About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 5:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred wrote [and Linz added his parenthetical]: 

When I talked with Roger Bissell at the Advanced Seminar this year, I promised him I would read and comment on his JAWS [I presume you mean JARS, Fred? Perhaps you had JARS' loquacious editor, Dr. Diabolical Dialectical in mind when you said JAWS? - Linz :-)] article “Art As Microcosm.”

Well, I can testify to the fact that some people, when they hear of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies  also hear that ominous John Williams' theme music from "Jaws."  :)   So maybe that's what Fred had in mind.  heh


Post 1

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That music is not a "reproduction" at the narrative level does NOT mean that it cannot be a "selective reproduction" of some aspect of reality - perhaps just not of external reality.  Consciousness is also real, and on hearing music I experience states of consciousness that reproduce, sometimes in a purer and more intense form, my affective responses to situations and events I previously experienced through narrative or through life.  The "three stooges" counterexample is only a reflection against a narrow, intrinsicist interpretation of Rand's aesthetics.  It shows that Torres and Kamhi (mis)interpreted Rand, badly, not that there is anything wrong with Rand's aesthetic thought.

Post 2

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

You remind me of the synthesis of the 3 monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.  I guess that relates to your 3 Stooges.

But what I really miss from you is any hint of passion for art instead I get from you a very charming cynicism about art issues which reminds me of my postmodern education.

I am neither a philosopher nor a scholar but an artist that is really passionately into the glories that are possible in the arts and in our future.  Bissell is also very passionate about art...why don't you come up and match us?

Michael


Post 3

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, What a slip. As it turns out I love John Williams, Jaws (the first movie and its music) and JARS. So its all in the family.
Fred

Post 4

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, First. There is something else you missed; the argument. I thought Kivy produced an unusual but intriguing argument. What did you think about that? Why is it that Curly is quite normal but Moe and Larry are positively ODD?

Second. I don't know about you but anyone who names his daughter Ayn Rand is passionate about literature; anyone who names his son Beethoven, if pretty damn passionate about music. One doesn't buy a Steinway unless one really likes to play the piano.

And how can you be sure I'm not up "there?" Do you have a passion meter? All I know is that I would not want to go on living without art.

Besides, what in Kivy's theory excludes passion. I think he is right about music and yet it is my favorite (i.e., very passionate about it) art form.

Fred

Post 5

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,
(1) By "selective reproduction" I assume you meant "selective recreation."
(2) "on hearing music I experience states of consciousness that reproduce, sometimes in a purer and more intense form, my affective responses to situations and events I previously experienced through narrative or through life." If you replace the first three words in this quotation with "on dropping acid" it still goes through, but it seems to me that what you are doing is "free associating" and that doesn't seem to have much to do with the music. You remind me of Helen in HOWARD'S END, who when listening to Beethoven's 5th symphony saw "heroes and shipwrecks in the music's flood." She uses music as an occasion for daydreaming. That's ok. But I prefer to listen to Beethoven. I prefer the music.

Fred

Post 6

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred, glad to see your passion jump off the page.

 

Ok this is what I don't like about the Stooges example...the three characters are compartmentalized, each one is missing quite a big chunk of the art experience. None of them are integrated.

 

There are people like that. There are abstract painters that want to focus on some things and not integrate other (fundamental) aspects of art. I know real artists like that and they tell me and others that what they care about is their inner being and not outward perception, or some like ideas divorced from emotion...the example of Kivy's all have that as a common element. There is an "objectivist" artist that commented to me that the "idea" or "subject matter" is everything…umm, ok, what about means?!

 

How ridiculous to limit Shakespeare to sounds or rhythms or word play or meaning when it’s so marvelous to have it all. That is why masterpieces are so fantastic, they work on so many complimentary levels. And it may be unfortunate that someone cannot appreciate Shakespeare or another great artist on a high level of integration…but their ignorance is not the standard to evaluate the nature of art or its greatest examples.

