Music: The Greatest Art form and the least proper form of Art accordin

[StrictlyLogical]

If one grant's the inconsistency, which side of this do you agree with? Is music art or not?

 

"Art" as defined by Objectivism, i.e. that which which satisfies that keen need of Man, as far as I understand how it is defined, does not include Music as such.  Identification of this concept and the concretes underneath it ARE very important to me.  Rand's observation of Man's need for this and hence the proper purpose it serves are very important.

 

I do not care whether the "word" "Art" is equated with the CONCEPT identified as "Art according to Objectivism", WHAT Objectivism identifies, to my mind, could be called anything, but it is something very real and important.

 

 

Although music does not fall within this concept, music is nonetheless enjoyable to experience and requires a great deal of thought and effort to produce, etc..

 

A wider concept including both Art according to Objectivism and things like music, food, fireworks, etc. could be called anything as well, but the label of course would be different.  The word could invoke meanings such as sensation, entertainment, enjoyment...I am not an etymologist but perhaps something like "Sensationaria" would be appropriate.  It would include those things which are enjoyable but arepresentational such as food and fireworks, but also could include proper art according to Objectivism.

 

One may however argue that Sensationaria, should not include Art according to Objectivism, but instead be a separate category of activity altogether... and that perhaps no other category other than "activity" subsumes them both.  

[softwareNerd]

Although music does not fall within this concept, music is nonetheless enjoyable to experience and requires a great deal of thought and effort to produce, etc..

Thanks for clarifying. To summarize what you're saying (to make sure I understand):

• That there ought to be a concept that includes various things that humans enjoy -- music, fireworks, food (at least the non-utilitarian aspects) -- but, which excludes values that are traditionally termed "utilitarian". (suggested term = "Sensationaria")
• That there's another concept that includes literature, paintings, sculpture (perhaps denoted by the term "Art"), but not including music
• The first concept may or may not include the second

[StrictlyLogical]

 

Thanks for clarifying. To summarize what you're saying (to make sure I understand):

• That there ought to be a concept that includes various things that humans enjoy -- music, fireworks, food (at least the non-utilitarian aspects) -- but, which excludes values that are traditionally termed "utilitarian". (suggested term = "Sensationaria")
• That there's another concept that includes literature, paintings, sculpture (perhaps denoted by the term "Art"), but not including music
• The first concept may or may not include the second

 

 

Almost:

 

• That there ought to be a concept that includes various things that humans enjoy -- music, fireworks, food, written material, visual material, and 3d material (suggested term = "Sensationaria")
• That there's another concept that includes literature, paintings, sculpture (perhaps denoted by the term "Art"), but not including music, non-literary writing, arepresentational visual presentation or arepresentational 3d material
• The first concept may or may not include the second

 

You have introduced the concept of "utilitarian", and well it's not part of my original thought... although it may be relevant it may complicate things.  The issue is Art serving Man's need IS very useful, and indeed enjoyment may be "useful" to a man as occasional relaxation and reward for leading a proper life. 

 

NOTE:

 

There are also things such as noise, meaningless ramblings, random colorings and random geometries which are, in additional to being meaningless, simply unenjoyable "nothings".  I would exclude these, Zeros, if you will, from Sensationaria.  In all likelihood since the enjoyment from Sensationaria is primarily subjective, what qualifies as the zeros will likely ONLY be very indiscernible type things having no recognizable subparts, features, composition, no pattern, no distinguishable ANYTHING etc.  If someone loves white noise, silence or a blank page... then they like something outside of Sensationaria.  (what a silly "word")

Edited August 8, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Nicky]

All I am asking for is some (excuse the redundancy) "independent thought".

If you want me to think, give me something to think about.

When you claim that Objectivism doesn't consider music art, there's nothing to think about. It's just a factually false statement. The only rational response is to point out that obvious fact.

But fine, we moved on from that. Now you've accepted that Objectivism does consider music art, but that this is inconsistent with the Objectivist definition of art. Excellent. But, alas, you're still not saying anything that requires thought to counter. Now, you're making an unsupported claim. The appropriate response to an unsupported claim is, again, to dismiss it without further thought, maybe direct you to facts or arguments that contradict it. In this case Ayn Rand went to great lengths to argue that music is intelligible and rich with meaning in The Romantic Manifesto, and you have never attempted to address her arguments (or shown any sign that you know about them).

So back your claim up with some arguments, or counter Rand's arguments. Clearly identify the inconsistency. I promise to give it all the thought it warrants. (of course, if you now proceed to plainly claim that music is unintelligible and leave it at that, that won't require much thought on my part either, because that's another factually false claim - all I need to do is point to a piece of music that is intelligible, and in fact conveys deep meaning a competent listener can unequivocally identify; I can do that without further thought, I already have a piece in mind).

P.S. In Philosophy, the vast, overwhelming majority of independent thought stems from ignorance, not a desire to think. That kind of independent thought is a waste of time. All you'd have to do is look at how the issue you're "independently thinking" about has been addressed already, to realize that others are miles and miles ahead of you. Most independent thinkers would be better served doing less independent thinking, and more understanding of what's already been well thought through.

That there ought to be a concept that includes various things that humans enjoy -- music, fireworks, food, written material, visual material, and 3d material (suggested term = "Sensationaria")

That there's another concept that includes literature, paintings, sculpture (perhaps denoted by the term "Art"), but not including music, non-literary writing, arepresentational visual presentation or arepresentational 3d material

That's the distinction Rand makes, with a couple of differences. The first difference is she includes music in the second category, and you don't. The second difference is that she makes the case for her choice. You're not, you just said it and moved on. Edited August 8, 2013 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

You have introduced the concept of "utilitarian", and well it's not part of my original thought... although it may be relevant it may complicate things.  The issue is Art serving Man's need IS very useful, and indeed enjoyment may be "useful" to a man as occasional relaxation and reward for leading a proper life.

