Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


StrictlyLogical

Recommended Posts

These two critics battle it out and the one who had it right wins; the consensus emerges that Tone Poem #1 is about Don Quixote and that critic #2 is a dolt.

 

Ninth, I was responding to the above statement.  Your statement does not align with either Objectivist esthetics or epistemology - it contradicts both.  Consensus has nothing to do with the objectivity of knowledge.

 

"As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art."

 

This issue at hand is "intelligible to whom"?  My position is that it only needs to be intelligible to me - and that I don't need to seek a consensus or a poll to determine if something is intelligible or not.  Nor do I need to know the intent of the artist. 

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consensus has nothing to do with the objectivity of knowledge.

Oh, I see what you were trying to say. I was trying to construct a quasi-scientific experimental scenario, something analogous to the peer review system in academic journals. Of course it doesn't mean that truth is dependent on consensus, but if you could show that correctly applied interpretive techniques arrive at the 'right' answer, with the test for 'right' being the composer's intent, then that's evidence that we have techniques that work. However it could be that the consensus agrees with the 'Robinson Crusoe' hypothesis, then when we open the time capsule we'd realize that critic #1 either did a better job applying the techniques, or that he has the right techniques and the others don't. However, neutral observers would be writing the whole thing off as tea leaf reading if the consensus was wrong, do you see the difference? Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As individuals, you and I are both capable of arriving at objective knowledge regarding what we observe.  This, as we both know, is a radical departure from traditional philosophy - and Rand's laying out the foundation for how this objectivity is achieved is one of her finest contributions to philosophy.

 

However, an important distinction needs to be stressed, that two individuals observing the same phenomena (a symphony for example) can reach completely different conclusions regarding their understanding of the event - and yet both interpretations can be objective.

 

If Bernstein and a six year old child listen to a symphony, Bernstein will, of course, hear much more detail than the six year old - but this does not mean the Bernstein's knowledge is "better" or more "objective" nor  does it invalidate the conclusions reached by the six year old.  To that six year old, so long as he attempts to avoid contractions and evasions, his knowledge can be said to be objective and meaningful.  This is true of a six year old and a physicist, a six year old and a mathematician, a six year old and a "fill-in-the-blank".  This can be said of you and me.

 

If I have any objection to Objectivism, it's not the philosophy itself, but rather that it tends to impart on some who follow it the belief that Objectivism guarantees that rational people will reach exactly the same conclusions in all things - and that if they don't, one of those persons is irrational (or a dolt ?). :whistle:

 

Objectivism guarantees no such thing and makes no such claim.  If fact, it's just the opposite.  Objectivism recognizes that individuals can reach different objective conclusions, and therefore, no individual should try and impart by force his opinion on another.  If two people can reach a consensus and find a way to work together, fine.  But consensus has no bearing on the objectivity.

 

Regarding Rand's use of the word "intelligible".  I believe that she was trying to counter the more radical type of art prevalent at the time of her writing:  12-tone, Serial, Stockhausen-ish or Cage's "Silence 4:33 types of works.  Works which reject the idea that, at a minimum, the mind needs perceptible patterns to grasp.  She was not laying claim that we should all reach the same conclusion that a symphony is about "Peter and the Wolf".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have any objection to Objectivism, it's not the philosophy itself, but rather that it tends to impart on some who follow it the belief that Objectivism guarantees that rational people will reach exactly the same conclusions in all things - and that if they don't, one of those persons is irrational (or a dolt ?). :whistle:

I’m curious to see your reaction to another aspiring music expert on this forum:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=9370&p=276186

Is his knowledge objective? Then I wonder how you would define subjectivism. And ignorance.

I asked a question earlier about Purcell's Funeral Music for Queen Mary. If you don't mind, I'd really like to read your answer to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is his knowledge objective? Then I wonder how you would define subjectivism. And ignorance.

 

Subjectivism is not an alternate to Objectivism.  Subjectivism is just crap philosophy - full of stolen concepts and floating abstractions.  It is impossible for someone to truly be a Subjectivist.

