When undertaking a venture that concerns philosophy and it’s possible expression in the arts, but specifically music in this case, we must find a certain local phenomenon that we can say identifies such artistry to expression. Such a locality I referred to as “spirit”. Quite similar to Heidegger in this vein, we might be able to develop a discourse of artistic authenticity without falling into the trap of some sort of proper limitation. By now we should see that there is no ability for human expression that falls outside of what can be accounted for. Because where we might posit or where someone might make an expression that by their own staking cries out that it is beyond the scope that we propose, they will have found themselves within the scope and falling nowhere outside of it.
Further, if we are able to talk about art in a sense of something or some activity that various human beings enact or participate in their of, then to subjectivize such an activity to various experiences is merely to take art out of its localization, and place it into a transcendence that we call individual expression. This is what currents of modern philosophies of art ride. It places the ground of such art in human individual experience in the expression there of as instances of cultural moments, and gets no further to what art may be then a raft floating upon water might be said to be sailing.
We would first have to ask what spirit may be, and then contextualize spirit around overt situations. A canvassing of such situations over temporal scheme should be able to derive for us a precipitate that we will be able to describe as spirit, and that’s also it’s particular characteristics and motions. By these characteristics and motions we will be able to ground art philosophy and spirit in a historical manner of subjectivity that defies the transcendental clause of free agency as an ubiquitous primary but only truth.