# Can art & music be approached "objectively?"



## millionrainbows

To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers. 

All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.

The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.

Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.

What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


----------



## Flamme

Maybe 4 robots...I pride myself on being pretty objective at times but even I can get all mushy and worked up around things that touch my inner senses.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


A quick reading of your post makes me think you adhere to my notion of esthetics being both subjective and personal, though the physical characteristics of art objects can be measured and described with great accuracy. But whether the art is "good", "great", "terrible" is not inherent in the art object--we can only describe its weight, color, age, size, duration, creator, etc.

What is yet to be fully understood (by me anyway) is your constant reference to "being", almost always in quotes. Perhaps if that concept were fully explained, more clarity would follow.


----------



## MarkW

No. .


----------



## Enthusiast

Never mind about art, the OP is too rational for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> A quick reading of your post makes me think you adhere to my notion of esthetics being both subjective and personal, though the physical characteristics of art objects can be measured and described with great accuracy. But whether the art is "good", "great", "terrible" is not inherent in the art object--we can only describe its weight, color, age, size, duration, creator, etc.
> 
> It also follows that any "meaning" we get from art & music is due to symbolic correspondences and language of meaning, not the "objective" aspects of it as an object.
> 
> What is yet to be fully understood (by me anyway) is your constant reference to "being", almost always in quotes. Perhaps if that concept were fully explained, more clarity would follow.


What, are you afraid I'm a new-ager or something? "Being" means existing as a human, with experience. Experience can't be objectified.

And to really understand what I mean, "good, great, terrible" value judgements are not what I'm interested in. Those are separated, subjective qualities, which have very little to do (are not crucially or essentially relevant) with art & music as _an exchange of experiences._

I'm talking about the _inter-subjective aspect of art, _as a medium itself._ That's different._


----------



## millionrainbows

MarkW said:


> No. .


Interesting. What is the significance of that second period at the end? Was this just for emphasis?

Also, I'd be interested in how you bypassed the "post too short" restriction. By adding blank space? Fascinating post; thank you.


----------



## Flamme

I can be objective in a way I would never say that something is inherently ''bad'' if it has its audience, just that it is bad 4 ME.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> Never mind about art, the OP is too rational for me.


Thank you for sharing that. What do you mean?


----------



## millionrainbows

Flamme said:


> I can be objective in a way I would never say that something is inherently ''bad'' if it has its audience, just that it is bad 4 ME.


How did "good" and "bad" get in here? Are people defending their opinions? Those are separated, subjective qualities, which have very little to do with art & music as an exchange of experiences.

I'm talking about the _inter-subjective_ aspect of art, as a medium itself. That's different.


----------



## MarkW

To expand, art exists at a curious intersection of objective and subjective. It is possible that objectively "bad" art exists -- at least at the borderline of stochasticity -- a cat running across a keyboard, monkeys at a typewriter, a three-year old's scribbles (although composers like Cage and Tudor, etc. tried to play with that). But then, there could be people who like that sort of thing. The question is, how do you define good and bad, and if anything can be defined as art, than what isn't art? (Which I think is what Cage was trying to get at with 4'33" -- art is whatever you put a frame around.) But while art "just sits there," value judgments are brought by the viewer/listener, which are different depending on what that viewer brings to the experience. Is "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" "better" than the "Eroica?" Well, I would say no, but a three-year old might have a different opinion. :-

PS: Bypassing "post too short: No.[eleven spaces].


----------



## Flamme

Can a nicely natural shaped rock or howling of the wind be a totally objective ''piece of art''?...


----------



## millionrainbows

MarkW said:


> To expand, art exists at a curious intersection of objective and subjective. It is possible that objectively "bad" art exists -- at least at the borderline of stochasticity -- a cat running across a keyboard, monkeys at a typewriter, a three-year old's scribbles (although composers like Cage and Tudor, etc. tried to play with that). But then, there could be people who like that sort of thing. The question is, how do you define good and bad, and if anything can be defined as art, than what isn't art? (Which I think is what Cage was trying to get at with 4'33" -- art is whatever you put a frame around.) But while art "just sits there," value judgments are brought by the viewer/listener, which are different depending on what that viewer brings to the experience. Is "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" "better" than the "Eroica?" Well, I would say no, but a three-year old might have a different opinion. :-
> 
> PS: Bypassing "post too short: No.[eleven spaces].


I think the subjective value judgements (good, better, best) are irrelevant to my idea of how art functions, since they occur after the fact.

Can anybody here actually forget their own opinions long enough to look at the inter-subjective nature of art? Or are we too narcissistically self-involved to care?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> What, are you afraid I'm a new-ager or something? "Being" means existing as a human, with experience. Experience can't be objectified.


Yes, I have long been, not "afraid", but suspectful that you were a New-Ager of a particularly opaque variety. But I'll see whether your defining "being" as existing as a human clears anything up. By your definition, a rock or a fox does not "be"; perhaps does not exist, though I'm sure you don't intend me to believe this. I fully confess my inability to comprehend much of your thought over the years.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you for sharing that. What do you mean?


Your way of expressing your point appears rational. So much so that I am not sure I understand the question!


----------



## MarkW

Flamme said:


> Can a nicely natural shaped rock or howling of the wind be a totally objective ''piece of art''?...


I. personally. would say. it depends on how the nicely shaped piece of rock was oriented and situated, or dressed, bu human intercession. Similarly for the howling wind (for instance as a film sound effect, or as part of Sinfonia Antarctica.)


----------



## MarkW

millionrainbows said:


> I think the subjective value judgements (good, better, best) are irrelevant to my idea of how art functions, since they occur after the fact.
> 
> Can anybody here actually forget their own opinions long enough to look at the inter-subjective nature of art? Or are we too narcissistically self-involved to care?


In my view, a work of art cannot exist as such without an experiencer. (cf. Hume's tree falling in the forest.)


----------



## millionrainbows

MarkW said:


> In my view, a work of art cannot exist as such without an experiencer. (cf. Hume's tree falling in the forest.)


Oh, Michaelangelo's Pieta can exist without people (perhaps we can find out after a neutron bomb) as a big chunk of marble, but it can't exist _meaningfully_ _as an art object_ without people to experience it.

_Your experience is crucial_ in the art process. This should make all the narcissists feel better.


----------



## Strange Magic

MarkW said:


> In my view, a work of art cannot exist as such without an experiencer. (cf. Hume's tree falling in the forest.)


I hope this isn't Bishop Berkeley's Idealism resurfacing, but probably not.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, Michaelangelo's Pieta can exist without people (perhaps we can find out after a neutron bomb) as a big chunk of marble, but it can't exist _meaningfully_ _as an art object_ without people to experience it.
> 
> _Your experience is crucial_ in the art process. This should make all the narcissists feel better.


You've made this narcissist happy!


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> I hope this isn't Bishop Berkeley's Idealism resurfacing, but probably not.


That's a valuable observation, about as valuable as the question of my "new age" proclivities. Maybe if you have a near-death experience it will all make more sense. In the meantime, enjoy that armchair. Comfy?


----------



## Flamme

Can ''animals'' enjoy art? If so are They objective 2 it...


----------



## Opera For Life

MarkW said:


> I. personally. would say. it depends on how the nicely shaped piece of rock was oriented and situated, or dressed, bu human intercession. Similarly for the howling wind (for instance as a film sound effect, or as part of Sinfonia Antarctica.)


Thanks for the laugh mate, this pleased me immensely


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.


Art and music can be separated from its creator, but a response to that art or music cannot be separated from its receiver. Different receivers may respond differently, and the closest one can come to objectivity is when a large number of receivers have a similar response, independently and without other external influence.


----------



## millionrainbows

Flamme said:


> Can ''animals'' enjoy art? If so are They objective 2 it...


Yes, my cat likes soothing music, but he probably hears it as musique concrete.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> Art and music can be separated from its creator, but a response to that art or music cannot be separated from its receiver. Different receivers may respond differently, and the closest one can come to objectivity is when a large number of receivers have a similar response, independently and without other external influence.


So? This is after the fact, and has little relevance to how art is experienced inter-subjectively (not as an 'object'). Unless you are so attached to your own likes & dislikes that you are prepared to trash anything you don't like. This is taking subjectivity too far, into areas it does not belong.


----------



## Opera For Life

To me, this question is not a question which should stand to scrutiny for long.. 
You can describe Art/music in "objective" terms, when talking about complexity or, in music's case, length, but there is no true objective measuring stick for the "artsyness" of art, whenever it seems like there is, it turns out to be merely a value judgement masquarading as a rational way of thought.

So you can fool yourself into thinking that you're evaluating art objectively, but all you're doing is seeing how well it conforms to your personal set of rules (who are usually very much guided by your emotions) for what makes art or what makes good art..

The feeling of objectivity we get from our judgements is more due to us taking our societal conventions as rational and, more importantly and shamefully, universal..

But so persuasive is this idea that I feel like a traitor to what I consider "good art" while writing this xD


----------



## Xisten267

I think that all art (music included) has objective, subjective and relative components. It's my opinion that one can measure the level of certain aspects of technical mastery of an artist with a certain safety, thus objectively, but that other aspects (for example, "expressiveness") are subjective (but not necessarily totally relative). Personal taste I perceive as being totally relative.


----------



## millionrainbows

Opera For Life said:


> To me, this question is not a question which should stand to scrutiny for long..
> You can describe Art/music in "objective" terms, when talking about complexity or, in music's case, length, but there is no true objective measuring stick for the "artsyness" of art, whenever it seems like there is, it turns out to be merely a value judgement masquarading as a rational way of thought.
> 
> So you can fool yourself into thinking that you're evaluating art objectively, but all you're doing is seeing how well it conforms to your personal set of rules (who are usually very much guided by your emotions) for what makes art or what makes good art..
> 
> The feeling of objectivity we get from our judgements is more due to us taking our societal conventions as rational and, more importantly and shamefully, universal..
> 
> But so persuasive is this idea that I feel like a traitor to what I consider "good art" while writing this xD


Even if we could develop a yardstick for determining the probable "artsyiness" of art, what would be the point? It would simply reinforce those aspects of art which are non-essential to its _complete_ message. A piano player is a piano player, not to be confused with the art.

The elevation of opinion into "universal" and "societal" values simply reflects how important art can be in shaping and maintaining our identity. But ultimately, it's between you and the art (composer).


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> That's a valuable observation, about as valuable as the question of my "new age" proclivities. Maybe if you have a near-death experience it will all make more sense. In the meantime, enjoy that armchair. Comfy?


The opacity, the ellipticality: it's a gift surely. But what does it mean? Anyway, as I near death, I definitely will have a near-death experience. Meanwhile I do fully relax in my Laz-E-Boy recliner and am quite comfortable. Thanks for inquiring!

And I'm becoming more convinced that you subscribe to my notion of esthetics being strictly subjective and personal--I am teasing out that impression from your posts in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> The opacity, the ellipticality: it's a gift surely. But what does it mean? Anyway, as I near death, I definitely will have a near-death experience. Meanwhile I do fully relax in my Laz-E-Boy recliner and am quite comfortable. Thanks for inquiring!


No problem! Fluff your pillow? Another beer?


----------



## Opera For Life

millionrainbows said:


> Even if we could develop a yardstick for determining the probable "artsyiness" of art, what would be the point?
> 
> The elevation of opinion into "universal" and "societal" values simply reflects how important art can be in shaping and maintaining our identity. But ultimately, it's between you and the art (composer).


Not much point I think, except as a mirror to the current values of the society, and individual that developed the yardstick 

You're right, so what we feel could be classed as "objectively good art" is just the art with the greatest concensus of quality and the most influence on the greatest number of individuals.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## millionrainbows

That's a positive post, Flamme. Are you male or female?


----------



## Opera For Life

Flamme said:


>


hahaha, that's my cue to stop


----------



## millionrainbows

Opera For Life said:


> hahaha, that's my cue to stop


Well, Opera, I've certainly enjoyed your input. Good luck on this 'citizenship' thing.


----------



## Opera For Life

millionrainbows said:


> Well, Opera, I've certainly enjoyed your input. Good luck on this 'citizenship' thing.


citizenship? xD


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Well, Opera, I've certainly enjoyed your input. Good luck on this 'citizenship' thing.


And we've all enjoyed this fun and lighthearted thread. I do think, though, that following mr's query, the sexual identity of all posters should be clearly stated.


----------



## millionrainbows

That's a nice thing to say, Strange Magic. What about you, male female, or none of the above? :lol:


----------



## Flamme

A non binary, yeah...Hear thats all the RAGE nowadays...


----------



## Room2201974

According to Paul Simon, Art cannot be approached "objectively." Some kind of feud they're having apparently.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


I don't believe it can. I don't have a deep answer for this, but it's obvious that taste varies by individual. That's the only thing that could explain the popularity of the band Nickleback.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Opera For Life said:


> You're right, so what we feel could be classed as "objectively good art" is just the art with the greatest concensus of quality and the most influence on the greatest number of individuals.


This pretty much sums up my view better than I could say.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> So? This is after the fact, and has little relevance to how art is experienced inter-subjectively (not as an 'object'). Unless you are so attached to your own likes & dislikes that you are prepared to trash anything you don't like. This is taking subjectivity too far, into areas it does not belong.


So, you would have art with no creator or receiver? Now that is an odd concept, and one that would seem to be utterly pointless.

And why assume a negative response when I specified no direction for it in my post?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> That's a nice thing to say, Strange Magic. What about you, male female, or none of the above? :lol:


To quote Woody Allen, I am a Perfectly Formed Male. How about you? But be assured that I support Rainbows in their Millions and their free expression.


----------



## Jacck

there are more options nowadays


----------



## JAS

hammeredklavier said:


> two videos.


I find that I cannot really disagree with either of these videos, except one small point in the second that I think is actually touched on in the first. The problem is not the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Instead, I think it is in the idea that beauty is in the eye of the creator. What we have now, all too often, is art that asserts itself as art, with no recognition of the fact that the process mostly takes place on the receiving end. (I did not say that the process necessarily requires _two_ participants since it is perfectly possible to find beauty in something that has no human creator, such as a magnificent forest, or the ocean. For most of what we call art, at least one participant on each side of the process would be required. We might find great power and beauty in the forest and the ocean, but we might not call them art unless we wanted to ascribe their existence to a Creator with a big "C.")


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Art and music can certainly be evaluated objectively with respect to form. This is blue. That is red. This is 78 BPM. That is 104. Etc.

There is a subjective _qualia _to the experience of art and music that is locked within the individual mind. The individual can attempt to communicate it to others, but they can not transport the actual experience to another individual, only describe it.

I suppose one could survey myriad individuals and come up with objective measurements of the subjective qualia, using agreed upon units (e.g. "uplifting, transcendent, morose, exciting" etc.), but of course the enterprise of assigning standard units would be inherently squishy. One person's experience of excitement is not the same as another's.

There is a certain biological basis to physical experiences such as listening and viewing, so you might also go after the neurochemical responses to art and music. This would not measure qualia, but it would measure how bodies respond.


----------



## Flamme

Only after using this 4um I can say I feel a bit smarter...Or sharper lol


----------



## mbhaub

Those videos were excellent - and the second made an important point: in many fields, experts are trusted to evaluate. But for some reason in music we let go of that. And experts musical critics (and hopefully ethical) can apply certain objective standards. And in the past, they did - ruthlessly. And that is why the music of Rubinstein, Raff, and others fell out of the repertoire. That's why for decades the preferred way to perform Boris Godunov was in the Rimsky-Korsakov edition; a fully professional job he did of it. Then people started dragging out the Mussorgsky originals - the obvious poor orchestration was not criticized, oh no, it was the composers brilliant, original thinking! Same with Schumann. Unfortunately, we live in an era where there are no critics the caliber of people like Hanslik, Tovey, Frankenstein and others.


----------



## Strange Magic

I pay no attention to critics, and listen to and enjoy music and look at paintings and sculpture with every illusion that I am enjoying myself (and the art).


----------



## Knorf

mbhaub said:


> Unfortunately, we live in an era where there are no critics the caliber of people like Hanslik, Tovey, Frankenstein and others.


I find Alex Ross, who is alive, far and away more worth reading than any of those three, especially Hanslick.

As for musical qualia: _Jacques Attali has entered the chat._


----------



## amfortas

Maybe it's just me, but I found the videos above to be simply the same, tired, simplistic "get off my lawn" complaints about modern art that have been voiced since . . . the beginning of modern art.

It was helpful to learn that modern art can be associated with brutal dictatorships, though. Because, of course, that was never the case with the art of previous eras.


----------



## erki

The story that my grandfather used to tell is in a way good illustration to the original question: can art be approached objectively?
He told that there are 9 jews in every nations capitol sitting in the basement of a government building and deciding what is and what is not. He told it more that 50 years ago so that's where the metaphor of jews coming from. But I tend to see it also that any "objectivity" is determined by some subject somewhere sometime.


----------



## premont

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, my cat likes soothing music, but he probably hears it as musique concrete.


When I long time ago played the piano in my childhood home, the cats always placed themselves on the piano. Something told me, that they enjoyed the music - but in which way?


----------



## premont

Jacck said:


> there are more options nowadays


Yes, to day it is certainly suspicious to be a normal - and for that reason completely uninteresting- male or female.


----------



## mbhaub

amfortas said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I found the videos above to be simply the same, tired, simplistic "get off my lawn" complaints about modern art that have been voiced since . . . the beginning of modern art.
> 
> It was helpful to learn that modern art can been associated with brutal dictatorships, though.


Well most brutal dictators liked - and got - more conservative music. And what creeps me out is that I find my musical tastes are more in line with the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, and especially Stalin than is comfortable. Probably Franco, too.


----------



## Room2201974

premont said:


> When I long time ago played the piano in my childhood home, the cats always placed themselves on the piano. Something told me, that they enjoyed the music - but in which way?


Some cats enjoy music, it's true. Other cats are a bit more advanced. And then there is this creator of tone clusters and major and minor seconds whose subtle minimalistic style points to the 20th century. Best cat music since lutes!


----------



## Ariasexta

Art for arts sake, Oscar Wilde said this for a good reason. What is art? what is science, why the differentiation? To objectify art is doing the wrong thing in the wrong time in the wrong place.


----------



## SONNET CLV

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"





MarkW said:


> In my view, a work of art cannot exist as such without an experiencer. (cf. Hume's tree falling in the forest.)





millionrainbows said:


> Oh, Michaelangelo's Pieta can exist without people (perhaps we can find out after a neutron bomb) as a big chunk of marble, but it can't exist _meaningfully_ _as an art object_ without people to experience it.
> 
> _Your experience is crucial_ in the art process. This should make all the narcissists feel better.





JAS said:


> Art and music can be separated from its creator, but a response to that art or music cannot be separated from its receiver. Different receivers may respond differently, and the closest one can come to objectivity is when a large number of receivers have a similar response, independently and without other external influence.


Every work of art is an objective "thing". It exists on its own as a "thing". Generally, the "thing" is created by means of subjective applications, and generally the "thing" is appreciated by means of subjective applications. I say "generally" because artists such as the Dadaists would resist this notion. But Dadists also teach us that by assigning an "object" or "thing" artistic status, a work of art derives from the world of the objective to be assigned to the world of the subjective. How a "viewer" (or "hearer", or "taster", or "smeller", or "sensor") receives the Dadaists objective designation will prove wholly subjective. Human beings are compelled to appreciating things subjectively; it's part of their nature.

Each art object exists as a "thing". Homer's Odyssey is a thing. Michelangelo's David is a thing. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a thing. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is a thing. But the artist's subjective spirit went into the creating of the thing, and the audience's subjective spirit goes into the appreciation of the thing.

Modern painters tried hard to objectify their paintings, pointing out that just as their own work is actually paint applied to canvas so is the work of such older masters as Raphael, El Greco, Van Gogh or Renoir. Paint on canvas (or on plaster, or wood; or chalk on paper, or snippets of paper glued to a board...) -- that's what a painting is. An object. What, after all, is the Mona Lisa or any other work of art to a person born blind? For such a one does the "thing" that is Mona Lisa have any meaning more than does the "thing" that is Kasimir Malevich's _White on White_?















What, also, is the artistic value of anything by Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven to one born deaf? Or a famed Hungarian poem to one who lacks fluency in Hungarian?

Art is clearly a "thing", but a "thing" devised by a subjective consciousness and which gains a subjective life via a conscious audience. Meaning to "things" -- be they cars, or record albums, or wedding bands, or children -- only gain that meaning by consciousness, which brings to it subjectivity. Which is why a tree cannot appreciate your son or daughter any more than it can appreciate the Mona Lisa painting or Mahler's Ninth Symphony.

Interestingly enough, some artists will appreciate the audience or receiver of his/her art "thing" to be moved into the same subjective realm of experience felt during creation, while other artists will hope for audiences to be moved to their own unique subjective experiences though they be far different from those of the creator at the time of creation.

I sometimes feel little more than wonderment, or bemusement, or dismissive anger or disgust at certain art "things", all reactions I do not suspect were those anticipated by the artists for their viewers. But "things" elicit subjective reactions, whether they be created artworks or simply things found in nature -- rocks, trees, sunsets, or lifeforms.

If Beethoven's Ninth is, for me, a living, breathing, stirring entity which seems as alive as I do, that is all well and fine -- it is my subjective reaction to the "thing" Beethoven, a living, breathing, stirring entity, created to be something of a living thing. I am thankful I was not born deaf so I can appreciate this thing the way I do. Otherwise it would exist simply as a number of black dots and words on a score page. But then, I could appreciate it in much the same way I enjoy the Mona Lisa, or Kasimir Malevich's _White on White_.

Contemplate what Helen Keller said about art, and life. Here is one quote: "The place between your comfort zone and your dream is where life takes place," and "Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit." These remarks may well be the credo of the artist, for art is necessarily optimistic (both for artist and audience, or why bother?). And this: "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart." Perhaps the credo of the art viewer. And finally, this: "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn, whatever state I may be in, therein to be content." That "contentment" is the subjective stuff we take away from art, whatever its media. Keller's wisdom goes deep into subjective reflection on the meaning of existence and the meaning of the beauty of existence, and those are the very virtues our artists seek both for themselves through their creations and for the rest of us as we contemplate those creations. What thing can be greater than that?


----------



## Ariasexta

This is a very interesting and flaming topic in the future, I think I might also put a few tinders. 

I always love Oscar Wildes ideas about art, what a brilliant man of wit and tastes. He instead of comtemplating on the audiences, he contemplated on the role of artists themselves. For him, the art is not the mirror of the artist himself, but a means to transcend the reality which is boring. The art is the dialgue with higher beings or realities, in baroque times, composers considered music as a means to communicate with God, some of them even choosed to destroy their works before they died in fear of being abused by the general public. You see, the audience is of secondary importance to some, if you mind, some very serious artists. We as audiences just are lucky enough to have some glimps into the creative and harmonious minds of those talented people which try to communicate beyond mundane reality, to which we belong. So, if you choose to objectify, then you are free to go, you are seeing yourself into everything, you will try to see yourself or represent yourself in more and more objects, and you will not be satisfied if you are not rewarded with some meritorious objects.

The west is so rich in ideas, traditions, arts, but the modernist deceitful marxist progressivism just destroys almost all of you, you all can be so much stronger if not brainwashed.


----------



## 1996D

Ariasexta said:


> This is a very interesting and flaming topic in the future, I think I might also put a few tinders.
> 
> I always love Oscar Wildes ideas about art, what a brilliant man of wit and tastes. He instead of comtemplating on the audiences, he contemplated on the role of artists themselves. For him, the art is not the mirror of the artist himself, but a means to transcend the reality which is boring. The art is the dialgue with higher beings or realities, in baroque times, composers considered music as a means to communicate with God, some of them even choosed to destroy their works before they died in fear of being abused by the general public. You see, the audience is of secondary importance to some, if you mind, some very serious artists. We as audiences just are lucky enough to have some glimps into the creative and harmonious minds of those talented people which try to communicate beyond mundane reality, to which we belong. So, if you choose to objectify, then you are free to go, you are seeing yourself into everything, you will try to see yourself or represent yourself in more and more objects, and you will not be satisfied if you are not rewarded with some meritorious objects.
> 
> The west is so rich in ideas, traditions, arts, but the modernist deceitful marxist progressivism just destroys almost all of you, you all can be so much stronger if not brainwashed.


A very good answer, but to say that art is beyond the reality to which most people belong is too much.

Art glorifies God because the time spent in solitude is not only done in full faith but as you wrote also in connection, resulting in perhaps the greatest show of love for the world one can undertake, with only egoism and pride in the way preventing us from seeing the connection between all things--the oneness--which without the art will suffer greatly, as it shouldn't be looked in a way as to reinforce such vanity.

Postmodernist art is the extreme of what happens when this pride is fully manifested.


----------



## erki

Art is also a communication. I have something in my head I need to share - so I use words, sounds, shapes, textures - because you can not read my mind.
But there are individuals(9 jews) who decide what is the *ART* objectively. So if you like painting that is not approved by them you are just stupid or even worse.


----------



## science

The objective measures are things like how many bars a work of music is, how common a particular element was at the time a work was composed, historical influences, and so on. There's actually a lot of that to be explored. 

As soon as anything that can't be reduced to data is considered, subjectivity is present.


----------



## science

Ariasexta said:


> The west is so rich in ideas, traditions, arts, but the modernist deceitful marxist progressivism just destroys almost all of you, you all can be so much stronger if not brainwashed.


I'm glad you're so careful not to leap to conclusions.


----------



## science

amfortas said:


> It was helpful to learn that modern art can be associated with brutal dictatorships, though. Because, of course, that was never the case with the art of previous eras.


Of course the monarchies were all legitimized by divinity -- just ask their priests, who would have you tortured to death if you questioned them -- unlike mere dictatorships. I suppose it's well known that the difference between great art and something that should be destroyed is whether it was produced to glorify a divinely-sanctioned oppression or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

SONNET CLV said:


> Each art object exists as a "thing". Homer's Odyssey is a thing. Michelangelo's David is a thing. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a thing. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is a thing. But the artist's subjective spirit went into the creating of the thing, and the audience's subjective spirit goes into the appreciation of the thing.


If it must be appreciated subjectively, then what's the point of maintaining that it is a "thing?" Does this satisfy some scientific, rational urge within your mind, or are you just being contentious to disagree with the OP?


----------



## Ariasexta

1996D said:


> A very good answer, but to say that art is beyond the reality to which most people belong is too much.
> 
> Art glorifies God because the time spent in solitude is not only done in full faith but as you wrote also in connection, resulting in perhaps the greatest show of love for the world one can undertake, with only egoism and pride in the way preventing us from seeing the connection between all things--the oneness--which without the art will suffer greatly, as it shouldn't be looked in a way as to reinforce such vanity.
> 
> Postmodernist art is the extreme of what happens when this pride is fully manifested.


There is definitely something retrospective and unchangible about music, like the Pythagoras system and the greek appraisal of music as a way to communicate with higher beings. But Oscar Wilde has far far greater interpretation of art than we could have imagine. For people who want to understand art(in all forms), I seriously recommend to read Oscar Wilde, but it will probably take some years for most people to understand though

Renaissance art was said to imitate and revive the Greco-roman traditions, and there were many debates as to how the greek used chromaticism among Renaissance theorists, which considered revival of ancient music is one of important ways to creat good music.

In front of art, I am the one which will never try to distinsguish myself out of majority audiences if not really a professional. I am OK to be considered one of the vulgar mass but eople today are to insulate and indifferent toward anything which is too much rooted traditional values. It is where I love to drop the bomb and napalm. Sir Walter Scott in the Medlothian book mentioned there are always division and schism among the common class however the society progresses, so, I think it is OK to call people of different tastes and level of education as a whole bloc of audience in front of the art. It is ok to move oneself upward the class ladder, but, it is also important to view the people with common root in common classes as an integrity, for people with outstanding fortunes and power, they also need to reconsider their root within the society. I would like to disillusion people of climbing the social ladder thing, there is definitely something within yourself unchangibly ignorant and vulgar however you cultivate yourself.(Off topic: It is why freedom of speech is so important, it works for harmonization the whole common class of people, if you do not let people speak out peacerfully, in time of conflit, people will destroy each other.)


----------



## Opera For Life

SONNET CLV said:


> Every work of art is an objective "thing". It exists on its own as a "thing". Generally, the "thing" is created by means of subjective applications, and generally the "thing" is appreciated by means of subjective applications. I say "generally" because artists such as the Dadaists would resist this notion. But Dadists also teach us that by assigning an "object" or "thing" artistic status, a work of art derives from the world of the objective to be assigned to the world of the subjective. How a "viewer" (or "hearer", or "taster", or "smeller", or "sensor") receives the Dadaists objective designation will prove wholly subjective. Human beings are compelled to appreciating things subjectively; it's part of their nature.
> 
> Each art object exists as a "thing". Homer's Odyssey is a thing. Michelangelo's David is a thing. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a thing. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is a thing. But the artist's subjective spirit went into the creating of the thing, and the audience's subjective spirit goes into the appreciation of the thing.
> 
> Modern painters tried hard to objectify their paintings, pointing out that just as their own work is actually paint applied to canvas so is the work of such older masters as Raphael, El Greco, Van Gogh or Renoir. Paint on canvas (or on plaster, or wood; or chalk on paper, or snippets of paper glued to a board...) -- that's what a painting is. An object. What, after all, is the Mona Lisa or any other work of art to a person born blind? For such a one does the "thing" that is Mona Lisa have any meaning more than does the "thing" that is Kasimir Malevich's _White on White_?
> 
> What, also, is the artistic value of anything by Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven to one born deaf? Or a famed Hungarian poem to one who lacks fluency in Hungarian?
> 
> Art is clearly a "thing", but a "thing" devised by a subjective consciousness and which gains a subjective life via a conscious audience. Meaning to "things" -- be they cars, or record albums, or wedding bands, or children -- only gain that meaning by consciousness, which brings to it subjectivity. Which is why a tree cannot appreciate your son or daughter any more than it can appreciate the Mona Lisa painting or Mahler's Ninth Symphony.
> 
> Interestingly enough, some artists will appreciate the audience or receiver of his/her art "thing" to be moved into the same subjective realm of experience felt during creation, while other artists will hope for audiences to be moved to their own unique subjective experiences though they be far different from those of the creator at the time of creation.
> 
> I sometimes feel little more than wonderment, or bemusement, or dismissive anger or disgust at certain art "things", all reactions I do not suspect were those anticipated by the artists for their viewers. But "things" elicit subjective reactions, whether they be created artworks or simply things found in nature -- rocks, trees, sunsets, or lifeforms.
> 
> If Beethoven's Ninth is, for me, a living, breathing, stirring entity which seems as alive as I do, that is all well and fine -- it is my subjective reaction to the "thing" Beethoven, a living, breathing, stirring entity, created to be something of a living thing. I am thankful I was not born deaf so I can appreciate this thing the way I do. Otherwise it would exist simply as a number of black dots and words on a score page. But then, I could appreciate it in much the same way I enjoy the Mona Lisa, or Kasimir Malevich's _White on White_.
> 
> Contemplate what Helen Keller said about art, and life. Here is one quote: "The place between your comfort zone and your dream is where life takes place," and "Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit." These remarks may well be the credo of the artist, for art is necessarily optimistic (both for artist and audience, or why bother?). And this: "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart." Perhaps the credo of the art viewer. And finally, this: "Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn, whatever state I may be in, therein to be content." That "contentment" is the subjective stuff we take away from art, whatever its media. Keller's wisdom goes deep into subjective reflection on the meaning of existence and the meaning of the beauty of existence, and those are the very virtues our artists seek both for themselves through their creations and for the rest of us as we contemplate those creations. What thing can be greater than that?


Thanks, you have given me a lot of food for thought!

I would, however, make the small amendment that research increasingly show that trees might have some kind of conscience, they communicate with each other and have a memory, so who knows, perhaps they might enjoy Mahler a bit too, if any symphonic music might be enjoyed by nature, it would be Mahler


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> If it must be appreciated subjectively, then what's the point of maintaining that it is a "thing?" Does this satisfy some scientific, rational urge within your mind, or are you just being contentious to disagree with the OP?


Maybe because it's true?

Disagreeing with the OP is an interesting notion, since it's a series of poorly framed straw man arguments and logical non sequiturs and, consequently, there is very little of substance to agree or disagree with.

You've asserted that "art is a symbolic language." In what sense is music a symbolic language?

You've asserted that art "is not an 'object' because it is an expression of being." This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Michelangelo's David is clearly an object and it's equally clearly expressive of human experience. As are countless other art objects. (Are you even familiar with the concept of an "art object" as it is used in the field of aesthetics?)

What is "Can art be 'objectified?'" supposed to mean?

Can you give an example of what you mean by the "separation of art into an 'object' apart from this human connection [which] is overly-rational and borders on the absurd?" This is exceedingly vague. Since you've attributed this practice to people on this forum, I assume you are ready to quote specific examples?


----------



## Simplicissimus

The OP is concerned with "inter-subjectivity," which I understand as meaning that artistic creations are inherently social actions. We apprehend a musical composition differently than we do sounds of nature, knowing that composers have an audience in mind, an audience with cultural attributes and shared social norms.

The philosopher John Searle has been concerned with social reality under the rubric of "collective intentionality" (see, e.g., his 1995 book, _The Construction of Social Reality_). I think it is useful to use his framework in order to understand artists' activities in relation to their audiences. While it is possible for a composer to set about creating a piece of music with no intention of evoking particular qualia in listeners, I think that to do so would be essentially antisocial. It is more generally the case, I believe, that the composer and his/her potential audience enter into a collective intentionality: "I am composing this music and you are going to listen to it in order to experience certain aesthetic qualia which I am attempting to induce in you."

The social interactionist sociologist Erving Goffman developed an analytical framework that I find useful for understanding what takes place between performers and audiences, and by extension between creative artists and consumers of their products (see particularly his 1974 book, _Frame Analysis_). I would say that while we listen to a piece of music, we have a continuous sense, not always fully conscious, of an interaction-ultimately social-between the artist and ourselves as receivers of aesthetic qualia. One of the aspects of post-modern artistic creations that is remarkable is that they tend to stretch, and one might say challenge in interesting ways, the norms underlying the interactions between artist and audience. The moment-to-moment playing out of these interactions is subject to frame analysis.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Is this one of your usual loaded trick questions, MR? I think you're blurring the boundaries of meaning and playing around with words. The word 'object' is not used as the root word in meaning of the adjective 'objective' as you're trying to tie in together, just as 'subject' is not of 'subjective', nor 'object' as a noun fundamentally related in meaning to the verb 'object'. Nice sleight of hand, though. Pretty entertaining.

A work of art is an object, whether it's a painting, poem, fugue and so on. And they can have certain objective qualities like the painting uses a lot of red, or the fugue is in a certain key. But this relation between an object and the objective is entirely coincidental with respect to grammar.

When you used 'template', I take it as the same meaning as 'idiom'. Art uses idioms to convey a certain expression or meaning. Idioms are a mode or form of expression, like Impressionistic or Romantic idioms. I agree with what you said in "art is a symbolic language", or more like Art conveys with symbolic language. But it doesn't mean it's not an object, especially when used in this context "I collect rare Art".

What exactly do you mean by 'objectify?'


----------



## 1996D

Ariasexta said:


> There is definitely something retrospective and unchangible about music, like the Pythagoras system and the greek appraisal of music as a way to communicate with higher beings. But Oscar Wilde has far far greater interpretation of art than we could have imagine. For people who want to understand art(in all forms), I seriously recommend to read Oscar Wilde, but it will probably take some years for most people to understand though
> 
> Renaissance art was said to imitate and revive the Greco-roman traditions, and there were many debates as to how the greek used chromaticism among Renaissance theorists, which considered revival of ancient music is one of important ways to creat good music.
> 
> In front of art, I am the one which will never try to distinsguish myself out of majority audiences if not really a professional. I am OK to be considered one of the vulgar mass but eople today are to insulate and indifferent toward anything which is too much rooted traditional values. It is where I love to drop the bomb and napalm. Sir Walter Scott in the Medlothian book mentioned there are always division and schism among the common class however the society progresses, so, I think it is OK to call people of different tastes and level of education as a whole bloc of audience in front of the art. It is ok to move oneself upward the class ladder, but, it is also important to view the people with common root in common classes as an integrity, for people with outstanding fortunes and power, they also need to reconsider their root within the society. I would like to disillusion people of climbing the social ladder thing, there is definitely something within yourself unchangibly ignorant and vulgar however you cultivate yourself.(Off topic: It is why freedom of speech is so important, it works for harmonization the whole common class of people, if you do not let people speak out peacerfully, in time of conflit, people will destroy each other.)


The question is being interpreted and answered as "Can art & music be approached objectively in 2020?". The answer is no, because the current trend is relativism and progressivism. Of course it can be done if you're willing to understand the world on a broader level, but that doesn't fit the current of today's society, unless you can do it without interfering too much.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> The question is being interpreted and answered as "Can art & music be approached objectively in 2020?". The answer is no, because the current trend is relativism and progressivism. Of course it can be done if you're willing to understand the world on a broader level, but that doesn't fit the current of today's society, unless you can do it without interfering too much.


I feel rather that the question is a way of asking that tired old chestnut: 'Is there some Ultimate Arbiter we can appeal to for a ruling on whether Bach is "better" than Elton John?'

I think time might be that ultimate arbiter.

Come back and talk to me in 320 years when you've found out whether they are still playing Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.

In the meantime, it's completely unanswerable.


----------



## 1996D

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I feel rather that the question is a way of asking that tired old chestnut: 'Is there some Ultimate Arbiter we can appeal to for a ruling on whether Bach is "better" than Elton John?'
> 
> I think time might be that ultimate arbiter.
> 
> Come back and talk to me in 320 years when you've found out whether they are still playing Goodbye Yellow Brick Road.
> 
> In the meantime, it's completely unanswerable.


Popular culture doesn't have a history of lasting, only great art does. But even this art is unjudgeable at the moment in the mainstream, because that would mean admitting what it is, which would hinder today's progressivism.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> Popular culture doesn't have a history of lasting, only great art does.


That's basically what I wrote. "Lasting" is a function of time.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to separate great art from popular culture. Bach was popular culture for Leipzig; Mozart was popular culture for Vienna and beyond. Great art is popular culture that lasted, not some distinct species.



1996D said:


> But even this art is unjudgeable at the moment in the mainstream, because that would mean admitting what it is, which would hinder today's progressivism.


I don't recognise this mainstream of which you speak. I'm unaware of people who wouldn't say Bach was great, even if their _preference_ is for Enya and The Rolling Stones. Maybe I live in sheltered circles!

(To be clear, uneducated people wouldn't say Bach was great, but are likely to stare blankly and say, 'Who?'. I'm saying I'm unaware of educated people whose music preference tends to the modern day popular who wouldn't nevertheless say someone like Bach or Beethoven were 'musical greats').


----------



## erki

It is always with philosophy that before you can express your opinion you must define the meaning of terms/words. When you read any of the work of great thinkers you find pages after pages trying to do just that and relatively short paragraph in the end about the new thought.
So to have a meaningful discussion we should be on the same page with meanings of several words. Like when AbsolutelyBaching asks: "whether Bach is "better" than Elton John?" we need to understand the word "better" the same way.
At this point(in addition to definitions) I would like to know what OP wants to know by asking this or is it a cloaked statement he wants to argue about.


----------



## 1996D

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> That's basically what I wrote. "Lasting" is a function of time.
> 
> However, I wouldn't be so quick to separate great art from popular culture. Bach was popular culture for Leipzig; Mozart was popular culture for Vienna and beyond. Great art is popular culture that lasted, not some distinct species.


No it wasn't, the general population hadn't the means to hear Mozart, it was almost strictly for the aristocracy. Classical music was never popular, the people had their folk music.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't recognise this mainstream of which you speak. I'm unaware of people who wouldn't say Bach was great, even if their preference is for Enya and The Rolling Stones. Maybe I live in sheltered circles!


What I mean by the mainstream is that no art will be recognized as greater than anything else because the current lies with relativism and equality. This of course gives free reign for anything to be produced and be called art, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.


----------



## DavidA

Of course art could be approached objectively. I remember a professional artist taking us round the National Art Gallery and pointing out Rembrandt’s genius with the brush. That is objectivity.whether you like the results is subjective.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> No it wasn't, the general population hadn't the means to hear Mozart, it was almost strictly for the aristocracy. Classical music was never popular, the people had their folk music.


Bach wrote for the Leipzig church, to which all were invited. And Mozart's public concerts were very popular and definitely *not* just for the Aristos. Where was Zauberflöte first staged, for example? And Mozart wrote after it on 7th October that, "I have this moment returned from the opera, which was as full as ever." I don't think suburban parts of Vienna in 1791 were teeming with the hundreds of aristocrats as would be required to fill the Freihaus-Theatre.



1996D said:


> What I mean by the mainstream is that no art will be recognized as greater than anything else because the current lies with relativism and equality. This of course gives free reign for anything to be produced and be called art, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.


I can only repeat: I don't recognise this mainstream of which you speak.


----------



## Guest002

DavidA said:


> Of course that could be approached objectively. I remember a professional artist taking us round the National Art Gallery and pointing out Rembrandt's genius with the brush. That is objectivity.whether you like the results is subjective.


Hang on.

Had he pointed out the brush strokes and left it at that, that would be as objective (and meaningless) as declaring that paint is made of atoms.
But if he says the brush strokes are indications of genius, that's no longer objective, but his subjective opinon.

So no, "that" in your anecdote is the opinion of a professional artist and not 'objective' anything.


----------



## 1996D

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Bach wrote for the church, to which all were invited. And Mozart's public concerts were very popular and definitely *not* just for the Aristos. Where was Zauberflöte first staged, for example? And Mozart wrote after it on 7th October that, "I have this moment returned from the opera, which was as full as ever." I don't think suburban parts of Vienna in 1791 were teeming with the hundreds of aristocrats as would be required to fill the Freihaus-Theatre.


There are a lot of intricacies that can be made with verbiage, but what was meant is that it wasn't popular as in relating to the majority and it was driven by the aristocracy.

Bach may have played organ in church but he still relied on aristocrats and his music was recognized and enjoyed by a small group during his lifetime.

There was never anything popular about classical music until Liszt and even then it was also only for high society.



> I can only repeat: I don't recognise this mainstream of which you speak.


That only means that you are not in current academia or a young person, but you can still see the clear influence, you just have to look.


----------



## DavidA

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hang on.
> 
> Had he pointed out the brush strokes and left it at that, that would be as objective (and meaningless) as declaring that paint is made of atoms.
> But if he says the brush strokes are indications of genius, that's no longer objective, but his subjective opinon.
> 
> So no, "that" in your anecdote is the opinion of a professional artist and not 'objective' anything.


Not at all. Of course the brushstrokes are indicators of genius in how he put them on just as the way Mozart wrote music to produce the effect it does. Of course there is an objectivisation in art. The fact that Bach was able to improvise fugues in the way he did stands as an objective indication of his genius.


----------



## Flamme

Can a ''Mountain Of Skulls'' be ''objectively'' beautiful...? My ex gf painted some scary and terrible stuff about witches, snakes and death which made me pretty disturbed...


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> There are a lot of intricacies that can be made with verbiage, but what was meant is that it wasn't popular as in relating to the majority and it was driven by the aristocracy.


That's not what you said, and in any case I still don't agree with your re-writing of history. Yes, in large part, music of the 18th Century was "driven by the aristocracy", because they had all the money to pay for musicians and stages and such like. But they didn't live in a bubble and their tastes were not something from off the planet. That they paid for something meant that something was pleasant for them -and it would equally have been pleasant for anyone who wasn't an artistocrat.



1996D said:


> Bach may have played organ in church but he still relied on aristocrats and his music was recognized and enjoyed by a small group during his lifetime.
> 
> There was never anything popular about classical music until Liszt and even then it was also only for high society.


Again, you're changing what you originally said. The ordinary folk had their folk music, you said. I said, no they could go listen to Bach if they wanted. Every Sunday. And they did. Whether he 'relied' on artistocrats is another matter entirely: someone has to pay the wages, but that doesn't mean his output was only for the payees or could only be listened to and appreciated by them.

The rise of Liszt happened to coincide with the rise of the middle class (and, indeed, of a working class with a little disposable income to hand). So there were more potential payees. But the idea that Mozart or Beethoven couldn't pull big crowds is just not on.



1996D said:


> That only means that you are not in current academia or a young person, but you can still see the clear influence, you just have to look.


Well, no. It could mean you're just inventing things so you can rail against them.

Cognitive relativism is, obviously, a thing. And it certainly means that what *you* deem great doesn't necessarily have any more significance than that it's your opinion of the day. It's your opinion, and it's no more valid than mine. But that's not what you're seemingly taking aim at. The idea that Beethoven's 5th is equal in artistic merit to his Wellington's Victory is just silly, and even the most ardent cognitive relativist wouldn't argue for it.