 

The point of my post is to explain that if you - Ninth Doctor - observe a phenomena, then THAT EXPERIENCE EXISTS and has objective identity AS AN EXPERIENCE.  If you listen to a symphony, and it makes you think of Robinson Crusoe -- then it made you think of Robinson Crusoe!  There is nothing wrong about this.  This is neither right nor wrong - it is what it is.  Now, if it makes you think of Robinson Crusoe, but in order to fit in and appear intellectual, you lie and tell someone that it makes you think of "x" - then you are evading and lying to yourself and trying to avoid reality.

 

Let me look into your post about Purcell and I'll reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Strauss, having written Don Quixote, named it 'Tone Poem #1', provided no explanation of what it's about, but wrote out the full detailed program and put it in a time capsule to be opened in 50 years. It's a challenge. Critics come up with different interpretations, one gets it right from the get-go, noting that the cello represents the Don, the bass clarinet is Sancho Panza, the part with the wind machine is the battle with the windmills and so on. Another thinks Strauss has adapted Robinson Crusoe, with cello being Robinson, the bass clarinet is Friday, and the wind machine is the storm that lands Crusoe on the island. These two critics battle it out and the one who had it right wins; the consensus emerges that Tone Poem #1 is about Don Quixote and that critic #2 is a dolt.

I’m afraid I assumed too much knowledge on the part of the average OO reader with this example, so let me go back and spell something out. If a listener concluded that Strauss’s Don Quixote was really a retelling of Robinson Crusoe in the way I described, there would be an obvious problem: this would mean that RC met Friday before the shipwreck that puts him on the island. In other words, it would be a stupid interpretation. If you’re not familiar with the stories you’d have no reason not to think that these two interpretations are of an equal internal logical consistency, so my bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have any objection to Objectivism, it's not the philosophy itself, but rather that it tends to impart on some who follow it the belief that Objectivism guarantees that rational people will reach exactly the same conclusions in all things - and that if they don't, one of those persons is irrational (or a dolt ?). :whistle:

 

I have the opposite few point.  My objection to some people is that they use their philosophy, including Objectivists, to rationalize that they are guaranteed that their conclusions are right and if someone doesn't agree, then they are irrational, an idiot, heretic, etc.  It's common phenomena in any idea systems (even systems that eschew ideas).  The only unique  thing to Objectivism is the language, no the method.  For example the vice of dishonesty is the usual remark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m afraid I assumed too much knowledge on the part of the average OO reader with this example, so let me go back and spell something out. If a listener concluded that Strauss’s Don Quixote was really a retelling of Robinson Crusoe in the way I described, there would be an obvious problem: this would mean that RC met Friday before the shipwreck that puts him on the island. In other words, it would be a stupid interpretation. If you’re not familiar with the stories you’d have no reason not to think that these two interpretations are of an equal internal logical consistency, so my bad.

 

My bad too.  I do not have a detailed understanding of the story of Robinson Crusoe -- or Don Quixote, for the matter, (sump'n  about a horse and a windmill?). I do know Rocinante though! (That's a Cygnus X-1 reference for ya).

 

But in general, what is your take on the fact that a listener may not know the story of either - and yet form his own story?  Is his story objective and meaningful or is it "wrong" ?

 

Regarding Purcell, I would describe the piece in probably an almost identical way that you would:  Somber, yet stately.  Sad, yet dignified. Etc.  This is because you and I share a common language in Western music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the opposite few point.  My objection to some people is that they use their philosophy, including Objectivists, to rationalize that they are guaranteed that their conclusions are right and if someone doesn't agree, then they are irrational, an idiot, heretic, etc.  It's common phenomena in any idea systems (even systems that eschew ideas).  The only unique  thing to Objectivism is the language, no the method.  For example the vice of dishonesty is the usual remark. 

 

I agree with you.  It's not just a hallmark of Objectivism.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in general, what is your take on the fact that a listener may not know the story of either - and yet form his own story?  Is his story objective and meaningful or is it "wrong" ?

I think Umberto Eco's claim that “a text is a machine conceived for eliciting interpretations” applies better (more obviously) to 'pure music' than it does to literature. So yes, I agree that listeners can and should form their own interpretations, but also “to say that the interpretations of a text are potentially unlimited does not mean that interpretation has no object. To say that a text has potentially no end, does not mean that every act of interpretation can have a happy end. I have proposed a sort of Popper-like criterion of falsification by which, if it is difficult to decide if a given interpretation is a good one, and which one is better between two different interpretations of the same text, it is always possible to recognize when a given interpretation is blatantly wrong, crazy, farfetched.”