I used the term to distinguish this concept from the very general concept of "value". A lot of things are of value to humans. Medicine and exercise and a very basic meal that one is eating primarily for nourishment are examples of human values. However, I assume you would not include in your concept of "sensationaria". So, what is the distinguishing factors that is common to this class? For instance, would a back-rub be part of the class?

[Jonathan13]

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Saying that something is so according to Objectivism implies that Rand said it's so.

 

Please note that you have two assumptions and a conclusion. But only one of the assumptions has a quotation mark around it. The other one is a personal opinion you have that Ayn Rand explicitly disagreed with. Ayn Rand did not consider music unintelligible, quite the opposite:

Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity. -The Romantic Manifesto

 

Intelligible. Meaningful. Straw man. Comment?

 

 

On this thread, I've already commented, twice, on Rand's (and her followers') bald assertions that music "communicates" intelligible subjects and meanings. You haven't addressed the substance of my comments. Here they are again:

 

No one has supported with evidence the claim that music "communicates" emotions. No one has objectively proven it. The fact that one may feel emotions while listening to music doesn't mean that those emotions have been "communicated."

Communication is the act of conveying specific, intended information from one party to another.

So, as I said in my last post, in order to prove the claim that music communicates emotions, one would have to do much more than just baldly assert it. One would have to scientifically demonstrate that listeners can objectively identify composers' intended subjects and meanings in works of music without those listeners having access to "outside considerations" such as titles, verbal descriptions of meaning, or other clues that are not contained in the music. Every time that I've tested Objectivists in different online forums over the years, and challenged them to identify meanings in music, none of them have succeeded. Ever. And they usually have wildly differing opinions about which emotions they believe the music has "communicated."

Meanwhile, fans of abstract art are often quite consistent in being in agreement with their interpretations of what the expressiveness of the forms and colors mean.

The bald Objectivist assertions that music "communicates" emotions and that abstract art is meaningless don't hold up when tested in reality.

 

People often imagine that they're identifying a composer's subject and meaning in a work of music when they're actually unknowingly doing nothing but relying on "outside considerations" -- titles, verbal descriptions, etc. But in reality, when they are tested with music that they've never heard before, and when they are denied all access to such outside information, they fail.

 

As an aside, Jonathan, sometime 4 years ago, when you were still speaking for yourself instead of Objectivism, someone named anonrobt explained why you're wrong in a single, short paragraph:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=35

To which you replied:

This shows  that you know what the Objectivist position is. You even claim that Objectivists who don't see your brand of "visual art" as art have an objective reason for it: they are physically not equipped to understand the supposed meaning, while they do understand the meaning in music. 

No, that's not my position. I've never said that anyone is "physically not equipped" to understand anything. It's a mental issue, not a physical issue. It is a cognitive bias in which unknowledgeable individuals believe that everyone else necessarily must share their personal intellectual or aesthetic limitations.

 

And it's not only an issue of people imposing the own personal limitations on others in regard to abstract visual compositions. In this post on the thread that I linked to ealier I gave the example of an Objectivist denying my ability to identify perspective errors in a realistic painting. Her denial, and her accusation that I was just rationalizing "some explanation" that I had "come up with" to "justify an opinion" was based on nothing but the fact that she didn't have the knowledge required to see the perspective errors, and therefore she apparently believed that anyone who claimed to see them was full of shit and just talking gibberish (to borrow the terms that you used in your last post to me).

 

 

 

P.S. Regarding the response to your claims in the thread I linked to, and the response to the implications in this thread, about there being no difference between music and colorful, unrecognizable shapes on a canvas, that would take way too much research to discuss with any substance. That kind of effort would only be warranted if people expressed an honest interest to explore the issue, instead of just an agenda to indict Objectivism. To be honest, I haven't found such a conversation on any of the Objectivist forums, thus far. 

 

Objectivists seem to be content with noting that there is clear meaning in music, and that there doesn't seem to be any in non-objective paintings (and this latter conclusion isn't just based on us personally not seeing any meaning; it's based on people who claim to see meaning being full of shit, and either copying each other's gibberish, or just openly admitting that the paintings "mean" different things to different viewers: a contradiction in terms)

 

As I've said repeatedly, when tested in reality, works of music "mean" different things to different Objectivists. When I've tested Objectivists without allowing them access to "outside considerations," they've very rarely been capable of even attempting to identify a subject and meaning, or of offering anything but a vague claim of having experienced some sort of unidentifiable emotion, but on the very rare occasions when they have offered something resembling a coherent description of what they interpreted the music to mean, they've differ wildly from each other and none of them have succeeded in identifying the composers' actual subject and meaning. And then they accused their fellow Objectivists who disagree with their interpretations of being wrong. They always seem to assume their own infallibility, and it never seems to occur to them that haven't attempted to verify whether or not meaning has actually been communicated versus that they've merely had a subjective emotional response to stimuli and that no one else had the same response.

So, again, the onus of proof is on you. Your, and Rand's, bald assertion that music "communicates" "intelligible" subjects and meanings must be backed up with evidence. You must prove that people identify composers' subjects and meanings without having any access to "outside considerations," and that they're not just "full of shit, and either copying each other's gibberish, or just openly admitting that the [music] 'means' different things to different [listeners]."

Objectivism stresses the importance of proving one's assertions. Show me the proof.

J

[StrictlyLogical]

I used the term to distinguish this concept from the very general concept of "value". A lot of things are of value to humans. Medicine and exercise and a very basic meal that one is eating primarily for nourishment are examples of human values. However, I assume you would not include in your concept of "sensationaria". So, what is the distinguishing factors that is common to this class? For instance, would a back-rub be part of the class?