 

And I also know real life artists, writers, musicians, composers, dancers, who I respect...and they are not like the examples of the three stooges, at least in how they appreciate art and think about it...they know that movement, resolution, and content have real meaning; much much broader than a mere abstraction on its own.

 

In this context I do find that you, Kivy (only from this example), are missing that integrated element I am talking about. I do not intend to be rude, but instead of fighting me try to have a look into what I am communicating about. What if Kandinsky’s fight for  freeing himself from representational art is instead a compartmentalized view and huge limiting factor; that by trying to be purely abstract he ended up throwing out perception, subject matter, and theme…how could anyone call his work a masterpiece if integration is a factor? How would he compare to the great artists who integrate color, monumental abstract forms (Rembrandt and Michelangelo), content, movement, light, meaning, balance, etc.., ? When they pull off an epic undertaking and he pulls off an aspect?

 

 


Post 7

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

There's at least one stooge here, and I’m sure it's you. Music is a selective recreation of emotion - with the emotion conveyed by means of specific patterns of sound which engender or re-create human emotion in the listener. As Rand said, this process is intimately related to the listener’s own sense-of-life; the listener responds in a process akin to "I would feel this way if ..."

 

But I suspect you know all that and you're just trolling. Again.

 

An interview with Alexandra York in which she discusses why classical music is so important in education is instructive:

 

Because [classical] music deals with broad abstractions—triumph, defeat, love, loss. In this way, it allows a young person to personalize what is universal in the human condition, to feel on a grand scale both the hope and the hurt that necessarily accompany an individual life fully lived. For teenagers, in particular, such music unlocks gateways to mature excursions into the ecstasy and the vulnerability, the headiness and the hazards of love, for example. And the puissance of these experiences is heightened by the complexity of structure found in classical music, not cheapened by the flailing and screaming incited by rock. I have found that, once young people understand what is in classical music, they naturally turn to it in moments of emotional need to help them experience deep stirrings that may not make it to the surface of consciousness by themselves. Repressed boys, especially, can benefit immensely from music study.




Post 8

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There's at least one stooge here, and I’m sure it's you."

Argumentum ad hominem-- great way to start a post. Instead of starting with a thesis or point, you begin with screaming insults worthy of the rock music you despise.

"But I suspect you know all that and you're just trolling. Again."

I think that if anyone here is a troll, you're the clearest candidate. your output on this site consists of nothing but insults masquerading as arguments on one hand, and pseudohistorical rant about the glories of beer on the other.


"Music is a selective recreation of emotion - with the emotion conveyed by means of specific patterns of sound which engender or re-create human emotion in the listener. "

Question: why would assortments of rhythmically placed tonalities come to represent an emotion? And why do certain tonality patterns "code for" certain emotions. are the "codings" cultural, as in the case of language, or biological? Where did they come from? Also, why do you think that they even "code" the same ways in different humans? All questions of like or dislike aside, even the emotional responses which one "feels" inside a piece of music may be radically different. Rand, for example, felt that Beethoven's music expressed malevolence. For the life of me, I can't see what she's talking about in this respect-- it always sounded pretty happy to me. And i'm sure if we started listing pieces and categories of music between us, leaving all questions of good or bad outside of the picture and just analyzing what feelings different music types evoke, we would find some level of difference also. Music isn't inherently "representational" of anything unless you can point to A: either a neurological coding which says so, or B: that all human beings will see the same feeling in a piece of music for the same reasons. but we don't see 'reasons' in music-- we only see the emotions. we don't see why we should interpret a musical piece as being happy, as we do with the subject matter of a painting or literature-- we just see that it makes us happy. You have not answered Fred's point at all, with any sort of argumentation at all, except for insults and unsubstantiated assertions masked as a quote citation.

"Because [classical] music deals with broad abstractions"

really? I'd like to see some substantiation for this. I don't necessarily feel this way when I listen to classical.

