Music Musings

I am a musician and reading Kivy's and Hansick's works have allowed me to think about how I play and compose. I have considered why I am not so much a musician and more of a writer and it is because music is so distinctive in physical properties as opposed to conceptual ones. Music should not be abandoned though, I think it needs to go to a new path, and not repeat the same kind of song forms which we have seen throughout time.

Music theory is an excellent way to explore music and advance it. When I play through a piece of music, I find it important to look at what the musician does with the chords and notes and learn from it, as well as experience the emotion. Music relies very much on our ability to participate in the musical flow, which, I think is always relative back to natural sounds and the tempo of nature.

Music Question 2

Does the simplification in music on minimalism and modernism reflect a simplification in human emotions and movements? Are human beings unable to feel more complex emotions because of the simplification of our music?

I do believe that the simplification of music has, in some part, taken a toll on our creativity and our emotional status, but not in full but minimalist music lends its way to different philosophies and thoughts which we would not have had before with more complex music. Though minimalist music is simple to create, I do believe that there is some minimalist music which is more developed. For example, a modern song could have a chord progression of Am, G, and F, but a more developed minimalist song would utilize those chords in different, innovative new ways which would express a new way of thinking.

Moreover, music is something difficult to advanced because there is only so much one can do with it and I feel it is too closely tied to form.

Music Question 1

Without music, would we, as human beings, be able to perceive the musical wavelengths that lighten our lives? Would we hear them as some musical philosophers have stated before?

According to John Cage, in an interview, music in all sounds around us but we choose to only focus on the pitched sounds. Though this may be a modern philosophy, not accepted before the 20th century, I believe it is still very worthwhile and one can expand one's mind by looking at natural sounds as music. Natural sounds, after all, do keep some kind of tempo and the more sporadic sounds which we humans make are like sporadic music. John Cage reports in his interview that hearing traffic is beautiful to him because it is the simple agglomeration of noise. Therefore, I do not believe we would suffer without music, but I believe we would be very different and think, perhaps more chaotically without the organized, pitched music.

Answer to Nicole's Question

Hanslick seems to imply, though, that there is something in music that we simply cannot put into words. What do you think this might be? Do you think he's right, that there is something mysterious and inaccessible to us in music? Does Kivy's proposal of emotional content hold against Hanslick's thesis?

So many people believe that music has some inaccessible quality which cannot be explained in words and this quality can be explained only by physics and the wavelengths of music which cause happy, sad, dark, or light sounds. It is almost objective that what we find pleasant or upsetting in music and no subjective as some people think. Hearing a dissonant chord, we will acknowledge that that sounds ugly, even if one is an extreme aficionado of metal or rock music, one can still distinguish an "ugly-sounding" chord.

However, many people would disagree with the idea that music can only be described in physical terms. Music does produce, for some people, emotional responses that can be traced to chord progressions but are not "inaccessible." Chord progressions work with specific chords that make specific noises for us to feel certain ways and I think that those emotions are set in that way.

Moreover, there is no way to prove emotional content in music other than a subjective view.


T

Carlson Question 2

Nature is slowly being destroyed, more and more everyday. Is it possible that we as human beings can find an alternative way to live without nature? What would this alternative to nature look like?

I think that if there were any alternative to nature, it would be in art and the capturing of nature through art. In years from now, we may not even know what nature is and we will have to have artistic records in order to appreciate nature. Ignoring the fact that we cannot live without nature, I think that having art as a backup to nature would be the best option since art is derived of nature.

Moreover, having art, literature, and music to tell us about nature would not provide the correct satisfaction which nature gives us. I think human beings would eventually decay mentally and would not have the same mental powers that we have with nature around. Nature provides our minds with something that cannot be attained through any other means; nature can only be imitated never replaced.

Carlson Question 1

Is nature important the human continuity and would we be able to survive without it, only viewing the aesthetic aspect of it and not the way it actually does provide us with life?