 

Interesting question.. the back rub will generally produce pleasure in those who like it.  It IS primarily enjoyment from the senses , i.e. sense perception and closely related brain function/systems,

 

I suspect there is a spectrum of enjoyment in particular for back rubs depending on level of comfort/discomfort at physical touch etc.  As to the level of mental process participating in that enjoyment certainly there is also a spectrum from the primitive purely sensory versus the sensory plus some mental or emotional stimulation.  Some sensory enjoyment clearly derive from the more primitive areas of the brain (evolutionarily speaking... we have bits which lizards have and bits which only mammals have etc.).  So within sensory enjoyment there are those things which are primitive and those things which are of higher complexity, verging on and entering the intelligible (however remaining arepresentational).  For example an image with symmetry, fractal repetition, variation and yet similarity, probably activates more complex areas of the visual perceptual system than say a simple black circle.  Such a thing has structure which can be discerned, a pattern which is intelligible but has no further representation than the thing it is, the relationships and patterns within the thing.

 

To sum up, the distinguishing characteristics are that the thing is a presentation, primarily delivered through sensation, visual, auditory, etc. which creates a response or stimulates the participant in an  emotional, sensory (not sure of the biological technical term applicable), or mental way, so as to cause enjoyment, yet falls short of conveying the sense of life which Art provides and man needs from Art.

[StrictlyLogical]

If you want me to think, give me something to think about.

When you claim that Objectivism doesn't consider music art, there's nothing to think about. It's just a factually false statement. The only rational response is to point out that obvious fact.

But fine, we moved on from that. Now you've accepted that Objectivism does consider music art, but that this is inconsistent with the Objectivist definition of art. Excellent. But, alas, you're still not saying anything that requires thought to counter. Now, you're making an unsupported claim. The appropriate response to an unsupported claim is, again, to dismiss it without further thought, maybe direct you to facts or arguments that contradict it. In this case Ayn Rand went to great lengths to argue that music is intelligible and rich with meaning in The Romantic Manifesto, and you have never attempted to address her arguments (or shown any sign that you know about them).

So back your claim up with some arguments, or counter Rand's arguments. Clearly identify the inconsistency. I promise to give it all the thought it warrants. (of course, if you now proceed to plainly claim that music is unintelligible and leave it at that, that won't require much thought on my part either, because that's another factually false claim - all I need to do is point to a piece of music that is intelligible, and in fact conveys deep meaning a competent listener can unequivocally identify; I can do that without further thought, I already have a piece in mind).

P.S. In Philosophy, the vast, overwhelming majority of independent thought stems from ignorance, not a desire to think. That kind of independent thought is a waste of time. All you'd have to do is look at how the issue you're "independently thinking" about has been addressed already, to realize that others are miles and miles ahead of you. Most independent thinkers would be better served doing less independent thinking, and more understanding of what's already been well thought through.

That's the distinction Rand makes, with a couple of differences. The first difference is she includes music in the second category, and you don't. The second difference is that she makes the case for her choice. You're not, you just said it and moved on.

 

Don't get angry or insulting.  It's just an intellectual discussion and you should know better.

 

 

I have read OPAR, the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand on nonfiction and Ayn Rand on Fiction.

 

Upon first hearing of her conception of Art as fulfilling a need of man and it having a sense of life I immediately was both enamoured and impressed with it.  In those parts which describe her treatment of Music I was never satisfied with it, and always felt that it was inconsistent with her grand vision of Art as it should be. 

 

 

I have an idea.

 

 

Listen to Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G Major,  BWV 550. 

 

Send me a PM describing what it represents, what it means, what particular sense of life it conveys.  Of course describe it, not in vague generalities, but in keeping with these things being "intelligible" in the music as such, please be specific, the more exacting and eloquent your description that matches others the grander your proof and vindication.

 

 

I invite anyone who wishes to participate in this experiment to do likewise.

 

Seeing as we Objectivists know that our knowledge of reality is not served by dishonesty I will expect none of you would PM each other to exchange notes. 

 

 

I can assure you once I have enough answers I will publish them for everyone to see, and scrutinize, along identification of their authors; the mismatches, the close matches, and the suspiciously exact matches. ALL will be shown the light of day and the scrutiny of reason.

 

 

 

Care to predict the outcome of this experiment?

 

Out of decorum I simply will keep an open mind and say let's have some fun!

 

-SL

[Jonathan13]

I have an idea.

 

 

Listen to Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G Major,  BWV 550. 

 

Send me a PM describing what it represents, what it means, what particular sense of life it conveys.

It's not a sense of life that must be described, but an abstract meaning. The Objectivist position is that a sense of life "is not a criterion of esthetic judgment."

 

Of course describe it, not in vague generalities, but in keeping with these things being "intelligible" in the music as such, please be specific, the more exacting and eloquent your description that matches others the grander your proof and vindication.

 

 

I invite anyone who wishes to participate in this experiment to do likewise.

Participants in your challenge may want to remember the Objectivist criteria of esthetic judgment:

"In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist’s theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life..."

 

Seeing as we Objectivists know that our knowledge of reality is not served by dishonesty I will expect none of you would PM each other to exchange notes.

Unfortunately, you've already tainted the science of the experiment by naming the piece of music and its composer. Those are "outside" sources of information, and therefore you have no way of controlling for participants doing online research and discovering the composer's intentions by means other than solely "the evidence contained in the work."

J

[Eiuol]

Before I explain my thoughts, I want to say that I don't think Rand explained music well enough to fit it into her aesthetic theory. A lot of what is "abstract" art is equally as sensible as music. I'm not sure if Rand ever addressed cases like surrealism or cubism or any actual evaluation of how to classify what is difficult to think about because of how unique it is. I'm saying that Rand is not making an exception, she just didn't explain well enough, formulating opinions about *certain* artists based on some weak explanations. What Rand thought about certain artists isn't necessarily equal to her aesthetic theory per se. The main idea I get is "concretization of abstractions" which implies intelligibility to the degree the abstractions make any sense. SL says there is an inconsistency, I'm saying there is an extreme lack of explanation by Rand enough so that I think there is seemingly no good account for music at all.
 

 

It is like nothing else!