"In this way, it allows a young person to personalize what is universal in the human condition, to feel on a grand scale both the hope and the hurt that necessarily accompany an individual life fully lived."

How so? why so? why classical in particular? Even beyond this: what does "personalize what is universal in the human condition" even mean? Emotions? If that is all, she's not onto anything new or profound, nor anything unique to classical music. Reason? same deal. This sounds like one of those phrases which is long on poetics and short on content.

Post 9

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I think that if anyone here is a troll, you're the clearest candidate. Your output on this site consists of nothing but insults masquerading as arguments on one hand, and pseudohistorical rant about the glories of beer on the other."

Thanks Robert. I love you too.

"Question: why would assortments of rhythmically placed tonalities come to represent an emotion?"

Well , because they do. I can't prove that by arguing about it, I can only ask you to introspect when you listen to music. Essentially it's because that is the way we experience these 'rhythmically placed tonalities' when we listen to them, as you concede yourself in part when you say that hearing Beethoven's 'rhythmically placed tonalities'  makes you feel happy. Thank Galt something does. :-)

So I "haven't answered Fred's point at all?" Well, I'm not all sure that he's got one, nor that he's not aware himself of where to find the answers he claims not to know - but I'm sure he can answer that one himself. Perhaps you can too?

Anyway, you say that you can't experience the broad emotional abstractions in classical music? More's the pity - if true the great loss is truly yours. If you don't hear anything in music beyond more or less pleasant auditory sensations then you're either listening to the wrong music, or that's simply incredibly said. If theory rather than practice is more your bag and you wish to know how these emotional effects are possible through music, then since Rand's Romantic Manifesto recommendation of Helmoholtz's work on this topic, there have been numerous published accounts of how music affects us emotionally. The late Deryck Cooke's Language of Music is one such book that might be worth you exploring. Amazon recommends others when you call this one up.

Anyway, if it helps, here's a discussion by Schopenhauer on why and how music affects us, summarised for us by Brian Magee (who knows - being from German philosophy it might even seduce Fred!). For once A. Schop sounds unusually sane and clear:

The nub of what [Schopenhauer] has to say is that, as far as we are concerned as listeners, music proceeds by creating certain wants which it then spins out before satisfying. Even the most simple melody, considered as a succession of single notes, makes us want it to close eventually on the tonic, no matter how widely it may range before it does so, and provokes in us a baffled dissatisfaction if it ends on any note other than that; indeed, the melody has to end not only on that one note but on a strong beat in the rhythm at the same time. [S. obviously hadn't heard much jazz at this stage. :-) ]
If it fails to do both these things together we usually feel something harsher even than dissatisfaction, we feel outright rejection: 'This can't be the end, It's got to go on. It can't just stop here.' If the music is more than a simple melody, and has harmony too, the harmony does the same thing: the chords create in us a sense of dissatisfaction followed by a desire for them to resolve, if only eventually, in a certain direction, and only if they do finally resolve on the tonic chord is the longing in us stilled. Schopenhauer sums this up by saying: 'Music consists generally in a constant succession of chords more or less disquieting, i.e. of chords exciting desire, with chords more or less quieting and satisfying; just as the life of the heart (the will) is a constant succession of greater or lesser disquietude, through desire or fear, with composure in degrees just as varied. Thus music directly corresponds to our inner states,and its movements to the movements of our inner lives.
He goes on to say that our response to music is felt regardless of our technical knowledge of music, and discusses in particular the special case of the end of a piece of music: "... [As] music, like life, consists of the perpetual creation and spinning out of longings on which we are stretched out as on a rack, unable ever to accept where we are as a resting place, until only the complete cessation of everything - the end of the piece as a whole... - brings with it a cessation of unsatisfiable longing."

The reason I quote this at length is twofold: first to answer your oh so polite questions about how music affects us; and second because at least one master composer explicitly wrote a piece of music intended to portray precisely what Schopenhauer descibes. Might I suggest you listen to Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, particularly the 'Transfiguration' which comes at the end of the whole opera, and in doing so see if what Schopenhauer describes is how you experience the piece.