----------



## Guest002

DavidA said:


> Not at all. Of course the brushstrokes are indicators of genius in how he put them on just as the way Mozart wrote music to produce the effect it does. Of course there is an objectivisation in art. The fact that Bach was able to improvise fugues in the way he did stands as an objective indication of his genius.


No, the brush strokes are "objectively" evidence that he used a brush to apply paint to a canvas, and nothing else.

Whether he did so brilliantly, sloppily, badly, or in the manner of a genius are clearly subjective assessments of a very limited objective fact.

The ability to improvise on a keyboard can be taught and learned. That Bach could improvise is objective evidence of the acquisition of a skill. That there are reports that he could do it well is objective evidence that he learnt the skill well. The minute you regard something as evidence of genius tells me that you're imparting a subjective gloss to a limited set of objective facts.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Not at all. Of course the brushstrokes are indicators of genius in how he put them on just as the way Mozart wrote music to produce the effect it does. Of course there is an objectivisation in art. The fact that Bach was able to improvise fugues in the way he did stands as an objective indication of his genius.


You're missing the point, of course art is objective, everything in the world is objective, but whether that can be accepted or not depends on the current. Right now the goal being worked towards is equality and this can only exist by people embracing relativism, so this is what is taught.

If you were a teacher or student in a university you would see it immediately; there is absolutely a current everyone is working within and you either follow it or don't participate; you don't oppose it.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The ordinary folk had their folk music, you said. I said, no they could go listen to Bach if they wanted. Every Sunday.


But they didn't, Bach's listeners were sophisticated connoisseurs.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> That they paid for something meant that something was pleasant for them -and it would equally have been pleasant for anyone who wasn't an artistocrat.


The music was commissioned and meant to represent the aristocracy, the group that enjoyed it was no larger in percentage of the general population than it is today.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Cognitive relativism is, obviously, a thing. And it certainly means that what *you* deem great doesn't necessarily have any more significance than that it's your opinion of the day. It's your opinion, and it's no more valid than mine. But that's not what you're seemingly taking aim at. The idea that Beethoven's 5th is equal in artistic merit to his Wellington's Victory is just silly, and even the most ardent cognitive relativist wouldn't argue for it.


This is boomer idealism, today anything can be claimed and accepted as long as it follows relativism, anything at all.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Strange Magic

> AbsoluteBaching: "Cognitive relativism is, obviously, a thing. And it certainly means that what *you* deem great doesn't necessarily have any more significance than that it's your opinion of the day. It's your opinion, and it's no more valid than mine. But that's not what you're seemingly taking aim at. The idea that Beethoven's 5th is equal in artistic merit to his Wellington's Victory is just silly, and even the most ardent cognitive relativist wouldn't argue for it."


While I personally prefer Beethoven's 5th to his Wellington's Victory, that's just me. With my position on the singular primacy of each person's individual, subjective reaction to art, all efforts to imbue Beethoven's 5th with "objective" superiority over any other piece of music collapse at once into popularity contests "won" by voting, polling among some chosen audience or audiences. And DavidA's enthusiasm for _ex post facto_ "explanations" of the genius of Rembrandt as revealed to the cognoscenti by his brushstrokes are yet another example of the sterility of this good/bad, Great/Not Great approach to art. What is important is what you like, assuming of course that one value's one's own judgment. If one's esthetics are another's hand-me-downs.....


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You're missing the point, of course art is objective, everything in the world is objective...


If that were so then it would be easy to place all composed works in a league table.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> You're missing the point, of course art is objective, everything in the world is objective, but whether that can be accepted or not depends on the current. Right now the goal being worked towards is equality and this can only exist by people embracing relativism, so this is what is taught.
> 
> If you were a teacher or student in a university you would see it immediately; there is absolutely a current everyone is working within and you either follow it or don't participate; you don't oppose it.


You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it so. From your username, I'm guessing you're about 24, fresh out of -or still in- University, and I think you're thinking that abstruse points of philosophy you've acquired there have general significance outside that environment. I hate to say it, but they don't.



1996D said:


> But they didn't, Bach's listeners were sophisticated connoisseurs.


Citation required.



1996D said:


> The music was commissioned and meant to represent the aristocracy, the group that enjoyed it was no larger in percentage of the general population than it is today.


Not something I've argued about otherwise, I think.



1996D said:


> This is boomer idealism, today anything can be claimed and accepted as long as it follows relativism, anything at all.


That's just not the case -and again, merely restating that it is doesn't make it so.

'Objectivism' (in this context) is the claim that there's an ultimate arbiter to whom we can appeal to say, 'Is this piece of music better than this other piece'.

'Relativism' in the absolutist way you're using the term is the claim that there's *no* ultimate arbiter who can make that judgment and that therefore everything has equal merit to everything else.

But my profoundly unoriginal suggestion to you is that time is the ultimate arbiter. It is time that allows us to say that Beethoven's 5th is a greater work of art than his Wellington's Victory. It cannot (yet) say whether Elton John's _Goodbye Yellow Brick Road_ is a greater work of art than Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier (though you are free to place bets on the eventual outcome -but that would be you taking a subjective stand on the matter).

So, in the matter of whether Bach is greater than Beethoven, that's not been definitively determined by time (since both seem to have survived pretty much equally well, though to be fair, Bach's had to survive 50 odd years longer) and if you were to take a stand one way or the other, that's subjective assessment: your personal opinion, which (relativisticly speaking) is genuinely not more reliable or valuable than mine.

But that's definitely not the same thing as saying Elton John *is* just as good as Bach or Beethoven. Since we don't yet know this to be so, we cannot say that. We can only say objective things like 'Elton John has sold X million records' and 'Bach's works received Y performances around the globe this year'. Or you could say, 'Bach's inner part writing was innovative and imaginitive' or 'Elton John's harmonies are always I-IV-V-I, which is predictable and repetitious' or similar things. And you can use those objective facts to inform your subjective opinions. But not being able to say one is greater than the other doesn't mean you are allowed to say that they *are* both as great as each other. The great arbiter of time hasn't yet pronounced on the subject.

So your claim that we live in an age of relativism which forces us to regard X as significant as Y... I reject it. I reject the idea that we are being forced to believe Xenakis is as good Bach. We are, I think, living in an age where we are allowed to subjectively believe that to be the case... but only time will tell. And in the meantime, let's not behave as if the verdict is in, because it isn't and won't be for around 200 years or more.

I think that's a healthier place to be than somewhere where/when you were told "A, B and C are 'the greats' and no arguing about it, and the music you youngsters listen to is utter rubbish anyway!". That's a form of 'objectivity' we can do without, I think.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> While I personally prefer Beethoven's 5th to his Wellington's Victory, that's just me. With my position on the singular primacy of each person's individual, subjective reaction to art, all efforts to imbue Beethoven's 5th with "objective" superiority over any other piece of music collapse at once into popularity contests "won" by voting, polling among some chosen audience or audiences. And DavidA's enthusiasm for _ex post facto_ "explanations" of the genius of Rembrandt as revealed to the cognoscenti by his brushstrokes are yet another example of the sterility of this good/bad, Great/Not Great approach to art. What is important is what you like, assuming of course that one value's one's own judgment. If one's esthetics are another's hand-me-downs.....


I disagree. I don't think it's subjective or a popularity contest. Both have about the same amount of time between their composition and us. We are in a fair position to compare them and their artistic merits. The compositional skills exhibited by each are, of course, the objective facts we have to go on, but the passage of time tells us that one has persisted and the other has sunk into obscurity. Now, you are going to say, that's just the effect of an aggregated popularity contest taking place over decades and centuries. But I'm simply going to come back at you and argue that if a popularity contest takes place over decades or centuries and produces a consistent result, that in itself is an objective fact we have to work with.

I think you and I would agree that determining the greater of Beethoven or (say) Ferneyhough _is_ a subjective matter of opinion polling. But the passage of time does, to me, constitute something of an ultimate, objective arbiter of the truth of the matter.

I'm generally with Zhou Enlai, who when asked what the impact was of the French Revolution of 1788, is alleged to have replied 'It's too early to tell'. But I think that time *does* appoint its winners and has-beens, in the end.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> If that were so then it would be easy to place all composed works in a league table.


Why would it be easy? We're not all knowing, to accurately produce something like that would take reviving all the great composers and have them do it unbiasedly, which would take long debates. You could do this with every field of knowledge, and there would be definite conclusions.

But just because the world is objective doesn't mean we're God capable of knowing it all, without mystery there would be no purpose to life, no fun either. The great joy of life is that we learn something everyday.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Why would it be easy? We're not all knowing, to accurately produce something like that would take reviving all the great composers and have them do it unbiasedly, which would take long debates. You could do this with every field of knowledge, and there would be definite conclusions.
> 
> But just because the world is objective doesn't mean we're God capable of knowing it all, without mystery there would be no purpose to life, no fun either. The great joy of life is that we learn something everyday.


'Easy' because you asserted that art is objective. A theoretical league table remains just that - and why would you assume great composers from the past know what's 'best'?

I think we can assume that works that survive through many generations are generally to be considered great - but which one of two such works is superior to the other?


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I disagree. I don't think it's subjective or a popularity contest. Both have about the same amount of time between their composition and us. We are in a fair position to compare them and their artistic merits. The compositional skills exhibited by each are, of course, the objective facts we have to go on, but the passage of time tells us that one has persisted and the other has sunk into obscurity. Now, you are going to say, that's just the effect of an aggregated popularity contest taking place over decades and centuries. But I'm simply going to come back at you and argue that if a popularity contest takes place over decades or centuries and produces a consistent result, that in itself is an objective fact we have to work with.
> 
> I think you and I would agree that determining the greater of Beethoven or (say) Ferneyhough _is_ a subjective matter of opinion polling. But the passage of time does, to me, constitute something of an ultimate, objective arbiter of the truth of the matter.
> 
> I'm generally with Zhou Enlai, who when asked what the impact was of the French Revolution of 1788, is alleged to have replied 'It's too early to tell'. But I think that time *does* appoint its winners and has-beens, in the end.


While it is indeed an objective "fact" that more people, over time, who are members of a selected audience, prefer A to B, this "fact" is merely a restatement of my initial thesis that _it all comes down to opinion, pure and simple_. I believe if you reflect upon your own argument, you will see that you have made no headway whatsoever.


----------



## 1996D

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think that's a healthier place to be than somewhere where/when you were told "A, B and C are 'the greats' and no arguing about it, and the music you youngsters listen to is utter rubbish anyway!". That's a form of 'objectivity' we can do without, I think.


Yes, but that's how relativism is enforced in today's universities. The young people embracing it will form the core of the social democracy that's to come, it is very much in the near future where all ideas will be looked as equal.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I reject the idea that we are being forced to believe Xenakis is as good Bach. We are, I think, living in an age where we are allowed to subjectively believe that to be the case.


The truth is somewhere in between, not just with this particular example, but in the way things are generally enforced.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> While it is indeed an objective "fact" that more people, over time, who are members of a selected audience, prefer A to B, this "fact" is merely a restatement of my initial thesis that _it all comes down to opinion, pure and simple_. I believe if you reflect upon your own argument, you will see that you have made no headway whatsoever.


Right, as I predicted: you are arguing that it's just 200 years of opinion polling.

And, as foretold, I'm simply going to point out that if 200 years of opinion polling produces a consistent result, that's an objective reality you have to at least engage with.

I'm simply going to suggest that the verdict of history is something of more significance than one person's opinion of what they heard on the radio this morning. I rather think we're into Kant's _phenomenon_ v. _noumenon_. The verdict of centuries is a phenomenon that is _suggestive_ of the underlying noumenon.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> Yes, but that's how relativism is enforced in today's universities.


So you say. You appear to inhabit a different reality from me.



1996D said:


> The young people embracing it will form the core of the social democracy that's to come, it is very much in the near future where all ideas will be looked as equal.


Well, as you drift off onto the voyage of fantasy which you're constructing for yourself, I simply say, "Bon Voyage, dear fellow, dear benefactor of your fellow man. May good luck attend you. Do come again and see us when you can".

As Thomas More put it, "One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated." Leave the future to sort itself out. It usually does.


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Is this one of your usual loaded trick questions, MR? I think you're blurring the boundaries of meaning and playing around with words. The word 'object' is not used as the root word in meaning of the adjective 'objective' as you're trying to tie in together, just as 'subject' is not of 'subjective', nor 'object' as a noun fundamentally related in meaning to the verb 'object'. Nice sleight of hand, though. Pretty entertaining.
> 
> A work of art is an object, whether it's a painting, poem, fugue and so on. And they can have certain objective qualities like the painting uses a lot of red, or the fugue is in a certain key. But this relation between an object and the objective is entirely coincidental with respect to grammar.
> 
> When you used 'template', I take it as the same meaning as 'idiom'. Art uses idioms to convey a certain expression or meaning. Idioms are a mode or form of expression, like Impressionistic or Romantic idioms. I agree with what you said in "art is a symbolic language", or more like Art conveys with symbolic language. But it doesn't mean it's not an object, especially when used in this context "I collect rare Art".
> 
> What exactly do you mean by 'objectify?'


The best example of the consequences of "objectification" can be seen in the field of psychology, where Freud and Jung's subjectivist theories got replaced by Pavlov and B.F. Skinner's objectivist approaches. 
In other words, people nowadays seem to be intent on removing the "experience" from art, and replacing it with a self-satisfied, narcissistic, self involved subjectivity which can destroy anything in its path if it chooses to do so.

That's not what I mean by "subjectivity" as opposed to objectivity.


----------



## 1996D

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> So you say. You appear to inhabit a different reality from me.


Yes it often is with different generations, the good thing is that we have the patience to discuss it and thus learn a great deal, I know I am.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, as you drift off onto the voyage of fantasy which you're constructing for yourself, I simply say, "Bon Voyage, dear fellow, dear benefactor of your fellow man. May good luck attend you. Do come again and see us when you can".
> 
> As Thomas More put it, "One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated." Leave the future to sort itself out. It usually does.


Of course, patience is what's right, while also working towards wisdom, but only knowing these details can you be patient with confidence. It's a wave and there is no stopping it, but no one will force you to participate either, at least not if you have the mind to cohabitate with such wild ideas while having those of your own.


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Right, as I predicted: you are arguing that it's just 200 years of opinion polling.
> 
> And, as foretold, I'm simply going to point out that if 200 years of opinion polling produces a consistent result, that's an objective reality you have to at least engage with.
> 
> I'm simply going to suggest that the verdict of history is something of more significance than one person's opinion of what they heard on the radio this morning. I rather think we're into Kant's _phenomenon_ v. _noumenon_. The verdict of centuries is a phenomenon that is _suggestive_ of the underlying noumenon.


The question is: Who Is The Polled Audience? An allied question: Is It Important To Me (Or You) Who The Polled Audience Is? People hate it--absolutely hate it--when I trot out my "What is the Best ice cream?" question. And so, not wishing to appear too plebeian, I "upgraded" the question to the more rarified reaches of oenophilia and asked "What is the Best Wine?" and How Can We Tell? The answers are identical. It's the exactly same with the esthetics of music and art. The question instead should be How Important is it that Others Agree With/Approve Of My artistic preferences? Who Is To Be Master? The validity of my own tastes--and by inference, the validity of anyone's own tastes to them--is paramount, hence my adherence to a conviction that all esthetics is subjective and personal. Decades of controversy on this issue have failed to produce a scintilla of evidence demonstrating a convincing case for an opposing view.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, people nowadays seem to be intent on removing the "experience" from art, and replacing it with a self-satisfied, narcissistic, self involved subjectivity which can destroy anything in its path if it chooses to do so.


Could you explain please?


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> The question is: Who Is The Polled Audience? An allied question: Is It Important To Me (Or You) Who The Polled Audience Is? People hate it--absolutely hate it--when I trot out my "What is the Best ice cream?" question. And so, not wishing to appear too plebeian, I "upgraded" the question to the more rarified reaches of oenophilia and asked "What is the Best Wine?" and How Can We Tell? The answers are identical. It's the exactly same with the esthetics of music and art. The question instead should be How Important is it that Others Agree With/Approve Of My artistic preferences? Who Is To Be Master? The validity of my own tastes--and by inference, the validity of anyone's own tastes to them--is paramount, hence my adherence to a conviction that all esthetics is subjective and personal. Decades of controversy on this issue have failed to produce a scintilla of evidence demonstrating a convincing case for an opposing view.


I don't think that's the question at all. History is doing the polling and who are we to ask of her who she polled?

History is silent on the subject of what is the best ice cream. Also mostly silent on what is the best wine, though I think preliminary results might be in for Château d'Yquem 1811. But those are fundamentally silly examples anyway: how many people in the course of centuries are actually going to taste a Château d'Yquem 1811? Hardly any, therefore, we're back to the opinion of a tiny few.

Music, or popular culture: entirely different kettles of pisceans. Enjoyed by millions, from Argentina to Zanzibar, rich and poor, those that can play Chopsticks and those that can play Beethoven sonatas. The verdict of the mass tells you something more than just the verdict of a few. It points to an underlying 'thing' that we can only discern as time passes.

As for whether people agree with my own tastes: I don't give two hoots, and I suspect that anyone possessed of an ounce of self-confidence wouldn't, either. I'd certainly be keen to share my tastes with others, because I think it might be to their benefit, but I wouldn't presume to think that my tastes are in any way equivalent to the long, slow verdict of history.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> 'Easy' because you asserted that art is objective. A theoretical league table remains just that - and why would you assume great composers from the past know what's 'best'?
> 
> I think we can assume that works that survive through many generations are generally to be considered great - but which one of two such works is superior to the other?


This would take a lot of logic to go through, but it's possible. One day order will return and we'll see then which works are performed and what new ones created; it will take a grand discussion between great and experienced minds to decide on the former, but it has happened before where an order brought on by knowledge was reached by society, and it will happen again.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Could you explain please?


Could I explain the motivation behind it? In the case of behaviorism, the removal of the subjective dimension of experience, replaced by totally objective accounts of "behavior" and responses, can yield hard _*data,*_ which is so valued these days.

I think it just shows the increasing pervasiveness of a kind of "objectivity" which, in its inception during the Enlightenment, was useful. Now, it seems to have taken over everything, at the expense of all that is 'human' and experience-based. See R.D. Laing.


----------



## Strange Magic

We (AbsolutelyBaching and I) both believe that the results of polls are "objective facts". Having affirmed that, we find we have learned Nothing Further about any intrinsic properties of art other than what can be accurately measured. I admire your defense of polling but what, in addition, will you have learned from its results? Will anything of polling convince you to like what you don't (if others do)? or dislike what you love?

I think we both like Maria McKee!


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> This would take a lot of logic to go through, but it's possible. One day order will return and we'll see then which works are performed and what new ones created; it will take a grand discussion between great and experienced minds to decide on the former, but it has happened before where an order brought on by knowledge was reached by society, and it will happen again.


Order will return? Your philosophy, I believe, is that of Plato's theory of forms - is this what you are referring to?


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> The best example of the consequences of "objectification" can be seen in the field of psychology, where Freud and Jung's subjectivist theories got replaced by Pavlov and B.F. Skinner's objectivist approaches.
> In other words, people nowadays seem to be intent on removing the "experience" from art, and replacing it with a self-satisfied, narcissistic, self involved subjectivity which can destroy anything in its path if it chooses to do so.
> 
> That's not what I mean by "subjectivity" as opposed to objectivity.


To be fair, I hadn't read your original post before joining this thread, which (it seems to me) has morphed into a discussion about the objective v. subjective //significance// or worth of art (guilty!)

So going right back to your first post, I have to say that I take issue with your almost-very-first statement, that "All art is an expression of being". Some art might be, and thus a representation of 'inner state'. A lot of art can surely be imitation of reality: representation of the external world.

But what does 'expression' mean anyway? Do you mean the music expresses what the composer was feeling? Or that the music inspires us to feel something when we hear it?

If you take it to mean that it's about the feelings music can inspire in us, the listeners, then it's obvious that you must 'objectify art and separate it from its creator', because it's the listener who is in the driving seat at that point.

I still don't really have a good grasp of what it is you're asking though.

You seem to be saying that you approve of a 'subjectivist' view of music, where the feelings of the listener are of paramount importance, and dislike an objectivist view of it, where (presumably... I'm guessing at this point), the thoughts and feelings of the composer are of paramount importance?

Are you suggesting, for example, that it is foolish to try to add to one's understanding of Britten's _Peter Grimes_ better by appreciating that it was written by a pacifist in a time of war (and a homosexual in a time of criminal penalties)? That you don't need to know these facts to get a feeling for the opera being about an outsider, aloof and separate from society? I can't agree with you, if that is your position, because I think the objective facts surrounding the composition of that piece do inform and enhance one's understanding and experience of it as a piece of music.

But I'm finding your language a bit opaque, so if that's not what you were driving at at all, my apologies.


----------



## Guest002

1996D said:


> Yes it often is with different generations, the good thing is that we have the patience to discuss it and thus learn a great deal, I know I am.
> 
> Of course, patience is what's right, while also working towards wisdom, but only knowing these details can you be patient with confidence. It's a wave and there is no stopping it, but no one will force you to participate either, at least not if you have the mind to cohabitate with such wild ideas while having those of your own.


I find you make sweeping assessments about what different generations believe; what people of different educational experience believe; and speaking of it all in exotic language of (to my mind) pretended depth.

Your experience is not mine. Your constant expression of your _opinion_ as though it were inevitable and undoubted fact _isn't_ persuasive.

The Thomas More quote was there to remind you of the benefit of humility in the face of history: these things have all been thought of before, with a due sense of dread and gloom... and yet the world hasn't yet ended. There are no unstoppable waves. These things pass.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> We (AbsolutelyBaching and I) both believe that the results of polls are "objective facts". Having affirmed that, we find we have learned Nothing Further about any intrinsic properties of art other than what can be accurately measured. I admire your defense of polling but what, in addition, will you have learned from its results? Will anything of polling convince you to like what you don't (if others do)? or dislike what you love?
> 
> I think we both like Maria McKee!


I'm not sure who you were replying to with this comment. But my take on it is:

Whilst I do agree that the result of a poll is an objective fact; and whilst I agree that the verdict of time-worn history is a poll of sorts; I believe that the verdict of history *does* tell us something about the intrinsic property of a piece of music. Namely, that it is 'great' or 'good' or 'significant' -let us settle on 'meritorious'.

That doesn't mean you have to like what history has blessed as 'meritorious', however. If you don't love St. Matthew Passion, that's your right... and loss. The point, however, is to not dismiss that which you don't like, as though your insight on the matter is of equal validity with the weight of history. You don't like it, fine. You don't have to listen to it. But don't claim it's not a great work and that others that regard it as such are delusional. Rather call it a 'great work I just don't get' or something similar.

My experience with Charles Ives is along these lines. I dislike everything of his I have, but I won't delete it, nor stop acquiring new works of his, because I feel sure that I will eventually 'get' him. A little. Why am I thus convinced? Because he's been around long enough, with sufficient 'polling', for me to be sure that there must be _something_ to his work, even if I don't as yet perceive it for myself.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Order will return? Your philosophy, I believe, is that of Plato's theory of forms - is this what you are referring to?


In a way perhaps, but history can be just as good a teacher. A person's mind and ideas are moulded by the society they're in, there is ample historical evidence, and because societies change then so do the minds, and therefore the world. To find objective truth you must then study the behavior of all eras and seek to see what is unchanging, then you find the patterns and cycles.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I find you make sweeping assessments about what different generations believe; what people of different educational experience believe; and speaking of it all in exotic language of (to my mind) pretended depth.
> 
> Your experience is not mine. Your constant expression of your _opinion_ as though it were inevitable and undoubted fact _isn't_ persuasive.
> 
> The Thomas More quote was there to remind you of the benefit of humility in the face of history: these things have all been thought of before, with a due sense of dread and gloom... and yet the world hasn't yet ended. There are no unstoppable waves. These things pass.


There is no dread, just acceptance.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Could I explain the motivation behind it? In the case of behaviorism, the removal of the subjective dimension of experience, replaced by totally objective accounts of "behavior" and responses, can yield hard _*data,*_ which is so valued these days.
> 
> I think it just shows the increasing pervasiveness of a kind of "objectivity" which, in its inception during the Enlightenment, was useful. Now, it seems to have taken over everything, at the expense of all that is 'human' and experience-based. See R.D. Laing.


If the subjective is being replaced as you say by objectivity then why did you say that, 'removing the "experience" from art, and replacing it with ...*subjectivity*...'?

You mean an individuals subjective claim to objectivity?


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> In a way perhaps, but history can be just as good a teacher. A person's mind and ideas are moulded by the society they're in, there is ample historical evidence, and because societies change then so do the minds, and therefore the world. To find objective truth you must then study the behavior of all eras and seek to see what is unchanging, then you find the patterns and cycles.


I'm a little lost. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that it is theoretically possible to determine objectively if two works that are generally accepted to be 'great' may be placed one above the other in a 'greatness' table? So Mozart's _Jupiter_ is greater than say _The Rite of Spring_ and _Beethoven's 5th symphony_ is above _Sibelius's 5th symphony_?


----------



## larold

_The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome. Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being. What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"_

If you are talking about music appreciation it is probably difficult to listen and not hear what you already know and appreciate.

I think it is easy to be objective about forms of art with which you have no emotional connection. For me that would be building design (architecture), some forms of literature, some sports (those are art forms you know), and perhaps some other things.

I think it is possible for me to witness those things with dispassion and see what is there without prejudice or with little prejudice. That's probably not possible with classical music with which I have had a 50-year relationship.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> I'm a little lost. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that it is theoretically possible to determine objectively if two works that are generally accepted to be 'great' may be placed one above the other in a 'greatness' table? So Mozart's _Jupiter_ is greater than say _The Rite of Spring_ and _Beethoven's 5th symphony_ is above _Sibelius's 5th symphony_?


There will come a day when that is attempted, yes. Just look back at the days of Louis the 14th and tell me that there wasn't precise consensus on what was great art and what wasn't. It only takes a society that has order and transparent hierarchy to achieve such consensus.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> Could I explain the motivation behind it? In the case of behaviorism, the removal of the subjective dimension of experience, replaced by totally objective accounts of "behavior" and responses, can yield hard _*data,*_ which is so valued these days.
> 
> I think it just shows the increasing pervasiveness of a kind of "objectivity" which, in its inception during the Enlightenment, was useful. Now, it seems to have taken over everything, at the expense of all that is 'human' and experience-based.


This is all _*really*_ out of date. Behaviourism was an early attempt to make psychology more "scientific" (objective?) but it has long since been discredited and can't be taken as a symptom of where we are now. Incidentally, pychologists have been producing numerical data since then by a variety of methods. Almost anything - opinions, preferences, "visual processing", memory etc etc - can be and is measured by psychologists. But these days many lay public prefer the "objective" reductionism of neuroscientific approaches so you don't hear that much about other methods. But humanistic psychology still thrives and brings insights alongside the more "scientific" approaches.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> There will come a day when that is attempted, yes.


Why the need to speculate?



> Just look back at the days of Louis the 14th and tell me that there wasn't precise consensus on what was great art and what wasn't. It only takes a society that has order and transparent hierarchy to achieve such consensus.


I'm not aware, no. Lully and Couperin?


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Whilst I do agree that the result of a poll is an objective fact; and whilst I agree that the verdict of time-worn history is a poll of sorts; I believe that the verdict of history *does* tell us something about the intrinsic property of a piece of music. Namely, that it is 'great' or 'good' or 'significant' -let us settle on 'meritorious'.
> 
> That doesn't mean you have to like what history has blessed as 'meritorious', however. If you don't love St. Matthew Passion, that's your right... and loss. The point, however, is to not dismiss that which you don't like, as though your insight on the matter is of equal validity with the weight of history. You don't like it, fine. You don't have to listen to it. But don't claim it's not a great work and that others that regard it as such are delusional. Rather call it a 'great work I just don't get' or something similar.
> 
> My experience with Charles Ives is along these lines. I dislike everything of his I have, but I won't delete it, nor stop acquiring new works of his, because I feel sure that I will eventually 'get' him. A little. Why am I thus convinced? Because he's been around long enough, with sufficient 'polling', for me to be sure that there must be _something_ to his work, even if I don't as yet perceive it for myself.


You mistake my position. Unlike most others I make no claims about whether particular works of art are good or bad. I state only whether I like them, or rather that they seem good or bad _to me_. In deference to the feelings of others, I rarely speak of my dislikes--my silence on various works or composers or artists can be read as either disinterest upon examination, or unfamiliarity. What troubles me still is your continuing to apply terms such as meritoriousness as a seemingly intrinsic, "objective" property inherent in the art object but one only discoverable and capable of evaluation by poll: "the judgement of history". You see, your notion is just old wine in new bottles--voting dressed up in Sunday clothes. And if you feel you must keep hammering away at Charles Ives after your experience to date......


----------



## Strange Magic

To millionrainbows: If you like R. D. Laing on mental illness, you will love Thomas Szasz!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353517/


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> You mistake my position. Unlike most others I make no claims about whether particular works of art are good or bad. I state only whether I like them, or rather that they seem good or bad _to me_.


And in that we are in perfect agreement. The "you" in my statement was a generic you, not a personally-directed one. Because people _in general _do tend to move from the 'I don't like this' to 'therefore it must be no good'.



Strange Magic said:


> What troubles me still is your continuing to apply terms such as meritoriousness as a seemingly intrinsic, "objective" property inherent in the art object but one only discoverable and capable of evaluation by poll: "the judgement of history". You see, your notion is just old wine in new bottles--voting dressed up in Sunday clothes.


Not at all. To equate the judgment of history with a poll is reductio ad absurdum.

In the aggregate, and over time, people's approbation can, I think, point to an underlying, objective truth about the merit of a work that you or I would be unable to do in the singular or the few; and definitely not in the now.

The polls on this forum are meaningless. I think we both agree on that. But the judgment of experts and armchair enthusiasts, of audiences, colleagues, composers, critics and the impressarios' bank balances over decades or centuries is not an insta-poll of that type but a collective reasoning and experience that points to an underlying inherent property. It is like looking through a glass darkly, and the results are seldom definitive. But Kant's suggestion that reason and experience reveal the underlying noumenon ('reality', if you like) is not just a belief in an opinion poll!


----------



## Strange Magic

> AbsolutelyBaching: "In the aggregate, and over time, people's approbation can, I think, point to *an underlying, objective truth about the merit of a work* that you or I would be unable to do in the singular or the few; and definitely not in the now."


Just what might that objective truth be? Other than that it ranks high in a poll? Once we turn these issues over to Kant and the _noumenon_, we have departed the direct physicality of both the art object and ordinary experience of it--the very air becomes quite thin.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Just what might that objective truth be?


That the underlying reality is that a work of art has, or is of, merit.



Strange Magic said:


> Other than that it ranks high in a poll?


You can keep saying that as often as you like, but I don't agree that the verdict of history is the same thing as a poll in the reductionist (and absurd) terms you keep trying to make it out to be; and I've explained why quite carefully, I think. So it's not helpful for you to keep saying it as though it were undisputed.



Strange Magic said:


> Once we turn these issues over to Kant and the _noumenon_, we have departed the direct physicality of both the art object and ordinary experience of it--the very air becomes quite thin.


And you don't think that 9 pages in this thread was already extremely tenuous?!

And no, his whole point was that reality and the ordinary experience of reality are what allows us to sense the underlying 'truth' or 'content' of the world. You like wine analogies, I prefer this one: if you're walking down the street and you are suddenly met by an hysterical crowd of thousands swarming in the opposite direction, screaming, crying and shouting 'fire', there's a pretty good chance that you're walking towards a fire that you, personally, cannot see, smell, feel or hear. The behaviour of crowds tells us something about reality. And their behaviour cannot be neatly dismissed as a 'poll', though I know you will want to keep reducing it to that.


----------



## Strange Magic

AB, you are clearly happy with your assertion that a work of art has merit--merit, of course, that resides not in the object but in the reaction to it--its being perceived, a la Berkeley--by the eye, not of God (or is that next?), but of History. It is in fact helpful for me to repeat the simple fact that the "merit" of art or art objects is entirely in its subjective perception by individuals--which then some choose to sum and call it the Judgement of Experts today, and of History tomorrow. And one can meet hysterical crowds of thousands who are in the grip of a shared delusion. The behavior of crowds is indeed an objective phenomenon; the triggers to that behavior can also be explored, but the testimony of the crowd is not necessarily a mirror of reality. No cigar.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Why the need to speculate?
> 
> I'm not aware, no. Lully and Couperin?


Art as a whole was highly objective, if you're interested you can read about the style of Louis XIV.

The whole point is that it all depends on the society you live in and your rank in it when it comes to how much you see things objectively.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Art as a whole was highly objective, if you're interested you can read about the style of Louis XIV.
> 
> The whole point is that it all depends on the society you live in and your rank in it when it comes to how much you see things objectively.


You keep making bold assertions without backing them up.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> You keep making bold assertions without backing them up.


You have to be interested and want to read about it.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You have to be interested and want to read about it.


I'm interested - what is your argument?


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> To be fair, I hadn't read your original post before joining this thread, which (it seems to me) has morphed into a discussion about the objective v. subjective //significance// or worth of art (guilty!)
> 
> So going right back to your first post, I have to say that I take issue with your almost-very-first statement, that "All art is an expression of being". Some art might be, and thus a representation of 'inner state'. A lot of art can surely be imitation of reality: representation of the external world.
> 
> But what does 'expression' mean anyway? Do you mean the music expresses what the composer was feeling? Or that the music inspires us to feel something when we hear it?


As an "expression of being" it would include all those things which we can all relate to as humans.



> If you take it to mean that it's about the feelings music can inspire in us, the listeners, then it's obvious that you must 'objectify art and separate it from its creator', because it's the listener who is in the driving seat at that point.


I see it as empathy.



> I still don't really have a good grasp of what it is you're asking though.
> 
> You seem to be saying that you approve of a 'subjectivist' view of music, where the feelings of the listener are of paramount importance, and dislike an objectivist view of it, where (presumably... I'm guessing at this point), the thoughts and feelings of the composer are of paramount importance?


No, you're separating the creator from the listener; I see it as an empathy, which includes the experience (in artistic form) of the artist.



> Are you suggesting, for example, that it is foolish to try to add to one's understanding of Britten's _Peter Grimes_ better by appreciating that it was written by a pacifist in a time of war (and a homosexual in a time of criminal penalties)? That you don't need to know these facts to get a feeling for the opera being about an outsider, aloof and separate from society? I can't agree with you, if that is your position, because I think the objective facts surrounding the composition of that piece do inform and enhance one's understanding and experience of it as a piece of music.


No, I'm not suggesting that.



> But I'm finding your language a bit opaque, so if that's not what you were driving at at all, my apologies.


For example, in "religious" music, some think it is possible to separate the music from its text, function, and intended purpose as "religious" music.

This is what I call a product of objective "formal" analysis. In this type of analysis, only external, formal elements are considered. In painting, this would be the colors themselves, and all visible formal elements. 
Then there is the other side of this analysis equation, which considers subjective questions:
What was the artist's intent? What was the artist trying to accomplish? Was the artist sincere?

In other words, this second analytical approach focusses on the artist and his intentions, his sincerity, and all those subjective factors of 'the other person' (being) in the equation. In other words, _it assumes that art is a result of another person's being (the artist) as it is experienced by us._

There is also a one-sided "subjectivity" _which does not recognize the art object as the product of the artist's being as it communicates to us on a human level. _
This results in a kind of narcissism which dehumanizes the artist and art, and *renders the art into being an "object" divorced from any connection with "being" except our own.* _Art is always a two-way street if it is to have a "subjective" dimension of meaning. _

Otherwise, we are just "counting notes" and observing formal characteristics which exclude "the meaning" the art was intended to convey.


----------



## zxxyxxz

There is no science to art.

You cannot measure feelings, you cannot measure how someone is shaped by experience and their life in general and then the impact that has on what they view as good and meaningful to them.

Art intrigues us so precisely because we cannot quite pin point why we think something is good.

For example I could tell you the era of painting I like and even amongst those some specific sub categories but I couldn't tell you why they call to me as opposed to other pieces.

However art is wonderful to talk about as it generates opinions and makes us look at things in a different light if only before disregarding said opinion as rubbish.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> I'm interested - what is your argument?


How old are you?


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> How old are you?


Why would that be relevant?


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Why would that be relevant?


You might have no use for it, then it's best if you don't think about it.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> You might have no use for it, then it's best if you don't think about it.


I have no understanding of what you are saying 1996D. I asked for your argument that demonstrates objectivity in music and you haven't made one.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> I have no understanding of what you are saying 1996D. I asked for your argument that demonstrates objectivity in music and you haven't made one.


I'm telling you that whether objectivity is accepted or not depends on the society, and that if you want proof study history. I won't decipher it for you.


----------



## zxxyxxz

Hmm the presence of critics and critical writing across all of history would suggest that no one in any time has been able to agree on what is good and what is bad.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I'm telling you that whether objectivity is accepted or not depends on the society, and that if you want proof study history. I won't decipher it for you.


With respect, this is not an argument.


----------



## 1996D

zxxyxxz said:


> Hmm the presence of critics and critical writing across all of history would suggest that no one in any time has been able to agree on what is good and what is bad.


If there is order and authority on art, there is consensus.


----------



## Guest

zxxyxxz said:


> Hmm the presence of critics and critical writing across all of history would suggest that no one in any time has been able to agree on what is good and what is bad.


But if we ignore the critics, there has been some degree of agreement amongst the music-consuming public. It's just the public keeps agreeing on the critically unacceptable


----------



## zxxyxxz

1996D said:


> If there is order and authority on art, there is consensus.


But by who's authority and who decides on what the authority is?

If it were up to Hanslick Wagner wouldn't be considered good or art and yet...

Why should one person's opinion for that is all taste is be considered more important than the opinion of someone else. Especially if they have attended the same performance or display of the same piece of art?


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> If there is order and authority on art, there is consensus.


Order and authority? - please explain what you are saying.


----------



## millionrainbows

I use Jiffy-Pop, it's the best pop there is! This has been proven! Four out of Five dentists recommend it! The Good Houskeeping seal of approval.

Meanwhile, back in the realm of pure being, some among us are experiencing our favorite art.


----------



## 1996D

zxxyxxz said:


> But by who's authority and who decides on what the authority is?
> 
> If it were up to Hanslick Wagner wouldn't be considered good or art and yet...
> 
> Why should one person's opinion for that is all taste is be considered more important than the opinion of someone else. Especially if they have attended the same performance or display of the same piece of art?


That's why I gave the example of Louis XIV, it all depends on the society, but there are historical examples of order in art.


----------



## zxxyxxz

millionrainbows said:


> I use Jiffy-Pop, it's the best pop there is! This has been proven! Four out of Five dentists recommend it! The Good Houskeeping seal of approval.
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the realm of pure being, some among us are experiencing our favorite art.


Ha! Love it.

But opinions are always worth hearing


----------



## millionrainbows

zxxyxxz said:


> Ha! Love it.
> 
> But opinions are always worth hearing


Where can I get that Tristan/1958/Orfeo you are so fond of?


----------



## zxxyxxz

millionrainbows said:


> Where can I get that Tristan/1958/Orfeo you are so fond of?


I got mine on Amazon, it came in physical and digital forms. I went physical as it came with a booklet and photos.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> AB, you are clearly happy with your assertion that a work of art has merit--merit, of course, that resides not in the object but in the reaction to it--its being perceived, a la Berkeley--by the eye, not of God (or is that next?), but of History.


If you could cut down on the interjections and sub-clauses so your sentences are intelligible on first reading, rather than the fifth, I'd be grateful!

Yes, it's an assertion on my part. I'm in good company making such an assertion, of course, but as that would merely be an appeal to authority, I shan't try to justify it further.

But you mis-characterise it anyway. It's an assertion that there is intrinsic merit to a work of art. That merit doesn't arise from the reaction to it. It doesn't exist because people perceive it. It doesn't require God or History to exist. It is of the object itself. History merely hints at its existence, to one degree or another.

The verdict of history is the clue that underlies the assertion, of course. It's because "everyone" says Beethoven's 5th is a great symphony that we have a clue that it _is_ actually great.



Strange Magic said:


> It is in fact helpful for me to repeat the simple fact that the "merit" of art or art objects is entirely in its subjective...


But, you see, you're not being honest when you type that. You can't say "the simple fact...is that it's entirely subjective" when it is that very "fact" that we're actually disputing! That is an assertion on _your_ part ...but one you're not admitting to.



Strange Magic said:


> perception by individuals--which then some choose to sum and call it the Judgement of Experts today, and of History tomorrow.


They're not the same thing. Since you don't like Kant, can I refer you to Dalton? Francis, not Timothy. He was surprised that the crowd at the country fair could correct guess the weight of an ox in the aggregate and by average. No one visitor to the fair got it right, but on the average they did. The wisdom of crowds is a thing -and no, it's not the same thing as an opinion poll. There can be unwise crowds (this would be one of them: diversity of experience and opinion is an important component in creating a 'wise' crowd, so a group of self-confessed classical music fans would lack many of the prerequisites of a wise crowd). And a group of 'experts' would also constitute an unwise crowd. But history is simply the passing of time, allowing the opinions of vast swathes of people from different cultures, experiences and expectations to evaluate things. The diversity, de-centralisation, lack of formal proceedings and independence associated with the passage of time is what renders 'the verdict of history' capable of being wise.



Strange Magic said:


> And one can meet hysterical crowds of thousands who are in the grip of a shared delusion.


You can, and Germany in 1932/33 would be a good example of the un-wisdom of crowds. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that wise crowds exist.



Strange Magic said:


> The behavior of crowds is indeed an objective phenomenon; the triggers to that behavior can also be explored, but the testimony of the crowd is not necessarily a mirror of reality. No cigar.


I don't smoke, so no cigar is necessary -and I *didn't* say that the testimony of a crowd is a mirror of reality. It's a clue (or can be) to an underlying reality that we cannot otherwise perceive.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> For example, in "religious" music, some think it is possible to separate the music from its text, function, and intended purpose as "religious" music.


Of course they do, otherwise I wouldn't be able to listen to Verdi's Requiem at home, would I? Where's my nearest cathedral and corpse?!

Are you suggesting it's wrong that I listen to Verdi's Requiem and regard it simply as a piece of choral and orchestral music, devoid of religious significance, if I myself am not religious and have no belief in an afterlife, for example?

You seem to be suggesting that 'art is a two-way street' and requires both subjectivity on the part of the listerner/observer and an understanding of the subjective feelings of the composer/artist (although I am still not clear if that's what you're actually getting at!): that the two halves of the equation need to meet at a point of 'empathy' as you call it.

But if the composer is dead, all we have is the listener/observer -and his _guesses_ as to what the subjective feelings of the composer were. And if the listener chooses to rip a composition out of its original 'function and intended purpose', by daring to listen to a mass on the home CD player, say: well, that seems entirely reasonable to me. It could well be limiting, of course, since one is likely to understand a work better by understanding its context. But I'm not sure empathy comes into it when one half of the empathetic duo has been dead for 250 years!


----------



## Strange Magic

AB, based on your Post #147 and all of your previous posts, I declare myself fully in control of this argument. Your argument is a crowd argument, a polling argument, that draws upon selected audiences, specific times or, if better, summations of the vote over time until we reach a desired result in the polling. We have seen many variations of this argument--J. Robert Oppenheimer, no mean aesthete, advising his brother that the Best Art was that beloved of the Best People. And vice versa, of course--tautology at its most naked.

Consider: a vast sea of undifferentiated humanity. We play for them an hour of Schubert, an hour of Agujetas, an hour of Ravi Shankar, an hour of Moroccan Gharnati, an hour of Tito Rodriguez, Frank Sinatra, of Edith Piaf, of Fela Kuti, of Amy Winehouse, of Chinese opera, etc., and then conduct a poll. What does it tell us? It tells us, if we poll on and on among those capable, centuries later, of hearing the same musics (scores and recordings being available), that clusters of enthusiasts form around each of the selections. We can then measure people's IQs, net worth, education, gender, eye color with great accuracy--and also the objective characteristics of the music: scale, complexity, composer, year composed, instruments used, a hundred other things. But can we determine which of the musics is "Best"? What is inherent in the music that makes it "Best"? I'll again quote Hamlet: "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." I was chastised by another poster previously for attributing--as did Kenneth Clark--this view to Shakespeare himself (a difference of opinion right there), so I'll leave it entirely to Hamlet. Yet it remains fixedly true when it comes to esthetics and to the evaluation of art and art objects--all esthetics is subjective and personal. We can sum the votes to determine what the majority of the Crowd thinks (an objective fact), but how are we to use this information other than upon the supposition that the Crowd is Right (and we are wrong?) Who is to be Master?