Okay, but you still need to explain "meaningless" better. You already said a Mandelbrodt set reminds you of Bach's work. Doesn't that imply that there is meaning exactly to the degree a pattern is being concretized? That is an argument *for* music as meaningful. Paintings are like "nothing else", not any more than a guitar sounds like a person crying. Meaning and intelligibility aren't purely about specifically what you experience daily. There is even re-creation of reality in the sense reality is *re*presented. So if you want to say Objectivism implicitly denies music as art, get more specific about "meaningless". That somewhat goes to you too, Jonathan. Why doesn't music present intelligible subjects? That is, why is it that you think music has no intelligible subject?
 

 

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Saying that something is so according to Objectivism implies that Rand said it's so.

There's a such thing as implications of what one says, as opposed to what one literally says.
 

 

I am not an etymologist but perhaps something like "Sensationaria" would be appropriate.

Interestingly, the ancient greek word for music describes what you are thinking of. They didn't mean music per se as we think of it, but various types of creativity. Anything related to the Muses was considered music. I don't know if they had a word for art even.
 

 

all I need to do is point to a piece of music that is intelligible, and in fact conveys deep meaning a competent listener can unequivocally identify

Begging the question. For example: Is that intelligible? Yes. Why? Because it's music. Why is it music? Because it's intelligible.

Instead of being pedantic and rude, explain what "deep meaning" is. If all you need to note something as music is to be a competent listener, then by what standard are we to deem a listener competent?

Edited August 9, 2013 by Eiuol

[StrictlyLogical]

It's not a sense of life that must be described, but an abstract meaning. The Objectivist position is that a sense of life "is not a criterion of esthetic judgment."

 

 

Oh.  I thought the Objectivist position was that the particular "sense of life" conveyed by a particular piece of Art does not make that Art "good art" or "bad art" i.e. a malevolent sense of life verses heroic sense of life does not determine whether that piece qualifies as Art.  I thought that one of the purposes of Art was related to a sense of life and hence anything's ability to qualify as Art, is related to the inclusion into the piece of at least "some" sense of life? 

 

i.e. "sense of life" is not part of "evaluation of art" (good or bad) but forms part of "qualification as art" (art or not art)

 

It's been a while so I could be wrong. 

 

 

Unfortunately, you've already tainted the science of the experiment by naming the piece of music and its composer. Those are "outside" sources of information, and therefore you have no way of controlling for participants doing online research and discovering the composer's intentions by means other than solely "the evidence contained in the work."

J

 

Very astute observation.  I assume even the worst self avowed Objectivist would not cheat in this regard...

Plus this is easily controlled.  If responses say "magnificence of God", "grandeur of the universe", "order as supreme"... which themselves are somewhat vague... I would suggest another handful of Prelude and Fugue's which are entirely different pieces QUA music, key melody composition etc.. if the answers are ALL the same well certainly it is not THE music which is communicating the meaning but the composer, era, type of music etc.

 

 

Before I explain my thoughts, I want to say that I don't think Rand explained music well enough to fit it into her aesthetic theory. A lot of what is "abstract" art is equally as sensible as music. I'm not sure if Rand ever addressed cases like surrealism or cubism or any actual evaluation of how to classify what is difficult to think about because of how unique it is. I'm saying that Rand is not making an exception, she just didn't explain well enough, formulating opinions about *certain* artists based on some weak explanations. What Rand thought about certain artists isn't necessarily equal to her aesthetic theory per se. The main idea I get is "concretization of abstractions" which implies intelligibility to the degree the abstractions make any sense. SL says there is an inconsistency, I'm saying there is an extreme lack of explanation by Rand enough so that I think there is seemingly no good account for music at all.

 

 

Very well put.  Clarity at the edge of my wits is not my strong point.  I agree entirely.

 

 

Okay, but you still need to explain "meaningless" better. You already said a Mandelbrodt set reminds you of Bach's work. Doesn't that imply that there is meaning exactly to the degree a pattern is being concretized? That is an argument *for* music as meaningful. Paintings are like "nothing else", not any more than a guitar sounds like a person crying. Meaning and intelligibility aren't purely about specifically what you experience daily. There is even re-creation of reality in the sense reality is *re*presented. So if you want to say Objectivism implicitly denies music as art, get more specific about "meaningless". That somewhat goes to you too, Jonathan. Why doesn't music present intelligible subjects? That is, why is it that you think music has no intelligible subject?

 

I think the threshold requirements for Art according to Objectivism are more than mere "similarity" or "reminded of"-ness.  My being reminded of something i.e. music by fractals or vice versa is a subjective connection extrinsic to the works.  This is clearly true for being reminded by Bach of  the Mandelbrot set as Bach died before such a thing was conceived computed and displayed.

 

I will have to read up on this to respond properly, but let me ask a question: if a presentation has "discernible" features, lines, notes, and moreover those discernible features form "identifiable" patterns, the lines are at certain angles, they are repeated and get smaller, the notes successively raise in pitch and repeat a pattern in time, and moreover if these patterns are complex, and stimulate pleasure, does this imply artistic "intelligibility" as referred to in the definition of Art according to objectivism?  What I am getting at is if the entirety of the art work refers or is relatable only to other parts of the art work and in a real sense are patterns only in reference to itself, with NO reference to anything external to it... can it really be Art according to Objectivism? (absent extrinsic things like liner notes, dancing, a story and the like)

 

If such purely abstract art CAN be art according to Objectivism, the very thing about Art according to Objectivism which I was enamoured and impressed with (thought I was impressed with.. if it doesn't exist)... will simply not ever have been true.

[Jonathan13]

Before I explain my thoughts, I want to say that I don't think Rand explained music well enough to fit it into her aesthetic theory. A lot of what is "abstract" art is equally as sensible as music.