Specifically, and to continue quoting, Schopenhauer goes on to describe "a technical device in harmony known as 'suspension' - and it was this that lit a beacon in Wagner's head" and led directly to his composition of Tristan:
Suspension does indeed create suspense. In its ordinary use it comes as the penultimate chord of a piece of music, when we have just heard what we thought was going to be the penultimate chord. This is nearly always a discord. I am using the word 'discord' here in its technical sense of a chord in tonal music which is not self-sufficient but requires resolution on to a concord - which is what we now confidently expect to happen. but instead of this the discord we have just heard moves to another discord - which only then, and perhaps after sounding extendedly, resolves on the tonic. In that instant when discord moves unexpectedly to discord we feel, figuratively, an intake of breath, a gasp of surprise. The tension we had assumed was about to be stilled is, on the contrary, prolonged, and not just prolonged but screwed up an extra notch. This means that the resolution, when it does come, is all the greater  - we so to speak let out our astonished intake of breath in a sigh of  heightened satisfaction. And says Schopenhauer, 'This is clearly an analogue of the satisfaction of the will which is enhanced through delay.'
Tristan is a whole opera written on this principle - the ear is on tenterhooks throughout until the final chord.

I commend it to your attention. :-)


Quotes from The Tristan Chord, by Brian Magee (Metropolitan Books, 2000)

 
 



Post 10

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Question: why would assortments of rhythmically placed tonalities come to represent an emotion?"
"Well , because they do"

I would say that if a person doesn't possess that unknown mental quality that can associate emotion and experience with music they are just never going to "get it'. 
I have often told friends overseas who ask, "If you want to really know what a baking hot Australian afternoon in the countyside is like - listen to the second movement of Rodriges, "Aranthuez Suite" - nothing else captures it as well. 
Cass


Post 11

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Peter,

 

I enjoyed your response to Robert; it was informative and genuine. Tristan's connections to quotes are fascinating...the affects of musical phenomenon and how Wagner worked a grand scale work on that, magnificent.

 

You have got to tell us (or perhaps only me) if you work with architectural forms or spaces, or what certain forms create what emotional tensions and how you work with them.

 

I am fascinated how flat paintings don't register very well the next day on people and how someone will not forget a Rembrandt for days or years having only seen it for a few minutes--has to do with the form and space and the color vibrations that make that possible...mastery of technical execution for the purpose of entering into the viewers psyche.

 

I am puzzled by Fred and Robert...its something like a chess game for them when for us it is nothing like that at all. I think I speak for you too when I say its like constructing a passionate monument...and all the knowledge in the hand and eye, and aesthetic discoveries about how things work from psychological reactions to engineering of structures and the anatomy of paint..it’s not about winning an argument but about expressing knowledge.

 


Post 12

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 9:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Music is the concious manipulation of melody, harmony and rhythm into an integrated whole.   These three components are shaped into coherent structures and patterns to form a musical work. 

However, in the absence of lyrics, words, narrative, or accompanying visual cues, muisc is not capable of representing an abstract subject matter.  "Pure music," as such, stimulates an emotional reaction in the listener, and subjectivity plays a part in appreciating it.  Emotions, after all, are not tools of cognition, but an estimation of the facts based on premises we hold either conciously or subconciously.

As a side note, I have always admired film music for its ability to connect instrumental music with existential concretes.  It's funny that Chris brings up the Jaws score: note how most of us probably immediately thought of the way those two notes immediately conjur up a notion of looming threat/peril.

In fact, film in general may well be the ultimate artform given that it can most successfully recreate reality by simultaneously integrating imagery, narrative, dialogue, sound and music.  Boy did I get off topic...


