Is it merely a matter of fame? Does something become quintessential once it crosses over a certain threshold of saturation? What distinguishes something from being quintessential rather than atypical? — thewonder

It would be helpful if you defined what you mean by quintessential rather than just throwing it out there without explanation.

Quintessential is defined by google dictionary as meaning "representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class". What makes something the "most perfect" example of a quality or class as opposed to just simply being typical?

Is it that a work of Art sets a trend? Is it simply a matter of personal taste? What distinguishes Rebel Without A Cause from other films Hollywood about teenage delinquency?

I edited my earlier post and, so, this may now make more sense.

It seems like, to effectively call something "quintessential" you would imply that nothing better of the same nature could follow it. Is "quintessential" Art the simulation from which simulacra proceeds? Could this be what is meant by "perfection"? Can quintessential Art exist? Is the concept too totalizing?

After Rebel Without A Cause, you could say that there could never be a film that was as good that was like it. I don't think that perfection exists abstractly, but could this be indicative of something that is "perfect"? Can quintessentiality effectively supplant the concept of perfection? Should it, or is perfection only meaningful when considered abstractly?

Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of sunflowers can be considered to be the quintessential paintings of sunflowers. You can't, any longer, paint sunflowers without somehow being influenced by Van Gogh. Western civilization seems, to me, to be obsessed with the creation of perfect art. Consider that there is a genre of music called Art music whose creators are ostensibly supposed to surpass what one is capable of while creating music. It's not just that Art music denotes an elevated status of music, it implies that one has transcended music itself. I don't actually think that Art music exists and am only pointing this out as evidence of my prior claim. Could it be that the real cultural project of Western civilization is to produce quintessential art? If so, is this a good thing? Why shouldn't art be as good as it can be? Should a person even seek to create timeless art? What will such a project mean for artists? What does it mean for an audience? Should all Art seek to be quintessential? Perhaps by become wholly idiosyncratic, all Art would.

As an aside, by how I have defined "quintessential" I am going to discount that Olivier's Hamlet is the quintessential Hamlet. It's a pretty good film, but it's just that. There is no quintessential Hamlet.

Quintessential is defined by google dictionary as meaning "representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class". What makes something the "most perfect" example of a quality or class as opposed to just simply being typical? — thewonder

I'm reminded of discussions of the standard meter. Every meter rule is a meter long by being the same length as the standard meter. But the standard meter is incomparable. It is a meter long by fiat. So perhaps the quintessential Hamlet is whatever it is said to be by whoever is the current executive director of aesthetics ...

I'm reminded of discussions of the standard meter. Every meter rule is a meter long by being the same length as the standard meter. But the standard meter is incomparable. It is a meter long by fiat. So perhaps the quintessential Hamlet is whatever it is said to be by whoever is the current executive director of aesthetics ... — unenlightened

I think you're saying that the quintessential Hamlet (or anything else) is the one used as a standard by which others are judged. If so, then I think that's a very good description. It doesn't really mean "good." It's as you say, a question of comparison. If that's what the word means, then I think it probably should be thought of as a matter of consensus rather than an individual judgment.

A friend and I had an ongoing joke. Whenever we thought something was really good, we'd say it is the Adolph Hitler of it's class, e.g. "Casablanca" is the Adolph Hitler of films.

Quintessential basically denotes someone's own personal, unique seminal aesthetic experience being replicated later in life (or not, more often than not). For me, for instance, the quintessential psych/prog album is Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd; the first Pink Floyd album I heard. Or, the quintessential Beatles record is Rubber Soul; the first Beatles record I heard. Usually though, there's maybe some nominal correlation between the personal seminal experience and general mass consensus...consensus is kind of par for the course for something to be defined as "quintessential", anyway. But the point I'm making is that the zeitgeist of sorts of "quintessential" tends to be a safe hybrid between the personal and the collective. The personal informs the interaction with the collective. So, contrary to appearances, quintessential is not so unanimously defined; often, personal aesthetic experience of someone influential influences the quintessential behind the scenes, so to speak. So, if anything, you could even make the argument that "quintessential" is a farce.