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_author.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any opinion regarding art forms combining pure music with accompanying material which causes the entire work to be unambiguous?   The current discussion seems to be about Music per se, divorced from any considerations of Objectivism and its specific pronouncements on art, which is good but no longer on topic.

 

Personally I think minimal added content in a combined art form, such as Music plus text  or Music plus acting, or dance IS sufficient to meet ALL the requirements of Art according to Objectivism if that added content satisfies the external/concrete reference type requirements Music inherently lack, in order to anchor the Music and complement its context-less emotional power with the existential meaning required. 

 

There is no doubt some music had meanings intended when written, and some did not.  The artist who authors the combined art form would as of necessity be giving the combined art form its new (or possible the same) meaning by virtue of the combination. 

 

 

Back to music:  Shostakovich, I have his symphonies 5 and 9, and I really have not listened to them as carefully or as much as I likely should.  I am a big fan of Stravinsky (Rite of Spring, Firebird) but that love really matured after learning the pieces, i.e. knowing it well enough to anticipate each note, beat, transition etc..  I will bear in mind all of your comments while relistening to Shostakovich's 5th.  Any comments re. the 9th?  I wonder if the same investment is required as I made with Stravinsky... and if the same reward can be expected.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad there's been no such experiment, at least there hasn't been to my knowledge. And no, I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar that it would work, though I was planning to make the case that one could identify, without a program, that the finale of Mahler's 2nd depicts Judgement Day from the book of Revelation. From there to segue, via reference to The Name of the Rose, to Umberto Eco's view of “The Open Work”, and how well that accounts for music...well let's just wait and see how in the mood for writing I am come Sunday morning. Oh, and about Rand's definition of art, 'Procrustean Bed' is, I think, an apt metaphor.

One problem of the Objectivist Esthetics -- call it the left leg of the Procrustean Bed -- is its assertion that viewers and listeners must judge art without access to programs or other "outside considerations" -- that a work of art must be completely self-contained and communicate intended meanings on their own. No one ever seems to ask why, or to explain why. Outside of literature, there is a very, very long history of works of art relying heavily on such external sources of information. Music and paintings very frequently depend on knowledge of historical or mythical stories, and it is common knowledge that they viewer or listener is expected to be informed of these stories by means other than the art.

If anyone would like to see the importance that outside considerations can play in the appreciation of visual art, watch some of Objectivist art teacher Luc Travers' videos in which he attempts to teach viewers how to "read" the content of visual art. In his videos, he inevitably resorts to relying on lots of outside information, and he instructs viewers of the stories, histories or context which inspired the paintings. In doing so, he unintentionally illustrates the importance of having access to all of the relevant outside considerations.

People come to quite silly interpretations and judgments of paintings when they avoid knowledge of the artists' context, influences, intentions, etc. One cannot expect an artist to make his art universal across all times and cultures. Viewers must expect that they will have to consider the artist's time and culture before judging his work. For example, what might appear to a twentieth century novelist to be images of the "folks next door" might actually be exotically costumed, mythical characters to the seventeenth century artist who painted them. He shouldn't be expected to have to include educational material within his paintings which would inform the twentieth century novelist of the styles of dress that "the folks next door" of his time actually wore or did not wear. His art should not be required to be that pedantic and wearisome.

 

I’m afraid I assumed too much knowledge on the part of the average OO reader with this example, so let me go back and spell something out. If a listener concluded that Strauss’s Don Quixote was really a retelling of Robinson Crusoe in the way I described, there would be an obvious problem: this would mean that RC met Friday before the shipwreck that puts him on the island. In other words, it would be a stupid interpretation. If you’re not familiar with the stories you’d have no reason not to think that these two interpretations are of an equal internal logical consistency, so my bad.

Or it might be an indication that listeners who concluded that the music was a retelling of Robinson Crusoe are the better critics, and perhaps even more creative and imaginative than the composer, because they have a wider and more nuanced range of tools of interpretation, including the ability to recognize that all works of art need not present events in chronological order: some works might contain flashbacks or one character telling a story to another within the story, or an alternating between different narrators from different perspectives. Perhaps the music is accidentally more satisfying and meaningful when analyzed using this more complex critical toolbox.