Post 13

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete: Re your comments on film music - did you see the "Behind the Scenes" of the movie "Moonstruck"?  The producer wanted the music from La Boheme (which features in the movie) as the theme, but when the trial pre-runs came in, the movie seemed a flop. It left the viewers apparantly; confused and non-responsive. Then he listened to an adviser who kept saying they needed the Dean Martin version of "It's Amore".  And the film roared away successfully from there. It amazed me that such a "small" thing could make such a huge difference.
Cass


Post 14

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Creswell,

I don't mean to nitpick, but it sounds to me like the musical term for what Schopenhauer describes is in fact a "deceptive cadence" rather than a suspension.  A suspension is a part writing technique in which a single note of a chord is held over into the next to be later resolved by a step up or down.  I believe there are suspensions in Tristan (it's been while since I've studied/listened to it), but the concept of following what one perceives to be the penultimate chord with something other than the tonic is indeed a deceptive cadence.  It's a minor semantic issue, but I just wanted to point it out.

Cass,

Yes, indeed music has a powerful effect on a film.  If you watched your favorite movie without it you would see what I mean.     


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Fred! Good to "hear your voice" again after our exuberant interaction in Vancouver. :-)

I appreciate your taking time to read and comment on my "JAWS" article <g>, "Art as Microcosm." I also appreciate your non-traditional approach in arguing against my position that music re-creates reality and thus "fits Rand’s general 'definition of art'." I really mean that. I agree with you that a picture or metaphor is worth a thousand words and can really focus an issue far more clearly and quickly than a lengthy critique. And in friendly, casual forums such as this, we need to minimize the ho-hum factor as much as we can, right?

Anyway, you shared Peter Kivy's story about Moe, who sees not representations in painting, but only beautiful colors and patterns -- Larry, who hears not meaning in German poetry, but only pleasurable sounds -- and Curly, who hears no semantic meaning, ideas or story lines in music, but only structures, tone colors etc., in which he revels. And you comment that it is odd that while Moe and Larry are considered as unusual, perhaps even vanishingly rare, Curly is one of millions who enjoy music in this way. Moe and Larry are "stooges" in regard to painting and poetry, for they are dense and unable to understand "the essence of their arts," but Curly is not a "stooge" in regard to music -- and that this must be because music is not mimetic.

I could simply say that this is a subjectivist fallacy appealing to majority or mass opinion. If music is mimetic, then Curly who doesn't experience it that way is a stooge; but Curly is not a stooge, because millions of others enjoy it in the same way; thus Curly is not a stooge. Sort of a "50 million stooges can't be wrong" argument, right? (Although I do appreciate this kind of fallacious argument a bit more than the argument from authority, such as if you had tried to support your argument with the [amazing] fact that Immanuel Kant categorized music as an "art of the beautiful play of sensations. :-)

But, though correct, that would not be particularly helpful. Instead, I would ask you and the others on this discussion thread to read or re-read the section of my essay in which I discuss the widespread -- though obviously not universal -- tendency of people (even toddlers) to attribute human agency, goal-directedness, etc. not only to animals but also to moving dots on a screen. It functions by a yet-incompletely-understood combination of empathy and imagination, and it also operates in music. (Please, folks, don't take this as a claim that all music does this. Again, see my JARS essay. I'm zeroing in on the large subclass of music with melodic themes functioning like characters and melodic-harmonic progressions functioning like plot. This kind of music had barely begun to be written when Kant penned The Critique of Judgment, so he might be excused for that reason. For that matter, perhaps neither Kant nor Kurly...uh, Curly...liked that kind of music!) 