I have the reverse view. It's not that Rand didn't explain music well enough to fit her theory, but that she didn't openly, objectively and scientifically investigate the nature of all of the art forms before attempting to make them fit the theory that she had developed for literature. She appears to have begun with the desired outcome that all of the various art forms should be as objective as literature, rather than being open to recognizing the reality that certain art forms are much more abstract, contain a higher degree of subjectivity, do not "re-create reality" by her standards for literature, and, by their very nature, they are much more open to different (or multiple) possible meanings and interpretations. What is true of literature and drama's clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms. It's just not an objective approach to the field of aesthetics to require literature-like intelligibility and communication in all of the art forms as Rand did.

So, music doesn't need more of an explanation. Rather, Rand's theory needs to be revised to more objectively identify the nature of art based on all of the art forms rather than just literature.

 

Okay, but you still need to explain "meaningless" better. You already said a Mandelbrodt set reminds you of Bach's work. Doesn't that imply that there is meaning exactly to the degree a pattern is being concretized? That is an argument *for* music as meaningful. Paintings are like "nothing else", not any more than a guitar sounds like a person crying. Meaning and intelligibility aren't purely about specifically what you experience daily. There is even re-creation of reality in the sense reality is *re*presented. So if you want to say Objectivism implicitly denies music as art, get more specific about "meaningless". That somewhat goes to you too, Jonathan. Why doesn't music present intelligible subjects? That is, why is it that you think music has no intelligible subject?

The following statements about finding meaning in various art forms all take exactly the same approach of associating abstract attributes with human qualities, actions, personalities, virtues, etc., yet apparently, for some unidentified reason, we're supposed to believe that some of these are vicious attacks on man's proper method of cognition, where others are heroically romantic? Can you tell which is which?

"The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward. The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child."

"The building stood on the shore of the East River, a structure rapt as raised arms. The rock crystal forms mounted in such eloquent steps that the building did not seem stationary, but moving upward in a continuous flow -- until one realized that it was only the movement of one's glance and that one's glance was forced to move in that particular rhythm. The walls of pale gray limestone looked silver against the sky, with the clean, dulled luster of metal, but a metal that had become a warm, living substance, carved by the most cutting of all instruments -- a purposeful human will. It made the house alive in a strange, personal way of its own, so that in the minds of spectators five words ran dimly, without object or clear connection: '...in His image and likeness...' "

"Its lines were horizontal, not the lines reaching to heaven, but the lines of the earth. It seemed to spread over the ground like arms outstretched at shoulder height. Palms down, in great silent acceptance. It did not cling to the soil and it did not crouch under the sky. It seemed to lift the earth, and its few vertical shafts pulled the sky down."

"Generally speaking, warmth and cold in a color means an approach respectively to yellow or to blue. This distinction is, so to speak, on one basis, the color having a constant fundamental appeal, but assuming a more material or non-material quality. The movement is a horizontal one, the warm colors approaching the spectator, the cold ones retreating from him...Yellow and blue have another movement which affects the first antithesis -- an ex- and concentric movement. If two circles are drawn and painted respectively yellow and blue, brief concentration will reveal in the yellow a spreading movement out from the center, and a noticeable approach to the spectator. The blue, on the other hand, moves in upon itself, like a snail retreating into its shell, and draws away from the spectator...The first movement of yellow, that of approach to the spectator (which can be increased by the intensification of the yellow), and also the second movement, that of over-spreading the boundaries, have a material parallel in the human energy which assails every obstacle blindly, and bursts forth aimlessly in every direction...Yellow, if steadily gazed at in any geometric form, has a disturbing influence, and reveals in the color an insistent, aggressive character (it is worth noting that the sour-tasting lemon and the shrill-singing canary are both yellow)...Blue is the typical heavenly color. The ultimate feeling it creates is one of rest. When it sinks almost to black, it echoes a grief that is hardly human. When it rises toward white, a movement little suited to it, its appeal to men grows weaker and more distant."

"For me, the secondary re-creation level ('representation') does not need to be visual/tactile, just something that behaves generally (very generally) like physical entities...[a melody] is something ~like~ an entity, in certain respects...Consider instead the popular song 'My Heart Stood Still.' It has wonderful upward sweeping phrases in major, and they convey a lush, yearning, surging feeling that completely fits the lyrics."

J

[Nicky]

Listen to Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G Major,  BWV 550. 

 

Send me a PM describing what it represents, what it means, what particular sense of life it conveys.  Of course describe it, not in vague generalities, but in keeping with these things being "intelligible" in the music as such, please be specific, the more exacting and eloquent your description that matches others the grander your proof and vindication.

That experiment can't disprove my claim that music is intelligible. It would be similar to  posting a text in an artificial language you created, challenging everyone to interpret it, and if they fail (as they will), concluding that language as a whole must be meaningless. On the other hand, posting "I like turtles!" is enough to prove that there is such a thing as intelligible language.

 

So why post a complex artificial text, if all it takes to settle whether there's such a thing as intelligible language is "I like turtles!". Similarly, why does this experiment involve you deliberately choosing a piece that most people (myself included) don't understand? (that tactic, btw, is what's fueling the modern art movement: some people have gotten so far down the road of liking art only because it's inaccessible, that at this point they only like art that doesn't even have any meaning, just to make sure it's inaccessible)

 

You're doing it all wrong. Why not let me pick instead? That would still prove me right all the same. All I need to prove me right is one piece of music and a statistically significant amount of participants for which this experiment works (and of course I would  have to have veto power on the people who participate, otherwise Jonathan and Eiuol will just join in and insist that the piece is about mice/giraffes running around on the Moon and Jupiter respectively). 

 

Just to put your mind at ease about cheating: I can pick something no one here will recognize, and I won't tell anyone what it is or who wrote it. I'll just link to a video containing a totally unknown song. And that will end my participation: you'll still be running the experiment, just like you described. But be forewarned, the song won't be Bach, or anything classical most likely. It will be something easily accessible to anyone, just by virtue of being alive today. If it has singing, it will be in a language people here don't speak, and it will be impossible for them to translate just from audio.