----------



## Strange Magic

> AbsolutelyBaching: "...I didn't say that the testimony of a crowd is a mirror of reality. It's a clue (or can be) to an underlying reality that we cannot otherwise perceive."


Tell us more about underlying realities that we cannot otherwise perceive. And about the nature of such "clues" as the behavior of crowds.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> AB, based on your Post #147 and all of your previous posts, I declare myself fully in control of this argument.


Oh, well, then, your majesty. By all means, declare it so. (By the way, it just means you have zero arguments, an ego the size of Denmark and have taken the ball and walked off with it. You haven't won the game; you've rather just lost it).



Strange Magic said:


> Your argument is a crowd argument, a polling argument


So you say. It isn't, and you're wrong, with no better response than merely to repeat that which has already been denied.



Strange Magic said:


> ...that draws upon selected audiences, specific times or, if better, summations of the vote over time until we reach a desired result in the polling. We have seen many variations of this argument--J. Robert Oppenheimer, no mean aesthete, advising his brother that the Best Art was that beloved of the Best People. And vice versa, of course--tautology at its most naked.


My argument draws on very un-selected audiences at no specific times or places. That is rather it's point. But I realise you don't want to deal with the argument I'm actually making, but merely wish to re-phrase it into something you feel you have already demolished. Be my guest.



Strange Magic said:


> Consider: a vast sea of undifferentiated humanity. We play for them an hour of Schubert, an hour of Agujetas, an hour of Ravi Shankar, an hour of Moroccan Gharnati, an hour of Tito Rodriguez, Frank Sinatra, of Edith Piaf, of Fela Kuti, of Amy Winehouse, of Chinese opera, etc., and then conduct a poll. What does it tell us?


It tells me you haven't even listened to the point being made, still less understood it.

I can see you have no substantive arguments to make, merely repeating 'a poll, a poll'.

You think you can equate the judgment of 200 years of classical music experience to playing someone an hour of Schubert? Pht. You haven't a clue.



Strange Magic said:


> It tells us, if we poll on and on among those capable, centuries later, of hearing the same musics (scores and recordings being available), that clusters of enthusiasts form around each of the selections. We can then measure people's IQs, net worth, education, gender, eye color with great accuracy--and also the objective characteristics of the music: scale, complexity, composer, year composed, instruments used, a hundred other things. But can we determine which of the musics is "Best"?


Who said anything about "best"? That's you and your putting words into people's mouths again. I said, the verdict of history tells us that a piece of music has merit. Is of lasting significance, if you prefer. If it doesn't tell us that about, I don't know, 'You aint nothing but a hounddog'; if it says that song _isn't_ of significance, but that the B minor mass is, then I suppose you could say the B minor mass is "better" than the Hounddog, but I wouldn't go further than that -and I think it's too early to tell on that particular comparison in any event.



Strange Magic said:


> What is inherent in the music that makes it "Best"?


Strawman. I never said best. Play your ranking games if you like. I've never wanted to play them myself.



Strange Magic said:


> I'll again quote Hamlet: "Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." I was chastised by another poster previously for attributing--as did Kenneth Clark--this view to Shakespeare himself (a difference of opinion right there), so I'll leave it entirely to Hamlet. Yet it remains fixedly true when it comes to esthetics and to the evaluation of art and art objects--all esthetics is subjective and personal. We can sum the votes to determine what the majority of the Crowd thinks (an objective fact), but how are we to use this information other than upon the supposition that the Crowd is Right (and we are wrong?) Who is to be Master?


No, we can't "sum the votes". Who are the voters? Nameless, faceless people who have paid their groats and shillings to go hear a piece: they have no vote, but their legacy of approbation is not to be ignored either.

If you are merely going to repeat the same stuff over and over again, instead of actually engaging with the argument, and responding to the actual arguments put to you, then this "conversation" isn't any such thing and has become pointless.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Tell us more about underlying realities that we cannot otherwise perceive. And about the nature of such "clues" as the behavior of crowds.


No, I think not, because you're not actually interested in a real discussion, but are simply flexing your ego.

I will simply quote this:

"The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material."

Michaelangelo could perceive something in a block of marble that others couldn't. You seem to have a problem about there being realities which you can't personally perceive. I do not.


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> No, I think not, because you're not actually interested in a real discussion, but are simply flexing your ego.
> 
> I will simply quote this:
> 
> "The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material."
> 
> Michaelangelo could perceive something in a block of marble that others couldn't. You seem to have a problem about there being realities which you can't personally perceive. I do not.


Please! I think we're done here. You convince me that you have not and perhaps cannot grasp my position and that your argument is not clear even to yourself. It is perhaps one of those unperceived realities you mention. And Michelangelo won't help you here--it is one with Bach's alleged quote that playing the organ was merely a matter of hitting the right keys at the right time and the instrument playing itself.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Please! I think we're done here. You convince me that you have not and perhaps cannot grasp my position and that your argument is not clear even to yourself. It is perhaps one of those unperceived realities you mention. And Michelangelo won't help you here--it is one with Bach's alleged quote that playing the organ was merely a matter of hitting the right keys at the right time and the instrument playing itself.


What? You only _think _we're done?!

Good lord man. You are late to the party.

Your position is "it's a poll". You roll your eyes at the mention of Kant. It tells me all I need to know.

You are free to declare yourself the winner now, if it pleases you, your majesty.


----------



## Strange Magic

Here is Post #138 from the Who is Your Favorite of the Big Three thread where this topic was discussed _as nauseum_ for the umpteenth time. It represents one of the many dozens of times I have made the same observation. Some come new to the topic, thinking their ideas are fresh and vital--I am fascinated by the idea of unperceived realities or whatever it is. But it's the same old same old. Who is late to the party?

"I'll not comment further on this topic other than to again say that it is obviously of great comfort to almost all of us (you) to believe that whatever music, or art, we love and hold dear is also held dear by others. Some of those others we respect a priori; others gain our respect by liking what we like and telling us that they like it for the very same reasons we do. If they like it for different reasons, we can deal with that as long as they say they like it also. It becomes then concerning when peers or authority figures don't like what we like; it puts our thinking in doubt: Am I wrong to like this? A troubling idea.

My own experience and my observation of the remarks of others clearly indicate to me that I am an outlier in believing in the primacy and the validity of my own opinions about what is "good" (I like it) or bad (I don't like it) in music and the arts. What is art for, for the vast majority of its "consumers"? Is it to acquire a reputation (like an oenophile) for the excellence of one's taste? The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?

My esthetics is all about UHURU--freedom--to interact directly with music, literature, art unburdened by the clutter of bad, good, better, best, and the whole notion that there is something/anything in the art itself that radiates out like a force field but that only those with the proper sensors can detect, but that, if truly inherent and objective, should be obvious and detectable by anyone. My philosophy also permits anyone to construct any sort of fantastic theory about what is good/bad/great/greater. We all do it, but most fail (in my opinion) to recognize how subjective it all is. Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?"


----------



## NLAdriaan

:lol: I guess a thread like this can only result from the Covid-19 isolation. I didn't read all of it here, not even close.

I just throw in a few illustrations, to illustrate the question if large crowds are objectively right in their choice for music:








A more sensitive contestant in this forum would be the 2 million sold copies of this one:








Just to cool you guys down here, we have enough fever already:tiphat:


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> My esthetics is all about UHURU--freedom--to interact directly with music, literature, art unburdened by the clutter of bad, good, better, best, and the whole notion that there is something/anything in the art itself that radiates out like a force field but that only those with the proper sensors can detect, but that, if truly inherent and objective, should be obvious and detectable by anyone. My philosophy also permits anyone to construct any sort of fantastic theory about what is good/bad/great/greater. We all do it, but most fail (in my opinion) to recognize how subjective it all is. Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?"


I never mentioned 'best'; I talked of 'significance' or 'merit'. I don't do league tables.

I also never said that it required 'the proper sensors' to detect the inherent merit of a work. I in fact said that the judgement of history is required to detect it, precisely because we as individuals *cannot* detect it.

Galton's ox: no-one got the weight right. But in the aggregate, they did, more or less. That specific analogy is not quite right, because it lacks the passage of time. But the general principle that things can be perceived in the aggregate which cannot be perceived by individuals is true enough.

I don't know why you assume that if "it" is an inherent property of a work of art, it "should be obvious and detectable by anyone". I said precisely the opposite. It isn't obvious and it's why your one-hour poll of opinions about Schubert was silly and definitely isn't what I'm talking about.

Anyway: I'm done with trying to reason with one who won't reason.


----------



## Guest002

NLAdriaan said:


> :lol: I guess a thread like this can only result from the Covid-19 isolation. I didn't read all of it here, not even close.
> 
> I just throw in a few illustrations, to illustrate the question if large crowds are objectively right in their choice for music:


Large crowds are not objectively right and I never suggested they were (nor did anyone else, I think). Germany in 1932/33 will tell you quite the opposite, in fact. Large crowds are often bonkers. But the passage of time will usually sort it out in the end, as we all found out twelve years later.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> But you mis-characterise it anyway. It's an assertion that there is intrinsic merit to a work of art. *That merit doesn't arise from the reaction to it. It doesn't exist because people perceive it. *It doesn't require God or History to exist. It is of the object itself. History merely hints at its existence, to one degree or another.
> 
> The verdict of history is the clue that underlies the assertion, of course. It's because "everyone" says Beethoven's 5th is a great symphony that we have a clue that it _is_ actually great.


I disagree strongly; I think the reason certain works of art are 'elevated' by history is precisely because many, many people empathize and respond to the work of another human being's experience, as expressed through art.


----------



## Strange Magic

Poor Andre Rieu! On the receiving end of constant abuse from People Who Should Know Better for bringing a "popular" version of classical music to audiences of millions, summed over time. Better that those same millions should not be attending to Rieu and his orchestra and singers?--will scorning Rieu increase the audience for CM? I recall when the National Academy of Sciences refused membership to astronomer/popularizer Carl Sagan, and earned the scorn and rebuke of Jared Diamond, a Member of the NAS, for its short-sightedness. Diamond argued correctly and persuasively that science needed all the help and understanding it could get in today's world, when science was routinely ignored and/or derided by both much of the public and by determiners of public policy. Rieu deserves much credit today for being one of the effective channels bringing CM, especially opera, to a very wide audience. CM people seem to be unstinting in their appreciation for PDQ Bach and for Hoffnung, and for the remarkable Victor Borge, yet poor Rieu--perhaps because of his succe$$--is the subject of calumny. Go figure.


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> will scorning Rieu increase the audience for CM?


Possibly--I think you may be underestimating the popular appeal of pontificating about cm recordings on online retail sites.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Of course they do, otherwise I wouldn't be able to listen to Verdi's Requiem at home, would I? Where's my nearest cathedral and corpse?!
> 
> Are you suggesting it's wrong that I listen to Verdi's Requiem and regard it simply as a piece of choral and orchestral music, devoid of religious significance, if I myself am not religious and have no belief in an afterlife, for example?


No, but I think this is symptomatic of many listener's attempts to 'objectify' art into a totally self-contained, self-involved experience. You should at least accept and acknowledge the original intent of the work from the composer.



> You seem to be suggesting that 'art is a two-way street' and requires both subjectivity on the part of the listerner/observer and an understanding of the subjective feelings of the composer/artist (although I am still not clear if that's what you're actually getting at!): that the two halves of the equation need to meet at a point of 'empathy' as you call it.


Yes, that's fair to say. Now where are you taking this?



> But if the composer is dead, all we have is the listener/observer -and his _guesses_ as to what the subjective feelings of the composer were.


Yes, that's obvious, but if the artist is good at what he does, his experience will be conveyed effectively, so that we can empathize. Shakespeare is timeless for this very reason.



> And if the listener chooses to rip a composition out of its original 'function and intended purpose', by daring to listen to a mass on the home CD player, say: well, that seems entirely reasonable to me. It could well be limiting, of course, since one is likely to understand a work better by understanding its context. But I'm not sure empathy comes into it when one half of the empathetic duo has been dead for 250 years!


This is the result of recording. It changed the experience of music in profound ways, rendering it as a sonic or visual "object" which can be reproduced at our convenience. This is why we need to remind people constantly: art and music are things which are produced by real people, with real experiences.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree strongly; I think the reason certain works of art are 'elevated' by history is precisely because many, many people empathize and respond to the work of another human being's experience, as expressed through art.


I disagree with your disagreement. I think if Beethoven had locked his Symphony No. 5 in a cast iron trunk for ever since the day he declared it complete, it would remain a signficant work of art. Just one, unfortunately, that we wouldn't be aware of and would have no way of making judgment about.

If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? I will contend that it did, since a pressure wave was produced, even if that wave never went on to interact with an ear drum.

The merit of the work is intrinsic in the work. People don't 'elevate' a work. Neither does history. People's opinions can't turn led into gold, nor vice versa. But the tide of history, and the prolonged approbation of a work by a lot of people over time, can suggest that the merit is there, though it remains an intrinsic part of the work, and needs no-one for it to be perceived for it to be there nonetheless.


----------



## Strange Magic

> AbsolutelyBaching: " It's an assertion that there is intrinsic merit to a work of art. That merit doesn't arise from the reaction to it. It doesn't exist because people perceive it. It doesn't require God or History to exist. It is of the object itself. History merely hints at its existence, to one degree or another."


Many thanks to millionrainbows for again focusing on a key element of AB's thesis: that there is something inherent and intrinsic in certain works of art that gives them "merit" that does not require God, History, or You or Me to perceive--it's just There. Against a notion like this, all argument to the contrary is futile and I congratulate AB for establishing what is essentially a new religion of the study of esthetics.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I disagree with your disagreement. I think if Beethoven had locked his Symphony No. 5 in a cast iron trunk for ever since the day he declared it complete, it would remain a signficant work of art. Just one, unfortunately, that we wouldn't be aware of and would have no way of making judgment about.
> 
> If a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, did it make a sound? I will contend that it did, since a pressure wave was produced, even if that wave never went on to interact with an ear drum.
> 
> The merit of the work is intrinsic in the work. People don't 'elevate' a work. Neither does history. People's opinions can't turn led into gold, nor vice versa. But the tide of history, and the prolonged approbation of a work by a lot of people over time, can suggest that the merit is there, though it remains an intrinsic part of the work, and needs no-one for it to be perceived for it to be there nonetheless.


These are ideas more suited for philosophy and "objects" like trees falling over. Art and music are human communication and interaction. To truly have significance, they must be experienced.

There is some merit in recognizing that a work of art has certain objective features which make it especially effective and "great", but to separate these qualities from our experience of them seems to be a useless depersonalization of the art, just to prove a rational philosophical point.

You seem to have a knack for philosophy; I just think you are applying it to the wrong area of experience. I don't think anyone here disagrees with the 'on-the-surface' basic rational premise of what you are saying; it's just being applied to an area where it is irrelevant.


----------



## Art Rock

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think if Beethoven had locked his Symphony No. 5 in a cast iron trunk for ever since the day he declared it complete, it would remain a signficant work of art..


Schroedinger's symphony! Is it a work of art? Is it a dud? We'll never know until we open the trunk.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> No, but I think this is symptomatic of many listener's attempts to 'objectify' art into a totally self-contained, self-involved experience. You should at least accept and acknowledge the original intent of the work from the composer.


Er, what should I accept and acknowledge? The composer's been dead for 100 years or more: how are we to know his "original intent"?

I go back to my _Peter Grimes_ example. We don't know what Britten's "intent" was when he wrote that, other than that he wanted to write a successful opera and make English opera a 'thing' for the first time in a long while. But it's possible to read into it a story of an outsider at war with society. Did he intend that? If he did, was being a pacifist in a time of war something he "intended" for us to perceive? Or are we reading too much into that now. And the homosexuality: was that something he intended to convey? Subtly, maybe. But some have read it into it... so did he "intend" it to be read that way?

Who knows. It's just conjecture. So what you're saying is, really, "You should at least accept and acknowledge what other people think was the original intent of the work". I can't agree to that.



millionrainbows said:


> ...if the artist is good at what he does, his experience will be conveyed effectively, so that we can empathize. Shakespeare is timeless for this very reason.


Blimey. Shakespeare potentially never even existed! (I speak as an ardent adherent to the cause of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford!). I cannot comment on Shakespeare's plays, but I just refer you to *Peter Grimes* once more. That was only written 75 years ago ...and we still can't be entirely sure what Britten "intended" by it!

My point, especially with the Edward de Vere dig, is simply to say: any suggestion you know what an artist intended (even assuming he actually existed!) is a very, very long bow to draw. I think you will be making up most of what you expect others then to understand as the artist's "intention".



millionrainbows said:


> This is the result of recording. It changed the experience of music in profound ways, rendering it as a sonic or visual "object" which can be reproduced at our convenience. This is why we need to remind people constantly: art and music are things which are produced by real people, with real experiences.


I don't think "rip[ping] a composition out of its original function and intended purpose" is a function of recording at all! I mean, I will readily grant that recordings make it easier to do. But when Great Aunt Gertrude was hammering away at some Bach on her parlour upright piano in the 1860s, surely she was just as much ripping things out of their 'intended function' as I am with my CD player?

I don't mind you reminding people that music is produced by real people. But you have no first-hand knowledge of most of those people's actual experiences, so I can't see that you have anything to remind them about in that regard.

I speak as someone who loves reading biographies of composers to better understand their work, and regularly have rows with the Keeper of the Household Budget about how much I spend on 'musicological background' material, rather than just music. But it's really just shadow play. I can get some idea of what someone's idea of a composer's thought processes might have been. With people like Britten and Vaughan Williams, I could even talk directly to the people who personally knew and were familiar with the composers and (perhaps) their inner thoughts. But Bach? Beethoven? No chance.

When the other half of 'the empathetic duo' ceases to exist, it's down to speculation and the listener in fairly short order.


----------



## Guest002

Art Rock said:


> Schroedinger's symphony! Is it a work of art? Is it a dud? We'll never know until we open the trunk.


Good reply! But what Shrödinger's Cat tells us is that it is literally and really both dead and alive at the same time, not that it's one or the other and we simply don't know until we open the trunk.

But anyway... surely this sort of thing happens all the time. There's been a _huge_ Benjamin Britten industry since his death, uncovering vast quantities of stuff he'd tucked away in his bottom draw. So yeah: they were there all the time, and we just didn't know.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> These are ideas more suited for philosophy and "objects" like trees falling over. Art and music are human communication and interaction. To truly have significance, they must be experienced.


Really? The guy who starts a thread called "Can art & music be approached "objectively?" now wants to bail when it gets a bit philosophical? 

But I fear you've begged the question. You've made the assumption that "Art and music are human communication" in reply to my suggestion that a great composition could simply have been locked away since the day it was completed. So you've assumed the answer to the situation I asked you about.

So I reject your claim that "Music is interaction". It's usually that, for sure. Music performance is almost always definitely that. But a music composition doesn't have to be anything more than the composer "talking to himself", no interaction with anyone else required, surely?



millionrainbows said:


> There is some merit in recognizing that a work of art has certain objective features which make it especially effective and "great",


Your words, not mine. I don't do league tables for other people. I think a work of art has objectively a signficance about it or a lack of significance (merit, it you prefer) but "greatness" is a subjective gloss I won't buy into.



millionrainbows said:


> ...but to separate these qualities from our experience of them seems to be a useless depersonalization of the art, just to prove a rational philosophical point.


Well, so it may be, but then your job is to demonstrate why that's wrong, not merely to complain when someone believes that to be true.

I absolutely believe that a Shakespeare Sonnet we don't know about because the Earl of Oxford sent it to Elizabeth I, and like the last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, that poem now dwells in a large warehouse of crates and files and folders, lost to all but by future happenstance... would nevertheless be a sonnet of significance. (Unless he was having an off-day, of course).

Now is it "useless" to depersonalise art that way? Well, a poem that no-one can read is pretty useless, I agree. But it doesn't cease to exist, just because you are unaware of its existence. So, I'm not sure that "utility" is a good measure of how these things should be determined.



millionrainbows said:


> You seem to have a knack for philosophy; I just think you are applying it to the wrong area of experience. I don't think anyone here disagrees with the 'on-the-surface' basic rational premise of what you are saying; it's just being applied to an area where it is irrelevant.


I think Strange Magic does (disagree with it, I mean!)

I am really surprised that you who started this thread, and talked in such opaque (dare I say, philosophical) terms about it, now think it an area that is immune from philosophical inspection!

But just for the record, I ran computer databases for a living. I'm no philosopher. I don't mean to come across as one either. I just genuinely believe that I am a 'viewer' or 'auditor' of things which exist whether I view or listen to them or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Many thanks to millionrainbows for again focusing on a key element of AB's thesis: that there is something inherent and intrinsic in certain works of art that gives them "merit" that does not require God, History, or You or Me to perceive--it's just There. Against a notion like this, all argument to the contrary is futile and I congratulate AB for establishing what is essentially a new religion of the study of esthetics.


Well, it's not simply the notion that AB's argument is 'wrong' so much as that whatever essence of truth it contains is being applied in the wrong area, namely the arts. His argument is just fine for philosophy, and dead trees falling over in the woods.

But art? Music? Those are 'hot bodies' designed to run your hands over. My advice to AB: find yourself a sport you like to play.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it's not simply the notion that AB's argument is 'wrong' so much as that whatever essence of truth it contains is being applied in the wrong area, namely the arts. His argument is just fine for philosophy, and dead trees falling over in the woods.
> 
> But art? Music? Those are 'hot bodies' designed to run your hands over. My advice to AB: find yourself a sport you like to play.


My hopefully gentle rejoinder is that when the going gets a bit sticky for you, it's good not to get too patronising as a way out.

Are you going to tell Richard Eldridge he's wasting his time, too? (For anyone understandably reluctant to click on external links, that's a pointer to Richard Eldridge's _An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art_, in which he somehow manages to waste his time discussing (amongst other things) musical expression, Hegel, and art and society. At least I only brought up Kant!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


As usual, there is an impressive debate going on between a couple of posters who have, I presume, made sense of the OP.

I'm still struggling. This whole "mapping of experience" thing still puzzles me, and MR has posted about it for as long as I've been a member I think!


----------



## Strange Magic

I also believe that objects have intrinsic properties whether they are observed or not. However, Merit is not one of them.

Definition of "merit": "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward".

In music and the arts, strictly in the eye and mind of the beholder, personal and subjective.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of *agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this*. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.


Does it? For instance?


----------



## Guest002

MacLeod said:


> As usual, there is an impressive debate going on between a couple of posters who have, I presume, made sense of the OP.
> 
> I'm still struggling. This whole "mapping of experience" thing still puzzles me, and MR has posted about it for as long as I've been a member I think!


I think he's saying that a composition is the output of a composer who had intentions and feelings. And that when you listen to it, you have intentions and feelings, potentially aroused and inspired by the music.

He then states that the proper understanding of music can only happen when both sets of intentions and feelings, of the listener and the composer, are considered. But that what a lot of people do these days is only pay attention to their own feeling about a piece, thus ripping the piece out of the context of the composer's intentions and feelings and the composition's intended function.

He's asking whether that's a legitimate thing to do (which is really a bit naughty, because it's begging the question: he's set it up so that you are supposed to say that it's of course a bad thing to do).

That's what I think he meant, anyway.

And no, I didn't get it until about a page ago, either. And I may yet be doing him a disservice in paraphrasing him incorrectly.

But if that's approximately right, my answer is that we have no choice but to "objectify" art in that way (i.e., consider our feelings alone, regardless of the feelings or intentions of the composer) since we cannot possibly know what the artist's intentions or feelings were, he being long-since dead and buried.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Does it? For instance?


Well, when you listen to a Brandenburg Concerto, you're obviously supposed to be reflecting on all those masked balls at country houses you went to last year and the feelings they inspired in you.

Oh wait...


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> I also believe that objects have intrinsic properties whether they are observed or not. However, Merit is not one of them.


Come on then, I'll bite: how do you come to know that Merit is not one of these intrinsic properties?

Or is that just an assertion as irrefutable as the one you accuse me of having made?


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Come on then, I'll bite: how do you come to know that Merit is not one of these intrinsic properties?
> 
> Or is that just an assertion as irrefutable as the one you accuse me of having made?


The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that merit is an intrinsic property of a piece of music or a work of art. Your "proof" is mere assertion, not unlike a religious credo. You are partial to the Wisdom of Crowds and the Judgement of Time--try _de gustibus non est disputandum_ on for size.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> As usual, there is an impressive debate going on between a couple of posters who have, I presume, made sense of the OP.


Yes; apparently they are not bitter old men.



> I'm still struggling. This whole "mapping of experience" thing still puzzles me, and MR has posted about it for as long as I've been a member I think!


To put it simply, it's empathy with another person's experience. That's not to hard to grasp, MacLeod, depending on one's degree of sociopathology.


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Does it? For instance?


Shakespeare. .


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think he's saying that a composition is the output of a composer who had intentions and feelings. And that when you listen to it, you have intentions and feelings, potentially aroused and inspired by the music.
> 
> He then states that the proper understanding of music can only happen when both sets of intentions and feelings, of the listener and the composer, are considered. But that what a lot of people do these days is only pay attention to their own feeling about a piece, thus ripping the piece out of the context of the composer's intentions and feelings and the composition's intended function.
> 
> He's asking whether that's a legitimate thing to do (which is really a bit naughty, because it's begging the question: he's set it up so that you are supposed to say that it's of course a bad thing to do).
> 
> That's what I think he meant, anyway.
> 
> And no, I didn't get it until about a page ago, either. And I may yet be doing him a disservice in paraphrasing him incorrectly.


Thank you for the consideration; that's a fine assessment.



> But if that's approximately right, my answer is that we have no choice but to "objectify" art in that way (i.e., consider our feelings alone, regardless of the feelings or intentions of the composer) since we cannot possibly know what the artist's intentions or feelings were, he being long-since dead and buried.


Art & music are 'stories' of the human experience through the ages. It doesn't matter that the creators are dead. They (like Shakespeare) have created stories and situations which we can relate to, because we are all human.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> To put it simply, it's empathy with another person's experience. That's not to hard to grasp, MacLeod, depending on one's degree of sociopathology.


If your OP can, in fact, be boiled down to a matter of empathy with another person's experience, then put me down as being on your team. Question, is my Post #3 in this thread accurate in its assumption that you basically agree also with my view of esthetics being both personal and subjective, and useful and valid only within that context?--all attempts to ascribe inherent, intrinsic properties of "merit" to art objects via polling individuals and then summing the findings as "proof" of intrinsic merit, is being of no validity other than as beauty/popularity contests. Any individual's like of an art object or piece of music overrides the "judgement" of millions who may dislike it--the question for each individual in judging of art is: Who is to be Master?


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that merit is an intrinsic property of a piece of music or a work of art. Your "proof" is mere assertion, not unlike a religious credo. You are partial to the Wisdom of Crowds and the Judgement of Time--try _de gustibus non est disputandum_ on for size.


Right, so it was just an assertion and you can't prove it. So long as that is understood.

See, the thing is, I've quoted Kant at you, and he was a bit of a devil at getting himself into circular arguments at times, the old rascal. "The phenomenon reveals the noumenon" he says. "No," say the Idealists, "because the noumenon doesn't exist!". "Aha!, " says Kant: "But the phenomenon is merely a demonstration of the power of the noumenon, which therefore must exist". At which point, he had disappeared in a puff of question-begging and circularly polarised argument.

But my answer to you is along the same sort of lines. I think we can infer that merit is an intrinsic property of a work of art, percceivable by the experience of the ages, because what does the judgment of the ages say about works of art but 'Wow!' and "That's great!' and 'That's fantastic' or 'That's a bit rubbish really, isn't it?'. The fact that history makes judgments about the merit of artworks implies that there's merit to be perceived there.

But I know you won't accept a word of that, so please free to leave it there.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you for the consideration; that's a fine assessment.


I am quite genuinely pleased that I was able to summarize your viewpoint in something approximating a fair way. Thanks.



millionrainbows said:


> Art & music are 'stories' of the human experience through the ages. It doesn't matter that the creators are dead. They (like Shakespeare) have created stories and situations which we can relate to, because we are all human.


No, see I disagree with that, I'm afraid. A composition is a set of notes written down on manuscript paper. I don't read any greater story into them than, "I hope I get paid for this!" or "God, I hope that dreadful soprano won't ruin this one".

As the most abstract of the arts, I think saying that all music tells a story to which we can relate is drawing a very long bow. I mean, I realise you don't mean that it has to be a tone poem, something that _literally_ tells a story. But even so, I have no idea what stories you could infer from Bach or Beethoven or Liszt that weren't just projections from your inner self anyway.

PS. Or that were so self-evident that they aren't really worth a lot mentioning (such that Bach was Lutheran etc).


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Yes; apparently they are not bitter old men.




Bloody cheek! I'll have you know that I am still very much under 60, with the appetites and energy of a man, ooh, at least six years younger than me.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> Many thanks to millionrainbows for again focusing on a key element of AB's thesis: that there is something inherent and intrinsic in certain works of art that gives them "merit" that does not require God, History, or You or Me to perceive--it's just There. Against a notion like this, all argument to the contrary is futile and I congratulate AB for establishing what is essentially a new religion of the study of esthetics.


I think that what may be "inherent" or "intrinsic" to certain works of art is adherence to (or perhaps avoidance of) a set of principles, and connections to established patterns. The subjectivity comes right back in when we evaluate the value of those principles and patterns.

And, of course, the problem with my own meager offering of objectivity is that it is so hard, perhaps impossible, to have a broad selection of reactions that have not been influenced by external elements.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I think that what may be "inherent" or "intrinsic" to certain works of art is adherence to (or perhaps avoidance of) a set of principles, and connections to established patterns. The subjectivity comes right back in when we evaluate the value of those principles and patterns.


Yup. I think that's getting quite Platonic, though.

Which is a problem, because the Platonic ideal would be static and unchanging -and that's clearly not true of what we consider to be 'great' music over time. IE, the patterns that Mozart wrote to weren't those that Bach would have been familiar with.



JAS said:


> And, of course, the problem with my own meager offering of objectivity is that it is so hard, perhaps impossible, to have a broad selection of reactions that have not been influenced by external elements.


Definitely.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> If your OP can, in fact, be boiled down to a matter of empathy with another person's experience, then put me down as being on your team. Question, is my Post #3 in this thread accurate in its assumption that you basically agree also with my view of esthetics being both personal and subjective, and useful and valid only within that context?--all attempts to ascribe inherent, intrinsic properties of "merit" to art objects via polling individuals and then summing the findings as "proof" of intrinsic merit, is being of no validity other than as beauty/popularity contests. Any individual's like of an art object or piece of music overrides the "judgement" of millions who may dislike it--the question for each individual in judging of art is: Who is to be Master?


Well, there is something to be said for the judgement of history; after all, it is a collective process which takes years.

As to "Any individual's like of an art object or piece of music overrides the "judgement" of millions who may dislike it," I say, why not? After all, it's your experience. Just don't take it too far, or around the wrong people. Be considerate, and listen to John Cage in a closet with headphones. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I mean, I realise you don't mean that it has to be a tone poem, something that _literally_ tells a story. But even so, I have no idea what stories you could infer from Bach or Beethoven or Liszt that weren't just projections from your inner self anyway.


As far as music, which is mostly non-narrative, let's just call it "a beautiful sequence of sound events."


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yup. I think that's getting quite Platonic, though.
> 
> Which is a problem, because the Platonic ideal would be static and unchanging -and that's clearly not true of what we consider to be 'great' music over time. IE, the patterns that Mozart wrote to weren't those that Bach would have been familiar with.


I do not think that it needs to be static for elements put into a work of art to be intrinsic. It only needs to be established at that point in time. It might also help if it is perhaps discernible when evaluated. The alternative suggests that all works of art live in a complete vacuum, which is, I think, absurd.

An artist has an idea, and puts that idea into some tangible form (depending on what the art is). It may or may not be a durable form, but the idea itself cannot be communicated directly since we do not read each others' minds. (And thank goodness for that!) That art product is received by someone else and evaluated. If both creator and receiver are operating in some mutual sense of context, communication is achieved. (More or less than what is intended can be communicated, but no communication at all is possible if there is nothing inherent to the product. If nothing can, in any meaningful sense, be embodied by the art, then all art is a waste of time and effort.)


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> If your OP can, in fact, be boiled down to a matter of empathy with another person's experience, then put me down as being on your team. Question, is my Post #3 in this thread accurate in its assumption that you basically agree also with my view of esthetics being both personal and subjective, and useful and valid only within that context?--all attempts to ascribe inherent, intrinsic properties of "merit" to art objects via polling individuals and then summing the findings as "proof" of intrinsic merit, is being of no validity other than as beauty/popularity contests. Any individual's like of an art object or piece of music overrides the "judgement" of millions who may dislike it--the question for each individual in judging of art is: Who is to be Master?


I simply don't see the problem.

Of course you are master. As am I. As is he, and her, and her.

That you have a subjective opinion of a work is fine. It doesn't mean the 'intrinsic merit' of a thing doesn't exist. Since you and I cannot as individuals perceive the instrinsic merit, why would we ever feel bound to abide by it?

Put another way, if everyone says 'The B minor mass is great' but you say "I hate it", that's a perfectly fine outcome. Your subjective experience is not mandated by an imperceptible objective reality in any event.

But when you go on a public forum and declare that your own special insight trumps that of a cast of millions over the course of 300 years, well: then we are in a position to weigh the relative merits of your subjective opinion. That's all. It affects your credibility, perhaps, but it doesn't require you to change your opinion.

The two positions are not, in fact, mutually exclusive, I think.

What is invalid, however, for the zillionth time, is you conflating the concept of the 'verdict of history' or 'the wisdom of crowds' with that of "a poll" or a vote.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I do not think that it needs to be static for elements put into a work of art to be intrinsic. It only needs to be established at that point in time. It might so help if it is perhaps discernible when evaluated. The alternative suggests that all works of art live in a complete vacuum, which is, I think, absurd.


No, sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm saying, if you regard the intrinsic quality of a work of art to be the degree to which "it adheres to a set of principles, and connections to established patterns", then you will need to define what those principles and established patterns are, and once you do that, you can't suddenly say, 'Oh well, this composition is intrinsically good because it adheres to a completely _different_ set of principles and patterns'.

Thus, the mere mention of patterns and principles implies an 'ideal beauty' that is unchanging and static.

Unless there is some underlying 'principle and pattern' which can cover both Bach and Stravinsky....which I think might be so broad a set of principles and patterns that I rather suspect they wouldn't amount to anything much.

The alternative is to say that a work of art has intrinsic qualities which exist independently of the observer. I'm not sure what is absurd about that. If Britten writes a song and sticks it in his bottom drawer for 50 years, does it not nevertheless exist. And does it not nevertheless have qualities? Because it's happened, lots of times.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Well, there is something to be said for the judgement of history; after all, it is a collective process which takes years. . . .


That part of your post I can agree to, even if I do not necessarily share in that judgement.


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The alternative is to say that a work of art has intrinsic qualities which exist independently of the observer. I'm not sure what is absurd about that.


But it would have to be independent of both the artist and the receiver for there to be no intrinsic elements. (I avoid "observer" since that seem to me to imply something visual.) I do not see how any work of art can be created without intrinsic elements. Admittedly, not all of them may be directly intentional. (Usually, the greater the skill of the artist with the materials employed, the greater the degree of intention.)



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> If Britten writes a song and sticks it in his bottom drawer for 50 years, does it not nevertheless exist. And does it not nevertheless have qualities? Because it's happened, lots of times.


I am not at all sure what you are trying to say here. A work of art still may have intrinsic elements that are not perceived by all receivers. That does not mean that it doesn't have any. It just doesn't have them to that particular receiver. Beyond the possibility of simply failing to recognize the elements, it is generally the value judgement on those elements that becomes the point of disagreement, not the presence or absence of such elements.

My broader view is that the creator of any art product has the right to make what he or she sees as true to his or her intention. (I am assuming that no basic property rights are being violated in the process, nor risk to other parties.) What that creator never has is the right to dictate how it will be received. The two part process may or may not work. No one who hears a piece of music and likes it is wrong, nor is anyone who hears the same piece and does _not_ like it. Often the disagreement of reaction is not because the receivers fail to perceive the same elements. It is merely how they respond to them.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Well, there is something to be said for the judgement of history; after all, it is a collective process which takes years.
> 
> As to "Any individual's like of an art object or piece of music overrides the "judgement" of millions who may dislike it," I say, why not? After all, it's your experience. Just don't take it too far, or around the wrong people. Be considerate, and listen to John Cage in a closet with headphones. :lol:


One of the beauties of my position is that each is allowed--nay, encouraged (literally)--to believe in the primacy and validity of their own judgement, preferences, etc. in music and the arts. This approach does appear to frighten some; they just Kant abide it. And it's invigorating to defy the opinions of millions! Everyone should try it.

I trust my terse responses will draw forth the resulting torrents of verbiage that essentially repeat the same thing(s). So do I, but with admirable compression.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> But it would have to be independent of both the artist and the receiver. (I avoid "observer" since that seem to me to imply something visual.)


Well, it is independent of the artist the minute he puts his pen down. And if no-one's ever heard it, then it has no observers. So yeah, when in the bottom drawer, it has independent existence.



JAS said:


> My broader view is that the creator of any art produce has the right to make what he or sees as true to the intention. What that creator never has is the right to dictate how it will be received. The two part process may or may not work. No one who hears a piece of music and likes it is wrong, nor is anyone who hears the same piece and does _not_ like it. Often the disagreement of reaction is not because the receivers fail to perceive the same elements. It is merely how they respond to them.


I don't think there's anything in that I would disagree with.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> And it's invigorating to defy the opinions of millions!


No, it just means you'd be an arrogant fool.

Brief enough for you?


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it is independent of the artist the minute he puts his pen down. And if no-one's ever heard it, then it has no observers. So yeah, when in the bottom drawer, it has independent existence.


Except that without the artist, it would have no existence at all. There is an age old question in many artistic realms as to how much the biography or context of the artist should be considered. For literature, it often matters if one is attempting an historical analysis or a reader's response. Far greater latitude must be granted to the latter, as long as it is properly presented for what it is.


----------



## Guest

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think he's saying that a composition is the output of a composer who had intentions and feelings. And that when you listen to it, you have intentions and feelings, potentially aroused and inspired by the music.


Well, yes, obviously. And before I impose my feelings as of prime importance, I should try to understand what the composer's intentions were.

I get that.

What I don't get is the subsequent jump to castigate the rationalists (a regular theme from MR) who want to do all kinds of other things in their response to music.

MR should leave people to respond as they will, and stop trying to police what is a personal business.


----------



## Strange Magic

> AbsolutelyBaching: "The alternative is to say that a work of art has intrinsic qualities which exist independently of the observer. I'm not sure what is absurd about that. If Britten writes a song and sticks it in his bottom drawer for 50 years, does it not nevertheless exist. And does it not nevertheless have qualities? Because it's happened, lots of times."


Another "failure to communicate". No one disputes that works hidden in drawers have qualities (and quantities), all measurable often with great accuracy--weight, color, size, date of completion, etc. Merit is not one of those attributes--it cannot be measured but it can be voted upon and the results of the poll stated with great clarity: "86% of those polled thought it Britten's worst-ever effort, while 10% thought it divine. 4% had no opinion, or chose to not to respond".


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> No, it just means you'd be an arrogant fool.
> 
> Brief enough for you?


An interesting spasm.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Another "failure to communicate". No one disputes that works hidden in drawers have qualities (and quantities), all measurable often with great accuracy--weight, color, size, date of completion, etc.


Another failure of basic logic. If it's in his bottom drawer, then no we cannot measure those things with any accuracy at all, since we don't even know the work exists, still less pick it up, weigh it, look at it or hold a ruler to it. Those things _can_ be measured, once we know of its existence, obviously.



Strange Magic said:


> Merit is not one of those attributes--it cannot be measured


At last you get something half-right. Merit or significance _is_ one of those attributes that exist, even when we don't know of the work's existence, but you are right that it cannot be measured by individuals, before or after its discovery.



Strange Magic said:


> but it can be voted upon and the results of the poll stated with great clarity: "86% of those polled thought it Britten's worst-ever effort, while 10% thought it divine. 4% had no opinion, or chose to not to respond".


You're just being tiresome. No, it can't be voted upon, since the individuals polled at any given point in time cannot perceive this quality. The wisdom of crowds over history isn't a poll or a vote.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> Except that without the artist, it would have no existence at all.


Definitely. I am not suggesting that an art work exists independently of its creator. It has no existence prior to its creation, as though it were some Platonic form that the creator merely aspires to re-create in our time and space.



JAS said:


> There is an age old question in many artistic realms as to how much the biography or context of the artist should be considered. For literature, it often matters if one is attempting an historical analysis or a reader's response. Far greater latitude must be granted to the latter, as long as it is properly presented for what it is.


I agree with this too. As I say, I seldom listen to a piece of music without trying to read the composer's biography in some form or other. But I think MR is going further than that. He's not just saying that it is _helpful_ to be informed about the background of the composer. He's saying that listening to a piece of music qua music, as a set of notes and dynamic marks, let's say, with no context, no biography, no understanding of what the composer felt or thought or intended is an injustice. To the composer, to the music, to art itself.

Re-phrasing his question (and again, I'm sure he'll correct me if I go too far): are you allowed to look at this symphony, and say "nice Neopolitan there, a shift to the Mixolydian there, an unusual cadence to the sub-dominant there" and say, "So that's why this symphony is good". Note that I've not even mentioned whose symphony we're analysing! MR would say this was an invalid approach to the work, which needs instead to be understood as the creation of a man who sweat and dreamed and got angry and tired.

As I say, I don't agree with that. I think you'd be missing out on a lot of things if you were that reductionist or, as MR would call it, 'Objective'. But I think it valid to analyze music as music, with no additional baggage. Partly because, in most cases, that 'baggage' is just the supposition and invention of others.


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Another failure of basic logic. If it's in his bottom drawer, then no we cannot measure those things with any accuracy at all, since we don't even know the work exists, still less pick it up, weigh it, look at it or hold a ruler to it. Those things _can_ be measured, once we know of its existence, obviously.
> 
> At last you get something half-right. Merit or significance _is_ one of those attributes that exist, even when we don't know of the work's existence, but you are right that it cannot be measured by individuals, before or after its discovery.
> 
> You're just being tiresome. No, it can't be voted upon, since the individuals polled at any given point in time cannot perceive this quality. The wisdom of crowds over history isn't a poll or a vote.


One difference separating us is that I have a more fertile imagination. I can actually imagine--postulate--that score hidden in the drawer. Of Course we cannot know the physical characteristics of the score until we open the drawer. But we can surely offer hypotheses. This is indeed getting tiresome, and lacks Merit--any Merit (my personal view).


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> One difference separating us is that I have a more fertile imagination.


You certainly do.



Strange Magic said:


> I declare myself fully in control of this argument


Fertile, in this context, being a synonym for 'infinite capacity for self-delusion as to my abilities'.


----------



## NLAdriaan

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Definitely. I am not suggesting that an art work exists independently of its creator. It has no existence prior to its creation, as though it were some Platonic form that the creator merely aspires to re-create in our time and space.
> 
> I agree with this too. As I say, I seldom listen to a piece of music without trying to read the composer's biography in some form or other. But I think MR is going further than that. He's not just saying that it is _helpful_ to be informed about the background of the composer. He's saying that listening to a piece of music qua music, as a set of notes and dynamic marks, let's say, with no context, no biography, no understanding of what the composer felt or thought or intended is an injustice. To the composer, to the music, to art itself.
> 
> Re-phrasing his question (and again, I'm sure he'll correct me if I go too far): are you allowed to look at this symphony, and say "nice Neopolitan there, a shift to the Mixolydian there, an unusual cadence to the sub-dominant there" and say, "So that's why this symphony is good". Note that I've not even mentioned whose symphony we're analysing! MR would say this was an invalid approach to the work, which needs instead to be understood as the creation of a man who sweat and dreamed and got angry and tired.
> 
> As I say, I don't agree with that. I think you'd be missing out on a lot of things if you were that reductionist or, as MR would call it, 'Objective'. But I think it valid to analyze music as music, with no additional baggage. Partly because, in most cases, that 'baggage' is just the supposition and invention of others.


Thanks again for bringing late entrants up to speed.

The idea of strict objectivity (according to your explanation of MR's idea) seems compromised when listening to music, as you are listening to an interpretation by one or multiple subjects, the musician(s), each with its own understanding. Even the instrument maker is a subject here and the architect of the concert hall and the coughing guy behind you or the producer of the recording and the builder of your audio equipment. In case of a conducted piece, the music will again be filtered through the subject of the conductor's mind. This effectively leads to a unidentifiable mix-up of serial subjective interpretations that are in between you and the composer. The same goes for any translated book and a restored painting or even an old unrestored and uncleaned painting. The most objectified experience in music would be from reading the score. I notice that reading a score is a total different experience from listening. You literally skip the middlemen.