Now, some people truly do not get this phenonenon -- or they get it in real life, but not when viewing a play -- or in real life and watching a play, but not in watching a cartoon -- or in all of these, but not in listening to dramatic Classical or Romantic music. As others have suggested, either you "get" the fact that music and other phenomena affords this experience, or you don't. And if you don't, you're a stooge! (Just kidding. :-)

Here's a simple analogy that may help. Some people reading The Fountainhead may appreciate the character of Howard Roark because they "see" him as being a determined, proud man -- while others may appreciate him simply because they "see" him as being rugged and handsome, while being unaware of any character traits that he embodies. The latter is clearly a superficial level on which to appreciate Howard Roark, but is there something "wrong" or stooge-ish about it? No. (Unless one is also unable to grasp these character traits as embodied in real people. Then there is a real cognitive developmental deficit.) Are they missing something? Yes. And if they would appreciate such traits if they became aware of them, then all they need is a good course in literary appreciation in order to enable them to connect with what they were missing before. (Yes, I recommend music appreciation courses, particularly the Blumenthal lectures.)

But now that I have used 1000 words to flog Fred's 1000 words <g>, I think it would be more helpful for everyone to (re)consider my essay in light of the above.

Best 2 all,
Roger Bissell

P.S. to others who tried to argue for Rand's definition of "art" as applying to music -- I don't think it helps (and I argue this at length in my essay) to claim that music represents emotions. We listen to melodies, and they function like characters in a novel or a play. We hear musical progressions, and the function like plot in a novel or play. When we experience emotions in reading a novel or watching a play, it is enabled by empathetic identification with the characters and by empathetic immersion in the plot progression, not just by the sheer flow of events we are imagining or viewing. A drama represents people engaged in goal-directed action, and the emotions we feel in watching a drama are a consequence of our evaluation of those people and actions. The same is true in dramatic music. Emotions are not free-floating in dramatic music any more than they are in a literary drama. They are emotions experienced by people and as a result of things they do and that happen to them -- or by things we interpret as being people (agents) engaged in goal-directed action -- and, therefore (empathetically) by us.


Post 16

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Anyway, you say that you can't experience the broad emotional abstractions in classical music?"

I experience emotions from classical music just fine. but emotional abstractions? what are those? the very concept seems self contradictory, as emotions are inhereltly a preconceptual faculty of the mind. your emotions can't form abstractions any more than raw sensory perception can.

Post 17

Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 8:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Robert,

 

I believe you quoted Peter here: "Anyway, you say that you can't experience the broad emotional abstractions in classical music?"

 

And then you wrote: "I experience emotions from classical music just fine. but emotional abstractions? what are those? the very concept seems self contradictory, as emotions are inherently a preconceptual faculty of the mind. your emotions can't form abstractions any more than raw sensory perception can."

 

One broad emotional abstraction would be "happy" and there would be as many as emotional states.  And you could have subtle overlapping emotional states...that can create emotions of extreme nuances.

 

No one here is saying that your emotions form abstractions rather the mind identifies emotional states. Artists use these states all the time: that color makes me feel this;  that opening gives me the same feeling of a burst of sunshine; etc.

 

This is the basis for Rand's psycho-epistemology, an aspect that is inherent in art creativity and appreciation, a method of emotional connections. For many artists and enthusiasts feeling the emotional themes of work is what art is about.

 

Michael

 


Post 18

Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,
A lesser man might respond to your ad hominem by saying, “yo’ momma’s a fucking stooge.” But I won’t resort to such idiotic tactics—how do they advance the discussion.

You say, “music is a selective recreation of emotion” etc and I say you have just changed the topic. I was discussing, albeit in a subtle way, (which might explain much) Rand’s definition of art where she claims, “art is a selective recreation of reality…” Unless, of course, you think reality = emotion!! The rest of what you say is irrelevant. As for the York stuff; again irrelevant to my purpose. Music may indeed have heuristic applications, but that hardly addresses the issue I was trying to discuss.

Fred


Post 19

Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter,

So I "haven't answered Fred's point at all?" Well, I'm not all sure that he's got one, nor that he's not aware himself of where to find the answers he claims not to know - but I'm sure he can answer that one himself.

The point is if art is a selective recreation of reality and music isn’t, then music is not an art according to that definition. On the other hand, it certainly is an art if by art you mean something like Aristotle’s definition of art being an artifact made for contemplation.

Fred


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.