 

I think Umberto Eco's claim that “a text is a machine conceived for eliciting interpretations” applies better (more obviously) to 'pure music' than it does to literature. So yes, I agree that listeners can and should form their own interpretations, but also “to say that the interpretations of a text are potentially unlimited does not mean that interpretation has no object. To say that a text has potentially no end, does not mean that every act of interpretation can have a happy end. I have proposed a sort of Popper-like criterion of falsification by which, if it is difficult to decide if a given interpretation is a good one, and which one is better between two different interpretations of the same text, it is always possible to recognize when a given interpretation is blatantly wrong, crazy, farfetched.”

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_author.html

When one considers the existence of all of the aesthetic tools that an artist can and might use -- including irony, sarcasm, etc. -- one cannot conclude that any given interpretation is blatantly wrong. One would have to hear others' reasons for their interpretations. They might be placing a lot of significance on something within an artwork that you didn't even notice but which they think is the artwork's most vital aspect.

And, as I've pointed in previous discussions, even Rand's novels can be interpreted to have meanings quite different from (if not the opposite of) what she intended. If one considers Howard Roark's ethical lapses, one can come to a much different meaning of The Fountainhead than those who overlooked, ignored or denied his ethical lapses. Different people place different levels of importance on different aspects of a work of art.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any opinion regarding art forms combining pure music with accompanying material which causes the entire work to be unambiguous?

Sure, try Disney’s Fantasia. The segment in Fantasia 2000 using the Shostakovich Piano Concerto #2 comes to mind as a particularly good example, since the piece isn’t programmatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fKyb_J91sM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it might be an indication that listeners who concluded that the music was a retelling of Robinson Crusoe are the better critics

Dammit it's my hypothetical, and I'm saying that interpretation is utterly wrong! As bad (albeit in a different way) as the guy who calls the Purcell piece 'sprightly'.

When one considers the existence of all of the aesthetic tools that an artist can and might use -- including irony, sarcasm, etc. -- one cannot conclude that any given interpretation is blatantly wrong.

Eco gives a knockout contrary example. An interpreter of Joyce's Finnegans Wake, a work which is as open to interpretation as any can be, hypothesized that a particular passage referred to Lavrentiy Beria, a leader of the secret police in the Soviet Union. Eco showed that at the time the passage was written Beria was completely unknown in the West, and hadn't even achieved any prominence in the Soviet Union yet (Finnegans Wake was written over an extended period, but published in installments). Thus this interpretation was wrong, demonstrably wrong.

Following Eco, I agree with you that, as he puts it, "books always speak of other books, and every story tells a story that has already been told." Except maybe Gilgamesh, I mean it all had to start somewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"....“to say that the interpretations of a text are potentially unlimited...."

Unlimited to whom?  To Eco? Surely not.  I doubt that when he reads a text that his interpretation "unlimited".  What Eco is lamenting is that interpretations are problematic because it is so difficult to reconcile the many different interpretations among the many different readers.

 

Eco is taking the position that arriving at a "right" interpretation is a social exercise.  Which is very Kantian.

 

Ninth, you seem to be searching for a way to determine if your own personal esthetic interpretations are "objective" or not.  And you seem to believe that by gathering a sampling of interpretations you will be able to abstract from the commonality of responses a better understanding of the foundation upon which esthetics rests.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eco is taking the position that arriving at a "right" interpretation is a social exercise.  Which is very Kantian.

Kantian? You lost me there, I don't know what that would have to do with Kant, and I don't think that's Eco's position in any event.

 

Ninth, you seem to be searching for a way to determine if your own personal esthetic interpretations are "objective" or not.

Heh. No. Note that I don't think my claims apply to all music, or in fact, to much music at all. Nor do I believe that those few works which can be 'objectively' interpreted (and perhaps 'decoded' would be a better term) are necessarily superior to those that can't. The fact is that some musical works do fit into Rand's Procrustean Bed, I'm not taking it any further than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't using "Kantian" in the bludgeon-over-the-head, Objectivist-insult kind of way.  I was pointing out that Eco's concern with multiple interpretations probably DOES stem from his either implicit or explicit belief that objective knowledge is not possible.

 

I think it's very important to determine if one's esthetic interpretations are objective or not.  And all works of art can be objectively interpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...