An interesting thing happens when you add names to the equation. Yesterday, I posted a pic of Andre Rieu and a Karajan-record-sleeve without any qualifications, just referring to wisdom of crowds. A reaction here to the Andre Rieu picture added a complete interpretation of my alleged subjective idea behind posting this pic. No objectivity here, at least the poster only projected a negative idea to the pic, hiding behind me as the poster of the pic. And it has proven impossible to discuss Wagner here, as everyone has a different level of subjectivity or projection on the man and his legacy.

This forum is all about mixed-up subjectivity, a potpourri of opinions and projections, as such it is meaningless. The merit of this forum is that it is a grazing table. I added quite some new music to my mind since joining. The exchange of opinions and ideas is a pastime, with all its pros and cons.

So, I strongly support the idea of objectifying music more, in order to cut out as many as possible of subjectivity from the experience, from the side of the listener and from the side of the creator. But I think you can never reach a level of absolute objectivity, not even close.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> As I say, I seldom listen to a piece of music without trying to read the composer's biography in some form or other. But I think MR is going further than that. He's not just saying that it is _helpful_ to be informed about the background of the composer. He's saying that listening to a piece of music qua music, as a set of notes and dynamic marks, let's say, with no context, no biography, no understanding of what the composer felt or thought or intended is an injustice. To the composer, to the music, to art itself.


No, I'm not saying you have to have biographical information. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.



> Re-phrasing his question (and again, I'm sure he'll correct me if I go too far): are you allowed to look at this symphony, and say "nice Neopolitan there, a shift to the Mixolydian there, an unusual cadence to the sub-dominant there" and say, "So that's why this symphony is good". Note that I've not even mentioned whose symphony we're analysing! MR would say this was an invalid approach to the work, which needs instead to be understood as the creation of a man who sweat and dreamed and got angry and tired.


No, that's not what I mean. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


----------



## Guest002

NLAdriaan said:


> Thanks again for bringing late entrants up to speed.
> 
> The idea of strict objectivity (according to your explanation of MR's idea) seems compromised when listening to music, as you are listening to an interpretation by one or multiple subjects, the musician(s), each with its own understanding. Even the instrument maker is a subject here and the architect of the concert hall and the coughing guy behind you or the producer of the recording and the builder of your audio equipment. In case of a conducted piece, the music will again be filtered through the subject of the conductor's mind. This effectively leads to a unidentifiable mix-up of serial subjective interpretations that are in between you and the composer. The same goes for any translated book and a restored painting or even an old unrestored and uncleaned painting. The most objectified experience in music would be from reading the score. I notice that reading a score is a total different experience from listening. You literally skip the middlemen.


Definitely. Music _qua_ music, sans throat-clearers and HIP discussions. Lovely!



NLAdriaan said:


> An interesting thing happens when you add names to the equation. Yesterday, I posted a pic of Andre Rieu and a Karajan-record-sleeve without any qualifications, just referring to wisdom of crowds. A reaction here to the Andre Rieu picture added a complete interpretation of my alleged subjective idea behind posting this pic. No objectivity here, at least the poster only projected a negative idea to the pic, hiding behind me as the poster of the pic. And it has proven impossible to discuss Wagner here, as everyone has a different level of subjectivity or projection on the man and his legacy.


Interesting that Wagner is the pre-eminent example of practically _having_ to objectify in order to enjoy (unless your first name was Adolph). You pull any of that baggage along with the music, and you're in deep doo-doo.



NLAdriaan said:


> This forum is all about mixed-up subjectivity, a potpourri of opinions and projections, as such it is meaningless. The merit of this forum is that it is a grazing table. I added quite some new music to my mind since joining. The exchange of opinions and ideas is a pastime, with all its pros and cons.
> 
> So, I strongly support the idea of objectifying music more, in order to cut out as many as possible of subjectivity from the experience, from the side of the listener and from the side of the creator. But I think you can never reach a level of absolute objectivity, not even close.


Yup. I accept that, in practice, utter objectivity is something that cannot be achieved. I just don't think trying is in and of itself a bad thing to be doing.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's not what I mean. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


Yet each and everyone will have a somewhat different perception of what the composer 'translated'. These:



millionrainbows said:


> "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience)


aren't exact.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm not saying you have to have biographical information. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


I didn't say you did. I was saying that _I_ like to have biographical information to inform. I then said specifically that you were going much further than that.



millionrainbows said:


> No, that's not what I mean. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


Well, that's just you again begging the question. You are saying "the music conveys the composer's feelings and experience" ...and that _therefore_ any attempt to objectify music (i.e., treat it as music only, without the feelings and experience) is impossible.

But that is the entire point under discussion.

I'm saying that you *can* look at the notes on the page, as notes, and make judgments and evaluations about the music as music, no message or feelings being conveyed. I think NLAdriaan has it right, too: that it's practically impossible to do that _listening_ to music, but reading a score, it gets very much more possible (and, I think, even desirable).


----------



## Strange Magic

To add some "flavor" to this discussion of Merit intrinsic within sounds, colors, tastes, shapes, etc. of objects, including but not limited to Art Objects (Merit as determined by polling and perhaps the cumulative summing of polling through time of the polled audience), I include here polling on ice cream flavors. Our resident Meritocracy enthusiasts can perhaps study these polls (there are more) and establish a universal hierarchy of Merit among the many flavors, and show that such Merit is something beyond the results of summed polling, something inherent in the ice cream itself. I do believe, though, that the Meritocrats assert that, indeed, Merit is actually established by and determined by summed polling--Truth established by a show of hands.


https://www.articlecube.com/10-world's-most-popular-ice-cream-flavors
https://www.rd.com/food/fun/americas-favorite-ice-cream-flavor/
https://www.thetoptens.com/ice-cream-flavors/


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm saying that you *can* look at the notes on the page, as notes, and make judgments and evaluations about the music as music, no message or feelings being conveyed. I think NLAdriaan has it right, too: that it's practically impossible to do that _listening_ to music, but reading a score, it gets very much more possible (and, I think, even desirable).


Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?


Well, I'm not a musicologist, but those examples I gave before really. You can look at the notes on the stave and say: Oh look, a shift to the myxolydian; a cadence on the sub-dominant... whatever. I'm not qualified to say!

And I think you can experience emotions when you do that. Or I suspect you can. I know when I look at, say, a Vaughan Williams score, whilst listening to a recording of it, that I am always surprised at how the most lovely sonic effects are created by so few notes and directions on the page. With that under my belt, I can now look at any other Vaughan Williams score and be impressed by its economy.

So that's me feeling "something" about the music, even though I'm not now listening to it.

There remains an argument as to whether my 'inner ear' is nevertheless 'hearing' what I'm reading, even though the HiFi is switched off. Deep waters, those!


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm saying that you *can* look at the notes on the page, as notes, and make judgments and evaluations about the music as music, no message or feelings being conveyed. I think NLAdriaan has it right, too: that it's practically impossible to do that _listening_ to music, but reading a score, it gets very much more possible (and, I think, even desirable).


Yes, it is possible to divorce the idea of art or music being created by another person, whose subjectivity or "being" you should recognize, but this becomes a form of narcissism. You should recognize that art & music are inter-subjective experiences, and this adds to the richness of the experience.

You'd be lost without recordings. It's only the fact that you can listen to your music on ear buds that you can have your "totally objective" experience.

I think it would be a good idea to get outside and hear some real music, created by real people.
It would be good for you to be confronted by genius, such as seeing Itzhak Perlman play, ten feet away.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I'm not a musicologist, but those examples I gave before really. You can look at the notes on the stave and say: Oh look, a shift to the myxolydian; a cadence on the sub-dominant... whatever. I'm not qualified to say!
> 
> And I think you can experience emotions when you do that. Or I suspect you can. I know when I look at, say, a Vaughan Williams score, whilst listening to a recording of it, that I am always surprised at how the most lovely sonic effects are created by so few notes and directions on the page. With that under my belt, I can now look at any other Vaughan Williams score and be impressed by its economy.
> 
> So that's me feeling "something" about the music, even though I'm not now listening to it.
> 
> There remains an argument as to whether my 'inner ear' is nevertheless 'hearing' what I'm reading, even though the HiFi is switched off. Deep waters, those!


I would not differentiate inner ear and actual hearing experience when it comes to aesthetics and our emotional response (even though the ideal is listening to real sound). I'm still not clear as to there being any worth in music outside of this. Key shifts are often the essence of how music might move us but of course it depends on context and the listener. Key shifts per se aren't of any worth.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it is possible to divorce the idea of art or music being created by another person, whose subjectivity or "being" you should recognize, but this becomes a form of narcissism. You should recognize that art & music are inter-subjective experiences, and this adds to the richness of the experience.


I don't think "should" comes into it. And you're again assuming the thing you're hoping to prove. You say "music is an inter-subjective experience" as if it's self-evidently true. You assert that which is up for debate.

I don't agree that it *has* to be regarded as such.



millionrainbows said:


> You'd be lost without recordings. It's only the fact that you can listen to your music on ear buds that you can have your "totally objective" experience.


That's simply not true. Perfect pitch lets me read a score and know what it 'sounds' like without actually having to hear it performed. I'm definitely not saying I'm brilliant at score reading in that way, but it's possible to do it, and I know plenty of people who can do a really good job of it.



millionrainbows said:


> I think it would be a good idea to get outside and hear some real music, created by real people.
> It would be good for you to be confronted by genius, such as seeing Itzhak Perlman play, ten feet away.


Of course it would. I had tea with Peter Pears once. And I used to pay Olivier Messiaen his expenses. I don't need to be told what it is like to be in the presence of genius! But that wasn't the premise of your original question.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> I would not differentiate inner ear and actual hearing experience when it comes to aesthetics and our emotional response (even though the ideal is listening to real sound). I'm still not clear as to there being any worth in music outside of this. Key shifts are often the essence of how music might move us but of course it depends on context and the listener. Key shifts per se aren't of any worth.


I don't ascribe them 'worth' as such, and they were just one example that came to mind.

I look at a page of Stravinsky, and I see the time signatures (and I don't know how to do these typographically correctly, so forgive me turning them into fractions): 2/4, 3/4, 5/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/2, 2/4, 5/16 ... and I know I'm in for a rhythmically interesting time. I don't have to hear it, inwardly or outwardly, to derive something from that score, just by looking at it.

But you asked "Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?" and those are ways it is something.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't ascribe them 'worth' as such, and they were just one example that came to mind.
> 
> I look at a page of Stravinsky, and I see the time signatures (and I don't know how to do these typographically correctly, so forgive me turning them into fractions): 2/4, 3/4, 5/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/2, 2/4, 5/16 ... and I know I'm in for a rhythmically interesting time. I don't have to hear it, inwardly or outwardly, to derive something from that score, just by looking at it.
> 
> But you asked "Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?" and those are ways it is something.


What you describe (ie regarding the time signatures) is _something_ but, surely, it only has _worth_ if it has the capacity (in conjunction with all the other elements fundamental to music) to actually move an auditor?


----------



## Guest002

Added to add:

Here's a specific example of a piece of score that I get quite a lot out of without having actually heard it:









All sorts of things come to my mind when I look at that. None of them very complimentary (sorry Brian).

And no, that's not a score I am capable of reading properly, I'll admit.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't ascribe them 'worth' as such, and they were just one example that came to mind.
> 
> I look at a page of Stravinsky, and I see the time signatures (and I don't know how to do these typographically correctly, so forgive me turning them into fractions): 2/4, 3/4, 5/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/2, 2/4, 5/16 ... and I know I'm in for a rhythmically interesting time. I don't have to hear it, inwardly or outwardly, to derive something from that score, just by looking at it.
> 
> But you asked "Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?" and those are ways it is something.


I, for one, have seemed to have lost track of whatever it is you are trying to assert, and why.

Why is it that you seem to want to remove the personal dimension (except your own) from the experience of music?

While it's true that "Your experience is your own, and nobody can experience it for you" and "nobody can experience another person's experience," humanity has developed ways of having "empathy" with other people; that's why we don't condone murder.

Are you saying that you reject the idea of empathy, in favor of a totally self-involved form of 'objectivity' which excludes consideration of other people?


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> What you describe (ie regarding the time signatures) is _something_ but, surely, it only has _worth_ if it has the capacity (in conjunction with all the other elements fundamental to music) to actually move an auditor?


Well, I don't agree. I think you can assess a piece of writing on stylistic grounds. I see no reason why you can't do exactly the same thing for music.

I look at my collection of Whitefriars vases. Not one of them has had a flower or a drop of water in them since they were purchased. But I admire them and appreciate them for their colour and form in and of themselves, not because of their function as vases.

I again don't like the word "worth", but the score doesn't need to be 'sounded' for it to be appreciated.


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Added to add:
> 
> Here's a specific example of a piece of score that I get quite a lot out of without having actually heard it:
> 
> View attachment 135048
> 
> 
> All sorts of things come to my mind when I look at that. None of them very complimentary (sorry Brian).
> 
> And no, that's not a score I am capable of reading properly, I'll admit.





> AbsolutelyBaching, Post #183: "I think we can infer that merit is an intrinsic property of a work of art, percceivable by the experience of the ages, because what does the judgment of the ages say about works of art but 'Wow!' and "That's great!' and 'That's fantastic' or 'That's a bit rubbish really, isn't it?'. The fact that history makes judgments about the merit of artworks implies that there's merit to be perceived there."


Question: Does the score above have Merit? If not, why not? Or will the Merit be established later, after sufficient polling establishes a majority/minority view of its Merit?


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I, for one, have seemed to have lost track of whatever it is you are trying to assert, and why.


I was asked a very specific question, which you are free to scroll up and re-read for yourself in case I'm ripping it out of context, but it was: "Music is 'something' even when it is not moving an auditor emotionally? In what way?"

I'm saying that I can get 'something' out of music without it being sounded out loud. I see a page of score, I can infer something about it from its placement of notes, its choice of instruments, its use of dynamics, time signatures, key signatures etc. I don't have to hear it to get something from it. And when I read a score in that way (to bring it back to your original question), I am not getting anything about a composer's thoughts and feelings. It is a purely intellectual exercise.



millionrainbows said:


> Why is it that you seem to want to remove the personal dimension (except your own) from the experience of music?


You asked a question whether it was possible to approach music 'objectively', yes? Now it seems it was something of a dishonest question after all, because you are clearly convinced it's not possible, or not valid, to do so. I'm not saying I _always_ approach music as an intellectual exercise. But I'm saying I _can_ do. Therefore, your question can be answered in the affirmative: yes, it is possible to approach music objectively. As a thing itself, with no subjectively-guessed assumptions about what a composer 'meant' or 'felt' or 'intended'.



millionrainbows said:


> While it's true that "Your experience is your own, and nobody can experience it for you" and "nobody can experience another person's experience," humanity has developed ways of having "empathy" with other people; that's why we don't condone murder.
> 
> Are you saying that you reject the idea of empathy, in favor of a totally self-involved form of 'objectivity' which excludes consideration of other people?


I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm answering your question. Is it possible to approach music objectively? Yes. It is a thing itself and can be analyzed as such. it is difficult to _listen_ to music performances objectively, as NLAdriaan observed. But it's not impossible to _try_ to do so, and when score-reading, it's relatively easy to do so.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, I don't agree. I think you can assess a piece of writing on stylistic grounds. I see no reason why you can't do exactly the same thing for music.
> 
> I look at my collection of Whitefriars vases. Not one of them has had a flower or a drop of water in them since they were purchased. But I admire them and appreciate them for their colour and form in and of themselves, not because of their function as vases.
> 
> I again don't like the word "worth", but the score doesn't need to be 'sounded' for it to be appreciated.


That a music composition may be of value for it's scoring per se yet fail to move a single auditor puts such value in perspective doesn't it?

The only real point of interest in music is how it effects a particular listener, surely (ie from that listener's perspective)?


----------



## mikeh375

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm answering your question. Is it possible to approach music objectively? Yes. It is a thing itself and can be analyzed as such. it is difficult to _listen_ to music performances objectively, as NLAdriaan observed. But it's not impossible to _try_ to do so, *and when score-reading, it's relatively easy to do so.*


I absolutely concur with this and would go one stage further and say that objectivity can play a big part in composing too as one is faced with myriad creative choices.


----------



## Coach G

Brain science suggests that everything is subjective. Babies are not born the "blank slate", but, rather, grow, understand, and evaluate according to experience, _as well as _an inner template. The "inner template, naturally seeks to categorize, to organize, to make order from disorder. You see this when you place a baby or toddler on a blanket with a whole bunch of toys scattered about, and then as the child is playing, you see that they are building, organizing, color-coding, and otherwise attempting to create order from disorder (or is it art?). Consequently, unless he or she is tone-deaf, even a non-musician can tell when a musician hits a wrong note. Is it wrong, or does it not align with the inner-template?

There are lots of people who know next to nothing about classical music and are attracted to at least parts of it. Small children will dance to Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" or conduct the imaginary orchestra when you play the first movement of Beethoven's 5th or Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries". Adults will say how beautiful it sounds when you hear a little excerpt from the slow movement of Beethoven's Violin Concerto, or "Nessum Dorma" from Puccini's "Turandot"; but then when you play an entire symphony, concerto, or opera, they lose focus.

And if play something by Schoenberg or Ives where the notes don't seem to "fit" at all, they become really confused.

I think if you take the time to try to understand the musical vision, and that means the composer's technique, use of color, volume, tempo, rhythm, and also the context, what was the composer trying to say, you may reach a more objective evaluation, and come to enjoy the music, once you understand the composer's musical vision.

Notice that I say, _more_ objective.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> That a music composition may be of value for it's scoring per se yet fail to move a single auditor puts such value in perspective doesn't it?
> 
> The only real point of interest in music is how it effects a particular listener, surely?


I disagree (again, sorry!).

I fear we are into my assertion v. your assertion territory, which won't be very helpful to anyone else. But I can absolutely get value out of a score as a piece of _reading_, not listening.

I will give you a really daft example. But when I was reading the score of _Albert Herring_, there's a point where Superintendent Budd sings, 'give me a robbery with force! Or a criminal case of rape'. And the violin notes just before he sings that:









And you don't need to have perfect pitch to work out that that is almost exactly the 'Lucretia' theme from his previous opera, _Rape of Lucretia_. Budd sings about rape; the orchestra play about rape. Get it?!

Well, I got it immediately, and I enjoyed spotting it, though I've never read of anyone else mentioning it. I'm not sure it has significance: maybe Britten just associated that theme with that subject. Maybe it was a conscious decision to recall the earlier opera. These would just be guesses. All I knew at the point I spotted this was that I felt as if I'd done the Times crossword.

No orchestra or auditing necessary. Music as an intellectual exercise. Happens all the time in this neck of the woods, I'm afraid.

Can I just say, though, that I'm not saying this is the only way music _should_ or can be appreciated. Not true, even for me. I listen to music and emote with it with the best of them. I cry at the end of Götterdämmerung. But I don't _have_ to emote to enjoy music.


----------



## Guest002

Coach G said:


> I think if you take the time to try to understand the musical vision, and that means the composer's technique, use of color, volume, tempo, rhythm, and also the context, what was the composer trying to say, you may reach a more objective evaluation, and come to enjoy the music, once you understand the composer's musical vision.
> 
> Notice that I say, _more_ objective.


I don't disagree that trying to understand the vision _can_ improve one's appreciation of the music. I've said that many times already.

I'm simply saying, there are other ways to appreciate music that don't _require_ this approach.

And I wouldn't call _guessing_ what the composer's vision was, or what he was trying to say (because I assume you don't have a hotline to Mozart and can't actually ask him for his factual input on the matter?!) becoming 'more objective' anyway. Those would all be subjective guesswork on your or my part.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I disagree (again, sorry!).
> 
> I fear we are into my assertion v. your assertion territory, which won't be very helpful to anyone else. But I can absolutely get value out of a score as a piece of _reading_, not listening.
> 
> I will give you a really daft example. But when I was reading the score of _Albert Herring_, there's a point where Superintendent Budd sings, 'give me a robbery with force! Or a criminal case of rape'. And the violin notes just before he sings that:
> 
> View attachment 135050
> 
> 
> And you don't need to have perfect pitch to work out that that is almost exactly the 'Lucretia' theme from his previous opera, _Rape of Lucretia_. Budd sings about rape; the orchestra play about rape. Get it?!
> 
> Well, I got it immediately, and I enjoyed spotting it, though I've never read of anyone else mentioning it. I'm not sure it has significance: maybe Britten just associated that theme with that subject. Maybe it was a conscious decision to recall the earlier opera. These would just be guesses. All I knew at the point I spotted this was that I felt as if I'd done the Times crossword.
> 
> No orchestra or auditing necessary. Music as an intellectual exercise. Happens all the time in this neck of the woods, I'm afraid.
> 
> Can I just say, though, that I'm not saying this is the only way music _should_ or can be appreciated. Not true, even for me. I listen to music and emote with it with the best of them. I cry at the end of Götterdämmerung. But I don't _have_ to emote to enjoy music.


I accept what you say here (I think serious listener's probably all do this to some extent) but that this kind of analysis impacts at all on a piece's aesthetics?


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> That a music composition may be of value for it's scoring per se yet fail to move a single auditor puts such value in perspective doesn't it?
> 
> The only real point of interest in music is how it effects a particular listener, surely (ie from that listener's perspective)?


And for music, which is a performance based art, that performance is an additional consideration.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> I accept what you say here (I think serious listener's probably all do this to some extent) but that this kind of analysis impacts at all on a piece's aesthetics?


Sorry: I don't really understand what you're asking at this point.

Do you mean, 'did spotting this musical joke make me think the music was better'?

Well, it made me think that the opera was carefully calibrated in its use of humour. I thought it was witty use of leitmotif.

Aren't they part of the piece's æsthetics?


----------



## Guest002

I'm afraid I now have a family Corona virus International Video Call to attend, after which it will be tea-time. So I probably shan't be back to the forum until tomorrow now.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Sorry: I don't really understand what you're asking at this point.
> 
> Do you mean, '*did spotting this musical joke make me think the music was better*'?


That is what I meant, yes.



> Well, it made me think that the opera was carefully calibrated in its use of humour. I thought it was witty use of leitmotif.
> 
> Aren't they part of the piece's æsthetics?


I guess if it works for you then I can't really argue...I guess you do have a point - perhaps quite a fine one. I'm reminded of Shostakovich's 6th and his nod to Rossini:


----------



## Coach G

When I think of "objectivity" I think of evaluating without prejudice, which I content for different reasons, both innate and based upon personal experience, is impossible, even for a baby or small child who has so little knowledge and experience.

My point is that people who haven't an inkling as to the context or construction of music seem to be attracted to certain arrangements of sound, and even that is subjective in that they are responding to an inner system that tells them how to interpret those sounds. It you were to ask the average classical music lover what pieces they tarted with they'd probably say _1812_ (or at least that last few minutes of _1812_), _Blue Danube_, _Moonlight Sonata_ or _Ride of the Valkyries_, because those pieces seem to fit a certain innate expectation of what good music is supposed to sound like.

I suspect that almost nobody will say that they happened to hear something by Schoenberg or Carter and decided right away that that was their forte in music, because the music tends to sound very unmusical even in the first, second, and third hearings.

You learn to evaluate more objectively by gathering information, by understanding the context, the intentions involved. Then you learn that things are not always what they appear to be at first, second, or third, hearing.


----------



## Coach G

JAS said:


> And for music, which is a performance based art, that performance is an additional consideration.


Excellent point, and for years I could listen to a piece I liked, say Beethoven's 5th, by conductors who are as far removed from one another as are Bernstein and Karajan, or even hear it from a third-rate orchestra, and it made no difference to me who it was, because it added or subtracted not a thing from the experience.

This lasted really a long time.

In a time that predated the internet, I would read magazines such as _Stereo Review _and _Opus_, and try to understand by way of the classical music reviews what made a Bernstein recording different from a Karajan recording, and I would purchase recordings of the same piece of music by different musicians, and it took a really long time for me to be discern what made each interpretation different, and even now that I've developed preferences for certain recordings of the same piece, it's hard to say why.


----------



## Guest002

Coach G said:


> When I think of "objectivity" I think of evaluating without prejudice


Unfortunately, that's a new definition of the word 'objectivity', which the original poster didn't mean. So that's a whole new ball of wax you're starting there!!

(Video call postponed for half an hour... Joy!)


----------



## Coach G

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Unfortunately, that's a new definition of the word 'objectivity', which the original poster didn't mean. So that's a whole new ball of wax you're starting there!!
> 
> (Video call postponed for half an hour... Joy!)


I didn't mean to start a whole new ball of wax. Sorry for getting my signals crossed.


----------



## Guest002

Coach G said:


> I didn't mean to start a whole new ball of wax. Sorry for getting my signals crossed.


No, sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm just saying that this view of yours is an interesting one, but isn't what the original poster was particularly talking about. Which doesn't mean you can't start that discussion at all. I mean, these 16 pages have been a forum for everything from ice cream flavours to Kant so far... ! Chime in, please do!


----------



## Guest002

Coach G said:


> Excellent point, and for years I could listen to a piece I liked, say Beethoven's 5th, by conductors who are as far removed from one another as are Bernstein and Karajan, or even hear it from a third-rate orchestra, and it made no difference to me who it was, because it added or subtracted not a thing from the experience.


I envy you.

This gets close to the 'imprinting' thread that was on here not so long ago. Once I've heard a particular recording of a piece, I find it very difficult to hear any other without thinking 'too slow, too fast, not crisp enough etc etc'.

I'm terrible at getting imprinted by particular recordings. It's one of the reasons I've slowly accumulated a lot of scores, so I can try getting away from experiencing the music as a particular performance.


----------



## JAS

Coach G said:


> In a time that predated the internet, I would read magazines such as _Stereo Review _and _Opus_, and try to understand by way of the classical music reviews what made a Bernstein recording different from a Karajan recording, and I would purchase recordings of the same piece of music by different musicians, and it took a really long time for me to be discern what made each interpretation different, and even now that I've developed preferences for certain recordings of the same piece, it's hard to say why.


If you can find a copy for a decent price, I found this a very interesting documentary:


----------



## nina foresti

erki said:


> Art is also a communication. I have something in my head I need to share - so I use words, sounds, shapes, textures - because you can not read my mind.
> But there are individuals(9 jews) who decide what is the *ART* objectively. So if you like painting that is not approved by them you are just stupid or even worse.


I am a bit confused and fear I might have missed something.
Could you kindly name the "9 jews" that you refer to in your post please?
Thanks:tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

nina foresti said:


> I am a bit confused and fear I might have missed something.
> Could you kindly name the "9 jews" that you refer to in your post please?
> Thanks:tiphat:


Conspiracy theory?


----------



## nina foresti

janxharris said:


> Conspiracy theory?


Sorry. I missed it. I am new here and am wondering who the "9 Jews" are that erki is referring to. 
You seem to know something about it, would you kindly explain it?
My thanks


----------



## janxharris

nina foresti said:


> Sorry. I missed it. I am new here and am wondering who the "9 Jews" are that erki is referring to.
> You seem to know something about it, would you kindly explain it?
> My thanks


I was assuming the poster was trolling...but I may be corrected.


----------



## Coach G

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> No, sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. I'm just saying that this view of yours is an interesting one, but isn't what the original poster was particularly talking about. Which doesn't mean you can't start that discussion at all. I mean, these 16 pages have been a forum for everything from ice cream flavours to Kant so far... ! Chime in, please do!


No offenses taken. I hope you, your friends, and family are safe and well. By the way, Britten is a favorite of mine, as a composer, and conductor, although it was quite gradual, an acquired taste in my case.


----------



## nina foresti

janxharris said:


> I was assuming the poster was trolling...but I may be corrected.


Trolling? Really? I am taking this seriously.
I would have thought that the Administrator(s) would not have permitted expletives, religious insults, or porn of any sort and that the posts by erki would have been deleted as going against website rules.
Is this not true?
The story about the "9 Jews" seems to me to clearly be prejudicial in content.

Apr. 27 2020 18:22 Post # 55
Apr. 28 2020 06.30 Post # 64


----------



## toshiromifune

Strange Magic said:


> Question: Does the score above have Merit? If not, why not? Or will the Merit be established later, after sufficient polling establishes a majority/minority view of its Merit?


May I try to answer your question? A score's merit doesn't depend on whether it's established or not. It's the other way around - if the merit is 'established', we have good evidence that it has some merit.

Or in other words: A piece of music is not great because it's popular, but it is often popular because it's great.


----------



## janxharris

nina foresti said:


> Trolling? Really? I am taking this seriously.
> I would have thought that the Administrator(s) would not have permitted expletives, religious insults, or porn of any sort and that the posts by erki would have been deleted as going against website rules.
> Is this not true?
> The story about the "9 Jews" seems to me to clearly be prejudicial in content.
> 
> Apr. 27 2020 18:22 Post # 55
> Apr. 28 2020 06.30 Post # 64


It would need to be reported - I didn't because, like you, I wasn't entirely sure.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


I think you need to "foolproof" your question...Easy understandable question please! Templates mapped on to my experience etc...


----------



## Strange Magic

toshiromifune said:


> May I try to answer your question? A score's merit doesn't depend on whether it's established or not. It's the other way around - if the merit is 'established', we have good evidence that it has some merit.
> 
> Or in other words: A piece of music is not great because it's popular, but it is often popular because it's great.


All we can really, accurately say is that a piece of music is popular (or not). And we can determine that with high accuracy.


----------



## toshiromifune

Strange Magic said:


> All we can really, accurately say is that a piece of music is popular (or not). And we can determine that with high accuracy.


Yes, but in my opinion it is much more meaningful to try to tell why a piece of music is popular (or not) even if we can't be absolutely certain.


----------



## Strange Magic

toshiromifune said:


> Yes, but in my opinion it is much more meaningful to try to tell why a piece of music is popular (or not) even if we can't be absolutely certain.


I agree. There are neuroscientists and psychologists, and even musicians themselves who have been working on and studying how people react to music as they do, and why some like A and others prefer B.


----------



## JAS

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I think you need to "foolproof" your question...Easy understandable question please! Templates mapped on to my experience etc...


I think that there is a significant flaw in this request, but defer on spelling it out.


----------



## nina foresti

MR: You said:


millionrainbows said:


> "If it must be appreciated subjectively, then what's the point of maintaining that it is a "thing?" Does this satisfy some scientific, rational urge within your mind, or are you just being contentious to disagree with the OP?"


(I have come late to the party and admit I have not perused every single post and am too lazy to do so. But I stopped dead at CLV's post because it expressed very closely how I felt about art as well.)

Here is CLV's post:
"Each art object exists as a "thing". Homer's Odyssey is a thing. Michelangelo's David is a thing. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a thing. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is a thing. But the artist's subjective spirit went into the creating of the thing, and the audience's subjective spirit goes into the appreciation of the thing."

Million Rainbows: You used a word above that was never mentioned in CLV's post. He/she never used the word"must " as in, "If it *must* be appreciated subjectively..." etc.

Actually, it doesn't have to be appreciated subjectively. It can simply sit there, or hang there as an object. 
A cat or dog can walk by it -- it is objective.
A person can walk by it. It is objective.
But suddenly that person can look back at it and start to study it. Now it has graduated and ceased from simply being an object. It has become subjective because they have put a new spin on it and taken a sudden interest in it.

(By the way: This is a very interesting thread and I thank you for it, despite the fact that, sadly, there is a poster here (#55 and #64) who has slurred a religious sect, which I believe is against the rules of this website. Yet not one person stopped to make mention of the posts. Sad.)


----------



## Strange Magic

> nina foresti: "...there is a poster here (#55 and #64) who has slurred a religious sect, which I believe is against the rules of this website. Yet not one person stopped to make mention of the posts. Sad."


I looked back at eski's two posts. In my opinion, they were a (clumsy) attempt to illustrate ironically the existence of conspiracy theories among enthusiasts of such theories. eski remembers his grandfather conjuring up and repeating the old canard about conspiracies of Jews controlling "everything" from some hidden room. Such canards unhappily persist stubbornly into the present day. I believe eski meant no harm or hurt to anyone, but his choice of example (his grandfather's outdated notion) was unfortunate. That's my interpretation of the posts.


----------



## nina foresti

Strange Magic said:


> I looked back at eski's two posts. In my opinion, they were a (clumsy) attempt to illustrate ironically the existence of conspiracy theories among enthusiasts of such theories. eski remembers his grandfather conjuring up and repeating the old canard about conspiracies of Jews controlling "everything" from some hidden room. Such canards unhappily persist stubbornly into the present day. I believe eski meant no harm or hurt to anyone, but his choice of example (his grandfather's outdated notion) was unfortunate. That's my interpretation of the posts.


Thank you for your explanation. It makes me feel much better. I thought he was aligning his thoughts with his grandfather's.
He deserves the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## millionrainbows

nina foresti said:


> MR: You said:
> 
> (I have come late to the party and admit I have not perused every single post and am too lazy to do so. But I stopped dead at CLV's post because it expressed very closely how I felt about art as well.)
> 
> Here is CLV's post:
> "Each art object exists as a "thing". Homer's Odyssey is a thing. Michelangelo's David is a thing. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a thing. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is a thing. But the artist's subjective spirit went into the creating of the thing, and the audience's subjective spirit goes into the appreciation of the thing."
> 
> Million Rainbows: You used a word above that was never mentioned in CLV's post. He/she never used the word"must " as in, "If it *must* be appreciated subjectively..." etc.
> 
> Actually, it doesn't have to be appreciated subjectively. It can simply sit there, or hang there as an object.
> A cat or dog can walk by it -- it is objective.
> A person can walk by it. It is objective.
> But suddenly that person can look back at it and start to study it. Now it has graduated and ceased from simply being an object. It has become subjective because they have put a new spin on it and taken a sudden interest in it.
> 
> (By the way: This is a very interesting thread and I thank you for it, despite the fact that, sadly, there is a poster here (#55 and #64) who has slurred a religious sect, which I believe is against the rules of this website. Yet not one person stopped to make mention of the posts. Sad.)


Thanks for your response, nina forest. Your observation that we have "free choice" whether or not to engage with a work of art brings up the subject of John Cage. He frequently invites subjective participation in sounds we might otherwise see as just noise in the environment. That kind of turns "objectivity" on its ear.

BTW, after reading response #64, I'm not so sure that his intentions were so benign. You were right to point this out. What kind of place is Estonia? Maybe this holds some clue.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "BTW, after reading response #64, I'm not so sure that his intentions were so benign. You were right to point this out. What kind of place is Estonia? Maybe this holds some clue."


I'm not eski's spokesperson, but I think he was just continuing on with his unhappy metaphor. Estonia shares in the legacy of centuries of Eastern European (especially) anti-Jewish mindset. Some of my neighbors when I was a youth parroted similar sentiments right here in the good old USA.


----------



## NLAdriaan

This thread became a metaphor of its very subject. A lot of Babylonian confusion and a lot of subjectivity in responding to them. But more objectively, it is really interesting. Like listening to a desert island recording in an full elevator.

I can only join on less crowded times. So I have to jump in and out of the conversation.



> No, I'm not saying you have to have biographical information. The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


I can see that Million Rainbows is loosing some of his usual flair and wit and even has become a bit grumpy (not in the above quote), so the object of this thread is obviously close to him. But MR, what if composers would at times have the same attitude towards their work? You obviously asked a misleading question to us, as you are not in compliance with it yourself. Your idea implies that each creator always has a full integrity about his work. _He (or she of course) didn't worry about paying the bills, didn't have any earthly problems or physical inconvenience. And no creator would even consider misleading intentions when creating his creature. And all creations are autobiographical._ I think Mahler's works are suffering from this idea. You are supposed to go through a mental rollercoaster when following the classic Mahler conductor at work. Likely because we know of all the troubles Mahler encountered in his life and because Freud clearly broke doctor/patient privilege by gossiping about his findings? And this has all to be considered when listening to one of his symphonies. Mahler's troubles were probably not much better or worse than say, Mozart's misery. But no one pours a bucket of tears over The Magical Flute. How many of the masterworks that we know are just ordered products? I think any creature, be it a car, a kitchen appliance or a symphony, should be considered on its own, without taking the creator in the equation. Of course, if a creation looks and feels true and uncompromised, a grateful feeling might come up. On your side because you are confirmed in your choice and towards the creator because you are taken seriously and not fooled around. Yet, I am not interested in the mindset and soul of the creator and everyone else who contributed to the experience. So far my objective view towards creators and my subjective admiration towards creations. I can have that with a piece of art as well as with a machine/appliance that I would use.

Another phenomenon I wou like to share, is about the listening experience. How is it possible that you can get hypnotized by a certain recording at one time and simply not getting this experience with the same recording another time. This must be a personal thing, as all other factors are the same. And one of the most energetic Jazz recordings I know (Miles live in Lincoln center on feb. 12, 1964), was made when the members of the quintet reportedly were very angry at eachother about financial issues). I also have similar experiences with live music. The best example would be a Bruckner symphony. _BTW: a composer to whom I would certainly not develop any subjective soul connection)_, I went to two Bruckner concerts, conducted by the same conductor (Celi) and the same orchestra (MPO), not too long apart. During the first, in Amsterdam, I was hypnotized. During the second (Munich), I was not involved. Stone cold is too much said, but the music stayed outside. So many variables at stake and no guarantees. A decent amount of objectivity helps to keep things right.

I also want to add something to my remarks about reading scores. It has been said (MR) that listening can only give you the full experience and reading scores is always a limited experience. But isn't it a fact that the composer crates his work by imagining a sound and writing it down. Mahler couldn't fit an orchestra in his tiny composer-cabins, yet he would write down the most complex orchestral music, some of which he would never hear when alive. The same goes for many other composers, Beethoven of course for his own reasons. So, when writing down music is the act of the composer, the most clean 'listening' experience is reading what the composer wrote down, without a chain of people who do it for you. This score-reading however does not objectify the music experience, on the contrary. It brings you as close as possible to the composer, without the distractions and interpretations of the musicians. It also puts your own mind at work, as you will imagine your own interpretation, which is always cleaner and more truthful than any listening experience. Of course, reading scores requires the skill of reading notes. But the same goes for a Shakespeare play, for looking at a real Rembrandt painting or smelling and tasting a grand cru, which requires no previous skills. Anyone can intuitively read the following graphic score:








Of course, I enjoy a live concert just as much as anyone, without thinking about objectivity and subjectivity at all, but hey, we are dealing with this issue here.


----------



## nina foresti

Strange Magic said:


> I'm not eski's spokesperson, but I think he was just continuing on with his unhappy metaphor. Estonia shares in the legacy of centuries of Eastern European (especially) anti-Jewish mindset. Some of my neighbors when I was a youth parroted similar sentiments right here in the good old USA.


Talk about objectivity vs. subjectivity. Seems like I was the only poster to make those objective posts into subjective ones by (wait for it!) ... "objecting". I believe I was more taken aback by the lack of any response by posters than I was by the statements made.


----------



## millionrainbows

NLAdriaan said:


> You obviously asked a misleading question to us, as you are not in compliance with it yourself. Your idea implies that each creator always has a full integrity about his work. _He (or she of course) didn't worry about paying the bills, didn't have any earthly problems or physical inconvenience. And no creator would even consider misleading intentions when creating his creature. And all creations are autobiographical._ I think Mahler's works are suffering from this idea. You are supposed to go through a mental rollercoaster when following the classic Mahler conductor at work. Likely because we know of all the troubles Mahler encountered in his life and because Freud clearly broke doctor/patient privilege by gossiping about his findings? And this has all to be considered when listening to one of his symphonies. Mahler's troubles were probably not much better or worse than say, Mozart's misery. But no one pours a bucket of tears over The Magical Flute. How many of the masterworks that we know are just ordered products? I think any creature, be it *a car, a kitchen appliance or a symphony, *should be considered on its own, without taking the creator in the equation. Of course, if a creation looks and feels true and uncompromised, a grateful feeling might come up. On your side because you are confirmed in your choice and towards the creator because you are taken seriously and not fooled around. Yet, *I am not interested in the mindset and soul of the creator and everyone else who contributed to the experience. So far my objective view towards creators and my subjective admiration towards creations. I can have that with a piece of art as well as with a machine/appliance that I would use.*


A car or a kitchen appliance are just objects with a function.

With a symphony, we can ask the questions: what was the artist tying to say? Was the artist sincere?

A listener does not have to be familiar with the biographical details of an artist; he/she should only be aware that this art is the product of another human being whose desire it is to communicate this experience, and that in this sense it is more than an object, since it is designed to convey meaning through the language of art.



> Another phenomenon I wou like to share, is about the listening experience. How is it possible that you can get hypnotized by a certain recording at one time and simply not getting this experience with the same recording another time. This must be a personal thing, as all other factors are the same. And one of the most energetic Jazz recordings I know (Miles live in Lincoln center on feb. 12, 1964), was made when the members of the quintet reportedly were very angry at eachother about financial issues). I also have similar experiences with live music. The best example would be a Bruckner symphony. _BTW: a composer to whom I would certainly not develop any subjective soul connection)_, I went to two Bruckner concerts, conducted by the same conductor (Celi) and the same orchestra (MPO), not too long apart. During the first, in Amsterdam, I was hypnotized. During the second (Munich), I was not involved. Stone cold is too much said, but the music stayed outside. So many variables at stake and no guarantees. A decent amount of objectivity helps to keep things right.


There are many variables in music which may prevent the assimilation of the meaning and intent of the work. That doesn't change the fact that the music was created by an artist. These variables don't invalidate that.



> I also want to add something to my remarks about reading scores. It has been said (MR) that listening can only give you the full experience and reading scores is always a limited experience. But isn't it a fact that the composer crates his work by imagining a sound and writing it down. Mahler couldn't fit an orchestra in his tiny composer-cabins, yet he would write down the most complex orchestral music, some of which he would never hear when alive. The same goes for many other composers, Beethoven of course for his own reasons. So, when writing down music is the act of the composer, the most clean 'listening' experience is reading what the composer wrote down, without a chain of people who do it for you. This score-reading however does not objectify the music experience, on the contrary. It brings you as close as possible to the composer, without the distractions and interpretations of the musicians. It also puts your own mind at work, as you will imagine your own interpretation, which is always cleaner and more truthful than any listening experience. Of course, reading scores requires the skill of reading notes. But the same goes for a Shakespeare play, for looking at a real Rembrandt painting or smelling and tasting a grand cru, which requires no previous skills. Anyone can intuitively read the following graphic score:
> View attachment 135124
> 
> 
> Of course, I enjoy a live concert just as much as anyone, without thinking about objectivity and subjectivity at all, but hey, we are dealing with this issue here.


In that a score conveys the ideas of the music, it is also just as valid in an artistic sense. Still, music is moving air molecules, not symbolic scratches on score paper.


----------



## nina foresti

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks for your response, nina forest. Your observation that we have "free choice" whether or not to engage with a work of art brings up the subject of John Cage. He frequently invites subjective participation in sounds we might otherwise see as just noise in the environment. That kind of turns "objectivity" on its ear.
> 
> BTW, after reading response #64, I'm not so sure that his intentions were so benign. You were right to point this out. What kind of place is Estonia? Maybe this holds some clue.


You said:[Cage] frequently invites subjective participation in sounds we might otherwise see as just noise in the environment. That kind of turns "objectivity" on its ear."

This is true as far as it goes but it can also be seen as objective if one goes about one's business of "talking on the phone", "vacuuming", "reading a book", etc. and the sounds really are not even there. Then it still can be objective.


----------



## millionrainbows

nina foresti said:


> Talk about objectivity vs. subjectivity. Seems like I was the only poster to make those objective posts into subjective ones by (wait for it!) ... "objecting". I believe I was more taken aback by the lack of any response by posters than I was by the statements made.


Yes, it's appalling what a rotten lot we are.


----------



## millionrainbows

nina foresti said:


> You said:[Cage] frequently invites subjective participation in sounds we might otherwise see as just noise in the environment. That kind of turns "objectivity" on its ear."
> 
> This is true as far as it goes but it can also be seen as objective if one goes about one's business of "talking on the phone", "vacuuming", "reading a book", etc. and the sounds really are not even there. Then it still can be objective.


That's okay, because those sounds ("talking on the phone", "vacuuming", "reading a book", etc.) are not 'art,' and no artist is asking you to hear them as art or music. It becomes 'art' the moment that an artist deems (or requests) it to be art.


----------



## nina foresti

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's appalling what a rotten lot we are.


Not a rotten lot, just maybe unaware and uncaring.


----------



## nina foresti

millionrainbows said:


> That's okay, because those sounds ("talking on the phone", "vacuuming", "reading a book", etc.) are not 'art,' and no artist is asking you to hear them as art or music. It becomes 'art' the moment that an artist deems (or requests) it to be art.