I do not feel that we would be able to survive with aesthetic beauty in the natural environment because there is a great peace and calmness which just looking at some trees or breathing in fresh air provides us. Just the visual aspect of nature is enough to provide a semblance which nothing we can create does for us. Additionally, a lot of art, literature, and music comes from the natural environment. For example, Antonio Vivaldi composed The Four Seasons and there are naturalist poets and writers like Walt Whitman, while, at the same time, Vincent van Gogh painted beautiful images of nature.

Human beings would not be able to survive and continue as a species without this visual, aesthetic beauty. I believe that there is a part of our brains which recognizes these aesthetic wonders and appreciates them so that we are more complete. Many people believe that aesthetics in art and nature are unimportant but I think that they are essential to life being continued. Something in our brains needs that aesthetic beauty and cannot simply live without it.

Answering the Question on Carlson

At the close of his essay, Carlson merely hints at the moral/ethical implications of arriving at a proper understanding of the natural environment as an object of aesthetic appreciation. What do you think they might be?

I think that Carlson means to hint at the morality of nature; human beings, who are meant to live symbiotically with their natural environment, have a moral obligation to treat the natural environment with care and love. However, with the advent of technology and the degradation of naturalism, the natural environment is suffering. One can see how the environment suffers just by looking outside, even in North Adams: there are cigarette discardings all over campus and throughout downtown. But this morality in nature is nigh impossible to achieve in the modern age.

Moreover, I think Carlson means to say that human beings should be moral and ethical in their observation of the natural environment as something that is aesthetically beautiful. One must be caring in observing nature and not abuse the privilege of being able to view something aesthetically beautiful as nature. On many trails, nature parks will tell the hikers to not abuse the trails or leave any trash which is one of the ideas at which Carlson is hinting. And overall, I think Carlson wants us, as human beings, to respect the natural environment and preserve it while appreciating nature as something aesthetically beautiful.

Answer to Nicole's Question on Carlson

Allen Carlson quotes Hepburn in saying that people who have the wrong sort of education or aren't in the right mindset to appreciate nature will either pay little heed to it or will look at it "the wrong way". Carlson seems to imply that for each setting there is a "right" mindset to have and way to view the landscape/ flower/ summer afternoon. 

Is this true? Or is it possible that there are multiple "right" ways to view a natural environment? Or is there no "right" way and perhaps only shades of appreciation?

I do not feel this is true at all and I think that all theories of how to appreciate nature are incorrect because they are all subjective. This subjectivity is relatable to any other form of opinion-based ideas about art, literature, and music, but with those three, there can be evidence, albeit human-based, to prove or disprove a subjective argument and make it more factually based. Therefore, on the turn side, all views on nature are correct even though not each one is individually correct. Every mindset of viewing nature is correct because if one creates a certain way of viewing nature, then one is creating an "ought." For example, if one's mindset is that nature should and will look best in flames, that is an "ought," one which many people would disagree with.

Thus, overall, there is no correct way to view a natural environment except one's own way in which one would suffer the delusion that one is correct.

Musings on Danto

I believe that much of post-modern art and literature is based on concepts and ideas which is worthwhile but the ideas are not themselves worthwhile which inhibits understanding and the quality of the artwork. I find that post-modern art and literature are not as sincere as anything which has come before it except for a select few. For example, a lot of post-modern literature does not rely upon that which has come before it and is very weak in its execution of story-lines, themes, and writing style.
   There is a post-modernistic idea that being different in literature and art makes art more interesting and "deeper", but this is a severe delusion of the post-modern generation. Being different and trying for originality does not ensure the effectiveness of a work of art. TS Eliot coined the term "the objective correlative" which proposes that a piece of literature or an artwork must include only the elements which forward the piece of art's or literature's idea. If there are elements which hinder the idea of a work, they are superfluous and should be edited out.
   Moreover, the quality of literature, art, and music suffers in the post-modern world. Nothing creative or relative to musical ideology is done except for a select few, and that is the same for literature and art: there are only a select few who can produce great art and literature.