 

P.S. An even better idea would be to run this experiment on several, significantly different pieces of music (but all easily accessible and picked by me, the person interested in making sure they are easily accessible), to account for the low participation rate.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Nicky

[StrictlyLogical]

That experiment can't disprove my claim that music is intelligible. It would be similar to  posting a text in an artificial language you created, challenging everyone to interpret it, and if they fail (as they will), concluding that language as a whole must be meaningless. On the other hand, posting "I like turtles!" is enough to prove that there is such a thing as intelligible language.

 

So why post a complex artificial text, if all it takes to settle whether there's such a thing as intelligible language is "I like turtles!". Similarly, why does this experiment involve you deliberately choosing a piece that most people (myself included) don't understand? (that tactic, btw, is what's fueling the modern art movement: some people have gotten so far down the road of liking art only because it's inaccessible, that at this point they only like art that doesn't even have any meaning, just to make sure it's inaccessible)

 

You're doing it all wrong. Why not let me pick instead? That would still prove me right all the same. All I need to prove me right is one piece of music and a statistically significant amount of participants for which this experiment works (and of course I would  have to have veto power on the people who participate, otherwise Jonathan and Eiuol will just join in and insist that the piece is about mice/giraffes running around on the Moon and Jupiter respectively). 

 

Just to put your mind at ease about cheating: I can pick something no one here will recognize, and I won't tell anyone what it is or who wrote it. I'll just link to a video containing a totally unknown song. And that will end my participation: you'll still be running the experiment, just like you described. But be forewarned, the song won't be Bach, or anything classical most likely. It will be something easily accessible to anyone, just by virtue of being alive today. If it has singing, it will be in a language people here don't speak, and it will be impossible for them to translate just from audio.

 

P.S. An even better idea would be to run this experiment on several, significantly different pieces of music (but all easily accessible and picked by me, the person interested in making sure they are easily accessible), to account for the low participation rate.

 

My understanding of what you have written implies your position is:

 

1.  Classical music or Bach's works in particular are NOT music, i.e. do not fall within your conception of music. 

 

OR

 

2.  Classical music or Bach's works in particular are some how EXCEPTIONS to your claim that pure music AS SUCH falls within the concept of Art according to Objectivism (I couldn't tell you how such an exception could exist but that is the implication...).

 

OR

 

3.  You are avoiding admitting that purely abstract music, divorced from pop-culture,  TV and/or  movie associations, associations with similar works with LYRICS and/or STORIES etc. does not in fact convey the type of extrinsic/external meaning or representation that the definition of Art according to Objectivism requires.

 

 

If I am incorrect please confirm that 1. Classical music AND Bach's ARE music according to your definition (just not your personal musical "language") AND 2.  not exceptions to your assertion that music does meet the criteria of Art according to Objectivism, and 3.  You are not relying in your claim upon a piece of music which has external queues or hints to reveal its meaning. 

 

What kinds of "meaning" then, granting your "requirements", can be gleaned from pure music (no extrinsic associations or hints.. the ART WORK HAS TO DO THE TALKING...), are they general impressions, feelings, emotions, or are they somehow more than that?

 

I can't help suspecting more than music is at play here.  But since you have "listened" to my opinion, I will genuinely listen to yours.

[Nicky]

What kinds of "meaning" then, granting your "requirements", can be gleaned from pure music (no extrinsic associations or hints.. the ART WORK HAS TO DO THE TALKING...), are they general impressions, feelings, emotions, or are they somehow more than that?

If you're looking for intrinsic meaning, you're not gonna find it. Anywhere. Not in language, not in paintings, not in anything. It's all "extrinsic associations". That's the whole point of Rand's idea of art: if a painting doesn't reference external reality, it's meaningless. (she takes it further and says that if a painting/decoration references something vague and as simple as pretty vs. blech, i.e. "oh, that looks nice", that's not good enough)

 

Same with language: it is a system of references to reality. It associates sounds with extrinsic existents/ categories of existents. It has no intrinsic meaning.

 

I never suggested that music has intrinsic meaning. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Music, like everything else that associates things with meaning, is a means of communicating references (which are to things external to the sound itself). Music does it more directly than other forms of communication, because you don't have to decipher the association, it reaches you on a perceptual level, and the references are more epistemological (it references thought processes and emotions) than references to objects, like painting. But it still is, obviously, association, not intrinsic meaning. Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing etc. music isn't nostalgic because God intended, it's nostalgic because of some kind of indirect association. We don't happen to understand how it works (because it's not a straight up associations like language), we just realize that it does.

 

I like Rand's hypothesis that it's a physiological association, and the result of the species' evolution, not just a cultural phenomenon. Though, of course, it made no difference if it was predominantly cultural. After all, language seems entirely cultural (though, even there, Noam Chomsky theorizes that it's not), and we seem to be conveying meaning using it just fine.

 

That said, my example would rely on the melody to communicate epistemological references, not on any kind of direct pop culture references. Don't worry, I'm not gonna post the Star Wars theme and claim that it communicates a scroll of text disappearing into space.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

... ..., my example would ... ...

Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused... somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I'm similarly curious about your example. Edited August 11, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Jonathan13]

That experiment can't disprove my claim that music is intelligible.

The onus isn't on anyone to disprove any of your claims. That's not how it works.

J

[Jonathan13]

If you're looking for intrinsic meaning, you're not gonna find it. Anywhere. Not in language, not in paintings, not in anything. It's all "extrinsic associations". That's the whole point of Rand's idea of art: if a painting doesn't reference external reality, it's meaningless. (she takes it further and says that if a painting/decoration references something vague and as simple as pretty vs. blech, i.e. "oh, that looks nice", that's not good enough)

 

Same with language: it is a system of references to reality. It associates sounds with extrinsic existents/ categories of existents. It has no intrinsic meaning.