Did I misstate my meaning? I was referring to Cage's works being seen as nothing more than objective as long as no attention is being drawn to them, such as the 3 instances named above, and therefore his work is not even there.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> In that a score conveys the ideas of the music, it is also just as valid in an artistic sense. Still, music is moving air molecules, not symbolic scratches on score paper.


"Music is moving air molecules".

Really?

So if I were to play the violin part of a string quartet in a SCUBA mask (so I can breathe!) in an atmosphere of pure Helium or Neon, it wouldn't be music?

Or suppose I can't hear the results of the air molecules moving (say I've got very effective noise defenders on): is it still music then?

And if your first name is Ludwig and it's 1825 and you've just written your Op. 132 string quartet, which you'll never hear no matter how many air molecules are moving because you're stone deaf... still music?

Moving air molecules only come into play during a music _performance_, which is an entirely different thing from music itself.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> *All art is an expression of being, and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.*
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


I still don't know what the emboldened means. If music is subjective (my view) then your 'templates' seems to suggest otherwise...and yet you rail against objectified art.

We (listeners in general) don't agree upon meanings in music as has been noted many times on these forums. My perception of Tchaikovsky is not the same as those that adore his music; whilst I acknowledge his obvious facility in composition (it's cogent and well-crafted), I find it extraordinarily and unbearably sentimental. But Tchaikovsky did not for one moment think this else he would have made changes.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> To "objectify" art and separate it from its creator and the human dimension seems to be done all the time, by "rational" thinkers.
> 
> All art is _an expression of being,_ and it uses "templates" of agreed-upon or perceivable meanings (common experience) to convey this. These templates are "mapped" on to our own experience, and we empathize and gain meaning from this.
> 
> The separation of art into an "object" apart from this human connection is overly-rational and borders on the absurd; yet I see rational thinkers on this form using this strategy over and over, and frankly it gets tiresome.
> 
> Art is a symbolic language, don't try to escape this fact. It is not an "object" because it is an expression of being.
> 
> What do you think? Can art be "objectified?"


No. Art can't be reduced to rational terms, it must be viewed empirically. Early empiricists like David Hume well understood this, it isn't some brilliant, original insight of mine. If people can't understand this, I suspect it is because they are so deeply invested in their own cultural and social environment that they can't see that it is neither inevitable nor necessarily more evolved or superior in every way to other environments or contexts.


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> No. Art can't be reduced to rational terms, it must be viewed empirically.


Just to be clear about it, you're saying "Music must be 'discovered' as a sensory experience" (that's what I think empiricism means, anyway).

So, when Beethoven's writing down his symphony, it's not music, because it's coming out of his head and no-one's had a chance to experience it via the senses yet.

Right?


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Just to be clear about it, you're saying "Music must be 'discovered' as a sensory experience" (that's what I think empiricism means, anyway).
> 
> So, when Beethoven's writing down his symphony, it's not music, because it's coming out of his head and no-one's had a chance to experience it via the senses yet.
> 
> Right?


Beethoven was experiencing it.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Beethoven was experiencing it.


Was he? And you asked him that and that's what he said?

Did he explain with what senses he was experiencing it?


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Was he? And you asked him that and that's what he said?
> 
> Did he explain with what senses he was experiencing it?


Of course he was experiencing it - that's what you do when you compose (the exception perhaps being aleatory music).


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Of course he was experiencing it - that's what you do when you compose (the exception perhaps being aleatory music).


With what senses, I asked?


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> With what senses, I asked?


Either inner ear, perhaps on the piano or both. Why do you ask?


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Just to be clear about it, you're saying "Music must be 'discovered' as a sensory experience" (that's what I think empiricism means, anyway).
> 
> So, when Beethoven's writing down his symphony, it's not music, because it's coming out of his head and no-one's had a chance to experience it via the senses yet.
> 
> Right?


Does a communication exist once it is made, or sent, or intended, or only after it is received? This kind of question never interested me much, because it comes down to how one chooses to define the term "communication". Either way, I think the intent to send a message, that at least potentially could be received by a living being, is a fundamental element of the concept of communication. With art, the intent is to communicate, at least in part, through an appeal to the aesthetic senses that all humans innately possess. But even though we may well all share many fundamental aesthetic inclinations (certainly people living in the same society at the same time do), our individual aesthetics are so sensitive to even the most subtle differences in environment, and likely our unique individual genetic makeup as well, that I very much doubt any two people could ever be identical in this way.

The artist's language or medium of communication is therefore inevitably subjective. That is why it is so challenging, and yet so powerful when successful.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Either inner ear, perhaps on the piano or both. Why do you ask?


Because, I wanted you to use the dreaded word "inner".

See, empiricism usually says that experience arises from visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and gustatory sensation. But clearly, Beethoven being deaf, and music not tasting or smelling of anything, if we're going to say that all music must be 'experienced', I knew you'd have to claim that 'inner experience' counts as experience.

And at that point, I think you'll have so broadened the definition of 'experience' as to make it meaningless.

It is the Achilles heel of empiricism. There are clearly so many things that we 'know about' which cannot possibly arise from experience (numbers and mathematics, for example), that the only way empiricists can encompass them in their theory of 'sensation' and 'experience' is to so re-define the meaning of experience as to make it mean anything they want it to mean.


----------



## Flamme

Strange Magic said:


> I'm not eski's spokesperson, but I think he was just continuing on with his unhappy metaphor. Estonia shares in the legacy of centuries of Eastern European (especially) anti-Jewish mindset. Some of my neighbors when I was a youth parroted similar sentiments right here in the good old USA.


I also nnoticed that...W/o intention 2 open up a discussion, in some russian media I follow, they are often accused of being on the wrong side of history in WW2...


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> Does a communication exist once it is made, or sent, or intended, or only after it is received? This kind of question never interested me much, because it comes down to how one chooses to define the term "communication". Either way, I think the intent to send a message, that at least potentially could be received by a living being, is a fundamental element of the concept of communication. With art, the intent is to communicate, at least in part, through an appeal to the aesthetic senses that all humans innately possess. But even though we may well all share many fundamental aesthetic inclinations (certainly people living in the same society at the same time do), our individual aesthetics are so sensitive to even the most subtle differences in environment, and likely our unique individual genetic makeup as well, that I very much doubt any two people could ever be identical in this way.
> 
> The artist's language or medium of communication is therefore inevitably subjective. That is why it is so challenging, and yet so powerful when successful.


Yeah, I asked you a straightforward question. When Beethoven was writing his Op. 132 String Quartet, was it "empirically" music at that point or not? It hasn't yet been performed, and not even the composer has heard it (and is physically incapable of doing so). So, empirically, we would seem to be on somewhat thin ice at this point.

Now you're saying that "intent" has something to do with it. And "communication". Oh, and suddenly we must assume an innate aesthetic sense (that sounds suspiciously _a priori_ to me, and therefore is everything the empiricists hated).


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Because, I wanted you to use the dreaded word "inner".
> 
> See, empiricism usually says that experience arises from visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory and gustatory sensation. But clearly, Beethoven being deaf, and music not tasting or smelling of anything, if we're going to say that all music must be 'experienced', I knew you'd have to claim that 'inner experience' counts as experience.
> 
> And at that point, I think you'll have so broadened the definition of 'experience' as to make it meaningless.
> 
> It is the Achilles heel of empiricism. There are clearly so many things that we 'know about' which cannot possibly arise from experience (numbers and mathematics, for example), that the only way empiricists can encompass them in their theory of 'sensation' and 'experience' is to so re-define the meaning of experience as to make it mean anything they want it to mean.


Since all the senses are turned into meaning by the brain then inner ear experience isn't a redefinition. Brahms considered the best performances of his work to be those he experienced whilst reading through his scores.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Since all the senses are turned into meaning by the brain then inner ear experience isn't a redefinition. Brahms considered the best performances of his work to be those he experienced whilst reading through his scores.


The brain can be fooled (optical illusions, for example). Would those count as 'experiences' too? How then do you distinguish between 'reality' and 'non-reality'?

The quote I was picking on [sorry: to add, it wasn't a quote from you] was:



> No. Art can't be reduced to rational terms, it must be viewed empirically. Early empiricists like David Hume well understood this


For that to be true, for David Hume to have the first and last word on whether music *must* be viewed empirically, then empiricists have to redefine 'sensation' and 'experience', from being the ordinarily accepted sight, sound, touch, taste and smell... to now being "er, stuff the brain does", precisely as you have done.

Because they otherwise cannot account for a composer being able to produce music without any of the ordinarily-accepted senses being involved.

On the same basis, they have a problem with a mathematician's grasp of number theory -since no "experience" can give rise to that either, unless you again re-define 'experience' up the wazoo.

Your quote about Brahms is a good one, and something I think confirms the proposition that _music_ can be enjoyed separately from music _performance_. Music *can* be objectified. Music performance... very, very difficult to do.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The brain can be fooled (optical illusions, for example). Would those count as 'experiences' too? How then do you distinguish between 'reality' and 'non-reality'?
> 
> The quote I was picking on [sorry: to add, it wasn't a quote from you] was:
> 
> For that to be true, for David Hume to have the first and last word on whether music *must* be viewed empirically, then empiricists have to redefine 'sensation' and 'experience', from being the ordinarily accepted sight, sound, touch, taste and smell... to now being "er, stuff the brain does", precisely as you have done.
> 
> Because they otherwise cannot account for a composer being able to produce music without any of the ordinarily-accepted senses being involved.
> 
> On the same basis, they have a problem with a mathematician's grasp of number theory -since no "experience" can give rise to that either, unless you again re-define 'experience' up the wazoo.
> 
> Your quote about Brahms is a good one, and something I think confirms the proposition that _music_ can be enjoyed separately from music _performance_. Music *can* be objectified. Music performance... very, very difficult to do.


I'm not clear what the issue is AB. The composer must be cognitive of the sound of the music he is writing else it's just random noise - and whether this is through an excellent inner ear, on the piano, a DAW or a combination - it is heard in the mind. The composer is aware of a close proximity to how it will sound live.

Music 'heard' through a composers inner ear is still a subjective experience. Whether he/she is able to balance all the different timbres of the orchestral palette in this way is probably very debatable. Perhaps Brahms was very good at it.


----------



## janxharris

This has been posted before - and still freaks me out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah, I asked you a straightforward question. When Beethoven was writing his Op. 132 String Quartet, was it "empirically" music at that point or not? It hasn't yet been performed, and not even the composer has heard it (and is physically incapable of doing so). So, empirically, we would seem to be on somewhat thin ice at this point.
> 
> Now you're saying that "intent" has something to do with it. And "communication". Oh, and suddenly we must assume an innate aesthetic sense (that sounds suspiciously _a priori_ to me, and therefore is everything the empiricists hated).


No, you didn't; Yes; Presumably yes; No; Yes; Yes; Yes; No. Hume was a disorganized and rambling writer, but he directly addressed the issue you raise here, and the subjective nature of aesthetic taste, especially but not only in his essay Of the Standard of Taste. Hume was a major influence on Kant and modern views on aesthetics. Here is a short paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There is no substitute for reading Hume's entire essay, but this has the advantage of being written clearly with modern rather than 18th century terminology and only three sentences:

Hume is an inner sense theorist who treats aesthetic pleasure as an instinctive and natural human response. Successful art exploits our natural sentiments by employing appropriate composition and design. Only empirical inquiry can establish reliable ways to elicit the approval of taste.

It is the final sentence in this short summary that needs further elaboration. Hume gives it, but in a rambling and disorganized way, so one needs to carefully comb through his writings, and I'm not going to quote or analyze them here.

Edit: It seems obvious that Beethoven's Op. 132 was an attempt at art, or intended as art, through the use of "appropriate composition and design", but could only succeed in art's purpose of "elict[ing] the approval of taste" once someone heard it, or at least read the score and heard it in their mind's ear, to use the SEP's terms.


----------



## JAS

If a composer, such as Max Steiner did in his score to Casablanca, suddenly quotes from "La Marseillaise," most listeners will immediately think of France, which is why the quotation works (even without watching the movie). The reason that this quotation works is that there is a broadly shared cultural association. Is a mutual subjective connection in any way objective? (I am not really sure why we are getting hung up on the word "objective" in the first place.)


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> If a composer, such as Max Steiner did in his score to Casablanca, suddenly quotes from "La Marseillaise," most listeners will immediately think of France, which is why the quotation works (even without watching the movie). The reason that this quotation works is that there is a broadly shared cultural association. Is a mutual subjective connection in any way objective? (I am not really sure why we are getting hung up on the word "objective" in the first place.)


Exactly! And we all have many of these shared cultural associations, ideas and tastes, especially those of us from about the same time, place and socio-economic background. Each of us also has a unique individual background, environment, ideas and tastes. Those things, whether characteristic of a particular audience or specific individual, cannot be rationally induced or intuited. They must be empirically observed.


----------



## JAS

On the other hand, there is little point is supposing that, say, the music of Brian Ferneyhough would have a much broader audience if only people were not as they actually happen to be. Similarly, there is little point in positing that his music is really great, and is merely unappreciated because the audience just isn't up to snuff. (And no, I am not suggesting that anyone posting on this thread has necessarily suggested such a point.)


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> I'm not clear what the issue is AB. The composer must be cognitive of the sound of the music he is writing else it's just random noise - and whether this is through an excellent inner ear, on the piano, a DAW or a combination - it is heard in the mind. The composer is aware of a close proximity to how it will sound live.
> 
> Music 'heard' through a composers inner ear is still a subjective experience. Whether he/she is able to balance all the different timbres of the orchestral palette in this way is probably very debatable. Perhaps Brahms was very good at it.


My 'issue' is with redefining words either to the point where they cease to mean anything, or past the point of reasonableness.

Actually, I can put it more simply. Michaelangelo's _David_ doesn't stop being a work of sculptural art just because the Galeria del'Accademia closes at night and no-one's around to see it. And the scores on my library shelves don't stop being music just because I happen to have closed them and put them back on the shelf. I mean, I'll pay due respect to the concept of transubstantiation in regard to bread and wine, but it's not happening in my library to my scores!

More specifically. If you're now going to define 'subjective' to mean, "someone's brain was involved in its creation', then the original question posed on this thread needn't have been posed at all, since it's then fairly obvious that _nothing_ can be "objective" if you're essentially going to define _that_ to mean "can't involve a human brain".


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> This has been posted before - and still freaks me out:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion


I know. It's brilliant, isn't it?! Funnily enough, that's exactly the one I was thinking of when I made that comment about opical illusions.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> If a composer, such as Max Steiner did in his score to Casablanca, suddenly quotes from "La Marseillaise," most listeners will immediately think of France, which is why the quotation works (even without watching the movie). The reason that this quotation works is that there is a broadly shared cultural association. Is a mutual subjective connection in any way objective? (I am not really sure why we are getting hung up on the word "objective" in the first place.)


But that's no more significant than, say, Britten putting in certain 'effects' into his Sea Interludes knowing that they would put you (and me) in mind of a storm, or waves lapping on a beach or whatever. Kodaly's music 'sneeze' at the start of Háry János is another example of music deliberately portraying a physical experience we are expected to recognise. (That's an interesting example, though, because it's also the case that Hungarian culture associates truth with a statement that is followed by a sneeze: a cultural message that non-Hungarian listeners perhaps won't be so ready to pick up on).

Anyway: 'narrative' music is a 'thing' and no-one would deny its existence, nor that it relies on subjective associations to have its effect.

That you can point to examples of music relying on subjective associations to make its point doesn't, however, address the more general question of whether music *only* works because it's doing that sort of thing, to greater and lesser extent, all the time.

Is it possible to write 'pure music' that is devoid of these subjective associations?

I'd suggest Beethoven's string quartets might prove that you can.


----------



## NLAdriaan

millionrainbows said:


> A car or a kitchen appliance are just objects with a function.
> 
> With a symphony, we can ask the questions: what was the artist tying to say? Was the artist sincere?


So, with a carmaker or a kitchen appliance designer, we can't ask these questions? I completely disagree. Any creation can and should be assessed with these same questions. You will find cars that are considered a form of art and music which isn't.








Just the opening tune:







> A listener does not have to be familiar with the biographical details of an artist; he/she *should* only be aware that this art is the product of another human being *whose desire it is to communicate this experience*, and that in this sense it is *more than an object*, since it is designed to *convey meaning* through the *language of art*.


MR, you are now loosing me, but maybe this is exactly the meaning of this thread. It rather depends on your sincerety levels and as you are anonymous, I don't even know if it is the product of a human being, let alone that I have no clue what experience you want to communicate. 'The language of art' doesn't exist, it doesn't make any difference which language the creator speaks. Only snobs will drag a given object into the domain of art, in order to be associated with it and gain self-esteem.



> In that a score conveys the ideas of the music, it is also just as valid in an artistic sense. Still, music is moving air molecules, not symbolic scratches on score paper.










These words have already been discussed. But well, the graphic score of Stripsody is the actual score, it is published by 'Edition Peters' and it is as symbolic as any other music score. But the idea that music cannot be read, but only be heard 'through moving air' is nonsense. The score is the communication form of the composer, it does not contain 'the idea of the music', it is the music. We only use eyes to bring the music to our mind, instead of ears as a receiver for your moving molecules. A trained musician might forward the music from the mind to the hands to *re*produce the score to a musical instrument.


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> No, you didn't; Yes; Presumably yes; No; Yes; Yes; Yes; No. Hume was a disorganized and rambling writer, but he directly addressed the issue you raise here, and the subjective nature of aesthetic taste, especially but not only in his essay Of the Standard of Taste. Hume was a major influence on Kant and modern views on aesthetics. Here is a short paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There is no substitute for reading Hume's entire essay, but this has the advantage of being written clearly with modern rather than 18th century terminology and only three sentences:
> 
> Hume is an inner sense theorist who treats aesthetic pleasure as an instinctive and natural human response. Successful art exploits our natural sentiments by employing appropriate composition and design. Only empirical inquiry can establish reliable ways to elicit the approval of taste.
> 
> It is the final sentence in this short summary that needs further elaboration. Hume gives it, but in a rambling and disorganized way, so one needs to carefully comb through his writings, and I'm not going to quote or analyze them here.
> 
> Edit: It seems obvious that Beethoven's Op. 132 was an attempt at art, or intended as art, through the use of "appropriate composition and design", but could only succeed in art's purpose of "elict[ing] the approval of taste" once someone heard it, or at least read the score and heard it in their mind's ear, to use the SEP's terms.


David Hume was objected to by Rationalists; Kant by Idealists. You can't go citing him (or them) as if he (or they) is (or are) the last word in aesthetics!

It's nevertheless good to know that Beethoven's last string quartets are only "attempts at art" until such time as someone was fortunate enough to read the score or hear a performance.

I wasn't aware that an audience could be credited as co-creator of sublime music, but that's the logical outcome of your (and Hume's) position.

It's one I would reject as being, on its face, untrue.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The brain can be fooled (optical illusions, for example). Would those count as 'experiences' too? How then do you distinguish between 'reality' and 'non-reality'?


Holograms are very realistic experiences, too. They could be considered as "records of light." Isn't light real?

Also, consider Moiré patterns. Created by interference patterns (much the same as holograms), if you see the pattern created, why should it really matter if it's "real" or not? What does "real" mean?

I'm afraid you're backing yourself into a cul-de-sac here. Without a "mind" to experience things, what makes it "real" apart from that? You certainly can't prove the "reality" of anything without using scientific observation or measurement, and these can't be done without people.


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Is it possible to write 'pure music' that is devoid of these subjective associations?


You might, but I doubt that anyone would want to hear it (or at least enough "anyones" to make it a viable product). The problem for people who want music to be entirely on its own terms, with no consideration for others, is that while human beings have evolved and continue to evolve, they do not do so in anything like real time. It takes many generations and often eons of time. The human brain has evolved to recognize patterns, and the act of such recognition is "satisfying" or even "pleasurable." The effect (and appeal) of melody is more complicated, and possibly at least partially related to this process, but I won't pretend that I have an explanation where no one else does. (Again, I suspect that part of it has to do with setting, meeting, and diverging from expectations. None of that probably works in a complete vacuum.) The broader question might be is there a good reason that a much larger number of people appear to prefer, for example, the music of Beethoven (not really including the late quartets) to that of anyone who has been born over the last century or more? I think there is. The question is what is that reason?


----------



## millionrainbows

NLAdriaan said:


> So, with a carmaker or a kitchen appliance designer, we can't ask these questions? I completely disagree. Any creation can and should be assessed with these same questions. You will find cars that are considered a form of art and music which isn't.


Ok, if a car is designed to create a comfortable experience, then to that degree, is is "artistic" in that it has empathy with the human experience of driving it. I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.



> MR, you are now loosing me, but maybe this is exactly the meaning of this thread. It rather depends on your sincerety levels and as you are anonymous, I don't even know if it is the product of a human being, let alone that I have no clue what experience you want to communicate. *'The language of art' doesn't exist, it doesn't make any difference which language the creator speaks.* Only snobs will drag a given object into the domain of art, in order to be associated with it and gain self-esteem.


I disagree, of course.



> These words have already been discussed. But well, the graphic score of Stripsody is the actual score, it is published by 'Edition Peters' and it is as symbolic as any other music score. But the idea that music cannot be read, but only be heard 'through moving air' is nonsense.


A score is only a set of instructions. It is part of the music process, but is intended to be heard.



> The score is the communication form of the composer, it does not contain 'the idea of the music', it *is* the music.


I disagree. a score is, as above.



> We only use eyes to bring the music to our mind, instead of ears as a receiver for your moving molecules.


No, in that case, you are bringing your _idea_ of what the music might sound like to mind. This attempt to separate music from experience, and going further to say it can exist fully in score form, is the folly of the literate mind, with a totally visual bias. See Marshall McLuhan.



> A trained musician might forward the music from the mind to the hands to *re*produce the score to a musical instrument.


Yes, and then it becomes, fully, music.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Is it possible to write 'pure music' that is devoid of these subjective associations?
> 
> I'd suggest Beethoven's string quartets might prove that you can.


This sounds like total nonsense. How can you determine if Beethoven's string quartets are "devoid" of subjective associations? You seem to think that "subjective" is a limited term meaning "thought" or "narrative content." Music is full of other kinds of subjective associations, like "gesture" which are almost physical, and beyond the realm of "ticker-tape" thought.

Instrumental music is not, literally, about any particular "narrative." This doesn't mean it has no other meaning, such as evoking strong "emotional states," as in Schoenberg's Transfigured Night, Five Pieces and Mahler's symphonies.

Instrumental music, "musical sound", when divorced from "literal action" and drama, lost its connection to explicit meaning, and was revealed for what it is: a non-representational medium, the abstract evocation of "inner" states of being, which, coincidentally, is exactly what "abstract art" does: it reveals the artist's, and by empathy, the viewer's inner emotional state of being.

Music gradually divorced itself from drama over several centuries. Look at the rise of instrumental forms: the symphony, the concerto, tone poems, etc.

In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, still had residual traces of drama, expressed as "dramatic gestures." 

This "splitting" of drama from music opened-up a new can of worms, giving us the whole range of the non-specific "feelings" evoked by music, which are by their very "non-narrative nature" fleeting, transitory, and ephemeral, unclear, evocative, vague, and indefinable (meaning non-narrative).

Still, this is not a requirement for music to be expressive of emotion or states of being. To take matters even further into the fog, when we get into more modern music, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us. For example, in Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, the "emotional gestures" expressed are so complex that we begin to experience them as "states of being," like anxiety, foreboding, fear, tension, awe, etc., creating in our minds, empathetically, a reflection of our own, and the artist's, "inner state of being."

Concerning modernism, it's true that in many instances the "evoking" of dramatic emotion, and dramatic gesture is absent (but certainly not always). Stockhausen evokes, for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; with modernism, we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself. In this sense, modern music is not "modern" at all; music has always been "abstract expressionism" when divorced from drama and opera. 

So, in a sense, this is an "internal narrative" we share with the composer, but indefinable in literal narrative terms, because these are transitory, fleeting states by nature; simply "gestures of meanings."

Our general knowledge, and the historical context of a work can provide a source of "general narrative content" which can add greatly to the meaning of a piece, if only in our own minds. This always happens for me with Shostakovich (images of Soviet Russia) and with Webern's Op. 6 (Six Pieces for Orchestra), which always evokes in me grey images of Europe immediately preceding the World Wars. With Mahler, the Sixth Symphony snare-drum always evokes images of some malevolent military presence marching through our once-peaceful existence.

I think in many cases, the composer actually is composing with a specific narrative in mind, from his own emotionally-charged experience of events in his life, and then leaving it up to us to interpret it as we will; but we will never know for sure. That's the beauty of poetry; it is open-ended in meaning. 

That's a useful distinction, I think; instrumental non-narrative music (containing "dramatic gesture") is more like poetry, whereas the explicit meaning and narrative of opera is like a story or novel.

Perhaps that's the reason opera seems to lend itself to an audience more easily; the "poetry" of instrumental music is an "inner" experience, more solitary in nature, like reading a book of poems by yourself. Maybe sitting there in the concert hall listening to instrumental music gave audiences too much idle time to think.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Ok, if a car is designed to create a comfortable experience, then to that degree, is is "artistic" in that it has empathy with the human experience of driving it. I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.


A well designed car seat may be an admirable example of engineering, or even craftsmanship, both impressive in their own way. I don't see that it could possibly reach the level of being considered art, except in the kind of absurd museums where urinals are installed on a wall as an exhibition and are laughably called art, and regularly laughed at for doing so.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> You might, but I doubt that anyone would want to hear it (or at least enough "anyones" to make it a viable product). The problem for people who want music to be entirely on its own terms, with no consideration for others, is that while human beings have evolved and continue to evolve, they do not do so in anything like real time. It takes many generations and often eons of time. The human brain has evolved to recognize patterns, and the act of such recognition is "satisfying" or even "pleasurable." The effect (and appeal) of melody is more complicated, and possibly at least partially related to this process, but I won't pretend that I have an explanation where no one else does. (Again, I suspect that part of it has to do with setting, meeting, and diverging from expectations. None of that probably works in a complete vacuum.) The broader question might be is there a good reason that a much larger number of people appear to prefer, for example, the music of Beethoven (not really including the late quartets) to that of anyone who has been born over the last century or more? I think there is. The question is what is that reason?


This is the very area that Leonard Meyer explored in great detail in _Emotion and Meaning in Music_, and, more briefly, in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. As a bonus, one gets Meyer on the New Stasis in music and the arts in the latter book.


----------



## JAS

I don't know whether or not I might at least partially be agreeing with MR here, but I think what makes mere sound into music (and this can be applied to other forms of art), is a _profound connection_ between the creator of the product and the receiver of it. I am also assuming humans in these roles, and some degree of intention. (Often that act or creating requires considerable skill, although it may not be absolutely necessary as some fairly "naive" art can be very effective.) The basis for such a connection _must_ be some degree of shared experience. I just do not see any way around that often inconvenient element.


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Is it possible to write 'pure music' that is devoid of these subjective associations?
> 
> I'd suggest Beethoven's string quartets might prove that you can.


So, Beethoven's string quartets are objectively pure and superior? White European music is objectively pure and superior? White European culture is objectively pure and superior? White Europeans are objectively pure and superior? Or maybe only Germans like Beethoven and their music and culture, and not Kodaly?

Thanks so much for correcting all my misconceptions about those things.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> I don't know whether or not I might at least partially be agreeing with MR here, but I think what makes mere sound into music (and this can be applied to other forms of art), is a _profound connection_ between the creator of the product and the receiver of it. I am also assuming humans in these roles, and some degree of intention. (Often that act or creating requires considerable skill, although it may not be absolutely necessary as some fairly "naive" art can be very effective.) The basis for such a connection _must_ be some degree of shared experience. I just do not see any way around that often inconvenient element.


There is no necessary contradiction that arises from this view and my own position that all esthetics are subjective and personal. Each receiver of an artist's signal reacts to that signal in a unique way. These may then be summed by those choosing to establish certain gradients among those reactions and identify those group audiences sharing certain characteristics (akin to market research?) for more particular comment. One can then read or hear about that research, if one is curious, maybe after one has listened to the artist's music and formed an individual judgement. Or even before.


----------



## nina foresti

JAS said:


> A well designed car seat may be an admirable example of engineering, or even craftsmanship, both impressive in their own way. I don't see that it could possibly reach the level of being considered art, except in the kind of absurd museums where urinals are installed on a wall as an exhibition and are laughably called art, and regularly laughed at for doing so.


Whichj brings up an interesting story:
My father-in-law told a story about the time he was at the Philadelphia Art Museum with some friends. There was a particular piece hanging on the wall in a frame with just a single thumb print. 
My FIL mentioned how it seemed to be ridiculous that a single thumb print could really be considered art.
At this point one of his friends started to give a small dissertation on why there is much more to that thumb print than just the print itself, when at that moment a curator came by and apologized to the group, explaining that the painting that goes into the frame was out for repair.
Conclusion: Sometimes a thumb print is just a thumb print!!!


----------



## toshiromifune

JAS said:


> The broader question might be is there a good reason that a much larger number of people appear to prefer, for example, the music of Beethoven (not really including the late quartets) to that of anyone who has been born over the last century or more? I think there is. The question is what is that reason?


Because it just sounds better to human brain. I don't think the reason is much more complicated than that.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> There is no necessary contradiction that arises from this view and my own position that all esthetics are subjective and personal. Each receiver of an artist's signal reacts to that signal in a unique way. These may then be summed by those choosing to establish certain gradients among those reactions and identify those group audiences sharing certain characteristics (akin to market research?) for more particular comment. One can then read or hear about that research, if one is curious, maybe after one has listened to the artist's music and formed an individual judgement. Or even before.


I am not sure that I would go quite so far as to say that each receiver's response is truly _unique_, even though I might admit that it is _personal_. There might well be quite a few people who have very similar reactions, with differences only around the edges. Such responses may not be meaningfully unique unless we want to get fussy about degree and precise agreement in every facet or detail. But my response is _my_ response, even if someone else has a similar response.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> I am not sure that I would go quite so far as to say that each receiver's response is truly _unique_, even though I might admit that it is _personal_. There might well be quite a few people who have very similar reactions, with differences only around the edges. Such responses may not be meaningfully unique unless we want to get fussy about degree and precise agreement in every facet or detail. But my response is _my_ response, even if someone else has a similar response.


Another area where uniqueness manifests itself is when we consider the overall spectrum, the overall breadth and outer limits of each individual's experience of music and art. This further granulates and individuates the esthetic experience. You may enjoy A, B, and C, while another shares only the love of A with you, but otherwise is drawn to Y and Z. And there is the question of intensity, also a variable.


----------



## annaw

As this thread has already got somewhat philosophical, I don't feel guilty for making it even more so . I copy a part of a longer article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/) here. I really recommend reading the full thing! Discusses a lot of questions regarding the objectivity/subjectivity of beauty. Seeing it as inter-subjective is rather elegant and, in addition, I don't dare to argue against Kant or Hume on such topics.



> Both Hume and Kant, as we have seen, begin by acknowledging that taste or the ability to detect or experience beauty is fundamentally subjective, that there is no standard of taste in the sense that the Canon was held to be, that if people did not experience certain kinds of pleasure, there would be no beauty. Both acknowledge that reasons can count, however, and that some tastes are better than others. *In different ways, they both treat judgments of beauty neither precisely as purely subjective nor precisely as objective but, as we might put it, as inter-subjective or as having a social and cultural aspect, or as conceptually entailing an inter-subjective claim to validity.*
> 
> Hume's account focuses on the history and condition of the observer as he or she makes the judgment of taste. Our practices with regard to assessing people's taste entail that judgments of taste that reflect idiosyncratic bias, ignorance, or superficiality are not as good as judgments that reflect wide-ranging acquaintance with various objects of judgment and are unaffected by arbitrary prejudices. "Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to found, is the true standard of taste and beauty" ("Of the Standard of Taste" 1757, 144).
> 
> Hume argues further that the verdicts of critics who possess those qualities tend to coincide, and approach unanimity in the long run, which accounts, for example, for the enduring veneration of the works of Homer or Milton. *So the test of time, as assessed by the verdicts of the best critics, functions as something analogous to an objective standard. Though judgments of taste remain fundamentally subjective, and though certain contemporary works or objects may appear irremediably controversial, the long-run consensus of people who are in a good position to judge functions analogously to an objective standard and renders such standards unnecessary even if they could be identified. Though we cannot directly find a standard of beauty that sets out the qualities that a thing must possess in order to be beautiful, we can describe the qualities of a good critic or a tasteful person. Then the long-run consensus of such persons is the practical standard of taste and the means of justifying judgments about beauty.*
> 
> Kant similarly concedes that taste is fundamentally subjective, that *every judgment of beauty is based on a personal experience, and that such judgments vary from person to person*.
> 
> *By a principle of taste I mean a principle under the condition of which we could subsume the concept of the object, and thus infer, by means of a syllogism, that the object is beautiful. But that is absolutely impossible.* For I must immediately feel the pleasure in the representation of the object, and of that I can be persuaded by no grounds of proof whatever. Although, as Hume says, all critics can reason more plausibly than cooks, yet the same fate awaits them. They cannot expect the determining ground of their judgment [to be derived] from the force of the proofs, but only from the reflection of the subject upon its own proper state of pleasure or pain. (Kant 1790, section 34)
> 
> But the claim that something is beautiful has more content merely than that it gives me pleasure. Something might please me for reasons entirely eccentric to myself: I might enjoy a bittersweet experience before a portrait of my grandmother, for example, or the architecture of a house might remind me of where I grew up. "No one cares about that," says Kant (1790, section 7): no one begrudges me such experiences, but they make no claim to guide or correspond to the experiences of others.
> 
> By contrast, the judgment that something is beautiful, Kant argues, is a disinterested judgment. It does not respond to my idiosyncrasies, or at any rate if I am aware that it does, I will no longer take myself to be experiencing the beauty per se of the thing in question. Somewhat as in Hume-whose treatment Kant evidently had in mind-one must be unprejudiced to come to a genuine judgment of taste, and Kant gives that idea a very elaborate interpretation: the judgment must be made independently of the normal range of human desires-economic and sexual desires, for instance, which are examples of our 'interests' in this sense. If one is walking through a museum and admiring the paintings because they would be extremely expensive were they to come up for auction, for example, or wondering whether one could steal and fence them, one is not having an experience of the beauty of the paintings at all. One must focus on the form of the mental representation of the object for its own sake, as it is in itself. *Kant summarizes this as the thought that insofar as one is having an experience of the beauty of something, one is indifferent to its existence.* One takes pleasure, rather, in its sheer representation in one's experience:
> 
> Now, when the question is whether something is beautiful, we do not want to know whether anything depends or can depend on the existence of the thing, either for myself or anyone else, but how we judge it by mere observation (intuition or reflection). … We easily see that, in saying it is beautiful, and in showing that I have taste, I am concerned, not with that in which I depend on the existence of the object, but with that which I make out of this representation in myself. *Everyone must admit that a judgement about beauty, in which the least interest mingles, is very partial and is not a pure judgement of taste. *(Kant 1790, section 2)


----------



## Strange Magic

The judgement of Hume (which Oppenheimer shared) is that one only was capable of fully appreciating Art if one was the best person one could be (and maybe that was not good enough). Kant goes further, and postulates that one cleanse oneself of one's unique humanity--one must be stripped of one's "interest". Thanks to annaw for the extract! Quite clarifying. Needless to say, I disagree with both.


----------



## fluteman

JAS said:


> I am not sure that I would go quite so far as to say that each receiver's response is truly _unique_, even though I might admit that it is _personal_. There might well be quite a few people who have very similar reactions, with differences only around the edges. Such responses may not be meaningfully unique unless we want to get fussy about degree and precise agreement in every facet or detail. But my response is _my_ response, even if someone else has a similar response.


No doubt there are "quite a few people who have very similar reactions, with differences only around the edges". Even the many millions of us in Europe and the Americas who live in cultures that still reflect the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome in so many ways, not the least of which in the languages we use, have an immense common aesthetic ground simply based on that. And with the globalization of culture in today's world, those aesthetics gradually but steadily infuse other cultures and become even more universal. Attempts to achieve cultural isolation, such as Japan's in the 19th century, and certain remote jungle and island tribes more recently, seem doomed to fail. Conversely, our own culture increasingly reflects African and Asian influences.

But we all still have our individual differences, so finding common aesthetic ground is one of the great challenges for the artist, whose technique must be sufficiently grounded in convention that it is comprehensible, yet also offer something unique and sufficiently off the beaten path to stand out from what we ordinarily encounter in our lives and invite us to look at things in at least a slightly new way.

Here we argue a lot about art's boundaries and extremes, but I worry less about that than many. Instead, I ask myself: Do I understand the artist's conventions, and what the audience is presumed to be comfortable or at least familiar with? And, How has the artist, however subtly or outlandishly, moved beyond those conventions? With classical music, or any genre of music, it may not be necessary to get a degree from a conservatory, but it sure does help to immerse oneself in that music, until one's ears learn its conventions, and, eventually, how various artists carve their own individual paths.


----------



## annaw

Strange Magic said:


> The judgement of Hume (which Oppenheimer shared) is that one only was capable of fully appreciating Art if one was the best person one could be. Kant goes further, and postulates that one cleanse oneself of one's unique humanity--one must be stripped of one's "interest". Thanks to annaw for the extract! Quite clarifying. Needless to say, I disagree with both.


I don't think you have to agree with their whole philosophy of beauty and aesthetics. The article I quoted above goes very thoroughly into it, also discussing both Hume's and Kant's arguments further and considering multiple other views (as it's an encyclopedia, the writer doesn't take sides). I personally think that both of them make very strong cases although I don't agree with everything they say. I'm more than sure that I cannot fully understand even the few things I quoted, thus I also don't consider myself competent enough to argue against them. Nevertheless, I think there's a lot of logical reasoning behind these arguments.


----------



## ZeR0

I do not think art can be "objectified." At least not by humans in any meaningful sense. I simply base my interpretation of music (and art for that matter) on how it makes me feel and think. In other words If I find the experience of listening to a specific piece to be enjoyable or otherwise interesting, than that is enough to convince me of its worth. Granted, I'm not much one for philosophizing, so most of this is probably over my head anyway.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Holograms are very realistic experiences, too. They could be considered as "records of light." Isn't light real?
> 
> Also, consider Moiré patterns. Created by interference patterns (much the same as holograms), if you see the pattern created, why should it really matter if it's "real" or not? What does "real" mean?
> 
> I'm afraid you're backing yourself into a cul-de-sac here. Without a "mind" to experience things, what makes it "real" apart from that? You certainly can't prove the "reality" of anything without using scientific observation or measurement, and these can't be done without people.


If I had a pound for everyone who condescendingly thinks they've backed me into a cul-de-sac, I'd be a rich man!

You want to argue that "without a mind to experience things", nothing is real "apart from that"?

Seriously??

So, if Covid-19 wipes us all off the face of the Earth, Beethoven's 5th ceases to exist; Michaelangelo's David ceases to exist; the Shard in London ceases to exist; the Eiffel tower ceases to exist.

You really want to go down the route of arguing that without minds to perceive, reality ceases to exist? What kind of pre-Copernican individual are you?!

There ain't no cul-de-sac that I'm in, sonny. Your suggestion that science doesn't exist without the observer was done to death by Heisenberg. Game over.

But a question for you: what happens when they turn off the lights in the Uffizi of an evening? Do all those paintings just, er, disappear?


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> This sounds like total nonsense. How can you determine if Beethoven's string quartets are "devoid" of subjective associations? You seem to think that "subjective" is a limited term meaning "thought" or "narrative content." Music is full of other kinds of subjective associations, like "gesture" which are almost physical, and beyond the realm of "ticker-tape" thought.


Please. We've already established that you think reality ceases to exist the minute anyone isn't around to experience it. Pity the poor ant in a post-human world confronted with a tree (which doesn't "really" exist).

I didn't suppose anything about the term "subjective" until someone posted something that suggested it meant "human brain involved". Since you asked the original (loaded) question, how about *you* define what "subjective" and "objective" mean, and then we might be able to actually discuss that which you pretended you wanted to discuss.

In the absence of anything approximating actual meaning in your question or your subsequent exegesis, we've been forced to come up with what we think you might have meant.

And the fact is that music *is* enjoyed as a thing in and of itself, without subjective associations. Deal with it.

And yes, I am aware that Beethoven's Op. 132 contains essentially a physicians report as the heading to the third movement. And I still say I listen to that as 'pure' music with no associations, which makes it objective and free of my subjective associations.

I have no idea what "gesture" you're thinking of, but I have one in mind.

The rest of your post seems to consist of a lot of quotes (presumably from "those in the know", which makes them merely appeals to authority). Since they are context-less, I don't propose to address them _en masse_. If you want to cite them, one as a time, as backing for your essentially weird view of reality, be my guest.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I don't know whether or not I might at least partially be agreeing with MR here, but I think what makes mere sound into music (and this can be applied to other forms of art), is a _profound connection_ between the creator of the product and the receiver of it. I am also assuming humans in these roles, and some degree of intention. (Often that act or creating requires considerable skill, although it may not be absolutely necessary as some fairly "naive" art can be very effective.) The basis for such a connection _must_ be some degree of shared experience. I just do not see any way around that often inconvenient element.


Really? A "profound connection". I have this to offer you for around $450,000:









Sold by Christies not so long ago, it's the (in my opinion, rather crappy) output of a computer program. What profound connection do you think I'm supposed to have with it? What shared experience do I have with a computer? (Can I be the first to state that I don't want to be turned off and on again, just to see if it fixes the problems!)


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> A well designed car seat may be an admirable example of engineering, or even craftsmanship, both impressive in their own way. I don't see that it could possibly reach the level of being considered art, except in the kind of absurd museums where urinals are installed on a wall as an exhibition and are laughably called art, and regularly laughed at for doing so.


Well, so long as we know that Dadaism can just be dismissed as "absurd", I see no reason at all why your considered view of art shouldn't be thought the gold standard!


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> So, Beethoven's string quartets are objectively pure and superior? White European music is objectively pure and superior? White European culture is objectively pure and superior? White Europeans are objectively pure and superior? Or maybe only Germans like Beethoven and their music and culture, and not Kodaly?
> 
> Thanks so much for correcting all my misconceptions about those things.


Don't be ridiculous. I cite Beethoven's late string quartets only because they happen to be the most proximate (in my head) exemplar of pure music I could cite. I'm sorry Beethoven was white, male and middle aged. It just happened he was.

Edited to add: Oh, and German too. Yeah, he was that as well. I apologise on his behalf.


----------



## Guest002

annaw said:


> I don't think you have to agree with their whole philosophy of beauty and aesthetics. The article I quoted above goes very thoroughly into it, also discussing both Hume's and Kant's arguments further and considering multiple other views (as it's an encyclopedia, the writer doesn't take sides). I personally think that both of them make very strong cases although I don't agree with everything they say. I'm more than sure that I cannot fully understand even the few things I quoted, thus I also don't consider myself competent enough to argue against them. Nevertheless, I think there's a lot of logical reasoning behind these arguments.


Yeah, but you haven't mentioned Hegel yet.

Neither have I. For reasons. (Essentially, no-one can understand him).


----------



## Guest002

ZeR0 said:


> I do not think art can be "objectified." At least not by humans in any meaningful sense. I simply base my interpretation of music (and art for that matter) on how it makes me feel and think. In other words If I find the experience of listening to a specific piece to be enjoyable or otherwise interesting, than that is enough to convince me of its worth. Granted, I'm not much one for philosophizing, so most of this is probably over my head anyway.


So you don't think you can objectify music because of the way it makes you *feel*.

Yeah, I think I spot a flaw in your argument.

The minute you "feel", you've lost the bet and only subjectivity is on the inner rails.

The question that should be asked is, could you park your feelings?

Imagine a post-covid world in which not a single human remains alive (pray God it never happens -and stop eating bats!). Then what? Would Beethoven's 5th or Bach's Goldberg Variations remain in unmanned vaults as works of art, independent of human _feeling_ or observation?

My contention is, they would. And, in fact, it's happened, since we know for a fact that Roman and Greek antiquity was re-discovered and found to be of significance, despite having laid buried for centuries. We called it the 'renaissance'.

Your _feelings_; my _feelings_: Utterly irrelevant. The works will exist despite and entirely regardless of our puny existences.


----------



## Guest002

annaw said:


> I don't think you have to agree with their whole philosophy of beauty and aesthetics. The article I quoted above goes very thoroughly into it, also discussing both Hume's and Kant's arguments further and considering multiple other views (as it's an encyclopedia, the writer doesn't take sides). I personally think that both of them make very strong cases although I don't agree with everything they say. I'm more than sure that I cannot fully understand even the few things I quoted, thus I also don't consider myself competent enough to argue against them. Nevertheless, I think there's a lot of logical reasoning behind these arguments.


Yeah. Sorry. But if you're getting your philosophy from an up-market version of Wikipedia, you're in trouble.