It would be helpful if you defined what you mean by quintessential rather than just throwing it out there without explanation. — T Clark

I'd thought that's what the question in the title was asking;

...now you have gone and given a pat definition, ruining the thread.

...in which case, since the quintessential metre is not a metre long, is the quintessential Hamlet, not actually Hamlet?

"Quintessential Hamlet" doesn't make sense, though. I might as well say "Quintessential 'The Window'" (my forthcoming album). It's a non sequitur.

is the quintessential Hamlet, not actually Hamlet? — Banno

"You can't make a Hamlet without breaking legs." That is the quintessential abuse 'actually', and it's going in my Really thread.

The metric system has always somewhat perplexed me. What actually is a gram? How can the mass be quantified independently of its relation to other masses?

The Olivier Hamlet is on the Criterion Channel. So, by what you are suggesting, Olivier's Hamlet is "quintessential" because it's on the Criterion Channel?


"Quintessential" is a toast. It's farcical in the sense that it can only ever be so sincere, but it is in itself a compliment. Are you suggesting that the "most typical" or "essential" examples of anything are purely subjective? I could agree, but I think that stating that something is quintessential makes an Ontological claim that suggests that the existent is somehow more prototypical than all of the others.


Philosophy is just an attempt to describe existence or whatever in a manner that is better than the definitions that we have words. It seeks to prove that there are things in themselves when it knows that there are not. You don't have to accept my definition; I merely provided it for the sake of clarity.

Quintessential" is a toast. It's farcical in the sense that it can only ever be so sincere, but it is in itself a compliment. Are you suggesting that the "most typical" or "essential" examples of anything are purely subjective? I could agree, but I think that stating that something is quintessential makes an Ontological claim that suggests that the existent is somehow more prototypical than all of the others. — thewonder

I think the concept of quintessentialness is more just a reflection of a few key people's tastes, which are then absorbed by the masses. Going back to my statement, the quintessentialness, or the canonical aspect of a work, is generally based on the first work the person has experienced from that source. For instance, most fans of the band Tool preach the gospel of Anima or Lateralus (their 2nd and 3rd records), whereas I was 16 years old when the next record, 10,000 Days came out, and that was my first tool experience. What do you think I consider to be quintessential Tool? 10,000 Days, of course. And I find this to be the case for myself across the spectrum, with essentially 0% variance. This could just be a symptom of me being close-minded, but just through informal data-gathering through conversation, I've found this 0% degree of variance to hold true with the people I've talked to about this idea.

So the conclusion is that, on an existential level, "quintessential" means "seminal". So, on a grand cultural scale...I think we can expand the initial concept outwards?

But it does of course bring up the inexplicable question of aesthetic "taste", or aesthetic as a philosophical rule. But I guess that's another discussion. Or not?

"Seminal" and "quintessential" do differ. Younger Than Yesterday is the quintessential Byrds album, but, Mr. Tamourine Man is their seminal album. They made a name for themselves by being the only band who could adequately cover Bob Dylan, but the band itself was something other than a project that was devoted to just that.

I do think that what is considered to be "quintessential" is purely subjective and, therefore, somewhat meaningless, but what the term denotes and connotes is somewhat interesting to me. As someone who holds perfection to be inexistent, this idea that there is something that is somehow better than all the others which all of the others proceed from fascinates me. In a way, it's kind of annihilating. You don't seem to hold an opposing view. I am hoping to find someone who does as my curiousity has been emphatically piqued. You may, of course, carry on, however.

We speak of things as if there was an ideal when we know that it is only defined by our subjective interpretation. What Philosophical rules could there be for aesthetic? I don't think that things can be considered to be in themselves beautiful. Beauty is defined by the relation that the subject has to the existent. Jonas Mekas's Walden can be considered to be beautiful in spite of that it is disorienting. There were probably plenty of people, however, who came out of Walden stating that "It made me nauseous." The film is not in itself beautiful. Some people just think that it is.

"Seminal" and "quintessential" do differ. Younger Than Yesterday is the quintessential Byrds album, but, Mr. Tamourine Man is their seminal album. They made a name for themselves by being the only band who could adequately cover Bob Dylan, but the band itself was something other than a project that was devoted to just that. — thewonder

Hmm, I dont know the Byrds well, but I'm not sure if I agree. So Mr. Tambourine Man is seminal because they're considered the first band to do Bob well? (and by the way, what makes that seminal?) Again, the questions of aesthetic just arise without constraint. Says who? The masses? The Gatekeepers? Who said that this is so?