 

I never suggested that music has intrinsic meaning. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Music, like everything else that associates things with meaning, is a means of communicating references (which are to things external to the sound itself). Music does it more directly than other forms of communication, because you don't have to decipher the association, it reaches you on a perceptual level, and the references are more epistemological (it references thought processes and emotions) than references to objects, like painting. But it still is, obviously, association, not intrinsic meaning. Nostalgic/sad/angry/uplifting/convoluted/free-flowing etc. music isn't nostalgic because God intended, it's nostalgic because of some kind of indirect association. We don't happen to understand how it works (because it's not a straight up associations like language), we just realize that it does.

 

I like Rand's hypothesis that it's a physiological association, and the result of the species' evolution, not just a cultural phenomenon. Though, of course, it made no difference if it was predominantly cultural. After all, language seems entirely cultural (though, even there, Noam Chomsky theorizes that it's not), and we seem to be conveying meaning using it just fine.

 

Nicky, by "extrinsic associations or hints," strictlylogical simply meant what Rand meant when talking about not relying on "outside considerations" when attempting to identify meaning in works of art. He and Rand mean that a work of art itself must provide the meaning, and that one's ability to identify its meaning must not depend on information that is not contained in the work, i.e., information that is outside, external, extrinsic, extraneous, independent, peripheral, alien, separate, etc. Understand? His use of the word extrinsic wasn't an act of advocating intrinsicism.

J

[New Buddha]

To get the most out of Bach, you need to invest some time in understanding the era in which he worked.  A greatly simplified example of Bach can be seen in the song "Row, Row Row Your Boat...."

 

 

Bach takes a basic motif such as Row, Row, Your Boat. and will begin in the Soprano voice.  After one complete statement by the Soprano, the Tenor may join in - but at a slightly delayed start point.  After the Tenor, the Alto and Bass may follow.  In it's most simple form, this is known as a cannon.  There are other such basic forms from the period such as Preludes, Fugues, etc. - each with their own unique forms and rules.

 

The magic of Bach, and what separate him from other composers of his time and other composers throughout history, was his ability to take fairly basic  musical themes (often times not even his own) and to transform them into utterly complex compositions with multiple lines or voices (SATB) all working together in complete (vertical) harmony.  What makes listening to Bach so exciting is that it is YOUR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in tracing these various forms and lines through their development.  Bach's much truly never grows old and holds up to repeated listening - in part because you never hear the same piece in exactly the same way twice.

 

This is the nature of Bach's music (and music of the Baroque era in general).  It did not evoke images of real world objects or scenes from every day life.  It was in fact, Beethoven's 6th that was the first to do this type of direct representation.

 

If anyone is interested, I would suggest buying a copy of Bach's Partita No. 2 for solo violin (Lara St. John did a wonderful recording of it).  It's first four movements Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda & Giga (all unique, musical forms) are brought together in an orgasmic conclusion - the Ciaccona.  But you will need to listen to it repeatedly to understand it and get the most out of it.  But it's truly worth the effort.

[Eiuol]

"What is true of literature and drama's clear intelligibility and communicative nature has never been true of any of the other art forms."
The reason I think it's not true is because abstract thought in general that isn't linguistic is often, from my experience, is often explained in metaphorical terms. Now, I'd take your point as right in the sense music and abstract art *cannot* be put into the same terms as literature. Similarly, principles of mathematics are a lot more sensible without using any linguistic type of semantics! So, as long as the discussion is in terms of how you react, music is all subjective. If music makes you think of happy memories, that's really irrelevant, and if that's the only meaning music has, well, it's subjective and against what Rand argued for regarding literature. My point is that a case for music as objective and art as communicating can be made, provided that it goes along with principles much like math. Just because people talk about music in especially subjective *terms* doesn't necessarily mean there isn't objectivity people just don't know how to describe. That's the best I can say now given my limited music theory knowledge.

Those quotes are interesting - I'm going to guess the first two are Rand, the last three are someone evaluating abstract art? You didn't say they all were quotes by one person. I rather like the next to last one, I evaluated a piece of artwork in a similar way for a college assignment several years ago. It was for a Japanese woodblock print, so it wasn't even abstract, but it could have been. In general I don't agree entirely with Rand on art. I think she was onto something though, so to speak. As I said before, concretization of abstraction is a fundamental point of art, and I'm not aware of anyone besides Rand who made that point.

[Ninth Doctor]

Here's a lecture series that has a lot of thought provoking material on the subject of this thread:

I'm sure I've posted this before but don't recall it prompting any improvement in the discourse. I believe the whole thing is on YouTube (I have the DVD's myself).

In looking for it again I found this, which was pretty famous in its day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8ilUevygXA

[Nicky]

Do post it. I found an example of the Bach piece mentioned above, and listened to a few minutes. Sounded cheery, but a bit confused... somehow, I associate with speeded up Chaplin movie. I'm similarly curious about your example.

I don't have a specific example in mind. I'd have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can't know for sure if an example will work or not.

But, in the meantime, I can post this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II

, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can't imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand's definition of art).

Wouldn't it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?

 

The onus isn't on anyone to disprove any of your claims. That's not how it works.

That's not how what works?

Nicky, by "extrinsic associations or hints," strictlylogical simply meant what Rand meant when talking about not relying on "outside considerations" when attempting to identify meaning in works of art. He and Rand mean that a work of art itself must provide the meaning, and that one's ability to identify its meaning must not depend on information that is not contained in the work, i.e., information that is outside, external, extrinsic, extraneous, independent, peripheral, alien, separate, etc. Understand? His use of the word extrinsic wasn't an act of advocating intrinsicism.

No, I don't understand. I doubt you do either. Your post just seems like words put together without any kind of consideration of what they mean. Edited August 12, 2013 by Nicky

[Jonathan13]

That's not how what works?

It's not how proof works. See, the idea isn't to assert something without proof and then claim that the assertion is true unless others disprove it. If that were how proof worked, you could assert that invisible magic fairies exist, and everyone would have to accept the statement as representing reality and being true until the time that someone could disprove the existence of invisible magic fairies.