But I'm happy you are aware that you don't fully understand the few things you quoted. That is actually quite important to know, so that we can give what you quoted due weight and consideration.


----------



## Guest002

nina foresti said:


> Whichj brings up an interesting story:
> My father-in-law told a story about the time he was at the Philadelphia Art Museum with some friends. There was a particular piece hanging on the wall in a frame with just a single thumb print.
> My FIL mentioned how it seemed to be ridiculous that a single thumb print could really be considered art.
> At this point one of his friends started to give a small dissertation on why there is much more to that thumb print than just the print itself, when at that moment a curator came by and apologized to the group, explaining that the painting that goes into the frame was out for repair.
> Conclusion: Sometimes a thumb print is just a thumb print!!!


So? Do you not think that a finger print could be posed, with shadow and light, to be "art"?

What about an arm?

A leg?

An eye ball, perhaps?

What about this:









Some eyeballs! Some nose! (With apologies to Churchill).

I have a pile of scribblings on a treble clef next to me. Does that count as music? As art?

What I'm trying to get at is, you can cite whatever cute stories you want about how stupid the art world can be. We already know that: Banksy got there before you. (And I apologise in advance for the narration of that video).

These are merely incidental to the question at hand. Can art exist independent of the observer (which I'm using as a short-hand for the fabulously badly-worded original question that started this thread, which was "can art be objectified").

Short answer: yes. It requires no observer to make art art. It was that already, before you peeked. Now, as to your _understanding_ of what you looked at, or listened to: sure, we are in to deep, subjective territories. But someone can come along thousands of years later, and without any shared culture or experience, they can come up with their _own_ idea of what it means. Because it has meaning outside of our, or their, experience.


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Sold by Christies not so long ago, it's the (in my opinion, rather crappy) output of a computer program. What profound connection do you think I'm supposed to have with it? What shared experience do I have with a computer? (Can I be the first to state that I don't want to be turned off and on again, just to see if it fixes the problems!)


I don't think it has one, nor would I consider it art. It might be art to someone else.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, so long as we know that Dadaism can just be dismissed as "absurd", I see no reason at all why your considered view of art shouldn't be thought the gold standard!


I don't either, although I am pretty sure that it isn't, except by those who happen to agree with me.


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Don't be ridiculous. I cite Beethoven's late string quartets only because they happen to be the most proximate (in my head) exemplar of pure music I could cite. I'm sorry Beethoven was white, male and middle aged. It just happened he was.
> 
> Edited to add: Oh, and German too. Yeah, he was that as well. I apologise on his behalf.


Yes, an exemplar in your head. To you. If you think that has general application to everyone, everywhere, at any time, that only demonstrates your inability to comprehend the possibility of any aesthetic but your own, and is far more ridiculous than anything I could come up with. And I tried pretty hard, as you noticed.


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> Yes, an exemplar in your head. To you. If you think that has general application to everyone, everywhere, at any time, that only demonstrates your inability to comprehend the possibility of any aesthetic but your own, and is far more ridiculous than anything I could come up with. And I tried pretty hard, as you noticed.


No I didn't notice anything from you other than a propensity to jump on the Righteous chair.

It doesn't matter if the Beethoven example is particular to me and my head. If it proves that music can be 'absolute', once, then it's proved it can be absolute, generically -and you are, at that point, free to substitute in whatever composer and works you think make the point _for you_.

Don't try and paint me as some white, ageist, racist, empire supremacist, please. My husband would not be pleased, and neither would my cat (whose name is 'Harper' because it would be a sin to kill a Mockingbird ...and I've told him this repeatedly as he's tried pouncing on avians of assorted descriptions)


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I don't think it has one, nor would I consider it art. It might be art to someone else.
> 
> I don't either, although I am pretty sure that it isn't, except by those who happen to agree with me.


Yeah, well I don't know where that gets us. Someone paid half a million dollars for that piece of crap, so _someone_ thinks its art -and I suspect they've got more dollars than you, so I wouldn't want to engage them in a fist-fight on the matter!


----------



## Strange Magic

> fluteman: "No doubt there are "quite a few people who have very similar reactions, with differences only around the edges". Even the many millions of us in Europe and the Americas who live in cultures that still reflect the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome in so many ways, not the least of which in the languages we use, have an immense common aesthetic ground simply based on that. And with the globalization of culture in today's world, those aesthetics gradually but steadily infuse other cultures and become even more universal. Attempts to achieve cultural isolation, such as Japan's in the 19th century, and certain remote jungle and island tribes more recently, seem doomed to fail. Conversely, our own culture increasingly reflects African and Asian influences.
> 
> But we all still have our individual differences, so finding common aesthetic ground is one of the great challenges for the artist, whose technique must be sufficiently grounded in convention that it is comprehensible, yet also offer something unique and sufficiently off the beaten path to stand out from what we ordinarily encounter in our lives and invite us to look at things in at least a slightly new way."


This is where the increasing "white noise" aspect of global culture (the New Stasis) serves to make the composer/artist and the art object/musical product capable of less and less influence, relevance, durability. The flip side of increasing cultural homogeneity is the reduced impact of any one individuated artistic development. "All one" as Kaa was fond of saying (_Jungle Books_).


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah, well I don't know where that gets us. Someone paid half a million dollars for that piece of crap, so _someone_ thinks its art -and I suspect they've got more dollars than you, so I wouldn't want to engage them in a fist-fight on the matter!


I wouldn't want to engage _anyone_ in a fist-fight. I am not a violent person, by nature. The value of the "art" certainly is not improved by the amount of money spent on it.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I wouldn't want to engage _anyone_ in a fist-fight. I am not a violent person, by nature. The value of the "art" certainly is not improved by the amount of money spent on it.


Oh come on. Joke!

I'm not saying dollars means "art". I'm saying if someone splashes half a squillion on something produced by something that cannot "feel", doesn't have a personality, and with whom I definitely do not have a "profound connection" nor any form of "shared experience" (apart from knowing what an on/off button looks like), what does that do to your argument that "what makes mere sound into music [is] some degree of shared experience"?


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Oh come on. Joke!


On the Internet, it can be hard to tell, but I assure you that my response is also in a somewhat light-hearted vein.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm not saying dollars means "art". I'm saying if someone splashes half a squillion on something produced by something that cannot "feel", doesn't have a personality, and with whom I definitely do not have a "profound connection" nor any form of "shared experience" (apart from knowing what an on/off button looks like), what does that do to your argument that "what makes mere sound into music [is] some degree of shared experience"?


It makes me feel much better about my argument.


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> No I didn't notice anything from you other than a propensity to jump on the Righteous chair.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the Beethoven example is particular to me and my head. If it proves that music can be 'absolute', once, then it's proved it can be absolute, generically -and you are, at that point, free to substitute in whatever composer and works you think make the point _for you_.
> 
> Don't try and paint me as some white, ageist, racist, empire supremacist, please. My husband would not be pleased, and neither would my cat (whose name is 'Harper' because it would be a sin to kill a Mockingbird ...and I've told him this repeatedly as he's tried pouncing on avians of assorted descriptions)


I don't know you. The racist stuff was just me being intentionally ridiculous to make a point. (There is a Latin phrase for the technique, reductio ad absurdum. Did you know that? Welcome to our common cultural heritage.)


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> I don't know you. The racist stuff was just me being intentionally ridiculous to make a point. (There is a Latin phrase for the technique, reductio ad absurdum. Did you know that? Welcome to our common cultural heritage.)


Well, it's not appreciated. And it didn't make any point other than your willingness to ignore a point of principle in order to make some clever "I'm so woke" argument.

My first partner was Indian. I don't need lessons from you about cross-cultural appreciation. After Latin, my fifth language is Sanskrit (at which, I hasten to add, I am pretty rubbish).

So stop with the nonsense, please.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> On the Internet, it can be hard to tell, but I assure you that my response is also in a somewhat light-hearted vein.
> It makes me feel much better about my argument.


Really?

So you stand by "if there's no profound connection, it's not art"?

Despite evidence to the contrary?


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Really?
> 
> So you stand by "if there's no profound connection, it's not art"?
> 
> Despite evidence to the contrary?


Really. In addition to the fact that my argument saves me a lot of money, no evidence to the contrary has been provided. All you have done is point out that someone paid a lot of money for something.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> This is where the increasing "white noise" aspect of global culture (the New Stasis) serves to make the composer/artist and the art object/musical product capable of less and less influence, relevance, durability. The flip side of increasing cultural homogeneity is the reduced impact of any one individuated artistic development. "All one" as Kaa was fond of saying (_Jungle Books_).


Yes, an interesting thesis you have mentioned before. Yet, for the moment, the music world still has its major stars. And each age group, and in many cases nationality, still wants their own stars. One night I stopped in a tiny Indian restaurant, barely large enough for the couple running it to move around, for some takeout. It turned out this was not just an Indian restaurant, but a Bangladeshi restaurant, and a TV played nonstop Bangladeshi music videos. If you can't tell the difference between Bangladeshi pop music and Indian pop music in general, don't say that to the owner of this place, he will take offence. You can trust me on that.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> Really. In addition to the fact that my argument saves me a lot of money, no evidence to the contrary has been provided. All you have done is point out that someone paid a lot of money for something.


Which an art gallery (and presumably the purchaser) considered to be art.

Right. So you have no argument other than mere negation. Got you.

By the way, what's your "profound connection" to the Goldberg Variations?


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Which an art gallery (and presumably the purchaser) considered to be art.


I am sure that the art gallery found it to be a very moving experience.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Right. So you have no argument other than mere negation. Got you.


At this point, I have no idea what you are arguing, and I am beginning to suspect that you don't either.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> By the way, what's your "profound connection" to the Goldberg Variations?


It works within the realm of what I recognize as a valuable musical tradition. The connection does not need to be emotional.


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> Yes, an interesting thesis you have mentioned before. Yet, for the moment, the music world still has its major stars. And each age group, and in many cases nationality, still wants their own stars. One night I stopped in a tiny Indian restaurant, barely large enough for the couple running it to move around, for some takeout. It turned out this was not just an Indian restaurant, but a Bangladeshi restaurant, and a TV played nonstop Bangladeshi music videos. If you can't tell the difference between Bangladeshi pop music and Indian pop music in general, don't say that to the owner of this place, he will take offence. You can trust me on that.


I would consider it obvious. It's the equivalent of asking a Frenchman if he loves the Queen, or an Englishman what he does on 14th July. One's Muslim, Pakistani-origin, the other isn't. This shouldn't be news. Neither should the profound difference between northern and southern Indian curries.

What's your point?


----------



## fluteman

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it's not appreciated. And it didn't make any point other than your willingness to ignore a point of principle in order to make some clever "I'm so woke" argument.
> 
> My first partner was Indian. I don't need lessons from you about cross-cultural appreciation. After Latin, my fifth language is Sanskrit (at which, I hasten to add, I am pretty rubbish).
> 
> So stop with the nonsense, please.


Sorry, but your analysis boils down to "My favorite music is objectively pure and absolute music, and yours isn't." There are too many people with that attitude in this world these days.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> I am sure that the art gallery found it to be a very moving experience.
> 
> At this point, I have no idea what you are arguing, and I am beginning to suspect that you don't either.


I wouldn't be so sure.

You said music works because "there is a broadly shared cultural association". You then went on to say, "I think what makes mere sound into music (and this can be applied to other forms of art), is a profound connection between the creator of the product and the receiver of it".

I'm saying, both those statements of yours are nonsense.

I can find you artworks that aren't produced by human hand, which others have "interacted with". You would (predictably) say, "well, I'm saying it's not art and my thesis is not undermined by that contrived example".

Fine. But I would also like to know, based on your thesis, how it is that we can respond to the Epic of Gilgamesh, given that we have no shared cultural associations with its author, whom we do not know, and with whom we cannot accordingly have a profound connection.

So yeah, I do have an idea of what I'm arguing: it's that your previous statements are easily negatable and your assertions as to what constitutes art are not true. Let me know if that's not clear enough for you, please.



JAS said:


> It works within the realm of what I recognize as a valuable musical tradition.


Ah. I smell a redefinition in the works. "the realm of a valuable musical tradition that _I_ recognise...". Right. So anything outside of what _you_ define a valuable _musical_ tradiiton doesn't count.

OK.

So long as we're allowed to just redefine things to suit. (PS: We're not...)


----------



## JAS

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I wouldn't be so sure.
> 
> You said music works because "there is a broadly shared cultural association". You then went on to say, "I think what makes mere sound into music (and this can be applied to other forms of art), is a profound connection between the creator of the product and the receiver of it".
> 
> I'm saying, both those statements of yours are nonsense.
> 
> I can find you artworks that aren't produced by human hand, which others have "interacted with". You would (predictably) say, "well, I'm saying it's not art and my thesis is not undermined by that contrived example".
> 
> Fine. But I would also like to know, based on your thesis, how it is that we can respond to the Epic of Gilgamesh, given that we have no shared cultural associations with its author, whom we do not know, and with whom we cannot accordingly have a profound connection.
> 
> So yeah, I do have an idea of what I'm arguing: it's that your previous statements are easily negatable and your assertions as to what constitutes art are not true. Let me know if that's not clear enough for you, please.
> 
> Ah. I smell a redefinition in the works. "the realm of a valuable musical tradition that _I_ recognise...". Right. So anything outside of what _you_ define a valuable _musical_ tradiiton doesn't count.
> 
> OK.
> 
> So long as we're allowed to just redefine things to suit. (PS: We're not...)


So, to quote someone else, all you have is negation. (And for the record, the Epic of Gilgamesh has many elements in common with Western civilization and the human condition. For one thing, Gilgamesh is afraid of dying. If that isn't a common element of the human condition, then nothing is.) But thank you for reminding me why I mostly avoid arguing with crazy people on the internet.


----------



## Guest002

> Well, it's not appreciated. And it didn't make any point other than your willingness to ignore a point of principle in order to make some clever "I'm so woke" argument.
> 
> My first partner was Indian. I don't need lessons from you about cross-cultural appreciation. After Latin, my fifth language is Sanskrit (at which, I hasten to add, I am pretty rubbish).
> 
> So stop with the nonsense, please.





fluteman said:


> Sorry, but your analysis boils down to "My favorite music is objectively pure and absolute music, and yours isn't." There are too many people with that attitude in this world these days.


I wasn't analysing anything in the material you quote, other than your unpleasant attempt to paint anyone that disagreed with you as a racist.

But, for the record, I don't actually like Beethoven's last String Quartets, just so we're clear, OK?

So no, it doesn't boil down to that.

What it actually boils down to: can you cite me an example of music which can be experienced _qua_ music, with no subjective elements intruded.

If you can't, well, sorry for you. Now deal with the fact that there's someone (more than one someone, if I'm reading this thread right) who says they can.

For the record, I think my favourite music (it's a Sunday, so my answer only applies for the next 40 minutes) is "Once in a while, the odd thing happens; once in a while, the Moon turns Blue". From _Paul Bunyan_, Britten's first operetta. It spoke to me as a young university student because it told me that it didn't matter that I was gay: things generally turn out better than alright in the end. The biggest example of subjective understanding of music I can think of.

My point is: music doesn't have to be that way, and often isn't.


----------



## Guest002

JAS said:


> So, to quote someone else, all you have is negation. (And for the record, the Epic of Gilgamesh has many elements in common with Western civilization and the human condition. For one thing, Gilgamesh is afraid of dying. If that isn't a common element of the human condition, then nothing is.) But thank you for reminding me why I mostly avoid arguing with crazy people on the internet.


Blimey. So now "fear of dying" counts as a shared cultural experience?!

If you redefine things long enough, they can mean anything you want them to mean.

I wasn't negating anything, just for the record.

I find artworks not produced by human hand : your response? *crickets*
I find artworks produced by humans with whom you have no possible "profound connection" or "shared cultural association": your response? *crickets*

So no negation, Just questions. You said I didn't know what I was arguing. I know very well what I'm arguing. Your silence on the responses is... er, Epic.

And PS: I'm sorry if you think I'm crazy. I'm one of the most boring people you are likely never to meet, and I think most I know would *not* call me crazy. But whatever. I just don't like people who have no point to argue, but who are very quick to tell me that I have no idea what I'm arguing either. If that comes across as crazy... well, so be it. I'll put up with people who like John Cage. I won't put up with people who can't make a _coherent_ argument about something they claim is important to them.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> Yes, an interesting thesis you have mentioned before. Yet, for the moment, the music world still has its major stars. And each age group, and in many cases nationality, still wants their own stars. One night I stopped in a tiny Indian restaurant, barely large enough for the couple running it to move around, for some takeout. It turned out this was not just an Indian restaurant, but a Bangladeshi restaurant, and a TV played nonstop Bangladeshi music videos. If you can't tell the difference between Bangladeshi pop music and Indian pop music in general, don't say that to the owner of this place, he will take offence. You can trust me on that.


We have also to recall that the world's population today is some ten times what it was in the 18th century, and that the population of artists and wannabe artists and composers is now probably at least ten times greater today. And there are likely sub-gradations within the Bangladeshi pop genre that we know nothing about, but someone does.


----------



## Strange Magic

AbsolutelyBaching: The sheer quantity of verbiage that pours forth from your fingertips is astonishing, and I salute you for your prolixity. But, somewhat like millionrainbows, I think the central point--whatever it is--of your argument has been lost to many here--certainly I have lost contact with it. Could you consider boiling down the now somewhat inchoate mass to a (very) few brief yet cogent paragraphs--free of rancor--that distills the essence of your thought? I would consider it a personal favor.:angel:.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> AbsolutelyBaching: The sheer quantity of verbiage that pours forth from your fingertips is astonishing, and I salute you for your prolixity. *But, somewhat like millionrainbows, I think the central point--whatever it is--of your argument has been lost to many here--certainly I have lost contact with it.* Could you consider boiling down the now somewhat inchoate mass to a (very) few brief yet cogent paragraphs--free of rancor--that distills the essence of your thought? I would consider it a personal favor.:angel:.


I can't figure the motivation mainly. Why would anyone want to objectify art to the degree that it becomes completely separated from its creator? Art is an expression like "a gift."
He certainly doesn't seem sentimental. Needs to eat something to calm down, maybe call his family and get 'grounded.' A good chat with the old pops would work wonders.
The overall tone is manic. Once he gets the scent, he's like a hound dog. Enjoys it, obviously, so no use in trying to calm him down. He likes to give the impression to me that "I haven't kept up with the discussion" and that "Certain points have already been established sothey can't be touched on again. Who could keep up with all these "points" he's established? There's no referee to say who's right, anyway. He's declared himself the referee.
I can't think of anything more predictable and boring than this endless philosophical quibbling. Hume, Kant...who cares? This stuff for readers, not listeners and art lovers like us. I guess this is where these 'rationalists' get all their stuff from; they majored in philosophy and dropped out of art.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I find artworks not produced by human hand : your response? *crickets*
> I find artworks produced by humans with whom you have no possible "profound connection" or "shared cultural association": your response? *crickets*


I can answer that, but you must accept it as is. My assertions cut through all of the nitpicking exceptions you are posing. It's simple, really; we are all human, so our similarities outweigh the 'cultural differences' posed. 
Artworks not produced by human hands? I must have missed something.


----------



## millionrainbows

.......................error


----------



## annaw

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah. Sorry. But if you're getting your philosophy from an *up-market version of Wikipedia*, you're in trouble.
> 
> But I'm happy you are aware that you don't fully understand the few things you quoted. That is actually quite important to know, so that we can give what you quoted due weight and consideration.


This and the Hegel comment actually made me smile, but, oh please, do not disregard a source just because it's called an encyclopedia or an "up-market version of Wikipedia" unless you can point out some obvious or even not so obvious mistakes. If that is the case, I hope you let both me and the authors know of the misunderstandings in the article that make you think it's not as trustworthy as I seem to claim it to be. The authors of that specific article are Crispin Sartwell and Edward N. Zalta. The former is an associate professor of philosophy at Dickinson college and the latter is a senior research scholar at Stanford. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quite highly regarded and the articles collect citations in the same way as scientific journal articles do. It's of course courageous to claim that you're the one to "give due weight and consideration" to the work of such philosophers, including both Hume and Kant whom the article itself quotes.

By the way, where do you get your philosophy? From the source? I owe you my deep admiration if you indeed have read through all Kant's _Critique_s (tried it myself, a bad idea :lol, Hegel's _Phenomenology of Spirit_, Hume's _A Treatise of Human Nature_ and _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ while also understanding them. (This is of course an exaggeration from my side but I'm sure you get my point.) If you have studied it at university, the trustworthiness of your source is as questionable as are Sartwell and Zalta, both of them also teaching at universities.

You also cannot in any way exclude the possibility that I'm myself teaching or studying philosophy.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I can't figure the motivation mainly. Why would anyone want to objectify art to the degree that it becomes completely separated from its creator? Art is an expression like "a gift." He certainly doesn't seem sentimental. Needs to eat something to calm down, maybe call his family and get 'grounded.' A good chat with the old pops would work wonders.


Hmm. "Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«."

That's from the 'guidelines for general behaviour' you agreed to when you signed up here. Do try to stick to them, there's a good chap.



millionrainbows said:


> The overall tone is manic. Once he gets the scent, he's like a hound dog. Enjoys it, obviously, so no use in trying to calm him down. He likes to give the impression to me that "I haven't kept up with the discussion" and that "Certain points have already been established sothey can't be touched on again. Who could keep up with all these "points" he's established? There's no referee to say who's right, anyway. He's declared himself the referee.


Let me see... That's right. A quote from your good friend, Strange Magic: "I declare myself fully in control of this argument". _He_ declared himself the referee, not me.

I've just asked questions to which no-one is prepared to actually reply. But new posters have swanned in, declared David Hume sorted it all out 200+ years ago and then swan off again. What is one to do? Just nod in agreement when someone claims that Beethoven's final string quartets were "attempts at art"?!



millionrainbows said:


> I can't think of anything more predictable and boring than this endless philosophical quibbling. Hume, Kant...who cares? This stuff for readers, not listeners and art lovers like us. I guess this is where these 'rationalists' get all their stuff from; they majored in philosophy and dropped out of art.


*You* started this "discussion". Not I. You asked, simply, "can you objectify art". Now when someone _dares_ to answer in the affirmative, you wonder "why they want to". Sorry: but you didn't ask that. You asked, 'could one do so'. I realise you don't like the answer you've been given, but... well, tough.

You call yourself an 'art lover'. What is this art which you love? Does it have an existence independent of your love? Does it have an existence independent of everyone's existence, once it's been created? That is a question that's worth asking and answering. Funnily enough: that's exactly what you asked!

For the record, I didn't major in anything: in English universities, we tend to "read" subjects, not major in them. And philosophy wasn't one of them.

Short version: if you don't want a philosophical discussion, don't ask philosophical questions! Duh.


----------



## Guest002

annaw said:


> This and the Hegel comment actually made me smile, but, oh please, do not disregard a source just because it's called an encyclopedia or an "up-market version of Wikipedia" unless you can point out some obvious or even not so obvious mistakes. If that is the case, I hope you let both me and the authors know of the misunderstandings in the article that make you think it's not as trustworthy as I seem to claim it to be. The authors of that specific article are Crispin Sartwell and Edward N. Zalta. The former is an associate professor of philosophy at Dickinson college and the latter is a senior research scholar at Stanford. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quite highly regarded and the articles collect citations in the same way as scientific journal articles do. It's of course courageous to claim that you're the one to "give due weight and consideration" to the work of such philosophers, including both Hume and Kant whom the article itself quotes.
> 
> By the way, where do you get your philosophy? From the source? I owe you my deep admiration if you indeed have read through all Kant's _Critique_s (tried it myself, a bad idea :lol, Hegel's _Phenomenology of Spirit_, Hume's _A Treatise of Human Nature_ and _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ while also understanding them. (This is of course an exaggeration from my side but I'm sure you get my point.) If you have studied it at university, the trustworthiness of your source is as questionable as are Sartwell and Zalta, both of them also teaching at universities.
> 
> You also cannot in any way exclude the possibility that I'm myself teaching or studying philosophy.


Since you ask, yes, I have slogged my way through both the Kant and the Hegel, many moons ago. I frankly found Hegel almost impossible to sympathise with and each page required about 15 reads before I thought I might have glimpsed what he was getting at. Very dense. Very abstract. Didn't enjoy him at all. I certainly didn't buy the argument that beauty is an expression of "spiritual freedom", partly because he was making these statements as normative rules of beauty rather than just descriptions of what is -which thus preclude as 'valid' some of the very freedoms he claimed beauty represented! I was a lot more sympathetic with Kant.

I do know who wrote that article and I wasn't criticising it particularly, just your own statement that you might not understand all of it! I haven't made any assumptions about what you might be teaching or studying, either. I only went by your own words. If you were being modest about it, because you _do_ understand it, that's fine too. I was just reacting to the "I'm more than sure that I cannot fully understand even the few things I quoted" statement.

The reason I didn't particularly pick you up on any of the specific quotations you made from the argument is I wasn't convinced they were relevant. For example, "Kant similarly concedes that taste is fundamentally subjective, that every judgment of beauty is based on a personal experience, and that such judgments vary from person to person." I don't see that in any way addresses the original question of 'can art/music be approached objectively'. That's all. I don't disagree with the proposition that taste and sensibility is a subjective and highly personal matter: it seems to me to be obviously so. (I did dismiss somewhere else in this thread the concept of beauty as being closeness to or distance from some objective, Platonic 'form': I absolutely do not believe beauty can be objectified).

But where does that leave music when it's not being experienced? When it's just been created, for example. When it's sitting on my bookshelf? I think that's the deeper question ("what is art when no-one is looking at it?") and I don't see that your citation of Kant's theory on beauty matters at that point. I'm sorry if, in the rush to move on from your quotes, I seemed dismissive of them. I was dismissing them, but because they don't pertain, not because they're not worth discussing in themselves, if that makes sense.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I can answer that, but you must accept it as is. My assertions cut through all of the nitpicking exceptions you are posing. It's simple, really; we are all human, so our similarities outweigh the 'cultural differences' posed.
> Artworks not produced by human hands? I must have missed something.


You have. I posted an example of an artwork that sold at Christie's for $450,000 that was produced by a computer, not by human hands.

Wasn't there a selfie taken by a macaque monkey not so long ago, too, that people seemed to respond to...

You are of course free to declare you don't like it. You are even free to declare it "not art". But we're then into the rather awkward territory of working out when something counts as 'art' -that hoary old issue of Tracy Emin's bed, or Duchamp's urinal, for example, or the Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937...

It's not a nitpicking exception. _If_ we accept art can be produced independently of human hands, then surely it can exist independent of human ears or eyes too. And at that point you will have conceded the existence of 'objectified art'.

(Which is why I know you won't buy this argument or seek to engage with it, but merely dismiss it as nitpicking again).


----------



## NLAdriaan

When looking at the ongoing misunderstandings, miscommunications, provocations, anger, hide & seek and insincerity in this thread, it looks like a totally uninspired orchestra and a third rate conductor, attempting to play Beethoven 5th by hearsay (as a score is rejected because it is 'only an idea', but actually because they can't read and don't need notes to know what the music should sound like). 

A total cacophony, inaudible, but hey, it's music, because they call it art and they sure do move some molecules in the air.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You have. I posted an example of an artwork that sold at Christie's for $450,000 that was produced by a computer, not by human hands.


The software behind the computer was presumably of human origin and surely must have set up parameters that would lead to some variation of the particular example you posted?


----------



## annaw

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Since you ask, yes, I have slogged my way through both the Kant and the Hegel, many moons ago. I frankly found Hegel almost impossible to sympathise with and each page required about 15 reads before I thought I might have glimpsed what he was getting at. Very dense. Very abstract. Didn't enjoy him at all. I certainly didn't buy the argument that beauty is an expression of "spiritual freedom", partly because he was making these statements as normative rules of beauty rather than just descriptions of what is -which thus preclude as 'valid' some of the very freedoms he claimed beauty represented! I was a lot more sympathetic with Kant.
> 
> I do know who wrote that article and I wasn't criticising it particularly, just your own statement that you might not understand all of it! I haven't made any assumptions about what you might be teaching or studying, either. I only went by your own words. If you were being modest about it, because you _do_ understand it, that's fine too. I was just reacting to the "I'm more than sure that I cannot fully understand even the few things I quoted" statement.
> 
> The reason I didn't particularly pick you up on any of the specific quotations you made from the argument is I wasn't convinced they were relevant. For example, "Kant similarly concedes that taste is fundamentally subjective, that every judgment of beauty is based on a personal experience, and that such judgments vary from person to person." I don't see that in any way addresses the original question of 'can art/music be approached objectively'. That's all. I don't disagree with the proposition that taste and sensibility is a subjective and highly personal matter: it seems to me to be obviously so. (I did dismiss somewhere else in this thread the concept of beauty as being closeness to or distance from some objective, Platonic 'form': I absolutely do not believe beauty can be objectified).
> 
> But where does that leave music when it's not being experienced? When it's just been created, for example. When it's sitting on my bookshelf? I think that's the deeper question ("what is art when no-one is looking at it?") and I don't see that your citation of Kant's theory on beauty matters at that point. I'm sorry if, in the rush to move on from your quotes, I seemed dismissive of them. I was dismissing them, but because they don't pertain, not because they're not worth discussing in themselves, if that makes sense.


Okay, I see, I see. Sorry for my possibly overly aggressive response :lol:.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> The software behind the computer was presumably of human origin and surely must have set up parameters that would lead to some variation of the particular example you posted?


I knew someone would say that. It was the *autonomous* product of a computer program. Yes, a programmer was involved in writing the program, but no: the computer autonomously produced the art without interaction from a human.

In other words, it was an AI (artificial intelligence) program, and thus broad parameters were specified, but within that, it was entirely down to the computer to "decide" what to produce and how.

So I would argue this was not the work of human hands.

But in any case computers _can_ already write code that a human does not. So take it as a thought experiment: what happens when a computer, all on its own, decides to write a symphony (claims that one called 'Brian Ferneyhough' already did are not entirely to be trusted, I think).

Anyway: whether you buy it's devoid of human hands or not, the real point being objected to is that music/art *must* of its nature contain human experience. My proposition is that music *can* (not always is, but can) be viewed essentially as a form of maths. A choice of a major ninth here, a diminished third there. The assertion that it *must* contain 'human experience' (which we as listeners then must empathise with) is capable of being objected to on many grounds. The computer-generated artwork was just one instance of an objection.


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> This and the Hegel comment actually made me smile, but, oh please, do not disregard a source just because it's called an encyclopedia or an "up-market version of Wikipedia" unless you can point out some obvious or even not so obvious mistakes. If that is the case, I hope you let both me and the authors know of the misunderstandings in the article that make you think it's not as trustworthy as I seem to claim it to be. The authors of that specific article are Crispin Sartwell and Edward N. Zalta. The former is an associate professor of philosophy at Dickinson college and the latter is a senior research scholar at Stanford. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is quite highly regarded and the articles collect citations in the same way as scientific journal articles do. It's of course courageous to claim that you're the one to "give due weight and consideration" to the work of such philosophers, including both Hume and Kant whom the article itself quotes.
> 
> By the way, where do you get your philosophy? From the source? I owe you my deep admiration if you indeed have read through all Kant's _Critique_s (tried it myself, a bad idea :lol, Hegel's _Phenomenology of Spirit_, Hume's _A Treatise of Human Nature_ and _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ while also understanding them. (This is of course an exaggeration from my side but I'm sure you get my point.) If you have studied it at university, the trustworthiness of your source is as questionable as are Sartwell and Zalta, both of them also teaching at universities.
> 
> You also cannot in any way exclude the possibility that I'm myself teaching or studying philosophy.


I completely agree with annas; to disregard even WIK as a valid, reliable source is dirty pool. I haven't seen any quoting from AB from any books.
AbsoutelyBaching is too controlling; he has no right to decide what's valid and what isn't.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> ...the real point being objected to is that music/art *must* of its nature contain human experience. My proposition is that music *can* (not always is, but can) be viewed essentially as a form of maths. A choice of a major ninth here, a diminished third there. The assertion that it *must* contain 'human experience' (which we as listeners then must empathise with) is capable of being objected to on many grounds. The computer-generated artwork was just one instance of an objection.


The computer-generated art is a distraction, because it deviates from the simple argument. I'm not interested in ingenious exceptions purposely designed to obscure issues.

"What happens to music when it is sitting on my shelf?" Oh, come on! This is not worth arguing, and certainly doesn't prove that art is an object, or exists without human interaction. If you're going to propose an idea, at least make it worth our while.

All of this "objectification" is just thought forms. It has no basis in anything real except as a thought-exercise or notion. If you exclude the subjective realm from any theory of art, you have made a fatal flaw.

Yes, the Greeks included Music in their "Quadrivium" along with Geometry, Astronomy, and Arithmetic, but this in no way "objectifies" it, or invalidates the subjective realm.

In fact, the "maths" connection was not profoundly deep. WIK: The subject of music within the quadrivium was originally the classical subject of harmonics, in particular the study of the proportions between the musical intervals created by the division of a monochord.

*A relationship to music as actually practised was not part of this study, *but the framework of classical harmonics would substantially influence the content and structure of music theory as practised in both European and Islamic cultures.

This is like 12-tone or serial music using sets. It is done, but by itself can't create "real" music. 
It could produce artificial constructs like your computer-generated art, but *real people are still required to make "real" art. *This is my criterion, and it needs no proof. Your criterion? Is of little interest to anyone seeking aesthetic satisfaction. It's fodder for philosophy, no more.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I completely agree with annas; to disregard even WIK as a valid, reliable source is dirty pool. I haven't seen any quoting from AB from any books.
> AbsoutelyBaching is too controlling; he has no right to decide what's valid and what isn't.


Well, I could quote from the sources, but they are in German, so probably wouldn't be of much use to you. I've therefore made an exposition of my _understanding_ of what those sources say.

You are, of course, most welcome to explain in which ways my understanding of the sources is deficient.

As for controlling: well, I haven't declared myself in complete control of the argument. I haven't declared others to be engaging in 'mere philiosophical quibbling'. I haven't attacked anyone for being racist. I haven't dismissed the arguments others have made as being the product of a 'manic' frame of mind: η πως ερεις τω αδελφω σου αφες εκβαλω το καρφος απο του οφθαλμου σου και ιδου η δοκος εν τω οφθαλμω σου, basically.


----------



## Strange Magic

(Sob!) I see my request for a few brief explanatory paragraphs has been totally ignored, in favor of more blowtorch rhetoric. Lack of focus? I did regard myself previously "fully in control of this argument" back when I thought I was actually being responded to. Now, given the new realities, I reassure myself that at least I remain in full control of my argument.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> The computer-generated art is a distraction, because it deviates from the simple argument. I'm not interested in ingenious exceptions purposely designed to obscure issues.


If I can cite *one* example of art that can be created without input of human experience, then the argument is made for all time and all places that human experience is not a necessary input for art to be considered art.

I'm not saying I've done that, by the way, I'm merely pointing out how what you see a mere distraction is actually a fairly essential point to the discussion. It's why you should engage and dismiss the point, not view it as a 'deviation from a simple argument'. You are awfully prone to begging the question, though: you are forever assuming the truth of that which you seek to prove. So I can understand why you see everything as a "simple argument".

In any event, I actually cited multiple examples of art devoid of human experience. I'm not entirely sure what meaningful and significant human experience went into the manufacture of a urinal, for example, but Duchamp considered it an artwork regardless.



millionrainbows said:


> "What happens to music when it is sitting on my shelf?" Oh, come on! This is not worth arguing, and certainly doesn't prove that art is an object, or exists without human interaction. If you're going to propose an idea, at least make it worth our while.


So, you don't actually have anything to say on the matter? Your form of Socratic dialogue is just to dodge the point, because you think it beneath you?

Well, I'm not in the business of forcing horses to drink.



millionrainbows said:


> All of this "objectification" is just thought forms. It has no basis in anything real except as a thought-exercise or notion. If you exclude the subjective realm from any theory of art, you have made a fatal flaw.


So you say. But you haven't demonstrated. Since the commonly-experienced reality is that the paintings in the Uffizi don't disappear when the lights go off at night and re-appear as if by magic the next morning, I'd say that this has a significant basis in reality.

Special Relativity, by the way, was invented by thought experiment. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as a way of learning something.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You are of course free to declare you don't like it. You are even free to declare it "not art". But we're then into the rather awkward territory of working out when something counts as 'art' -that hoary old issue of Tracy Emin's bed, or Duchamp's urinal, for example, or the Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937...


Those instances have already become a part of art history, and are not good fodder for argument, since they are specialized instances of art designed to question its boundaries.



> It's not a nitpicking exception. _If_ we accept art can be produced independently of human hands, then surely it can exist independent of human ears or eyes too. And at that point you will have conceded the existence of 'objectified art'.


No. It was necessary for Duchamp to "declare" that the urinal was art, and to exhibit it as art. Even then, the urinal itself is not the point, but the "idea" that Duchamp was proposing. The same with Warhol's soup can paintings.


----------



## janxharris

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I knew someone would say that. It was the *autonomous* product of a computer program. Yes, a programmer was involved in writing the program, but no: the computer autonomously produced the art without interaction from a human.
> 
> In other words, it was an AI (artificial intelligence) program, and thus broad parameters were specified, but within that, it was entirely down to the computer to "decide" what to produce and how.
> 
> So I would argue this was not the work of human hands.
> 
> But in any case computers _can_ already write code that a human does not. So take it as a thought experiment: what happens when a computer, all on its own, decides to write a symphony (claims that one called 'Brian Ferneyhough' already did are not entirely to be trusted, I think).
> 
> Anyway: whether you buy it's devoid of human hands or not, the real point being objected to is that music/art *must* of its nature contain human experience. My proposition is that music *can* (not always is, but can) be viewed essentially as a form of maths. A choice of a major ninth here, a diminished third there. The assertion that it *must* contain 'human experience' (which we as listeners then must empathise with) is capable of being objected to on many grounds. The computer-generated artwork was just one instance of an objection.


I'm not clear as to how little the human involvement was - especially considering:

_'The algorithm is composed of two parts,' says Caselles-Dupré. 'On one side is the Generator, on the other the Discriminator. We fed the system with a data set of 15,000 portraits painted between the 14th century to the 20th. The Generator makes a new image based on the set, then the Discriminator tries to spot the difference between a human-made image and one created by the Generator. The aim is to fool the Discriminator into thinking that the new images are real-life portraits. Then we have a result.'_

(From: https://www.christies.com/features/...o-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx)


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Those instances have already become a part of art history, and are not good fodder for argument, since they are specialized instances of art designed to question its boundaries.
> 
> No. It was necessary for Duchamp to "declare" that the urinal was art, and to exhibit it as art. Even then, the urinal itself is not the point, but the "idea" that Duchamp was proposing. The same with Warhol's soup can paintings.


mr, this is a special day for us: I find myself agreeing more with you than with AbsolutelyBaching. _Stupor Mundi!_


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Those instances have already become a part of art history, and are not good fodder for argument, since they are specialized instances of art designed to question its boundaries.


Yeah, well, you've certainly got this argument under control, haven't you?! I mean, just by a wave of the hand, you declare what is and isn't 'good fodder' for it.

If you want to actually discuss something rather than declare that anything I say is 'not good fodder' because you think and want it so, be my guest.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> I'm not clear as to how little the human involvement was - especially considering:
> 
> _'The algorithm is composed of two parts,' says Caselles-Dupré. 'On one side is the Generator, on the other the Discriminator. We fed the system with a data set of 15,000 portraits painted between the 14th century to the 20th. The Generator makes a new image based on the set, then the Discriminator tries to spot the difference between a human-made image and one created by the Generator. The aim is to fool the Discriminator into thinking that the new images are real-life portraits. Then we have a result.'_
> 
> (From: https://www.christies.com/features/...o-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx)


What's not clear about that? No human generated the images; no human discriminated. There is obviously an input set of 'training images' which _are_ the hand of humans. They could just as well have plugged in a webcam and pointed it out of the window and got the thing to try to approximate whatever it saw.

(Incidentally, the background to the image is a lot more complex than I've painted it, because there's a profound suspicion that the people who sold the painting had simply taken someone else's open source computer code and run it without due acknowledgement. But these are, I think, details which don't distract from the core point being made).


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm going to go further in "setting parameters" by saying that computers are not a good way to present an argument about art or music. Not only is computer science a different field, but computers themselves are open-ended objects, not rigidly defined; they can be used for anything. Much better examples are Duchamp or John Cage.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah, well, you've certainly got this argument under control, haven't you?! I mean, just by a wave of the hand, you declare what is and isn't 'good fodder' for it.
> 
> If you want to actually discuss something rather than declare that anything I say is 'not good fodder' because you think and want it so, be my guest.


I do this because I don't really believe that your intention in seeking any semblance of truth is sincere; you simply engage for the argumentation. You don't _really_ care anything about art.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> What's not clear about that? No human generated the images; no human discriminated. There is obviously an input set of 'training images' which _are_ the hand of humans. They could just as well have plugged in a webcam and pointed it out of the window and got the thing to try to approximate whatever it saw.


It's also unclear how the actual "painting" was produced. Was it copied from an image, or printed, or painted?

Nonetheless, this is irrelevant. The painting may gain a place in art as an example of a possibility, as a form of conceptual art. That's the only reason it could have value, from the art world itself.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Hmm. "Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«." That's from the 'guidelines for general behaviour' you agreed to when you signed up here. Do try to stick to them, there's a good chap.


Then it's your responsibility to allow more flexibility in the discussion, and respect others' opinions. Your argument keeps getting "more and more subjective," in other words, becoming too self-contained according to strict parameters you are setting. This discussion is still open-ended, like it always was.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> It's also unclear how the actual "painting" was produced. Was it copied from an image, or printed, or painted?
> 
> Nonetheless, this is irrelevant. The painting may gain a place in art as an example of a possibility, as a form of conceptual art. That's the only reason it could have value, from the art world itself.


Well, you could go an read articles on the matter and inform yourself. The computer 'learnt' what a portrait "ought" to look like. I've no idea whether it was printed or painted: you can get oil paintings done by, essentially, ink jet these days, complete with fake brush strokes, so it was possibly that. I don't think it matters. The representation of 'Edmond Bellamy' was invented by the computer. How it ended up hanging on the wall of Christie's doesn't alter that.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> If I can cite *one* example of art that can be created without input of human experience, *then the argument is made for all time and all places* that human experience is not a necessary input for art to be considered art.


Then you'll be a "legend in your own mind." :lol:



> I'm not saying I've done that, by the way, I'm merely pointing out how what you see a mere distraction is actually a fairly essential point to the discussion. It's why you should engage and dismiss the point, not view it as a 'deviation from a simple argument'. You are awfully prone to begging the question, though: you are forever assuming the truth of that which you seek to prove. So I can understand why you see everything as a "simple argument".


It really is simple; all this thinking you are doing is what complicates it. Art is simply a function of being.



> In any event, I actually cited multiple examples of art devoid of human experience. I'm not entirely sure what meaningful and significant human experience went into the manufacture of a urinal, for example, but Duchamp considered it an artwork regardless.


"Art devoid of human experience" is a misnomer. It still attempts to 'objectify' art. Better to say "An experience of Art devoid of human experience (except my own)" which fits in nicely with narcissism.



> Since the commonly-experienced reality is that the paintings in the Uffizi don't disappear when the lights go off at night and re-appear as if by magic the next morning, I'd say that this has a significant basis in reality.


Yes, they are real objects in that sense, but this proves nothing. The paintings still must be experienced. They don't "gain" their meaning from being viewed; but the experience of viewing them is the only meaningful aspect. The meaning is not "in" the painting. *The painting is a medium, not an object.*



> *Special Relativity, by the way, was invented by thought experiment. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as a way of learning something.*


Ewww, bad mistake for your argument!

Conceptual art is also "thought based." You haven't spoken much about that. If you did, it would take us even further away from the idea of "art as self-contained object" and closer to the realm of _pure subjectivity. Art is a medium of exchange, not an object. It depends on us for its value.
_


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Then it's your responsibility to allow more flexibility in the discussion, and respect others' opinions. Your argument keeps getting "more and more subjective," in other words, becoming too self-contained according to strict parameters you are setting. This discussion is still open-ended, like it always was.


That's rich, coming from you.

Clue: I have set no parameters. You on the other hand, just six posts up, say "I'm going to go further in "setting parameters" by saying that computers are not a good way to present an argument about art or music." Seriously. I've heard of humbug, but that is a mountainous pile of the stuff!

I have not declared things 'not proper fodder' (you have). I have not dismissed someone else's opinion as being 'manic' because 'he's in need of food' (you have), nor have I declared other people's views to be not real and only put up for the love of argumentation (you have).

Fundamentally, too, I haven't asked a question to which I thought I already knew the answer. (You have).


