ROGER@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (07/02/90)
In article <15069018:49:52KRW1@lehigh.bitnet>, KRW1@Lehigh writes: >My $.02: I think that any art form eleveted to a high enough >intellectual level that it is no longer accessible to the untrained >ear/eye/etc becomes a SCIENCE, not an art. Why would that be? Why does inaccessibility make science? Are all things that are inaccessible to all but the intellectual a science? >Let's get our terminology straight. Yes, let's do. >Yes, an intellectual exercise can engender an emotional >response - so what? If that's what you want, great. Well, so what indeed! Lots of people DO want that. And when you consider that most art does in fact require SOME intellectual effort, and I'm talking about movies and pop songs as well as operas and oil paintings, it would seem that a) people are getting what they want, and b) the intellectual effort and its relationship to the emotional response are pretty central issues in our understanding of art and its reception. That's what. >The "worth" of art >should not be judged as equivalent to its complexity or obscurity. I'm True enough. Tell me, has anyone here been doing that? >sick and tired of "popular" forms of music being maligned, and >discounted as valid forms of expression. Ditto: has anyone here been doing anything like that? >And I can't for the life of me >understand the arrogance necessary for someone to say that "art" which >can be enjoyed by one individual can't possibly be good enough because >of some narrowly-focused personal value system. -- Kevin And I can't for the life of me think of anyone who says things like that. What's that chip doing on your shoulder? Roger Lustig (ROGER@PUCC.BITNET roger@pucc.princeton.edu) Disclaimer: I thought it was a costume party!
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (07/02/90)
In article <1990Jun17.043120.14077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: =In article <15069018:49:52KRW1@lehigh.bitnet> KRW1@Lehigh writes: =>I think that any art form eleveted to a high enough =>intellectual level that it is no longer accessible to the untrained =>ear/eye/etc becomes a SCIENCE, not an art. = =Firstly: = - There are no untrained ears. If you have some idea of what = music is and is not, consider yourself trained. = - When I listen to Cage's Variations II, I don't think = about science. = =What you seem to be saying is that if a work of art is too high- =falootin' inaccessible to *you* (alias "the untrained ear"), then it =ain't Art. And you complain of arrogance? = =[...] = =As a bonus, here's a simple two-step process for acquiring a taste =for Difficult Music: = = 1) forget about music = 2) listen Back up a bit, Peter! Did you miss a piece of the discussion earlier? I think you two agree more than not. That response was to a poster whos essentially said (and I paraphrase through my understanding of it) that if you DON'T have a certain INTELLECTUAL understanding of music (which, I surmise, meant an embracing of one PARTICULAR KIND of intellectual dismemberment of music) then the listener would be incapable of having a meaningful (valid) emotional experience from listening to music, nor to be able to have a credible opinion as to whether it even is or isn't music. Well, if your mention of Cage is any indication, I suspect you'll find that you and I agree on the two-step process. (Though I don't think a lot of people understand what is meant by "forget about music" when they read that.) I think the person you responed to is trying to say, "Let simply listen and respond" to pop music or whatever, but has fallen into the trap of accepting the "purity of intellect" argument that you can only properly respond to complex/difficult music if you have a thorough understanding of the music's structure. I think the best response to this person is to say, "It's fine to listen to so-called complex music and respond to it without having to validate that response with a written test on knowledge of its structure, and that doesn't make you a sub-human." I also think it's worthwhile to point out that reasonable amount of pop/ethnic music is "complex" but in ways that are different from the criteria laid down by a certain narrow point of view found in certain corners of western art music. (And these corners are becoming smaller; and no, it does not signify the demise of so-called western art.) And, BTW, some of the best in western art music isn't necessarily so complex and exclusive as certain 'proprieters of art' would like us to believe. And some of the best *is* quite complex, likewise, and more than those same 'proprieters of art' would like us to believe. (No, not a contraadiction.) Best to repeat part 2 of your suggestion to all: Listen. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (07/03/90)
In article <595@sdl.scs.com> dan@sdl.scs.com (Dan Adler) writes: >Nobody talked about not being accessible. Just that some mental mechanism must >exist for it to be enjoyed. Can you, being untrained in Swahili, enjoy a poem >in that language ? -probebly not ; ...except that music is not a language. The analogy does not hold. >Does that make poetry a science ? no! >It just means you lack the mental faculties to enjoy it. This is not to say >that you CANNOT in principle enjoy it, just that you'll have to expand your >awareness and knowledge of the language in order to do so. Once again, what you are talking about sin't enjoying the experience of music, but the enjoyment of the analytical process. The analysis is not the same as the experience. >> And I can't for the life of me >> understand the arrogance necessary for someone to say that "art" which >> can be enjoyed by one individual can't possibly be good enough because >> of some narrowly-focused personal value system. -- Kevin > >This is a very common complaint, but it's based on a misunderstanding of the >concept of freedom of choice. >You can "enjoy" things at many levels. You can enjoy how it feels, how it >sounds, how cute it is, how smart it is, how different it is, and so on. >But, the stuff we end up calling "art" is most commonly that which requires >human *intellect* to understand, but that there is no intellectual "formula" >(or algorithm) for its creation. This