twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (05/31/84)
>> First of all, when we talk of music, we are speaking of a much larger >> field known as aesthetics (of course everyone knows that). Aesthetics >> can and does take on an unbelievably varied number of roles in society >> and it is not only the aestheticians responsibility, but the average >> person's as well to decide what that role should or can be. >> .....................It is impossible to >> listen to music without some sort of theory or "philosophy" if you will >> about what it is doing for you. >> Once you make a decision about what art is to you, there is an >> implicit value judgement placed on all aesthetics and what role they >> play in our society and culture (or what role the should play). This is >> why I say that all art is by nature within the realm of philosophy. >> Tom Twiss > >My comments: > >1) Adopting an aesthetic does not imply judgement of other aesthetics > or of the social role of aesthetics. But why not? It seems to me that "adopting an aesthetic" is more or less synonomous with formulating a decision on aesthetic role (if any). You've made your statement, now tell me WHY you believe it. >2) Not everyone has a fixed aesthetic with respect to music appreciation Agreed. > (if they were forced to think about it they might come up with one, but > as it is the musical experience may be strictly emotional or sensuous). Again, I agree. But I submit that an emotional or sensuous response still implies an opinion concerning the ontological status of aesthetics. If you FEEL that music makes you feel good, then that is your opinion concerning music. >3) There are many aspects to music and art (such as the > technical and mechanical aspects) which have nothing at all to do > with aesthetics or philosophy. I'm not sure I understand this. Aren't the technical/mechanical aspects merely tools to complete an end? Of course, depending on what these tech/mech aspects are, they too might be arts (depending on your definition, of course!). What do you mean? >I understand what you're saying, and it would be more or less true if >everyone were a philosophy major and had to write a term paper on the >aesthetics of music. As it is, however, I think you're taking the >importance of systematization too far. > David Anderson (wisc-rsch!anderson) You lost me again. I would never say that aesthetics can be reduced to any kind of formal systematization, but I do believe that aesthetics can be examined, approached, and studied in a somewhat systematic way (if that makes sense). I don't think I've been too mechanical with my treatment of the subject, I'm just trying to understand how philosophy is deeply intertwined with aesthetics, and show that all music falls under the category of aesthetics (I'll let the individual decide whether or not the aesthetics themselves are good or bad :-). Tom Twiss ...{decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!twiss