of examples
It seems pretty silly to have an attempt at a list of examples in this article. Any list will almost by definition be arbitrary and incomplete, and doesn't serve to enlighten the reader to what precisely the term "magnum opus" means (the reader can surely come up with their own examples). Therefore I have removed the list. Neilc 13:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Quite. However, there was a similar event over at the genius article recently; the consensus reached there was that while a list would be incomplete, it would still serve a purpose by giving examples of the topic and referring the reader to the best-known ones. The same would seem to apply here. I say bring it back, with perhaps a guideline for checking its growth. -- Kizor 13:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think a list would be pointless, since almost everyone who could have one does have one. As I understand the term, its use is not so much in suggesting that the work is itself spectacular, but that it is the spectacular piece of that individual. Otherwise, you could list almost all of mozart and beethovens compositions, and never mention a lesser artist. Rather someone may select a few of the very best, and perhaps say the "Beethovens 5th symphony was his magnum opus" (although of course many would disagree that was only an example grabbed from the air - it possible wasn't his best). This should just move to dictionary instead. --Sillylizard 17:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it is possible to have a list, though it will have to have a rigorous screening process. Although the counterexample of Beethoven works, there are other artists in which there is clearly one best work. For example, Edvard Grieg only wrote 2 big pieces, and only the concerto ever reached fame. Thus his concerto would be his only magnum opus. Another would be Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. 70.57.220.80 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- A list would be necessarily incomplete and totally unmaintainable; as it stands we have three very solid examples which clarify the meaning of the term quite well enough. --Tothebarricades 18:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- A list would be essential in showing the abstract, yet mindfully needed, constituents of the purely basic qualties of the word; Another disscusion can be set for any further disputes on certain , though numerically few, magnum opus. -- the_idiot 10:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In Culture
I'd like to add that "Magnum Opus" was an album by Yngwie Malmsteen. Not claiming to be a contributor to this article of any sort, just felt the maintainers of this article might do something beneficial with this info. --Glasgallow 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tighter definition needed?
I think this whole piece is a bit of a minefield - I've only ever heard the term used in the context of an artistic work that has a temporal dimension, such as music or literature. It also tends to refer to stuff that is self-contained, so that while a novel or an symphony might be described as a magnum opus, it would just sound a little wrong to use it to describe, say, a play. Using the term to describe a painting just seems to me plain ridiculous. Surely the correct term there is "masterpiece"? Bedesboy 13:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)af
[edit] Definition?
Hi. I don't mean to unnecessarily complicate things further, but I think 'magnum opus' can be (and is) used both to mean 'best work' and also in a narrower sense. I'm sure that I once read a definition of the term where 'magnum opus' referred to, not an author's 'best' work, but to the work which most clearly and most popularly characterises what is seen as that author's particular style and themes. Example: one might consider 'Macbeth', 'Romeo and Juliet' or 'The Tempest' to be Shakespeare's best work, but 'Hamlet' is his magnum opus, embodying the themes of tragedy, verisimilitude, rhetoric, slapstick, the death-theme, etc.
I quite like this definition as I think it is more useful than 'magnum opus' being merely a synonym for 'best work', particularly as it (hopefully) lessens the subjectivity involved in deciding the latter. At the very least it allows one to acknowledge the general academic or popular consensus on which work is most remarkable without seeming to bow down to muddy and subjective claims of merit.
Now, I don't suggest that this should replace the wider definition, but perhaps it is worth including alongside?
R.
~I think the definition is too narrow overall. Many dictionaries I have checked also express magnum opus as the "sum total of an artists or writer's works." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.96.51 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other prime examples
My edit comment meant to say, removing other prime examples. This is just a magnet for an infinite list. People keep adding their favorite examples. Better to leave it out. IPSOS (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