We speak of things as if there was an ideal when we know that it is only defined by our subjective interpretation. What Philosophical rules could there be for aesthetic? I don't think that things can be considered to be in themselves beautiful. Beauty is defined by the relation that the subject has to the existent. — thewonder

The philosophical rule for an aesthetic would in theory be based on other philosophical problems; ethics, morals, etc. So, does "aesthetics", as the philosophy of beauty, have something to say about what is or is not beautiful? Well, if it does, it does so via ethics, morals, etc. So...a death scene is not traditionally beautiful. Or can it be? It might be beautiful if it represents a grand sacrifice, of sorts. But in that case, why is that beautiful? Well, the sacrifice represents something broader; the pain of the sacrifice is beautiful because it represents a truth beyond the pain of the sacrifice. I'm not familiar with Mekas' work (although his son shops at the wine store I work at), but in Lynch, for example, something ugly like the Laura Palmer story can indeed represent an aesthetic that works; she in herself is a sacrifice of sorts. Just some open-ended thoughts.

To be "seminal" is to embody the upshot of some entity's ish. Like, on some level, what The Byrds were was the only band who could produce Folk Rock covers of Bob Dylan songs that added something to the original tunes. I see more in the band than that, but that is a way of describing them. Them covers "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" better than The Byrds, but Them doesn't consistently cover Bob Dylan better than they did.

That something is "seminal" does not necessarily imply that it is quintessential. "Uncast Shadow of a Southern Myth" is the seminal Parquet Courts song, but "Cortez the Killer" by Neil Young is the quintessential song of that kind. Beause Neil Young was in a particular position at a particular point in time, he was capable of encapsulating a particular sentiment than they ever could. The temporal aspect, I feel, is relevent to quintessence.

Again, I have no reference, nor does anyone else, for the rubric by which you're making these judgements.

I'm calling into question the nature of being "quintessential", and, so, have no rubric as I assume that it is the case the Philosophy assumes that abstract ideals do exist re Plato. As I think that what is "perfect" can only be understood by its particulars, and, therefore, deconstructed as such, I don't have an example.

I'm also taking off in a bit, and am sorry to just leave the disscussion, but will encourage that it continues. I have to focus my efforts upon my actual education, and, so, can't spend too much time here. I hope that I've come up with something interesting. I may respond, but, otherwise, I'll see you sometime in the not too distant future.

No worries, I'm about to fall asleep, so I'll regroup and respond later.

So, by what you are suggesting, Olivier's Hamlet is "quintessential" because it's on the Criterion Channel? — thewonder

I'm saying roughly that the quintessential Hamlet is the standard by which we judge any Hamlet. It doesn't even have to be the best. "The performance I saw last night was a Hamlet and a half!" The standard is agreed, or declared or established more or less, by habit or convention or dictat of the influential.

You say the temporal element is relevant - I bow to your aesthetic authority, and allow that you, in this case, have established the quintessence of quintessence.

I see what you're saying. In that sense, I suppose that I do use Olivier's Hamlet as the litmus. As someone who has seen over 10 different version of Hamlet, however, I must say that they really are incomparable. I wonder if it is at all meaningful to speak of standards in art. Perhaps, when we consider Jazz albums, we somehow compare them to Kind of Blue, but to judge any other record by a Modal Jazz experiment doesn't seem like it would result in a greater understanding of the genre.

I must say that they really are incomparable. I wonder if it is at all meaningful to speak of standards in art — thewonder

You need Pirsig's Metaphysics of quality. Sure it is meaningful to say this album is superb, that album is flawed; I reject 'incomparable' but will accept perhaps 'immeasureable'.

Is it merely a matter of fame? Does something become quintessential once it crosses over a certain threshold of saturation? What distinguishes something from being quintessential rather than typical? — thewonder

The quintessential possesses all that is typical.

At the risk of sounding sexist, being graceful is typical of a woman and Princess Diana, Dodi Al Fayed notwithstanding, is the quintessential woman.