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, you could go an read articles on the matter and inform yourself. The computer 'learnt' what a portrait "ought" to look like. I've no idea whether it was printed or painted: you can get oil paintings done by, essentially, ink jet these days, complete with fake brush strokes, so it was possibly that. I don't think it matters. The representation of 'Edmond Bellamy' was invented by the computer. How it ended up hanging on the wall of Christie's doesn't alter that.


Then it is interesting not as an object, but as an idea. I'd call it a form of conceptual art.

Now that the 'painting' has no essential worth as an object, but as an idea, then where is your "meaning" stored? Not in the object, but only as an experience. The "idea" in this case is disembodied, a product of AI, but this is irrelevant to the degree that computers are "mediums" in themselves.

Whoever wrote the algorithm, and set this process in motion, is ultimately the 'creator.' *I think the "signature" on the painting is a flawed notion of creation.
*


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> That's rich, coming from you.
> 
> Clue: I have set no parameters. You on the other hand, just six posts up, say "I'm going to go further in "setting parameters" by saying that computers are not a good way to present an argument about art or music." Seriously. I've heard of humbug, but that is a mountainous pile of the stuff!


Watch the ad hominems! These "exceptions" and fringe-elements you bring in (art by computers, conceptual art by Duchamp) are keeping us from the essential question: can art be objectified?



> I have not declared things 'not proper fodder' (you have).


Well, I stand behind that statement.



> I have not dismissed someone else's opinion as being 'manic' because 'he's in need of food' (you have)...


That was just an observation, which I still think is accurate.



> ...nor have I declared other people's views to be not real and only put up for the love of argumentation (you have).


Well, that appears to be your purpose in engaging. I don't think your purpose is to uncover any sort of truth about art or music.



> Fundamentally, too, *I haven't asked a question to which I thought I already knew the answer.* (You have).


To get an answer? That's not my point, really. I want to expose the uselessness of the rational objectification of art, and the flawed thought behind it.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> To get an answer? That's not my point, really. I want to expose the uselessness of the rational objectification of art, and the flawed thought behind it.


Well, if you want an echo chamber, go for it. I'm done wasting my time with someone who doesn't have an open mind on the subject.


----------



## NLAdriaan

The sole purpose of this thread seems to be a provocation, as anyone who seriously comes along with credible counterarguments, gets cut off for no reason. This is quite sad, as there were enough attempts well above the 'I like my music at 78 rpm only', which we see here all to often. 

MR, you seem to think highly of sincerity, especially with artists, but I begin to wonder about your own. I always considered you as thoughtful and quite open minded, but you are now teaming up with the autocrats here on TC. 

'Free your mind and your :trp:ss will follow'


----------



## millionrainbows

Sounds like you need a victim and a culprit to make your agenda work.


----------



## Flamme

And down the Babbit hole, we go...Where we go 1 we go ALL


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> I can't figure the motivation mainly. Why would anyone want to objectify art to the degree that it becomes completely separated from its creator? Art is an expression like "a gift."
> He certainly doesn't seem sentimental. Needs to eat something to calm down, maybe call his family and get 'grounded.' A good chat with the old pops would work wonders.
> The overall tone is manic. Once he gets the scent, he's like a hound dog. Enjoys it, obviously, so no use in trying to calm him down. He likes to give the impression to me that "I haven't kept up with the discussion" and that "Certain points have already been established sothey can't be touched on again. Who could keep up with all these "points" he's established? There's no referee to say who's right, anyway. He's declared himself the referee.
> I can't think of anything more predictable and boring than this endless philosophical quibbling. Hume, Kant...who cares? This stuff for readers, not listeners and art lovers like us. I guess this is where these 'rationalists' get all their stuff from; they majored in philosophy and dropped out of art.


I'm with you there, though one of my parents was a philosophy professor so I grew up with a lot of it, not that I claim any special expertise or insight. What made me cite the likes of Hume and Kant here at TC was a persistent streak of rationalism applied to aesthetics in a very archaic and doctrinaire way. That brought me back to Hume especially. At least one poster here has done a far better job than I of summarizing his ideas (of course my attempt was at best very rough shorthand and addressed one limited issue). For example, your comment that our common ground is much more substantial than our unique differences is certainly true and important (and well understood by Hume).

But consider Strange Magic's "white noise" hypothesis. One could argue against it. But there's no doubt with our modern post-technological revolution society, and our ability to instantly see and hear nearly everything going on everywhere in the world, the nearly endless "unique differences", such as Bangladeshi music videos, are becoming more apparent, and the search for some objective aesthetic ideal ever more obviously futile.


----------



## Guest002

fluteman said:


> What made me cite the likes of Hume and Kant here at TC was a persistent streak of rationalism applied to aesthetics in a very archaic and doctrinaire way.


So the question was asked, 'is it possible to approach art in an objective way', and you're going to get a bit miffed that, by way of affirming that as a possibility, someone takes the rationalist approach to things?

How would you like someone who believes it's _possible_ to reply? By quoting Hume? Who thought all sense of beauty was the product of subjective experience? So you'd prefer it if I'd only quote the philosophy you approve of to rebut a claim that the philosophy you approve of affirms?! That's some open mind you've got there.

And the casual accusation of racism directed to me was, what, just a bit of philosophizing on your part too? Oh, silly me. It was just you making a point. By being "intentionally ridiculous". Right.


----------



## Strange Magic

Wouldn't it be nice if we did have a clear, concise exposition of views from both mr and AB? We might be able to start again, figure out what people really postulate, and go from there.


----------



## 1996D

fluteman said:


> But there's no doubt with our modern post-technological revolution society, and our ability to instantly see and hear nearly everything going on everywhere in the world, the nearly endless "unique differences", such as Bangladeshi music videos, are becoming more apparent, and the search for some objective aesthetic ideal ever more obviously futile.


That's not why though, it's futile because of the values of our current society, which are that no culture can be better than another.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> That's not why though, it's futile because of the values of our current society, which are that no culture can be better than another.


Everything is available to you now. Some would say Too Much of Everything. Pick among the infinite choices and console yourself with what pleases and uplifts you.


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if we did have a clear, concise exposition of views from both mr and AB? We might be able to start again, figure out what people really postulate, and go from there.


Empiricists hold to the Humean claim that _all_ knowledge stems from perception. Rationalist assert, however, that some -though *not* all- knowledge arises through direct apprehension by the intellect. What the intellect apprehends is objects that transcend sense experience, such as the number three, or the triangularity of triangles. Though these cannot be seen, heard or felt, rationalists would point out that humans can obviously think about them.

Now combine that with Leibnitz's statement: "Music is an unconscious exercise in arithmetic".

Therefore, art (or music specifically) _can_ be a non-sensory experience, a perception (especially by the composer) of something that cannot be seen, heard or felt. It is not self-evidently the case, however, that music _must_ be imbued with 'sense experience' at any point in its creation, though it surely can be. When Shostakovich is playing with the D-S-C-H theme, that's game-playing. Puzzle cannons are another example that spring to mind. And a renaissance composer writing masses or Tenebrae responsories is considering transcendent matters, not perceived, human knowledge.

If it is ever once possible to write music lacking 'sense experience' then the original question is answered in the affirmative: yes, it's possible to approach art objectively, since it is clearly impossible for an audience to empathize with that which is not there.

And that's as concise as I can make it, given its a foundational question as to how we know what art is.

Million Rainbows will claim that since music is written by humans and is listened to by humans, there _must_ be sensory experience exchange. His is a non-nullable hypothesis, however: which makes it bad. Look at his demolition of Babbit (before he deleted it): he's human! Well, duh. Meanwhile, any attempt to perform a thought-experiment whereby one might admit the possibility of non-sensory experience input to art is dismissed as "not real" or "edge case, not germane to the central question".

And unless you've got sensible questions about any of that lot, that's my last word on it, because it's pointless to continue attempting to be heard in an echo chamber in which three posters in particular have resorted to _ad hominems_ to disguise their closed minds on the subject. To be fair, MR was at least honest about not wanting to hear an answer to the question he asked since he already knew the answer (or thought he did).


----------



## Strange Magic

Thank you. Much better. Something to think about. We'll let mr speak for himself, shall we not? "Babbit", I think, refers to the late Milton Babbitt of Princeton. "Puzzle cannons" had me confused, but a quick Internet check cleared that up.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> That's not why though, it's futile because of the values of our current society, which are that no culture can be better than another.


There is a flip side to that coin.......any time the dominant culture tells you how great and wonderful they are (implying the lowliness of others) you'll need stilts to wade thru the bee ess as demonstrated by any "greatness/ popularity" thread in TC. *sings to the old gospel standard* "How great our art.....how great our art."


----------



## Guest002

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you. Much better. Something to think about. We'll let mr speak for himself, shall we not? "Babbit", I think, refers to the late Milton Babbitt of Princeton. "Puzzle cannons" had me confused, but a quick Internet check cleared that up.


It did refer to the late Milton Babbitt and I apologise for the dropped final 't'. MR wrote about Milton Babbitt, explaining that he had put nothing but musical games into his music. He then went on to say, "but he was human, so are we, therefore... subjective sensory experience!". As I say, he appears to have deleted that post now, and the only evidence it existed is Flamme's post at the top of this page (#376).


----------



## Strange Magic

AB, a quick thought about whether the number three or the triangularity of triangles transcends sense experience: I can better accept irrational and imaginary numbers transcending sense experience than I can your examples. But that only changes the force of your argument if we could somehow get deeply enough into a composer's mind to determine that, indeed, he or she did or did not "hear" the music in his/her head. That discovery--yea or nay--would seem to swing the matter. But I am not sure whether the issue as addressed by either you or mr in this thread is particularly germaine when it comes to how people feel they should respond to music or art. That is what interests me. I apologize if my focus elsewhere than what might seem the main topic here has distracted others from more rigorous application to the questions you two have discussed.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if we did have a clear, concise exposition of views from both mr and AB? We might be able to start again, figure out what people really postulate, and go from there.


For my part, I've already said (as have many before me) that all art communicates, at least in substantial part, through an appeal to our aesthetic senses. That is what distinguishes art from a mathematics textbook, for example. Though it isn't so easy to escape aesthetic considerations, is it? There was a famous chess master who reportedly prolonged games he could have won more quickly so they would have a more beautiful and elegant conclusion. And, to use game theory lingo, chess, though highly complex, still ultimately is a zero-sum, finite game with a solution, like tic tac toe.


----------



## Strange Magic

fluteman said:


> For my part, I've already said (as have many before me) that all art communicates, at least in substantial part, through an appeal to our aesthetic senses. That is what distinguishes art from a mathematics textbook, for example. Though it isn't so easy to escape aesthetic considerations, is it? There was a famous chess master who reportedly prolonged games he could have won more quickly so they would have a more beautiful and elegant conclusion. And, to use game theory lingo, chess, though highly complex, still ultimately is a zero-sum, finite game with a solution, like tic tac toe.


I've read enough about mathematicians to gather that they too feel an aesthetic pleasure when they find what they call an "elegant" solution to a problem. One glaring example drawn from the borderland shared by geomorphology and mathematics is the truly elegant finding by Luna Leopold that river meanders are curves of "least work" in bending. Another example is the relatively simplest formulation for the average number of primes in any given set of numbers from one to n (or x).


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> I've read enough about mathematicians to gather that they too feel an aesthetic pleasure when they find what they call an "elegant" solution to a problem. One glaring example drawn from the borderland shared by geomorphology and mathematics is the truly elegant finding by Luna Leopold that river meanders are curves of "least work" in bending. Another example is the relatively simplest formulation for the average number of primes in any given set of numbers from one to n (or x).


Composing is similar to mathematics, with the need for the same intuitive weaving to solve problems. I don't think the question is whether it's great of not, but whether what other cultures do is not more appropriate to our times.

The definition of a social democracy is that everyone is equal--all range of characters accepted--and for this to happen we can't exert any form of superiority; what is celebrated must be what everyone can understand and this is precisely what's happening today.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Pure music is far from objective : tis not concerned with the object . An object is not indulged . The name of the composer is not , the score is not , the music industry is not . Yet it may be compassionately relational . The artists of pure music will especially be kind to one another . Pure music will avoid being an object .


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> Composing is similar to mathematics, with the need for the same intuitive weaving to solve problems. I don't think the question is whether it's great of not, but whether what other cultures do is not more appropriate to our times.
> 
> The definition of a social democracy is that everyone is equal--all range of characters accepted--and for this to happen we can't exert any form of superiority; what is celebrated must be what everyone can understand and this is precisely what's happening today.


Today everything is exhibited, is offered in the marketplace. And it all is celebrated, either by many or by few or possibly by only the lone exhibitor. Classical music is celebrated right here on TC. Some people want the celebrating to be restricted to only those things they deem appropriate for such, and to only that population of celebrants they deem worthy or important. I am not one of those people; I rather just ignore what fails to hold my interest or pleases me not.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> The language of the art form itself is enough to convey to us the composer's feelings and experience as he has translated this into musical form.


The feelings expressed by a composition cannot be assumed to be those of the composer, any more than the expressed beliefs of fictional characters can be assumed to be endorsed by the author of a novel. This is basic, musical aesthetics 101. Your theory of emotional communication is bogus.


----------



## Luchesi

In some future, if all we have are the great scores and nobody is able to play them any longer, will the scores still be great achievements? ...No liking or disliking the sounds.
Could we look at the scores and evaluate them merely subjectively? or would we need to be objective?


----------



## Ethereality

I didn't read this whole thread, but I'd say we can objectively measure the average human taste. The best way to do this is similar to where IMDb has this group called the Top 1000 Voters, and they're comprised of the individuals who have allegedly witnessed the most movies, thus if they really, 'allegedly' have the experience they claim, they can comprise the most representative examples of human preference for film. Then we find that, movies are not rated the same at all. Some are much better than others. We could 'allegedly' do the same with those most-experienced with music, and on average calculate that Bach or Beethoven is objectively better for humans overall than are _most_ other composers. In other words, there is an objective pattern for human behavior and perception, that does not fit all humans, but which can predict most humans to some valid probability. Mathematics would put it, "the strength of correlation is X%, or legitimate."


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> I didn't read this whole thread, but I'd say we can objectively measure the average human taste. The best way to do this is similar to where IMDb has this group called the Top 1000 Voters, and they're comprised of the individuals who have allegedly witnessed the most movies, thus if they really, 'allegedly' have the experience they claim, they can comprise the most representative examples of human preference for film. Then we find that, movies are not rated the same at all. Some are much better than others. We could 'allegedly' do the same with those most-experienced with music, and on average calculate that Bach or Beethoven is objectively better for humans overall than are _most_ other composers. In other words, there is an objective pattern for human behavior and perception, that does not fit all humans, but which can predict most humans to some valid probability. Mathematics would put it, "the strength of correlation is X%, or legitimate."


Yes, a well designed and conducted poll might tell us some useful things, at least about a certain sub-population of humans. The IMDb movie poll you cite, while far from perfect imo, may be giving us some interesting information about the tastes among a large group of people. But polling, together with statistical analysis of the resulting data as you propose, is a classic example of an empirical method of observation. We might objectively conclude from this empirical data that certain people in a certain place and time tend to have certain tastes, on the "average", as you put it, but that doesn't establish that the movies are objectively good or bad.

An objective or traditional rationalist approach would be to posit that movies have (or lack) certain identifiable inherent qualities that make them good (or not), and no poll or other type of empirical observation is needed.


----------



## Ethereality

The point of why I posted though, is we can fairly easily tell which music is objectively good or bad, within a group as you put it. It's still objective. Because there is an identifier, "good or bad for humans in 2020."

Because the thread is talking about something entirely different, I was clarifying what _we who use the term _ actually mean when we use it, and why the OP may be confusing the discussion.


----------



## Strange Magic

Ethereality said:


> The point of why I posted thougj, is we can easily tell what music is objectively good for bad, within a group as you put it. It's still objective. Because there is an identifier, "good or bad for _humans in 2020."_


I don't think this quite does it. Best to say something like "More people of a defined group voted for _Casablanca_ as their favorite ("best") picture of (whatever)". What is objective are the statistics of the vote. "Good or bad for humans in 2020" is quite a jump.


----------



## Ethereality

While I get that point, I don't think the jump is too huge.

The conclusion itself is objective because it aligns with the facts. The conclusion being, Casablanca is a great movie to recommend to people around me. Whether saying it can be called the "best movie," has no bearing on what I first said was objective, the conclusion that I came to based on evidence that it's a good movie to recommend to people. So yes, I'm giving a perfectly objective statement.

The better the sample though, the more certainty. There is a line drawn where you can't trust certain samples at all, but *rarely is that so.* *There's always some objective lesson to take from peoples' preferences, because they're inherently included in the whole*.

Also, let's skip the Casablanca example and go with an example from a better list. I quickly just threw that in as an example.


----------



## Strange Magic

What is the best ice cream? By some measures, more people order/buy vanilla and/or report that they like vanilla best. It's a fact.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Empiricists hold to the Humean claim that _all_ knowledge stems from perception. Rationalist assert, however, that some -though *not* all- knowledge arises through direct apprehension by the intellect. What the intellect apprehends is objects that transcend sense experience, such as the number three, or the triangularity of triangles. Though these cannot be seen, heard or felt, rationalists would point out that humans can obviously think about them.


The "three-ness" of something is derived from experience. "Three-ness" is not a "thing," but is merely the way the mind creates abstract concepts, including "triangularity". Rationality is full of abstractions like this. None of it is real, except as a thought-construct or "mental illusion".


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Now combine that with Leibnitz's statement: "Music is an unconscious exercise in arithmetic".
> 
> *Therefore, art (or music specifically) can be a non-sensory experience, a perception (especially by the composer) of something that cannot be seen, heard or felt.* It is not self-evidently the case, however, that music _must_ be imbued with 'sense experience' at any point in its creation, though it surely can be. When Shostakovich is playing with the D-S-C-H theme, that's game-playing. Puzzle cannons are another example that spring to mind. And a renaissance composer writing masses or Tenebrae responsories is considering transcendent matters, not perceived, human knowledge.
> 
> If it is ever once possible to write music lacking 'sense experience' then the original question is answered in the affirmative: yes, it's possible to approach art objectively, since it is clearly impossible for an audience to empathize with that which is not there.


That's part of what goes in to the making of music, but is not music itself. Music is moving air-molecules not abstract thought.



> Million Rainbows will claim that since music is written by humans and is listened to by humans, there _must_ be sensory experience exchange. His is a non-nullable hypothesis, however: which makes it bad. Look at his demolition of Babbit (before he deleted it): he's human! Well, duh. Meanwhile, any attempt to perform a thought-experiment whereby one might admit the possibility of non-sensory experience input to art is dismissed as "not real" or "edge case, not germane to the central question".


I just moved the Babbitt over to another section (Solo & Chamber Music). My, my, you're on the lookout for mistakes, aren't you? Vicious!

No, I said that Babbitt has quite a bit of "abstract" thought-content; it's his main goal, to uncover these abstractions. But ultimately, he translates his results into real sounds made by real people (or real sounds made by synthesizers). The results are then ours to examine. This high degree of abstraction does put Babbitt on the outer edges of what most listeners consider "music."
Conceptual art is the same way; it needs no object per se, and is totally "idea" in some cases. Still, it is created by a human, and designed for our subjective consumption.



> To be fair, MR was at least honest about not wanting to hear an answer to the question he asked since he already knew the answer (or thought he did).


I think if we are honest, we all have "fixed" ideas and opinions. My subjective views on things happen to be at odds with many rational thinkers. I guess that's the result of Western education vs. artistic sensibility.


----------



## 1996D

EdwardBast said:


> The feelings expressed by a composition cannot be assumed to be those of the composer, any more than the expressed beliefs of fictional characters can be assumed to be endorsed by the author of a novel. This is basic, musical aesthetics 101. Your theory of emotional communication is bogus.


I always thought that yes, but people thinking otherwise is not a bad thing either. It's like acting, Brando did say that you can't act unless you are what you are.

In all art even if you lie there is always a connection between artist and art, this is why there are so many meanings, your subconscious can leak out personal things and I don't believe we can do anything without our soul showing, even if the intention is to glorify God.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> The feelings expressed by a composition cannot be assumed to be those of the composer, any more than the expressed beliefs of fictional characters can be assumed to be endorsed by the author of a novel. This is basic, musical aesthetics 101. Your theory of emotional communication is bogus.


You're just questioning whether the "emotions" expressed are actually the composer's. That's bogus as well, since the emotional content is used like a tool. 
That's like expecting all of Shakespeare's expression of emotion to be "his." DUH!! :lol: _He simply understands human nature enough to use these emotions as tools, just as a composer can evoke emotion.
_


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> You're just questioning whether the "emotions" expressed are actually the composer's. That's bogus as well, since the emotional content is used like a tool.
> That's like expecting all of Shakespeare's expression of emotion to be "his." DUH!! :lol: _He simply understands human nature enough to use these emotions as tools, just as a composer can evoke emotion.
> _


I'm contradicting your claim that the composer's emotion is communicated directly to listeners. It's good to see you too can't take the ideas you express seriously. Consensus is good.



millionrainbows said:


> My subjective views on things happen to be at odds with many rational thinkers. I guess that's the result of Western education vs. artistic sensibility.


Fans of Occam's razor will have a simpler explanation.


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> In some future, if all we have are the great scores and nobody is able to play them any longer, will the scores still be great achievements? ...No liking or disliking the sounds.
> Could we look at the scores and evaluate them merely subjectively? or would we need to be objective?


We have recordings. If the composition is unrecorded, we'll have to get a piano player in here!


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> Today everything is exhibited, is offered in the marketplace. And it all is celebrated, either by many or by few or possibly by only the lone exhibitor. Classical music is celebrated right here on TC. Some people want the celebrating to be restricted to only those things they deem appropriate for such, and to only that population of celebrants they deem worthy or important. I am not one of those people; I rather just ignore what fails to hold my interest or pleases me not.


Yes, but there is a public agenda and the people in power are in control of it. Just as the Kings of Europe promoted classical music to glorify their reigns, the oligarchs of today push their own social agendas to enrich themselves. But by this same greed they shoot themselves in the foot and the people gradually gain more power.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ethereality said:


> The point of why I posted though, is we can fairly easily tell which music is objectively good or bad, within a group as you put it. It's still objective. Because there is an identifier, "good or bad for humans in 2020."
> 
> Because the thread is talking about something entirely different, I was clarifying what _we who use the term _actually mean when we use it, and why the OP may be confusing the discussion.





Strange Magic said:


> What is the best ice cream? By some measures, more people order/buy vanilla and/or report that they like vanilla best. It's a fact.


Just in case you guys missed it, this thread was never about "good and bad" value judgements of art.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> The "three-ness" of something is derived from experience. "Three-ness" is not a "thing," but is merely the way the mind creates abstract concepts, including "triangularity". Rationality is full of abstractions like this. None of it is real, except as a thought-construct or "mental illusion".


Mathematical Platonism is a "thing".

If you don't like it so being, go argue it with Kurt Gödel.


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> That's part of what goes in to the making of music, but is not music itself. Music is moving air-molecules not abstract thought.


When in doubt, just keep repeating things until they stick? Is that the plan now?
No, music doesn't require any moving molecules of anything.
And I'm not sure how much 'human sensory experience' you can attribute to some moving air molecules anyway. They seem pretty abstract to me.



millionrainbows said:


> I just moved the Babbitt over to another section (Solo & Chamber Music). My, my, you're on the lookout for mistakes, aren't you? Vicious!


I thought it suspicious, because you gave quite a lot away in your description of him and his non-subjective approach to music. And then it was referred to by another poster. And then it disappeared.



millionrainbows said:


> I think if we are honest...


But you haven't been. You asked a question which, some 26 pages later, you explicitly stated you had no intention of being answered in any way that didn't conform to your pre-arrived at opinion.

Which is why I will not respond to anything else you write in this thread. So please feel free to not reply.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Mathematical Platonism is a "thing".
> 
> If you don't like it so being, go argue it with Kurt Gödel.


It might function as a thing, but there it ends: it's still called Platonism. The article does not convince me otherwise.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> When in doubt, just keep repeating things until they stick? Is that the plan now?


No, but if we consistently disagree, then I will state it. There is no "covered ground" or "conquered territory" in this discussion. You have not made any "progress" towards a "goal" in the discussion. It all still boils-down to what you think about it right now.



> No, music doesn't require any moving molecules of anything.
> And I'm not sure how much 'human sensory experience' you can attribute to some moving air molecules anyway. They seem pretty abstract to me.
> 
> I thought it suspicious, because you gave quite a lot away in your description of him and his non-subjective approach to music. And then it was referred to by another poster. And then it disappeared.
> 
> But you haven't been. You asked a question which, some 26 pages later, you explicitly stated you had no intention of being answered in any way that didn't conform to your pre-arrived at opinion.
> 
> Which is why I will not respond to anything else you write in this thread. So please feel free to not reply.


"26 pages" or not, you have in no way "proven" your point of over-rationalizing music. I therefore *will *respond to anything else you write in this thread, _if I feel it is relevant. _So please feel free to reply to my replies.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Just in case you guys missed it, this thread was never about "good and bad" value judgements of art.


.

I agree. I think the ambiguity of the OP led to people (like myself) going off on various tangents as we lacked firm clues as to the precise nature of the argument.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> Yes, but there is a public agenda and the people in power are in control of it. Just as the Kings of Europe promoted classical music to glorify their reigns, the oligarchs of today push their own social agendas to enrich themselves. But by this same greed they shoot themselves in the foot and the people gradually gain more power.


What genres of the zillions available now everywhere, anywhere, anytime, are being pushed by the oligarchs? I do not deny that there are oligarchs, but their power to limit the hyperfecundity and abundance of the New Stasis appears to be quite limited, if not undetectable. When the New Stasis is broken and a powerful focusing entity is able to really exercise control over artistic choice, people may yearn for the Good Old Days of today. What if ISIS or President Xi was in charge of global esthetics?


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> What genres of the zillions available now everywhere, anywhere, anytime, are being pushed by the oligarchs? I do not deny that there are oligarchs, but their power to limit the hyperfecundity and abundance of the New Stasis appears to be quite limited, if not undetectable. When the New Stasis is broken and a powerful focusing entity is able to really exercise control over artistic choice, people may yearn for the Good Old Days of today. What if ISIS or President Xi was in charge of global esthetics?


They call it 'corporate responsibility' and influence society in that way. Only a handful of corporations own every single record label, it's quite easy then to control the narrative.


----------



## Flamme

I'll just drop this 'ere...


----------



## fluteman

Ethereality said:


> While I get that point, I don't think the jump is too huge.
> 
> The conclusion itself is objective because it aligns with the facts. The conclusion being, Casablanca is a great movie to recommend to people around me. Whether saying it can be called the "best movie," has no bearing on what I first said was objective, the conclusion that I came to based on evidence that it's a good movie to recommend to people. So yes, I'm giving a perfectly objective statement.
> 
> The better the sample though, the more certainty. There is a line drawn where you can't trust certain samples at all, but *rarely is that so.* *There's always some objective lesson to take from peoples' preferences, because they're inherently included in the whole*.
> 
> Also, let's skip the Casablanca example and go with an example from a better list. I quickly just threw that in as an example.


I have to agree with Strange Magic that it is a large jump, and here is why: Statistics do have an element of objective truth, as you correctly say. With that comes the danger of reading too much into them, and taking them too far to reach conclusions that they don't legitimately reach. As many here at TC love polls, you can see people succumb to this fallacy over and over.

And yes, there is a rejoinder to the point I've just made, and I'll save you the trouble of making it: Well designed and executed data gathering and statistical analysis, i.e., careful empirical observation, gets us as close to any "truth" as we're ever likely to get, and there comes a point where, if only for practical purposes, we need to accept these careful (and consistently confirmed) empirical observations as our working version of the truth, at least for some near term immediate future, and move on.

But I suggest one needs humility and an open mind and always remember that this is a temporary and approximate version of the truth acceptable because, and only so long as, it serves a practical, useful purpose.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> They call it 'corporate responsibility' and influence society in that way. Only a handful of corporations own every single record label, it's quite easy then to control the narrative.


What music are you being denied access to? Or don't we even know? It's hard to even imagine what is not on YouTube. How would things be different if you were in charge?


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> .
> 
> I agree. I think the ambiguity of the OP led to people (like myself) going off on various tangents as we lacked firm clues as to the precise nature of the argument.


Sounds like you are inching toward the obvious conclusion: The so-called "argument" has no precise nature. MR has stated opposed and mutually annihilating positions based on expediency; Called out for one error he quickly makes a different one in attempting to cover his tracks. I wish there were a simple term for this kind of bad-faith online argumentation.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> What music are you being denied access to? Or don't we even know? It's hard to even imagine what is not on YouTube. How would things be different if you were in charge?


They will destroy themselves with their greed, there is nothing to do but be patient.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> They will destroy themselves with their greed, there is nothing to do but be patient.


That is not exactly (or even inexactly) an answer or answers to my questions. Of what art or music are you being deprived? And what would we see/hear if you fixed things?


----------



## Strange Magic

EdwardBast said:


> Sounds like you are inching toward the obvious conclusion: The so-called "argument" has no precise nature. MR has stated opposed and mutually annihilating positions based on expediency; Called out for one error he quickly makes a different one in attempting to cover his tracks. I wish there were a simple term for this kind of bad-faith online argumentation.


To be candid, I never got a firm grip on either end of the argument, but I am a Bear of Little Brain; I'm sure most of the fault is mine.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> That is not exactly (or even inexactly) an answer or answers to my questions. Of what art or music are you being deprived? And what would we see/hear if you fixed things?


Also, are not most of us better off in this regard than we were 100 or 500 or 1,000 years ago? The Russian Orthodox Church long attempted to ban secular music altogether due to perceived links to Catholicism and/or paganism. On the other hand, these days China controls all internet access for its citizens, and as I understand it, youtube is not available, though they have an equivalent. My guess is, China will find it isn't that easy to control the flow of music. Apparently there is at least one member here from China, whom I have encountered.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> That is not exactly (or even inexactly) an answer or answers to my questions. Of what art or music are you being deprived? And what would we see/hear if you fixed things?


We are being deprived of order and righteous leadership, and there is no current art or culture to this society. Compared to many past eras we are rotten.

But all in due time, this is a test of patience.


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> ...there is no current art or culture to this society. Compared to many past eras we are rotten.


This is so laughable. Someone every age, literally since the invention of writing, has written this exact thing. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> We are being deprived of order and righteous leadership, and there is no current art or culture to this society. Compared to many past eras we are rotten.
> 
> But all in due time, this is a test of patience.


I think ISIS would impose Order and Righteous Leadership, and suitable Art and Music (none, actually) to grace their stewardship. I don't think you would like it though.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> I think ISIS would impose Order and Righteous Leadership, and suitable Art and Music (none, actually) to grace their stewardship. I don't think you would like it though.


What a funny example, they can't even keep order within their own tiny group. I don't think they even exist anymore, they're all in hiding.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> This is so laughable. Someone every age, literally since the invention of writing, has written this exact thing. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.


Of course not, there have been many golden ages and celebrated eras. You think da Vinci and Michelangelo didn't think they were living in the best times? Louis XIV? Trajan?

There are eras of culture and then there are periods of decline and change like today.


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> Of course not, there have been many golden ages and celebrated eras. You think da Vinci and Michelangelo didn't think they were living in the best times? Louis XIV? Trajan?
> 
> There are eras of culture and then there are periods of decline and change like today.


Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I said "someone," notice, not "everyone."

For every supposed "Golden Age" for person A, there's some person B who thinks everything is rotten and going to hell.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> What a funny example, they can't even keep order within their own tiny group. I don't think they even exist anymore, they're all in hiding.


How about President Xi? A less funny example. BTW, ISIS is active in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to impose order.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. I said "someone," notice, not "everyone."
> 
> For every supposed "Golden Age" for person A, there's some person B who thinks everything is rotten and going to hell.


I'm aware of what you said, my comment was indeed implying that there are eras where nobody thinks their culture isn't great. Relativism is relevant today, people don't think like this when they're proud of their culture.


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> ...my comment was indeed implying that there are eras where nobody thinks their culture isn't great.


Ok. I'm 100% sure this is _totally_ incorrect.



> Relativism is relevant today, people don't think like this when they're proud of their culture.


I'm very proud of many things in today's culture. Speak for yourself.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> How about President Xi? A less funny example. BTW, ISIS is active in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to impose order.


Bill Gates sure loves the Xi way.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> Ok. I'm 100% sure this is _totally_ incorrect.


Then you need to study history



Knorf said:


> I'm very proud of many things in today's culture. Speak for yourself.


Sure you are, that's why everything must be relative and subjective.


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> Then you need to study history


What an extraordinarily presumptuous thing to say. In fact, I am avid student of history, and have been my whole life.

But I guess I should be grateful, because now I realize you aren't worth engaging with.



> Sure you are, that's why everything must be relative and subjective.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this fatuous remark, but in all honesty I'm not going to bother trying. It's clearly not worth the effort.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this fatuous remark, but in all honesty I'm not going to bother trying. It's clearly not worth the effort.


You can't dare to see things objectively because they would be too horrible for you to accept, this same reason is preventing you from understanding history.


----------



## isorhythm

There are some interesting strands in this thread, I think, insofar as I can follow them.

There's discussion of music as communication from composer to listener. Two opposing viewpoints seem to be roughly that music is a way for the composer to convey his inner state to the listener, on the one hand, and that the inner state of the composer is totally irrelevant, on the other.

I think there is clearly a communication from composer to listener (and to performer, along the way), even if it's not straightforward. Obviously, Mahler didn't sit down to write his ninth symphony thinking, "I feel sad," or whatever, and decide to put that in music to convey his feeling to listeners. But obviously the music he wrote reflects his inner experience; he wrote the symphony in the way that seemed right to him, and not some other way, and since his listeners are also human beings like him, there is necessarily some relationship between the inner experience that led Mahler to write his symphony and the inner experience we have listening to it, even if that relationship can't be expressed straightforwardly.

Late 19th century Romanticism is probably the area where this is most obvious, but I think it applies to all music. Bach didn't write his cantatas in order to tell listeners, "I feel devout," but rather to serve a specific function in communal worship. Lots of music doesn't have any obvious social function or emotional valence at all. Nonetheless, every composer necessarily writes the music that feels right.

Here's one of my favorite Bach fugues: 



 That subject, with the trill and the immediate, unexpected descent to E natural is very striking to me, almost thrilling. Why? This music doesn't mean anything and isn't about anything. You can't say anything about why Bach wrote the particular music he did here, other than he thought it right - which is to say, he had a particular inner, subjective experience. I have my own inner experience when I hear it. I think it's fair to say some kind of communication has taken place here, even if we can't say anything more about it.

Composers can give more or less control over to formal constraints or procedures - e.g., process minimalism - but the composer ultimately signs off on the work.

The computer stuff seems like a red herring to me, as computers are tools programmed by humans.

I don't know if any of that is even what millionrainbows was asking about in the original post.

I was going into the stuff about musical merit but it's too late, maybe tomorrow.


----------



## NLAdriaan

EdwardBast said:


> Sounds like you are inching toward the obvious conclusion: The so-called "argument" has no precise nature. MR has stated opposed and mutually annihilating positions based on expediency; Called out for one error he quickly makes a different one in attempting to cover his tracks. *I wish there were a simple term for this kind of bad-faith online argumentation.*


You might call it 'Internet Identity'.

The anonymity on internet forums allows users to use fake identities, we all do it here. It creates a social network built on quicksand. No responsibility involved. You can start fires just for fun and even sabotage the fire brigade. This ruins any discussion but the arsonist will never be hold responsible. So, the level of discussion will always remain limited as long as anonymity is the rule.

It's one of the flipsides of the original internet idea. Communicating around the world for everyone offers both great opportunities and great threats and unfortunately limited threads.


----------



## Guest002

isorhythm said:


> There are some interesting strands in this thread, I think, insofar as I can follow them.
> 
> There's discussion of music as communication from composer to listener. Two opposing viewpoints seem to be roughly that music is a way for the composer to convey his inner state to the listener, on the one hand, and that the inner state of the composer is totally irrelevant, on the other.


Close, but not quite. The viewpoint I was expressing was, approximately, "the inner state of the composer *can be* totally irrelevant". Not that it always is. Only that it isn't necessary for, and isn't always the case that, music *always* "conveys an inner state to a listener". It allowed for the possibility of 'experience sharing', but didn't mandate it.

That is, I'm quite happy to accept that when Britten was writing the Storm Interlude in Peter Grimes, he was very definitely trying to convey a scenic message, along with an associated emotional subtext. I just think (as I believe you go on to demonstrate nicely with your Bach example) that it isn't always the case that composers do that. They can play mathematical games; they can play word and letter games; they can do almost anything they like including not conveying a darn'd thing.



isorhythm said:


> The computer stuff seems like a red herring to me, as computers are tools programmed by humans.


No, actually. In fact, every compiler on the planet used to convert human-written source code into a compiled, executable binary will inject optimisations it thinks appropriate. IE, it will generate code a human hasn't told it to write. Now, that's a very trivial example, but is illustrative. The fact is that computers _are_ getting to the point of autonomous code writing, if they're not actually already there. The specific example I used about the computer-generated painting was merely another example of a human setting parameters... and then letting the computer sort it out within those parameters _by itself_.

Bearing in mind that even computers that genuinely and complete write their own code will still have to have been _built_ by humans (or by a machine/printer that was built by humans... it's turtles all the way down!), you will never be able to say 'no humans were involved anywhere in the production of this'. That is the nature of the world we inhabit, after all. But you don't have to exclude _all_ human input. If the amount of direct human input in the production of output X is reduced to trivially small levels, that's good enough for me to make the point that X cannot possibly be conveying 'a message', an emotion or any form of sensory experience.

And I'm afraid, I'll have my cake and eat it anyway! Even if it is 100% true that computer art is a complete red herring, it's not necessary to cite it to find examples of art that _can_ exist without it conveying 'human sensory experience'.



isorhythm said:


> I don't know if any of that is even what millionrainbows was asking about in the original post.


Well, MR has freely admitted he wasn't actually _asking_ a question anyway. He was asserting "something", that's all. And yes, hardly anyone could work out what he was asserting in the first place. So you're in good company.



isorhythm said:


> I was going into the stuff about musical merit but it's too late, maybe tomorrow.


That had nothing to do with MR's assertion either, though it's an interesting -though utterly distinct- argument in its own right, for sure


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> Here's one of my favorite Bach fugues:
> 
> 
> 
> That subject, with the trill and the immediate, unexpected descent to E natural is very striking to me, almost thrilling. Why? *This music doesn't mean anything and isn't about anything*. You can't say anything about why Bach wrote the particular music he did here, other than he thought it right - which is to say, he had a particular inner, subjective experience. I have my own inner experience when I hear it. I think it's fair to say some kind of communication has taken place here, even if we can't say anything more about it.


Curious to know why you are so sure regarding the emboldened? (I don't disagree - just struck by your bold, objective assertion).

It's probably why I find Bach so difficult to connect with.


----------



## Guest002

janxharris said:


> Curious to know why you are so sure regarding the emboldened? (I don't disagree - just struck by your bold, objective assertion).
> 
> It's probably why I find Bach so difficult to connect with.


I don't want to answer for isorhythm, and I have nothing to validate the contents of what's about to come, but I just found this quite interesting.

Especially the bit about Peter Maxwell-Davis. It's probably why I find _him_ difficult to connect with, too!


----------



## 1996D

NLAdriaan said:


> You might call it 'Internet Identity'.
> 
> The anonymity on internet forums allows users to use fake identities, we all do it here. It creates a social network built on quicksand. No responsibility involved. You can start fires just for fun and even sabotage the fire brigade. This ruins any discussion but the arsonist will never be hold responsible. So, the level of discussion will always remain limited as long as anonymity is the rule.
> 
> It's one of the flipsides of the original internet idea. Communicating around the world for everyone offers both great opportunities and great threats and unfortunately limited threads.


There's a lot to gain from this thread, people aren't faking at all, you can see who they are quite clearly. You have to have an intuition for it and funnily it's like the art we're discussing.

You can't hide the soul, even if you lie, that's why the artist is always in his art, just as the person is always in the post.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *EdwardBast*_Sounds like you are inching toward the obvious conclusion: *The so-called "argument" has no precise nature. *MR has stated *opposed and mutually annihilating positions* based on expediency; Called out for one error he quickly makes a different one in attempting to cover his tracks. *I wish there were a simple term for this kind of bad-faith online argumentation.*_



NLAdriaan said:


> You might call it 'Internet Identity'. The anonymity on internet forums allows users to use fake identities, we all do it here. It creates a social network built on quicksand. No responsibility involved. You can start fires just for fun and even sabotage the fire brigade. This ruins any discussion but the arsonist will never be hold responsible. So, the level of discussion will always remain limited as long as anonymity is the rule. It's one of the flipsides of the original internet idea. Communicating around the world for everyone offers both great opportunities and great threats and unfortunately limited threads.


What on earth are you guys complaining about? _Why does a discussion have to have "a precise nature?"_ *Ever heard of a think-tank?*

"Mutually annihilating positions?" "Errors?" What rigid concepts of discussion! "Bad-faith argumentation?" I have no idea where these overly-rigid and stultifying discussion parameters came from.

If it's part of "edjumucation," then I want no part of it. You guys need to seek out like-minded thinkers at places like Oxford University if you want to indulge in this kind of rigidly-defined argumentation. You guys are something else!


----------



## 1996D

millionrainbows said:


> What on earth are you guys complaining about? Why does a discussion have to have "a precise nature?" Ever heard of a think-tank? "Mutually annihilating positions?" "Errors?" What rigid concepts of discussion! "Bad-faith argumentation?" I have no idea where these overly-rigid and stultifying discussion parameters came from. If it's part of "edjumucation," then I want no part of it. You guys need to seek out like-minded thinkers if you want to indulge in this kind of rigidly-defined argumentation.


This is precisely what this site is, a think tank.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The viewpoint I was expressing was, approximately, *"the inner state of the composer can be totally irrelevant"*....I just think...that it isn't always the case that composers do that. They can play mathematical games; they can play word and letter games; they can do almost anything they like including not conveying a darn'd thing.


I think my example of Babbitt proves otherwise. What the composer or artist conveys will not always be "subjective experience" in a narrative sense, but can be whatever it is that he's interested in revealing in the art. Babbitt's interest in all-interval sets is what he wants to convey, and that's what we share with him, even if communication with an audience was not his intent. If we experience the art, this is an automatic common point.

This Babbitt example lies on the 'outside boundaries' of what I mean by "shared subjective experience," but nonetheless it is a shared experience which is posited by the creator and received by the audience.


----------



## NLAdriaan

isorhythm said:


> ...I think there is clearly a communication from composer to listener (and to performer, along the way), even if it's not straightforward. Obviously, Mahler didn't sit down to write his ninth symphony thinking, "I feel sad," or whatever, and decide to put that in music to convey his feeling to listeners. But obviously the music he wrote reflects his inner experience; he wrote the symphony in the way that seemed right to him, and not some other way, and since his listeners are also human beings like him, there is necessarily some relationship between the inner experience that led Mahler to write his symphony and the inner experience we have listening to it, even if that relationship can't be expressed straightforwardly.


I of course agree to the fact that music is a means of (unilateral) communication. If you read music, you need skills, if you listen to it, you don't, just a set of working ears. Illiterates can enjoy listening to music exactly the same as literates. Music is never of true (auto) biographical nature, as it is not possible to communicate precise information about anyone. Music can at best communicate vague notions, but these are open to interpretation. HIP interpreters are studying manuscripts and information about first contemporary performances and perhaps information about the composer's ideas referring to the piece, not about the state of mind of the composer while composing it. Of course the inspiration for musical pieces comes from the brain of the composer, which also contains his personal set of values and his experiences, trauma's etc. But we don't expect Steven Spielberg to have experienced Jaws, Close encounters, Saving private Ryan, Schindlers list etc and yet he created some impressive movies. And so I am most grateful for each cherished piece of music that are available to me, but it doesn't tell me anything about the composer. If I want to know more about the composer's life, I will read a decent (auto)biography.



> Late 19th century Romanticism is probably the area where this is most obvious, but I think it applies to all music. Bach didn't write his cantatas in order to tell listeners, "I feel devout," but rather to serve a specific function in communal worship. Lots of music doesn't have any obvious social function or emotional valence at all. Nonetheless, every composer necessarily writes the music that feels right.


Romanticism was the logical response to the age of self-exploration, science and separation from state and religion of the time. So, We got more program music, like the Symph fantastique, Wagner's opera's, Mahler's subtitled symphonies, Debussy, Stravinsky. Great music, and maybe tempting to consider them as personal statements, but there is nothing to prove it.



