RoR: Forum

Pauly,

My apologies for the troll remark if this really was a serious post. Every so often we get religious types (even Hari Krishnas) on a mission from God to fix us atheists here at Solo. I do hope that I misinterpreted your intentions. Having someone who has never posted before come in posting something that looks more like abstract expressionism than romantic realism and then finding that they are Christian does raise some red flags around here. To put it another way... Not the right venue.

I do think that abstract painting is a valid art form and don't generally dismiss it out of hand like some Objectivists would. Ayn Rand didn't like that kind of stuff at all. I personally think everyone is entitled to their own tastes and I prefer Rothko over Pollock when it comes to that type of art. To me patterns and colors are better than splatters, scribbles and splotches.

Art is meant to express the emotions of the artist and make an impression on the emotions of the viewer. A lot of abstract art just seems like it is intentionally ugly. Honestly, that is the impression I got from this black piece. My first thought was actually something along the lines of oil spill, black goo or just stirring up the paint. It seemed like darkness and turmoil rather than something expressing a more positive sense of life. That is probably why I personally did not take a liking to this piece.

I really don't know what you were trying to express visually with this piece. What were you trying to say with this painting? It seems like you are trying to find your artistic voice. This particular piece did not speak to me personally. No biggie. Enjoy doing what you love and good luck.

Kat

Post 21

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 8:15pm

Dayaamm Kitten!

Your benevolence is showing. Kudos for the hiss and kudos for the benevolent explanation. My turn.

*purr alert*
purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Jonathan,

The answer to your question requires a book. When I was in college and a music composition and trombone major, I outlined the start of a book on Musical Epistemology. I thought it would take me at least five years to write it. Now, after 30 years, I am thinking of taking it up again.

Basically music relies only on one sense, hearing, instead of all five senses symbolized by audio-visual images, which are words and syntax. The same manner in which the mind organizes concepts, it organizes musical concepts - and a musical vocabulary.

The basis of this is in the way the mind perceives overtones and in the divisions into 2 and 3 that the mind automatically does with steady pulses (see some pretty basic Gestalt experiments for proof of this). "Musical concepts" are based solely on sound. Once that is understood, then we can add other normal concepts to it (remember that all concepts boil down to the five senses). The emotional tie-in is based on both automatic survival-type emotions and programmed subconscious value judgment emotions. But remember that emotions deal with all five senses and musical concepts deal only with one. This makes them especially suggestive and open to different interpretations, while existing in a recognizable form.

You mentioned Bolero by Ravel. That work is completely recognizable after only the first bar. It has a defined identity. Yet its meaning can differ from person to person. I believe that this difference is both sense of life and internal conceptual make-up. Your own mood at the time of hearing it also influences a great deal.

This is a complex issue that I have in my sights (or maybe it is simpler than it appears to everybody). Leave it to say that you acquire musical vocabulary over time and make "sentences" with it (melodies, grooves, textures, etc.). It is learned, but the audio materials have a specific nature and the mind has a specific way of perceiving and integrating them.

About tone-deaf people, I managed to get one to sing in tune once during a recording session in Brazil. I never want to do that again (whew!), but I did it. Tone deaf also does not mean rhythm deaf. When I get a little more time, I want to flesh all these ideas out, since I find them fascinating. Presently, I am waiting for the mail to bring me Davied Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses with this project in mind (among others).

I know that this is a pretty lame explanation at this point, but I hope it is enough to get you thinking in a different direction.

Michael

Post 22

Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:24pm

I think somebody stole my scratch pad that I break new pens and brushes in on.

---Landon

Post 23

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:58pm

Robert wrote,
"It is in this respect that music deals with the cognitive, that is, the conceptual aspects of reality... but there is no way this works with - normally - the visual, as that operates, as said, from the perceptual level, not the sense-ual level... it is true there are psychological affects of colors on a person, but even so, there is nothing conceptual from that, only the pricking as it were of emotions, elicitating at best moods - and from the conceptual level, in term of contemplativeness, utter boredom."

Great. So please answer my earlier questions. What does Ravel's Bolero mean? Which ~concepts~ does it convey (beyond mere "pricking as it were of emotions, elicitating at best moods")? Please be sure to construct your interpretation of Bolero so that it exceeds the quality of contemplativeness, adheres to higher standards of evidence, and surpasses the utter lack of boredom that I'm accustomed to reading from fans of non-figurative painting.

Thanks,
J

(Edited by Jonathan
on 9/26, 3:46pm)

Post 24

Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:07pm