# Art and aesthetics



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Unlike science, in the arts there is no purpose in attempting to assess or objectify the "development of esoteric and non-popular musical styles." This would be akin to making music criticism into a science. "Style," in particular, is a totally subjective matter, because 'style' might be relevant only in reference to a current artistic trend or dominance, or relevant only for a certain time-frame. 

The arts do not accumulate objective knowledge or "progress" as apparently or definitively as science does, since any "progress" that is made in the arts is non-utilitarian, unlike scientific advances such as refrigeration and power-generation. 

The only things which might approach doing this are new technologies such as electronic sound, which actually facilitate the production of new sounds which never existed before, or computers and sound analysis, such as what is being done at IRCAM.

I think a careful distinction must be made between "style" and "language." 

"Language-expanding paradigms" which might "develop" musical styles or language, or make "progress" in some objective way are different from style. If objectively new ways of composing music are developed, I think these should be subsidized and explored, regardless of whether or not we are "entertained" or not; this, I think, is the great misunderstanding of Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen" essay. 

Music is an art which has always involved mathematics and physics (sound), so there is bound to be some overlap or intersection with science and technology. 

Also, the "language" of music itself is subject to mathematical considerations, since in the end it is a "modeling" symbolic language which deals with physics (actual sounds); and, like a language, it can be developed and expanded.

The big disconnect is that we all wish to be entertained; opera is the embodiment of this. We must learn to separate the subjective aspects of art from the objective factors, and realize that art is essentially "useless" in a literal utilitarian way; to say that its "utilitarian purpose" is to "entertain" us is selfish, short-sighted, and unadventurous.

But to develop this attitude takes effort, and a willingness to let things be what they will be, regardless of our own desire to be entertained. 

If we want to be entertained, let us go to those things which entertain us. A broken refrigerator has no purpose if all we wish for it to do is keep things cold. 

The same cannot be said for music which no longer serves our particular purposes. In such cases, we are expected to change our expectations.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Very interesting. I think you are right with this:



> If objectively new ways of composing music are developed, I think these should be subsidized and explored, regardless of whether or not we are "entertained" or not; this, I think, is the great misunderstanding of Babbitt's "Who Cares If You Listen" essay.


But I think we must be very careful in saying that the full respect of this new way or method of composing music is enough to validate the result as a great work of art, as Babbitt seems to claim in a somewhat loose manner in his article (thus, is a matter of interpretation of his article), when he compares the reaction to music with the reaction towards the demonstration of a mathematical theorem.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, if it's "validated as a great work of art," then that implies an audience. Babbitt might consider his music to be "experimental" and as probing & exploring new areas. The "great work of art" is an old paradigm which, according to Cage & Boulez, has outlived its usefulness.


----------