> Here's one of my favorite Bach fugues:
> 
> 
> 
> That subject, with the trill and the immediate, unexpected descent to E natural is very striking to me, almost thrilling. Why? This music doesn't mean anything and isn't about anything. You can't say anything about why Bach wrote the particular music he did here, other than he thought it right - which is to say, he had a particular inner, subjective experience. I have my own inner experience when I hear it. I think it's fair to say some kind of communication has taken place here, even if we can't say anything more about it.


In Bach's time, the bible was about the only available guideline and nobility and religion were in charge. So, Bach's main guideline was a religious one. And we have the most beautiful inspired religious music as a result. But effectively religious music is also program music. Had Bach lived in the romantic era, likely he would have composed different music and maybe on less religious themes. And Bach's more abstract music (KDF, WTK, DMO) can be seen as a more timeless effort, succeeded by the late works by Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt & Mahler, the second Viennese school, Bartok (non folky) Boulez and other modernists....


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Bearing in mind that even computers that genuinely and complete write their own code will still have to have been _built_ by humans (or by a machine/printer that was built by humans... it's turtles all the way down!), you will never be able to say 'no humans were involved anywhere in the production of this'. That is the nature of the world we inhabit, after all. But you don't have to exclude _all_ human input. If the amount of direct human input in the production of output X is reduced to trivially small levels, that's good enough for me to make the point that X cannot possibly be conveying 'a message', an emotion or any form of sensory experience.
> 
> And I'm afraid, I'll have my cake and eat it anyway! Even if it is 100% true that computer art is a complete red herring, it's not necessary to cite it to find examples of art that _can_ exist without it conveying 'human sensory experience'.


My definition of art is very general, loose, and forgiving. It must be produced by human beings for other human beings, though. That is the one requirement, however tenuous that might be. And it doesn't have to communicate 'sensory experience' in a direct way; it can communicate, by enabling and manifesting "ideas" of art, however vague or undefined in specific ways.

Something like Brian Eno's 77 Million Paintings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77_Million_Paintings, although the images are produced by computers, still has the original intent of "producing the effects of paintings," and so *is an idea for generating art *that can never escape that fact of its "subjective heredity."

Even when Pierre Boulez and John Cage tried to "remove their personalities" from their art by creating "self-generating systems" instead of using their own "ideas", these works are still tied to *the idea of making art,* which is presented by an artist with this intent to remove himself.

As such, this is _*conceptual art,*_ since it deals with *the idea of art* more directly than *the creation of an "art object"* which is tied to the artist's subjectivity as a "medium" of his expression. Here, the "medium" or art object is not as relevant as the generating "idea" which generates the medium.

In this way, 99% of the "subjective content" is removed from the art, and so the specific manifestation of the art as "object" or "container" is almost nullified out of existence, but not quite: it still exists as the artist's idea.

Eno's "77 Million Paintings" is a software "object" which creates "the idea" of painting after painting. Still, it's subject to the foibles of being "created" by Eno, and has all the parameters built-in which he put there. This is just like John Cage's "Concert for Piano and Orchestra" in which all events are generated randomly; yet, this is John Cage's "idea" of a piano concerto from which he has "removed himself."


----------



## Luchesi

NLAdriaan said:


> I of course agree to the fact that music is a means of (unilateral) communication. If you read music, you need skills, if you listen to it, you don't, just a set of working ears. Illiterates can enjoy listening to music exactly the same as literates. Music is never of true (auto) biographical nature, as it is not possible to communicate precise information about anyone. Music can at best communicate vague notions, but these are open to interpretation. HIP interpreters are studying manuscripts and information about first contemporary performances and perhaps information about the composer's ideas referring to the piece, not about the state of mind of the composer while composing it. Of course the inspiration for musical pieces comes from the brain of the composer, which also contains his personal set of values and his experiences, trauma's etc. But we don't expect Steven Spielberg to have experienced Jaws, Close encounters, Saving private Ryan, Schindlers list etc and yet he created some impressive movies. And so I am most grateful for each cherished piece of music that are available to me, but it doesn't tell me anything about the composer. If I want to know more about the composer's life, I will read a decent (auto)biography.
> 
> Romanticism was the logical response to the age of self-exploration, science and separation from state and religion of the time. So, We got more program music, like the Symph fantastique, Wagner's opera's, Mahler's subtitled symphonies, Debussy, Stravinsky. Great music, and maybe tempting to consider them as personal statements, but there is nothing to prove it.
> 
> In Bach's time, the bible was about the only available guideline and nobility and religion were in charge. So, Bach's main guideline was a religious one. And we have the most beautiful inspired religious music as a result. But effectively religious music is also program music. Had Bach lived in the romantic era, likely he would have composed different music and maybe on less religious themes. And Bach's more abstract music (KDF, WTK, DMO) can be seen as a more timeless effort, succeeded by the late works by Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt & Mahler, the second Viennese school, Bartok (non folky) Boulez and other modernists....


^^^^^^^
"it is not possible to communicate precise information about anyone. Music can at best communicate vague notions, but these are open to interpretation."

Precise information? A painter can look at someone's painting and see the elements and how they did it and all the brush stroke technique etc.. How they achieved the human communication (if they were successful). 

A musician can look at someone's score and tell how they did it with all the notes and groupings and counterpoint. It's right there for them, PRECISELY! How they achieved the human communication (if they were successful). I think this is what keeps painters and musicians fascinated, decade after decade.


----------



## isorhythm

These various kinds of artistic production in which the artists attempt to "remove themselves" from the product serve to demonstrate that conventional artistic production is indeed bound up in the artist's subjectivity - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to go to these extreme lengths, with computers, the I Ching, etc, to negate it.

I want to try to clarify my post from last night a bit. What I was trying to say is that the subjective, inner experience of the artist and recipient need not have any qualities that we can describe with words at all. So it may not be possible to describe Bach's experience when he composed his F sharp major fugue with any specificity beyond "the way Bach felt when he composed his F sharp major fugue." Likewise, it may not be possible to describe how I feel when I listen to it with any specificity beyond "the way I feel when I hear Bach's F sharp major fugue." Even if we can't say any more about it than that, I would argue that Bach has communicated something to me - though, to be clear, I'm not claiming Bach has directly communicated to me the feeling he had when he composed the fugue.

Of course music does trigger all kinds of emotional reactions, along with private associations, memories, desires, even altered states, and so on, and all that is part of the communication I'm describing. But it's not necessary to be able to to describe any of it with any specificity to say that communication has occurred, and that it involves the subjective inner experience of both the artist and the recipient.



janxharris said:


> Curious to know why you are so sure regarding the emboldened? (I don't disagree - just struck by your bold, objective assertion).
> 
> It's probably why I find Bach so difficult to connect with.


Maybe I went too far - all I meant is that it doesn't have any extra-musical program, and doesn't seem intended to convey a particular emotion. I suppose Bach would have said that, like all music, it's "about" glorifying God, and I might even share a version of this belief.


----------



## Luchesi

isorhythm said:


> These various kinds of artistic production in which the artists attempt to "remove themselves" from the product serve to demonstrate that conventional artistic production is indeed bound up in the artist's subjectivity - otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to go to these extreme lengths, with computers, the I Ching, etc, to negate it.
> 
> I want to try to clarify my post from last night a bit. What I was trying to say is that the subjective, inner experience of the artist and recipient need not have any qualities that we can describe with words at all. So it may not be possible to describe Bach's experience when he composed his F sharp major fugue with any specificity beyond "the way Bach felt when he composed his F sharp major fugue." Likewise, it may not be possible to describe how I feel when I listen to it with any specificity beyond "the way I feel when I hear Bach's F sharp major fugue." Even if we can't say any more about it than that, I would argue that Bach has communicated something to me - though, to be clear, I'm not claiming Bach has directly communicated to me the feeling he had when he composed the fugue.
> 
> Of course music does trigger all kinds of emotional reactions, along with private associations, memories, desires, even altered states, and so on, and all that is part of the communication I'm describing. But it's not necessary to be able to to describe any of it with any specificity to say that communication has occurred, and that it involves the subjective inner experience of both the artist and the recipient.
> 
> Maybe I went too far - all I meant is that it doesn't have any extra-musical program, and doesn't seem intended to convey a particular emotion. I suppose Bach would have said that, like all music, it's "about" glorifying God, and I might even share a version of this belief.


 For me, feelings are just one third of appreciation. There's self expression using the works for an audience, or just personally at home by yourself. There's the analysis in which you objectively appreciate the achievement with the notes and the historical backdrop, etc. on and on. Always comparing composers and their place in history AND the parallels in the master works. It's an endless source of appreciation. Casual listening seems to me to be just transitory.


----------



## isorhythm

Now addressing the second theme of this thread, whether musical merit is subjective or objective. For convenience I'll focus on this one of many similar posts:



Strange Magic said:


> Here is Post #138 from the Who is Your Favorite of the Big Three thread where this topic was discussed _as nauseum_ for the umpteenth time. It represents one of the many dozens of times I have made the same observation. Some come new to the topic, thinking their ideas are fresh and vital--I am fascinated by the idea of unperceived realities or whatever it is. But it's the same old same old. Who is late to the party?
> 
> "I'll not comment further on this topic other than to again say that it is obviously of great comfort to almost all of us (you) to believe that whatever music, or art, we love and hold dear is also held dear by others. Some of those others we respect a priori; others gain our respect by liking what we like and telling us that they like it for the very same reasons we do. If they like it for different reasons, we can deal with that as long as they say they like it also. It becomes then concerning when peers or authority figures don't like what we like; it puts our thinking in doubt: Am I wrong to like this? A troubling idea.
> 
> My own experience and my observation of the remarks of others clearly indicate to me that I am an outlier in believing in the primacy and the validity of my own opinions about what is "good" (I like it) or bad (I don't like it) in music and the arts. What is art for, for the vast majority of its "consumers"? Is it to acquire a reputation (like an oenophile) for the excellence of one's taste? *The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?*
> 
> My esthetics is all about UHURU--freedom--to interact directly with music, literature, art unburdened by the clutter of bad, good, better, best, and the whole notion that there is something/anything in the art itself that radiates out like a force field but that only those with the proper sensors can detect, but that, if truly inherent and objective, should be obvious and detectable by anyone. My philosophy also permits anyone to construct any sort of fantastic theory about what is good/bad/great/greater. We all do it, but most fail (in my opinion) to recognize how subjective it all is. Art is like ice cream: many flavors. Which is The Best?"


I'll start by saying it looks like you have some deeply rooted beliefs about the basic nature of reality that I'm not likely to uproot in a forum post, but for what it's worth....

Generally when we say something is an objective fact we mean it can be observed by anyone, as in a scientific observation. When we say the gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s^2, we mean anyone, regardless of cultural background, personal proclivities, etc., can do an experiment and observe the same value. (Worth noting that an _objective_ observation is necessarily _inter-subjective_, to use a word millionrainbows introduced earlier - we need multiple subjects to compare notes before we have an objective observation.)

A purely subjective statement might be something along the lines of your ice cream flavor or wine example.

If I understand you correctly, you believe these are the only kinds of statements that are possible. Statements about the merit of works of art aren't objective in the way scientific observations are; therefore, they are the same as ice cream flavor preferences. This determination not to recognize anything other than laws of physics and "I like chocolate" leads you to self-evident absurdities like the part I've bolded, though I can't tell if you meant that earnestly or not.

What many of us are interested in is why human beings have had similar reactions to, and reached similar judgments about, works of art in overwhelming numbers. You, obviously, are not interested in this, which is fine, but for some reason you feel that no one else should be interested in it either and spend a lot of time scolding people who are, and ascribing to them various unflattering motivations drawn from your own imagination. In fact I think mostly we're just trying to understand why people consistently react to art the way they do.

My view is that there are categories of truth other than objective observations and subjective preferences, and statements about aesthetics fall into one such category.

I wouldn't go as far as AbsolutelyBaching as to say that merit or significance is "inherent" in a work, because: if we imagined a universe in which humans never existed, and through sheer chance some molecules formed themselves into the score of Mahler's 9th Symphony, I'm comfortable saying that wouldn't be anything.

However, we're in a universe in which humans do exist, there is such a thing as human nature, and some works of art speak to that nature better than others. I just don't think it's significant at all that this isn't measurable, or that you couldn't identify a "best" artist. I don't know why those would be necessary conditions for true statements. But again, I suspect we're bumping up against a difference in our basic ideas about reality.

(Morals would be another category of truths, by the way - I'm comfortable saying that it really is wrong to commit murder, for example, but you may feel that's just, like, my opinion, man.)


----------



## 1996D

> The corollary question arises: if art or composer A is objectively better/greater than art or composer B, then how can one justify listening to or looking at the work of B. Is one slumming when one listens to (your third tier composer or piece here) rather than (your paragon here)?


Because there is a thing as getting bored of a piece - I'd love to listen to Mozart only but he only has so many works. By measure of genius though he is on a level of his own, with Beethoven being more vigorous and with a story for the ages, but not more talented.

The top three is easy to rank and is agreed upon - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach. With the first two tied in first place.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Because there is a thing as getting bored of a piece - I'd love to listen to Mozart only but he only has so many works. By measure of genius though he is on a level of his own.


By _your_ measure 1996D.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Because there is a thing as getting bored of a piece - I'd love to listen to Mozart only but he only has so many works. By measure of genius though he is on a level of his own, with Beethoven being more vigorous and with a story for the ages, but not more talented.
> 
> The top three is easy to rank and is agreed upon - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach. With the first two tied in first place.


The top three is not agreed upon, but you are free to choose them as yours.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> By _your_ measure 1996D.


By pure talent he is alone at the top, objectively, not by taste. He wrote masterpieces as an 18 and 19 year old, it took Beethoven and Bach much more work and time.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> By pure talent he is alone at the top, objectively, not by taste. He wrote masterpieces as an 18 and 19 year old, it took Beethoven and Bach much more work and time.


You would need to demonstrate this. You haven't.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> You would need to demonstrate this. You haven't.


Mozart wrote his 3rd and 4th violin concertos as a 19 year old, they are mature masterpieces. His symphony No. 25 as a 17 year old and his 29th as an 18 year old.

Beethoven and Bach didn't write anything significant until their 30s.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Mozart wrote his 3rd and 4th violin concertos as a 19 year old, they are mature masterpieces. His symphony No. 25 as a 17 year old and his 29th as an 18 year old.
> 
> Beethoven and Bach didn't write anything significant until their 30s.


You have expressed your appreciation of these three composers.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> The top three is easy to rank and is agreed upon - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach. With the first two tied in first place.


The top three are there as a result of popularity contests. We've measured popularity very, very well. Our ability to measure compositional talents? Meh, not so much if at all. Self-fulfilling prophecies always come true and are a great comfort for many.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> The top three are there as a result of popularity contests. We've measured popularity very, very well. Our ability to measure compositional talents? Meh, not so much if at all. Self-fulfilling prophecies always come true and are a great comfort for many.


I'm not measuring popularity, as a composer I'm telling you that what Mozart did as a teenager was remarkable - exceptional - unmatched.

These are skills that have a tangible level of difficulty and he did it at master level at an impossible age.

You can be as cowardly as you like when refusing to see objectivity in the world today, but not with Mozart's talent.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> I'm not measuring popularity, as a composer I'm telling that what Mozart did as a teenager was remarkable - exceptional - unmatched.
> 
> These are skills that have a tangible level of difficulty and he did it at master level at an impossible age.
> 
> You can be as cowardly as you like when refusing to see objectivity in the world today, but not with Mozart's talent.


Oh I recognize his talent, yet I don't see it as more remarkable than the stories of scores of other talented composers and it doesn't make his music any "better" compositionally than their music. I once knew a composer who could sight read a figured bass line in tempo and not make one mistake in voice leading....a mad musical skill for sure.* He also once conducted a major symphony orchestra in a performance of Brahms' Fourth - from memory! Yet those mad musical skills didn't make his compositions better than his contemporaries.

We "like" what we are trained to like....mimicing the organ grinder's monkey.

*That's filling in the other three voices "on the fly" so to speak. Try it sometime!!!!!


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> Oh I recognize his talent, yet I don't see it as more remarkable than the stories of scores of other talented composers and it doesn't make his music any "better" compositionally than their music. I once knew a composer who could sight read a figured bass line in tempo and not make one mistake in voice leading....a mad musical skill for sure. *He also once conducted a major symphony orchestra in a performance of Brahms' Fourth - from memory!* Yet those mad musical skills didn't make his compositions better than his contemporaries.
> 
> We "like" what we are trained to like....mimicing the organ grinder's monkey.


I can do that too, the memory part, there is nothing remarkable about it, no skill, it's just a gift, and a pretty useless one other than to not forget what you come up with. Mozart had a thousand gifts like that one, and he didn't go mad from them.

It isn't just one aspect, he's good at everything, and his creativity is what really sets him apart. He not only keeps inventing like Bach but has the ability to hear only the most beautiful melody in his head; he can stop all the madness and take only the best part.

I can picture the little man hearing music in his head all day, and he somehow doesn't go mad from it.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> I can do that too, the memory part, there is nothing remarkable about it, no skill, it's just a gift, and a pretty useless one. Mozart had a thousand gifts like that one, and he didn't go mad from them.
> 
> It isn't just one aspect, he's good at everything, and his creativity is what really sets him apart. He not only keeps inventing like Bach but has the ability to hear only the most beautiful melody in his head; he can stop all the madness and take only the best part.


Soooooo many composers I could name who can do all that too. WAM is a remarkable talent in a sea of remarkable talents. The longer I've done compostition, the more I see this as being true. If you wish to put him on a pedestal, be my guest, but I don't agree. You can't buy the 20mm wide field musical plossl, it only comes with experience.

And no, I don't believe you could conduct any major symphony orchestra, with or without score!


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> Soooooo many composers I could name who can do all that too. WAM is a remarkable talent in a sea of remarkable talents. The longer I've done compostition, the more I see this as being true. If you wish to put him on a pedestal, be my guest, but I don't agree. You can't buy the 20mm wide field musical plossl, it only comes with experience.
> 
> And no, I don't believe you could conduct any major symphony orchestra, with or without score!


I've never tried conducting, the memory part was the reference.

No other composer has written at Mozart's level at that age, he is alone at the top in skill, and the composers you're defending would be the first to tell you. Bach might dig just as deep and Beethoven has the triumphant story, but Mozart is why the classical period is called that - the entire genre is named after him. Just think about that.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> I've never tried conducting, the memory part was the reference.
> 
> No other composer has written at Mozart's level at that age, he is alone at the top in skill, and the composers you're defending would be the first to tell you. Bach might dig just as deep and Beethoven has the triumphant story, but Mozart is why the classical period is called that - the entire genre is named after him. Just think about that.


You do realize that Haydn existed, right? And was composing successfully prior to WAM, and had just as much or more influence on Beethoven than WAM? I find most of their music sounds the same and for the age rather interchangable.

It's ok to go through a fawning stage, it can even lead to the acquisition of musical skills and the advancement of knowlegde, all good. The fawning comes down with age/perspective however. Enjoy!


----------



## isorhythm

When people call Mozart one of the greatest composers ever it's not because he got started very young, however impressive that may be. Why fixate on that?


----------



## 1996D

isorhythm said:


> When people call Mozart one of the greatest composers ever it's not because he got started very young, however impressive that may be. Why fixate on that?


Why can't you put yourself in his shoes? The reason he got so good is because he had it all from an early age, and his powers just continued to grow. His late symphonies are unmatched, they are the technical pinnacle of music.

He didn't have the come-from-behind, underdog life that Beethoven did, so perhaps they aren't as inspiring as the latter's 9th, but technique-wise they are unmatched. Haffner, Linzer, Prager, Jupiter; they are so perfect you just want to give up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Room2201974 said:


> You do realize that Haydn existed, right? And was composing successfully prior to WAM, and had just as much or more influence on Beethoven than WAM? I find most of their music sounds the same and for the age rather interchangable.


Excuse me? I find many of their works (circa. early 1770s) more valuable than much of the later music regularly discussed on this forum. For example, I find the expressions in the harmony at [ 6:47 ] and the part-writing at [ 7:50 ] in this missa brevis astounding. At least they knew how to keep things concise, and at the same time vary expression subtly within pre-existing techniques and in unique ways.










*[ 8:03 ]*









Sorry, I think it's about time the phrase "their music sounds the same" should be used to describe certain late 19th/20th symphonists who just can't keep their long-winded utterances under 1 hour every time, who always invariably end up sounding like generic film music. (I won't mention the specific names).



Tchaikov6 said:


> There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies.


 lol


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> Why can't you put yourself in his shoes? The reason he got so good is because he had it all from an early age, and his powers just continued to grow. His late symphonies are unmatched, they are the technical pinnacle of music.
> 
> He didn't have the come-from-behind, underdog life that Beethoven did, so perhaps they aren't as inspiring as the latter's 9th, but technique-wise they are unmatched. Haffner, Linzer, Prager, Jupiter; they are so perfect you just want to give up.


He was good, but how do we put one of these composers above another? Limit ourselves to their early works? The most prolific? Level of passion?, according to our expectations today?


----------



## Knorf

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I think it's about time the phrase "their music sounds the same" should be used to describe certain late 19th/20th symphonists who just can't keep their long-winded utterances under 1-hour every time, who always invariably end up sounding like generic film music. (I won't mention the specific names).


Hang on. You're holding it against these unnamed late 19th and 20th century symphonists that their music was, years later, blatantly stolen, imitated, and otherwise appropriated by film score composers?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

What of the music you cannot possess ? Try to , and it will vanish . The disingenuous will proclaim it never existed , and their insistence on this exposes the deceit .


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> Why can't you put yourself in his shoes? The reason he got so good is because he had it all from an early age, and his powers just continued to grow. His late symphonies are unmatched, they are the technical pinnacle of music.
> 
> He didn't have the come-from-behind, underdog life that Beethoven did, so perhaps they aren't as inspiring as the latter's 9th, but technique-wise they are unmatched. Haffner, Linzer, Prager, Jupiter; they are so perfect you just want to give up.


Everyone is entitled to define perfection as they see it - but you are arrogating it as objective truth.

What is the significance of the "Mozart is overrated" attitude?


----------



## Couchie

1996D said:


> I'm not measuring popularity, as a composer I'm telling you that what Mozart did as a teenager was remarkable - exceptional - unmatched.
> 
> These are skills that have a tangible level of difficulty and he did it at master level at an impossible age.
> 
> You can be as cowardly as you like when refusing to see objectivity in the world today, but not with Mozart's talent.


Mendelssohn was more naturally talented than even Mozart. There, I said it. Some of his greatest masterpieces were written before age 18. A feat even Mozart doesn't match.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Everyone is entitled to define perfection as they see it - but you are arrogating it as objective truth.
> What is the significance of the "Mozart is overrated" attitude?


I don't know what you're trying to say by citing that thread. Because vast majority of people who do call Mozart overrated don't deny the "technical perfection" (or whatever you want to call it), but the "artistry of the style". 
Your favorite phrase: _"but you are arrogating it as objective truth."_ Don't you feel you're overusing it a bit too much? I'm starting to feel you sound like a flat-earther of classical music. I think you got to accept some things that are the "general consensus" in classical music. If you can't, I guess there's no point we continue talk in depth any further on this matter.









"Sibelius himself remarked that: 'To my mind a Mozart Allegro is the most perfect model for a symphonic movement. Think of its wonderful unity and homogeneity! It is like an uninterrupted flowing, where nothing stands out and nothing encroaches upon the rest.'"
( Sibelius, By Andrew Barnett, Page 183 )
"During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in *solving difficult technical problems.* In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. ..."
(Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, Pages 81~82)
"I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."
(
View attachment 130858
)
"believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."
( Bernstein discusses Mozart symphony No.40 in G minor )


----------



## Knorf

Couchie said:


> Mendelssohn was more naturally talented than even Mozart. There, I said it. Some of his greatest masterpieces were written before age 18. A feat even Mozart doesn't match.


True, that. Piano Sextet, age 15. Octet, age 16. Overture to _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, age 17.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> Mendelssohn was more naturally talented than even Mozart. There, I said it. Some of his greatest masterpieces were written before age 18. A feat even Mozart doesn't match.


Yes. Works Mendelssohn wrote at age 18 and prior are indeed impressive. But I want to point out works Mozart wrote at age 16, 17 are just as interesting in terms of melody/harmony/counterpoint, if not more:


















Look at the chromaticism of Et incarnatus est (from Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 [ 9:47 ~ 11:50 ] ). Isn't it masterful:











hammeredklavier said:


> I find the Et vitam venturi (17:39) from Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 remarkable how, in the middle of the fugal development, Mozart starts to gradually hint, nudge, and wink at the original Credo material (18:42) with strings, and uses the material to eventually reach a climax (19:19). Not sure how to describe it, but it conceptually reminds me of what the piano does in the midst of orchestral tutti in the beginning of Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No.2 (albeit they're completely different in style and genre).
> [17:39]


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say by citing that thread. Because vast majority of people who do call Mozart overrated don't deny the "technical perfection" (or whatever you want to call it), but the "artistry of the style".
> Your favorite phrase: _"but you are arrogating it as objective truth."_ Don't you feel you're overusing it a bit too much? I'm starting to feel you sound like a flat-earther of classical music. I think you got to accept some things that are the "general consensus" in classical music. If you can't, I guess there's no point we continue talk in depth any further on this matter.
> 
> "Sibelius himself remarked that: 'To my mind a Mozart Allegro is the most perfect model for a symphonic movement. Think of its wonderful unity and homogeneity! It is like an uninterrupted flowing, where nothing stands out and nothing encroaches upon the rest.'"
> ( Sibelius By Andrew Barnett, Page 183 )
> "During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in *solving difficult technical problems.* In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'. In the last years of his life he liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. ..."
> (Wagner: A Biography, By Curt von Westernhagen, Pages 81~82)
> "I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."
> (
> View attachment 130858
> )
> "believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."
> ( Bernstein discusses Mozart symphony No.40 in G minor )


1996D was arguing that composer A *is* objectively better than composer B; there was no caveat:

Can art & music be approached "objectively?"

Your Sibelius citation wasn't accessible - in any case there are moments in Mozart that I enjoy so I'm not sure why you think you need to justify him with quotes from famous composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> Mendelssohn was more naturally talented than even Mozart. There, I said it. Some of his greatest masterpieces were written before age 18. A feat even Mozart doesn't match.


Mozart wrote these at 12:




^K65 is actually good, I listen to it regularly




this one at 13:


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say by citing that thread. Because vast majority of people who do call Mozart overrated don't deny the "technical perfection" (or whatever you want to call it), but the "artistry of the style".


Perhaps you would define 'technical perfection'?


----------



## hammeredklavier

I believe even Mendelssohn didn't write something of this quality at 10:





I also like this _Litaniae Lauretanae de Beate Maria Virgine K195_, from 1774:
III. Salus infirmorum [15:23]
V. Agnus Dei [23:50]




other works from the same year (although I regard K192 to be the best of the bunch):


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Everyone is entitled to define perfection as they see it - but you are arrogating it as objective truth.
> 
> What is the significance of the "Mozart is overrated" attitude?


I'm again not talking about taste, every single composer after him said that he was the best along with Beethoven. If you don't want to accept it as objective truth then that's your screen of 'seeing the world as subjective' refusing to do so.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I'm again not talking about taste, every single composer after him said that he was the best along with Beethoven. If you don't want to accept it as objective truth then that's your screen of 'seeing the world as subjective' refusing to do so.


Obviously not true (viz. Delius, 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers), but even if it were it would not prove that he wrote superior music to other composers.

There is no avoidance of accepting 'objective truth' at all - rather, you have failed to establish your unnecessary assertion.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Obviously not true (viz. Delius, 50 Greatest Composers by 174 Composers), but even if it were it would not prove that he wrote superior music to other composers.
> 
> There is no avoidance of accepting 'objective truth' at all - rather, you have failed to establish your unnecessary assertion.


I wasn't referring to degenerate modernist composers, but true craftsmen of the art. There isn't one great composer who didn't acknowledge Mozart's greatness, Tchaikovsky even compared him to Christ and published it with confidence as a critic.

I'm really getting the feeling that cowardice is the reason anytime someone refuses to see things objectively. What are you afraid of?


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I wasn't referring to degenerate modernist composers, but true craftsmen of the art. There isn't one great composer who didn't acknowledge Mozart's greatness.
> 
> I'm really getting the feeling that cowardice is the reason anytime someone refuses to see things objectively. What are you afraid of?


You didn't deal with what I said - you said every composer - so clearly special pleading 1996D.

This has nothing to do with Mozart's 'greatness' (which I have no trouble accepting though it's nowhere near the level you put it). Your original assertion was that his compositions were superior.

Where is the evidence?


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> You didn't deal with what I said - you said every composer - so clearly special pleading 1996D.
> 
> This has nothing to do with Mozart's 'greatness' (which I have no trouble accepting though it's nowhere near the level you put it). Your original assertion was that his compositions were superior.
> 
> Where is the evidence?


The evidence is there, look at the structure, the incredible melodies, the sublime counterpoint. He has A+ melodies one after the other, while most composers create only a few in a lifetime.


----------



## isorhythm

Is anyone else totally lost about what's being discussed for the last three pages?

Mozart was one of the all-time greatest composers, everyone agrees, right?


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> The evidence is there, look at the structure, the incredible melodies, the sublime counterpoint. He has A+ melodies one after the other, while most composers create only a few in a lifetime.


I rarely think Mozart's melodies are great - for they are dependant on the harmony one uses which in the classical era was extremely derivative (and I'm not the only one to point this out - just analyse the scores). But clearly, this doesn't bother you - which is fine.

I respect your opinion that you think Mozart is the greatest composer. I also respect other people's opinions that differ.


----------



## Knorf

isorhythm said:


> Is anyone else totally lost about what's being discussed for the last three pages?


It's what happens when some knob is a bit too in love with their own opinion.



> Mozart was one of the all-time greatest composers, everyone agrees, right?


As controversial as that seems, I think we probably can. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I rarely think Mozart's melodies are great - for they are dependant on the harmony one uses which in the classical era was extremely derivative (and I'm not the only one to point this out - just analyse the scores).


Haven't we talked about this before? https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-43.html#post1816491


----------



## 1996D

isorhythm said:


> Is anyone else totally lost about what's being discussed for the last three pages?
> 
> Mozart was one of the all-time greatest composers, everyone agrees, right?


That's the point, if we can prove that Mozart is at the very least 'one of the greatest' then art can indeed be approached objectively.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Haven't we talked about this before? https://www.talkclassical.com/65192-favorite-big-three-poll-43.html#post1816491


We have. .


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> Tchaikovsky even compared him to Christ and published it with confidence as a critic.


Although I agree with Room, janxharris, and others that art is subjective to a certain extent, and there's no such thing as absolute objective greatness ('technical perfection' is a different thing), - I also want to point out that people usually forget that 'the reason Tchaikovsky decided to abandon his career in civil service to become a composer' was Mozart. I can't think of any other composer of his caliber who had decided to become a composer himself because of one deceased composer. The dead Mozart even aroused jealousy from Berlioz, (refer to the Berlioz article I cited in Post#473) - inspired him find new ways of expression (which was Romanticism, at the time) to achieve his own greatness.
Obviously Mozart changed the course of Western classical music history by a margin more significant than some people think. And I don't think 'people who like to call anything they don't like "overrated" simply because they don't like it' are intelligent. I think the people show certain lack of understanding of classical music traditions and values. There were philosophies, values, principles majority of the composers upheld regardless of what the people like or dislike.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> I wasn't referring to degenerate modernist composers, but true craftsmen of the art. There isn't one great composer who didn't acknowledge Mozart's greatness, Tchaikovsky even compared him to Christ and published it with confidence as a critic.
> 
> I'm really getting the feeling that cowardice is the reason anytime someone refuses to see things objectively. What are you afraid of?


Bach never appreciated Mozart's music. And neither did Handel.


----------



## Knorf

Going with _ad populam_ arguments to support a claim that art is objectively evaluatable as art is a very bad idea, if you ask me.

Otherwise we'll be stuck with someone like Michael Jackson as the greatest composer who ever lived. Some people might be okay with that. Not me.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> Going with _ad populam_ arguments to support a claim that art is objectively evaluatable as art is a very bad idea, if you ask me.
> 
> Otherwise we'll be stuck with someone like Michael Jackson as the greatest composer who ever lived. Some people might be okay with that. Not me.


Too much of it is obviously bad but too little is even worse; look at the current state of music. You can have an old lady damaging a violin and a couple of chimpanzees banging some drums and it's called art.

There needs to be a reintroduction of common sense.


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> Too much of it is obviously bad but too little is even worse; look at the current state of music. You can have an old lady damaging a violin and a couple of chimpanzees banging some drums and it's called art.
> 
> There needs to be a reintroduction of common sense.


Nice straw man you got there.


----------



## 1996D

Knorf said:


> Nice straw man you got there.


Whether you believe in that doesn't matter, that's what's happening.


----------



## Room2201974

The intellectual pedagogical inbreeding of instrumental training all but *ensures an uneven playing field * and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy of compositional greatness and a belief that it can be objectively measured.

I choose to recognize that uneven playing field and to make adjustments accordingly. Those adjustments do not include dismissing the quality of Mozart's music, rather I seek to lift up many, many, many composers whose music I find just as compelling and meaningful.

46 years later my comp teacher's little joke remains valid:

"What's the most important timing for a composer?"

"Historical!"


----------



## Fabulin

isorhythm said:


> Is anyone else totally lost about what's being discussed for the last three pages?


"1996D vs janxharris" sounds like a premise of a Godzilla movie. Total baking of the brains of onlookers


----------



## Knorf

1996D said:


> Whether you believe in that doesn't matter, that's what's happening.


----------



## 1996D




----------



## 1996D




----------



## Fabulin

Everything fine and dandy, but I would prefer these realist artists to lead the modern world by describing and commenting on modern scenes. When I searched through the website of the art organization recommended in the video, all I found were paintings describing scenes at best 100-years old: for example paintings of glamorous women in attires from the middle of the 19th century, instead of modern ones. Or a realist pastoral scenery from old England instead of a realist vision of a future green city.

It's like choosing to make a composition about the works of Plato instead of about some underappreciated recent philosophical book.


----------



## 1996D

Fabulin said:


> Everything fine and dandy, but I would prefer these realist artists to lead the modern world by describing and commenting on modern scenes. When I searched through the website of the art organization recommended in the video, all I found were paintings describing scenes at best 100-years old: for example paintings of glamorous women in attires from the middle of the 19th century, instead of modern ones. Or a realist pastoral scenery from old England instead of a realist vision of a future green city.
> 
> It's like choosing to make a composition about the works of Plato instead of about some underappreciated recent philosophical book.


Yes I understand that, my most recent work is based on an event that happened not too long ago.


----------



## millionrainbows

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, if you want an echo chamber, go for it. I'm done wasting my time with someone who doesn't have an open mind on the subject.





NLAdriaan said:


> The sole purpose of this thread seems to be a provocation, as anyone who seriously comes along with credible counterarguments, gets cut off for no reason. This is quite sad, as there were enough attempts well above the 'I like my music at 78 rpm only', which we see here all to often.
> 
> MR, you seem to think highly of sincerity, especially with artists, but I begin to wonder about your own. I always considered you as thoughtful and quite open minded, but you are now teaming up with the autocrats here on TC.
> 
> 'Free your mind and your :trp:ss will follow'


_
Does it mean that the statements are subject to change through discussion, or the exact opposite, that to argue would be pointless?

_*Neither. It just means that it's my opinion. That being said, speaking personally, my opinions on certain subjects aren't likely to change through any kind of discussion. *


----------



## millionrainbows

1996D said:


>


The point of this thread was never about "good and bad" value judgements. The above video is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Luchesi

Knorf said:


> It's what happens when some knob is a bit too in love with their own opinion.
> 
> As controversial as that seems, I think we probably can. :lol:


An all-time greatest composer was born every 15 years or so? Going back to the past masters JsB learned from, that's about 25 all-time greats if we stop at 1950 CE (birth).


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Objectivity needs an object . Classical music may be handily objectified when its form is modeled on the gears of a clock .

Yes , it's a beautiful thing and the timing is elegant . Synchro-fabulous counter-point ! 

cuckoo


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what you're trying to say by citing that thread. Because vast majority of people who do call Mozart overrated don't deny the "technical perfection" (or whatever you want to call it), but the "artistry of the style".


Perhaps you missed it - I asked what you meant by "technical perfection" in the context of composition?


----------



## millionrainbows

Perhaps foremost among what Whitehead considered faulty metaphysical assumptions was the Cartesian idea that reality is fundamentally constructed of bits of matter that exist totally independently of one another, which he rejected in favor of an event-based or "process" ontology in which events are primary and are fundamentally interrelated and dependent on one another. He also argued that the most basic elements of reality can all be regarded as experiential, indeed that everything is constituted by its experience. He used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience. In this, he went against Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental. Whitehead referred to his metaphysical system as "philosophy of organism", but it would become known more widely as "process philosophy."


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you missed it - I asked what you meant by "technical perfection" in the context of composition?


I said,



hammeredklavier said:


> I think you got to accept some things that are the "general consensus" in classical music. If you can't, I guess there's no point we continue talk in depth any further on this matter.


But I'll address your pointless question nevertheless.






Regardless of whether they like the style or not - I'm sure everyone can feel the the 'craftsman-like quality' - that every making of melody, harmonic/contrapuntal progression, formulation of structure "feels right" in Mozart. As if there's "not a note out of place". (Whether you like this quality or not is besides the point. Some dislike it saying it relies on it 'lacks self-expression' or 'relies on formula', and that's ok) Not intending to deride these unique mature works of Beethoven (Hammerklavier Sonata), Schubert (Fantasie in F minor for 4 hands), I'll ask:








View attachment 126171


Do you feel the same kind of "perfection" in them? Or, to put in a different way -do you find "moments of compositional struggle" like these Beethoven, Schubert works in Mozart? 
Do I even need to explain these things to you. I'm starting to wonder these days why do I even take you seriously, (I even remember the times when you argued that today's mainstream pop songs actually take skills to write.) Again, if you just don't get this, (considering your level of knowledge and expertise in classical music, it is quite surprising that you don't.) I don't think there's any point we continue discussing this matter any further. Good day to you sir.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I said,
> 
> But I'll address your pointless question nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether they like the style or not - I'm sure everyone can feel the the 'craftsmanship-like quality' - that every making of melody, harmonic/contrapuntal progression, formulation of structure "feels right" in Mozart. As if there's "not a note out of place". (Whether you like this quality or not is besides the point. Some dislike it saying it relies on it 'lacks self-expression' or 'relies on formula', and that's ok) Not intending to deride these unique mature works of Beethoven (Hammerklavier Sonata), Schubert (Fantasie in F minor for 4 hands):
> 
> View attachment 135603
> 
> View attachment 126171
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same kind of "perfection" in them? Or, to put in a different way -do you find "moments of compositional struggle" like these Beethoven, Schubert works in Mozart?
> Do I even need to explain these things to you. I'm starting to wonder these days why do I even take you seriously, (I even remember now those days when you argued with me today's mainstream pop songs actually take skills to write.) Again, if you just don't get this, (even with your knowledge and expertise in classical music, which is quite surprising.) I don't think there's any point we continue discussing this matter any further. Good day to you sir.


 "As if there's "not a note out of place". (Whether you like this quality or not is besides the point.)"

Have you seen examples of notes out of place in other composers? Maybe Schubert? But the instruments of the time would have been a factor.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

millionrainbows said:


> ...Descartes' separation of two different kinds of real existence, either exclusively material or else exclusively mental.


Descarte : _I am not an animal . I write , therefor I eat . Devil-damn the illiterate peasant
who insists the animals can speak ._


----------



## millionrainbows

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Descarte : _I am not an animal. I write , therefore I eat. Devil-damn the illiterate peasant
> who insists the animals can speak._


What about electrons?

Whitehead used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

millionrainbows said:


> What about electrons?
> 
> Whitehead used the term "experience" very broadly, so that even inanimate processes such as electron collisions are said to manifest some degree of experience.


Let it be said then that the electron experience is a plink of music (in smooth space) . Sing along as
though it is true enough .


----------



## Luchesi

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Let it be said then that the electron experience is a plink of music (in smooth space) . Sing along as
> though it is true enough .


What kind of music?


----------



## Flamme




----------



## millionrainbows

I think Whitehead was being very, very general (and generous) in his ascription of inanimate objects as having "experience." But think about it; humans, animals, fish, sea urchins, starfish, coral reefs, plant life, the planet itself, microbes, viruses; who's to say? 

I think Whitehead's ideas would be very disturbing to "objective" rationalists. That's why I mention him. :devil:


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> "As if there's "not a note out of place". (Whether you like this quality or not is besides the point.)"
> 
> Have you seen examples of notes out of place in other composers? Maybe Schubert? But the instruments of the time would have been a factor.


Or maybe you have to have a degree of OCD to know what this means.

I frequently tell people, "I'm not OCD; there's simply a right way and a wrong way to do things."


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> Or maybe you have to have a degree of OCD to know what this means.
> 
> I frequently tell people, "I'm not OCD; there's simply a right way and a wrong way to do things."


In this case, I understand what he typed, but not what you typed. I'm not talking about wrong notes.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Luchesi said:


> What kind of music?


Plink ?.... a music partial , as in a random plink on a mini-fiddle string . Its perception 
by a lonesome human may inspire seemingly irrational singing , and as a chorus of dogs 
might softly whine ... all together now . Yes , that's it .


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> In this case, I understand what he typed, but not what you typed. I'm not talking about wrong notes.


Me either. Stop _overly-specificizing_ what I say.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> Me either. Stop _overly-specificizing_ what I say.


Well, as Oscar Wilde said, "The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young!"

I wouldn't want to be too specific..


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> Well, as Oscar Wilde said, "The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young!"
> 
> I wouldn't want to be too specific..


Oh, I get it. I get it.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I said,
> 
> But I'll address your pointless question nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether they like the style or not - I'm sure everyone can feel the the 'craftsman-like quality' - that every making of melody, harmonic/contrapuntal progression, formulation of structure "feels right" in Mozart. As if there's "not a note out of place". (Whether you like this quality or not is besides the point. Some dislike it saying it relies on it 'lacks self-expression' or 'relies on formula', and that's ok) Not intending to deride these unique mature works of Beethoven (Hammerklavier Sonata), Schubert (Fantasie in F minor for 4 hands), I'll ask:
> 
> View attachment 135603
> 
> View attachment 126171
> 
> 
> Do you feel the same kind of "perfection" in them? Or, to put in a different way -do you find "moments of compositional struggle" like these Beethoven, Schubert works in Mozart?
> Do I even need to explain these things to you. I'm starting to wonder these days why do I even take you seriously, (I even remember the times when you argued that today's mainstream pop songs actually take skills to write.) Again, if you just don't get this, (considering your level of knowledge and expertise in classical music, it is quite surprising that you don't.) I don't think there's any point we continue discussing this matter any further. Good day to you sir.


I asked simply because I think you used the wrong term - 'technical perfection' usually describes a performance that is accurate.

The 40th remains one of the few piece of WAM that I can still enjoy - and agree that there isn't much that seems out of place (though the last movement does not seem anywhere near as inspired imo).

I don't understand why you take such exception to criticism of Mozart - and that you continue to deem all popular music as without talent is baffling. I do consider some 'popular' music highly creative and I'm not alone - look at the harmony of Brian Wilson's _God Only Knows_ or Radiohead's _Paranoid Android_.

You seem to associate skill with the ability to notate a score that is contrapuntally complex. Contrapuntal complexity does not per se constitute great music.

I have probably posted this before but please listen to this instrumental break (Rush - _Freewill_) and comment on whether you think it requires skill or not:


----------



## fluteman

1996D said:


> I wasn't referring to degenerate modernist composers, but true craftsmen of the art. There isn't one great composer who didn't acknowledge Mozart's greatness, Tchaikovsky even compared him to Christ and published it with confidence as a critic.
> 
> I'm really getting the feeling that cowardice is the reason anytime someone refuses to see things objectively. What are you afraid of?


For me, Mozart's music constitutes one of the greatest artistic achievements in all Western Culture. But notice the term "Western Culture" in that sentence, capitalized for easy reference. Mozart's greatness exists in a particular cultural context, steadily and elaborately built up over many centuries. Fortunately for his art's longevity, the Western or European culture in which he lived and worked has not only survived but has grown into the globally dominant culture -- for now. Yet even his grip on the collective Western consciousness has loosened after 230 years.

I read where a Swiss city had a situation where young people would congregate in a central downtown square at night, play loud music, make noise, buy and use drugs and alcohol, commit vandalism, and otherwise act in ways considered undesirable by those in charge. The solution? Play the music of Mozart at night (I assume through a sound system already there for public events held in the square, though I forget that detail). The result? The square immediately became deserted at night.

Those who insist Mozart or Beethoven somehow constitute proof of the objective nature of music remind me of the old saying that fish don't notice the water because they are swimming in it.


----------