Answer to Nicole's Question on Danto

Give an example from your own life in which you only fully understood and appreciated a work of art after it and the theory surrounding had been explained to you. Now think of a work of art you still dislike/don't understand and assess how an understanding of the theory behind it could change your mind

I never originally understood or liked Pablo Picasso's art but I never understood how deep his artwork really was. Cubism, as I have learned, is showing the inner depths of objects that sometimes two-dimensional cannot display as accurately. For example, Picasso wanted to show all angles of a violin in order for the viewer to gain all artistic and aesthetic pleasure from that violin. I have read some of Picasso writings and his theory is very well-developed and intelligent, as well as interesting and a pleasure to read.

I have viewed a piece of artwork that is simply conceptual and is composed of a stool with a wheel poised on top of it. I dislike this "piece of art" because I do not think it is art and there was any major artistic effort put into it. The stool merely had to be attached to the wheel and that was the extent of the effort. Contrary to Picasso's theory and work, this, I believe, has no theory and is not as developed visually. I would not consider this a sculpture or any other medium of artwork, and furthermore, I do not think the artist is sincere. However, I would be interested to read this artist's thoughts and writings. I could only know if there was a change in my thoughts when I read the theory.

Danto Question 2

Is an opinion formed without knowing conception or context equally as valuable as one which is formed upon the basis of the context? Is this opinion arrogant and naïve? Is ignorance sometimes better in the art world?

An opinion formed without knowing conception or context is equally as valuable as one formed with such information. Context is not important apart from understand a work of art or a work of literature. This opinion without conception or context is not naive, it is just not based on facts, and on feelings instead. Not knowing as much information about a work of literature does not decrease the pleasure and emotion attained from it. I would not say that this is being ignorant, but I think it is important that one eventually learn about the context or conception of a work of art or literature. Taking Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel Crime and Punishment into this argument, not knowing everything about Fyodor Dostoyevsky or the historical context in which the book was written. Although, knowing that Dostoyevsky felt guilty after his father's death and experienced psychological trauma in a camp in Siberia. That is equally as important but it can arrive later in appreciating a work of art or literature.

Not knowing information about a certain work of art is not better but is only sufficient for a time, but information should eventually be known about a work in order for more understanding to progress. 

Danto Question 1

Does an artist have to be academic in his or her method of creating art? Is the art made any less meaningful if they are not so? Is being intelligent in art the only criteria that separates good art from bad?

An artist, by no means at all, has to be academic although, it does not guarantee one to be a good artist to just be artistic. An artist should have a method in order to be good. One sees this possession of method throughout all the great artists and writers: Van Gogh, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, etc. The list goes on and on and without method one cannot be a great artist. There is little method in books and art in post-modern art. For example the Twilight Series and The Hunger Games rely on very traditional story themes and story structures. Twilight takes from Wuthering Heights and Dracula and uses very little stylistic and thematic significance and finesse. The Hunger Games, though I have not read them, steal from The Most Dangerous Game  and the idea of having a dangerous game in which people have to participate along with a theme of animalism.

Art and writing, I think, must be intelligent and have method, however, there is a difference between art and writing being intelligent as opposed to being pedantic and conceited. Writing a lot and using advanced vocabulary does not show finesse and intelligence, it shows a lack thereof. If I write a poem with a lot of profanity but use line breaks successfully to show meaning of the human condition, I believe I have written a successful poem and I believe that is successful post-modern literature. On the hand, art which is post-modern does not rely on a certain method and relies on a concept more than it relies on the actual methodical creation of the art piece. Most post-modern art is very random and endeavoring difference and originality more than method and the actually creation--too much is focused on concept these days.

Musings about Weistz

Morris Weistz is my favorite theorist which we have read so far, if one can call him a theorist since he denies all theory. But Weistz definitely takes into account his own opinion and these theories of critics and skeptics (as I called them in my previous post). He knows what he wishes to see in a work of art but he also knows what he wishes to understand in a piece of art. There is his opinion and his theory comes in when he states at the end that all these art critics and theorists should be bundled together as a kind of "guideline" to understanding art. But no one theorist should be held highest above all.