The onus -- the burden of proof -- is on the person asserting a claim. "Music is an art form according to Objectivism because it complies with the Objectivist criteria of presenting intelligible subjects and communicating its creators' meanings," is such an assertion. It is not true by default. It is not true in the absence of proof. It is not true simply because it is asserted to be true.

J

[Jonathan13]

I don't have a specific example in mind. I'd have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can't know for sure if an example will work or not.

But, in the meantime, I can post this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II

, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can't imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand's definition of art).

Wouldn't it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?

 

 

As is true with music, you haven't shown that dance or figure skating qualify as art according to Objectivism's requirements. You have not shown that subjects and "artists' meanings" can be identified in the movements of the person in the video.

 

Also, architecture has not been proven to be an art form by Objectivist criteria. Not only have Objectivists not succeeded in reality in attempting to identify subjects and artists's meaning it architecture while not having access to outside considerations, but there's also the additional problem that Rand stated that architecture "does not re-create reality," and it therefore does not meet her definition of art, which is a "re-creation of reality."

 

Additionally, the challenge contained in this post and the failed responses demonstrate that realist still life paintings don't qualify as art, since Objectivists were unable to identify subjects and meanings in them.

 

It turns out that very little qualifies as art according to Objectivism's criteria when they are tested in reality

 

J

[StrictlyLogical]

I have reacquainted myself with the chapter in OPAR on Aesthetics.  I assume almost everyone here has read it.

 

I will not walk anyone through the many numerous GENERAL statements about what anything must have, convey, mean, etc. in order to amount to Art according to Objectivism.  Although I will not walk anyone through it I encourage everyone interested to refresh your memories of GENERALLY applicable principles and ESSENTIAL FUNDAMENTALS these various statements point to as being the CONCEPT of art according to Objectivism.

 

My opinion has been strengthened by this material rather than weakened by it.

 

 

To get the most out of Bach, you need to invest some time in understanding the era in which he worked.  A greatly simplified example of Bach can be seen in the song "Row, Row Row Your Boat...."

 

 

Bach takes a basic motif such as Row, Row, Your Boat. and will begin in the Soprano voice.  After one complete statement by the Soprano, the Tenor may join in - but at a slightly delayed start point.  After the Tenor, the Alto and Bass may follow.  In it's most simple form, this is known as a cannon.  There are other such basic forms from the period such as Preludes, Fugues, etc. - each with their own unique forms and rules.

 

The magic of Bach, and what separate him from other composers of his time and other composers throughout history, was his ability to take fairly basic  musical themes (often times not even his own) and to transform them into utterly complex compositions with multiple lines or voices (SATB) all working together in complete (vertical) harmony.  What makes listening to Bach so exciting is that it is YOUR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in tracing these various forms and lines through their development.  Bach's much truly never grows old and holds up to repeated listening - in part because you never hear the same piece in exactly the same way twice.

 

This is the nature of Bach's music (and music of the Baroque era in general).  It did not evoke images of real world objects or scenes from every day life.  It was in fact, Beethoven's 6th that was the first to do this type of direct representation.

 

If anyone is interested, I would suggest buying a copy of Bach's Partita No. 2 for solo violin (Lara St. John did a wonderful recording of it).  It's first four movements Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda & Giga (all unique, musical forms) are brought together in an orgasmic conclusion - the Ciaccona.  But you will need to listen to it repeatedly to understand it and get the most out of it.  But it's truly worth the effort.

 

New Buddha you clearly seem to understand pure Music AS SUCH.  If you are familiar also with the Objectivist treatment of Aesthetics, what is your opinion regarding whether or not Music per se, falls within the general/universal concept of Art According to Objectivism?

 

 

I don't have a specific example in mind. I'd have to look for one, once StrictlyLogical agrees to a definition of what would constitute proof of meaning. Until then, I can't know for sure if an example will work or not.

But, in the meantime, I can post this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiNIQZN3II
, as an example of a piece of music which, for a REASON, is in perfect harmony with the movements of the person in the video (the movements of the person, I can't imagine anyone would disagree, fit Rand's definition of art).

Wouldn't it be a strange coincidence that something that has no meaning has such a perfect correlation with something that is art?
 
That's not how what works?
No, I don't understand. I doubt you do either. Your post just seems like words put together without any kind of consideration of what they mean.

 

Nicky,

 

Re. the Video

 

1.  Showing a video of a figure skater, dancer, mime or actor, or text, or thematic images or movie, as being compatible with music in a COMPOSITE FORM which due to the combination may meet the requirements of Art according to Objectivism says NOTHING about whether or not INDIVIDUALLY or indeed in any sub-collection, the subcomponents of the composite form qualify as ART independent of the others.  Individual words are not art, certain kinds of textual passages and works ARE, individual bits of color or forms are not art, some paintings ARE.  There is no necessary logical implication flowing from the status of a whole composite work to its separated components evaluated independently. 

 

2.  Making a conclusion based on correlation alone (between something and its separate presentation or combination) and saying it is due to some REASON, as , is no more persuasive than saying the stars mean something AFTER SOMEONE purposefully correlated them with a pattern, i.e. the constellations, or a potato chip being indicative of a God, AFTER SOMEONE purposefully identified one (out of random thousands) as looking like the virgin Mary.  Here a choreographer (and possibly the skater) PURPOSEFULLY created a set of movements to coincide with identifiable patterns of music and possible emotions the music could evoke, CREATING the meaning of the combined form. 

 

There certainly IS a reason why the end work has particular non-ambiguous objective meanings presented and recognizable, it was INTRODUCED by PURPOSEFUL presentation of the Choreographer and IS IN the figure skating alone or the combination of skating and music.  

 

THIS does NOT mean or imply that these things are in the content of the music alone.

 

In any case, at most, the video shows that music has pattern, identifiable structure, and some music evokes general impressions of emotion (sadness, relaxation, excitement, aggression).   

 

No one here has ever denied this.