is a common retort, but it's based on the misunderstanding that an intellectual response to music is "better" or heiarchally "superior" to any other kind of response to music. >And so I feel completely justified in judging >art in intellectual terms. Even if it's NOT artistic (musical), you are free to >enjoy it, but it means you probably can't talk about it or point out to >someone why it's "good". You've got a circular argument here, as you've already defined artistic viability by its intellectual appreciability. > I don't think it's narrow minded to say that some pieces of music are >"junk". On the contrary, if they fail all tests of interest and unobviousness, >then they are junk - in the music sense. Like the music of Natalie Sleeth, and most fundamentalist Christian "contemporary inspirational music"? I would quickly categorize those has having a lack of interet and immense obviousness. But then, when you mentioned "unobviousness" you didn't say whether that was a asset or a detriment. >They still may be ingenious in the >sense that whoever did them is a millionare. But then, so is anyone who sells >drugs. The fact that something is popular doesn't make it "good". The fact that >millions of people think it's true does not make it right - >just profitable to someone. Look at all the kids using drugs. They enjoy it. >And they are millions. Does that make it OK ? NO! They were *ALL* wrong. I think this fellow is hung up on notion that certain kinds of music cause (or are intimately related to) drug use, far more than basing judgment of these styles on objective intellectual criteria. > We have to accept some form of objective criticism based on intellectual terms >otherwise the voice of freedom may be used to get rid of freedom. I'm beginning to sense some specific political sloganisms creeping into the conversation. Ultimately, I don't think they have to do with validity of a musical style but of that poster's social and political concerns, and where because of some level of frustration with making genuine progress in those areas, certain styles of music have become easy substitute targets. Let me make it clear at this point that I (1) am a stong opponent of drug use, (2) am not a fan of rap or heavy metal, but (3) believe that both are valid musical styles and (4) neitehr are the cause of drug use. >And although >I don't believe that "good" music should be differentiated from "bad" music >in any constitutional way, I sure wouldn't let my kids (if I had any) >grow up only on heavy metal and rap. And that's your responsibility as a parent to expose them to a diversity of ideas and cultures, including a diversity of artistic experiences. If you expose them to the wide diversity of experiences life offers, they might not wind up using drugs. But at this point, were I you I'd be more concerned about taxes. (New Jersey is really making the national news on that.) Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) (07/03/90)
In article <596@sdl.scs.com> dan@sdl.scs.com (Dan Adler) writes: >You can be completely analytical and never "know" consciously what you are >dealing with. Just because the banjo player can't explain what he's doing >doesn't mean he doesn't know it. Throughout the history of Jazz there have >been musicians who were not "schooled" but they "knew" everything through their >ears and mind. Wes Montgomery is probably as good an example as your banjo player. >But, the fact that they don't know the "grammar" doesn't mean that they don't >know the language enough to express them selves in it. >I still say it's an intellectual ability. Two problems with your position are (1) the notion that music is a "language" (the examples of "grammer" do not parallel musical structure) and (2) the assumption that all knowledge is "intellectual knowledge." I agree that because the bajo player can't explaint it doesn't mean he doesn't "know" it, but it is NOT a knowledge of "intellect" involved, but an "experiential" knowledge applied through "intuitive" knowledge. (I am making specfic, rather than the common uses of these words, although there is some level of connection involved with the common uses.) The differences are important in that "intellect" is a kind of objective knowledge while "experience" and "intuition" are both non-objective (which doesn't mean you can't use "intellect" to talk "about" them somewhat; note that I say "non-objective" rather than "subjective"). I'll get more into this in responding to the gentleman who wanted to hold a serious, non-flaming discussion of why music would have "no semantics" in another posting. But I'll stop here for now. Cheers, --Mark ======================================== Mark Gresham ARTSNET Norcross, GA, USA E-mail: ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham or: artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu ========================================
hm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harry Stanley Marshall) (07/05/90)
To throw in my 2 cents: I don't think someone has to be a musician to "derive pleasure" from music, nor to say "I like that music" or "I don't like that music." But I do think one has to be a musician to try to rate the value of music or to try to rate how good the musicians are. Stan "Everyday I see myself in the mirror but I do not know who's staring back at me" - Midwinter Night
ROGER@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (07/06/90)
In article <saYa1u_00WB9M5HUQI@andrew.cmu.edu>, hm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harry Stanley Marshall) writes: >To throw in my 2 cents: >I don't think someone has to be a musician to "derive pleasure" from >music, nor to say "I like that music" or "I don't like that music." >But I do think one has to be a musician to try to rate the value of >music or to try to rate how good the musicians are. Really? Does one need to be a musician to say that Heifetz played the Humoresque better than Jack Benny? Or that there's more to a Mozart symphony than one by Vanhal? Similarly, does one need to be a ballplayer to say that Ted Williams was a better hitter than Ray Oyler (or even Vern Stephens)? Roger Lustig (ROGER@PUCC.BITNET roger@pucc.princeton.edu) Disclaimer: I thought it was a costume party!