Morris Weistz is especially good in my regard because he is not overly verbose and delivers his point very quickly unlike Hume who, I thought, talked about the same topic or idea for a very long time. Weistz has a simple point to make and he makes it in six pages, while involving examples and a couple other sources. That is very condensed and easy to understand and that is the main reason I enjoy his essay.

Question 2 on Weistz

Does Weistz’s “theory” or “non-theory” restrict the idea of what art should be still? Some artists believe that art is completely free and every opinion is right, but Weistz seems to not condone this kind of thinking.

Morris Weistz theory does not restrict the idea of what art should be since he demeans every other kind of theory about art, but he says that we can use other theories as "guidelines" to understand art better from other peoples' perspectives better. Contrary to the belief, though, of many contemporary artists: art is not free. You are restricting yourself in a different sense with art. There is structure and there is method in art and only good art has structure, style, and method. Many contemporary writers attempt to mix around the dramatic plot structure but completely fail because they do not first understand the structure or the method behind creating a story. Many artists today have the inability to communicate emotions in artwork because of a lack in finesse and style. It really is sad that artists today think that art is just being creative. There is much more involved: there is passion, there is agony, there is prowess, there is time, there is so much involved in creating a great work of art or a great story or a great song.

Question 1 on Weistz

If there had never been any theories about art or very few, would art have been as advanced as it has been without the criticism of essayists and critics whose writings we have read?

Most definitely art would not have advanced under criticism and judgement, much like science or any other discipline does. Although critics and criticism can be destructive and sometimes despicable, it is a necessity for art's continued existence and advancement. But also, I think, the artist's perseverance under criticism and insults is very important to this. Writers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians have been accused of doing their art badly or in a wrong way. But many years later, that art is viewed as beautiful and commendable. Artists have carried on doing their art in spite of pretentious critics, most notably Plato who came before many well-known artists. In Plato's shadow,  so many artists like Shakespeare, van Gogh, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman, Wagner, and many more have done their art and created masterpieces avoiding these words of critics and skeptics.

On the other hand, I think art would be changed indefinitely if critics and skeptics were more radical, like physically attacking writers or artists. Think of Stephen King almost getting assassinated because of his writing. It is a scary thought, but I am of the sure opinion that dedicated artists would keep on going with their art. Taking Fyodor Dostoyevsky into account, he was almost executed but still continued with his writing and his art. I think resilience to these critics and their absurdly rational notions is a very admirable quality. 

Answer to Nicole's Question

Art has long been established as actually being something physical, but as the 20th century has occurred, I think that idea has changed. Morris Weitz also wrote his essay on art less than a hundred years ago, which puts it into contemporary perspective for us. One could call the idea of thinking of concepts or philosophizing an art, and not simple in the mocking sense like: "There is an art to thinking, Joe-Bob." Taking this idea of something conceptual being art, one could even think of emotions being an art, even though they cannot be displayed or viewed aesthetically, which, I am sure, would be the criteria for some other philosopher's definition of art. I think it is for these reasons that I raised the somewhat foolish question in class of whether or not literature is an artifact. My thought process was something like this: I thought of the idea and the story not the physical book itself. And before the printing press and other ways of dedicating word to paper, stories were told aloud and in a nonphysical form. Do we exclude those stories as art? Are they only didactic instructions told in a story form?

As for physical items, anything could be art. A rocket going to the moon could be art, because it is created with innovative, creative intention. Purpose really does not matter in creating. I think human beings, most of all usually considered non-art objects, could be considered art. They are created by human beings but, as philosophers duly note, for no intended purpose. That is one of the biggest questions: What is our purpose? Do we have a purpose? But I am of the strong opinion that anything can be art. This notion does not mean that the art will be good, but I prefer to look at everything that is created like an art.