So nicely put Leo (01)
it is once again the question reality vs the observer, isnt it? (02)
Music - like most other objects of cognition - are largely about
perception, which is
largely subjective and affected by individual experience, although we can share
some of it with other humans. When I listen to music and feel so
touched and altered
by the experience, I wonder, will my dog and cat feel something akin? (03)
I doubt it, cause they have a different physical and psychological
morphology, although I cannot rule out that some interaction goes on
there too. (04)
> As you can tell and no doubt know, aesthetics definitely needs syntax,
> semantics, and pragmatics. But probably there is other stuff too. (05)
Surely, cause if you put syntax, semantics and pragmatics
well arranged together, that does not guarantee aesthetics, which in turn
is largely (pardon the fuzziness of my words) subjective (in the eye
of the beholder) (06)
I think we would like to read your poems {:-) (07)
Paola dm (08)
On 9/9/07, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jay,
>
> Yes, music needs to be intentionally produced, if you describe
> something X as music. That's intentional. The description. It's
> interpretation, literally. However, if you don't do that, then X is not
> music or it's coincidentally music, non-music, etc. I.e., there is no
> description. It's just sound. At most it's perception without
> structuring or interpretation.
>
> However, if you come across something, a sequence of chirps and leaves
> vibrating in the wind, that is non-music until you say it is or
> describe it as music, or at least experience it as music (and describe
> it to yourself post-hoc as music). Found things can be art. But it
> takes the artist or the audience to make it so. It's the thing going
> through the human interpreting head that comes out "art" (or perhaps
> another animal's head; I don't want to rule out aesthetic interpreting
> events for other animals just yet). At least, so far. We expect other
> kinds of machines some far off day will be able to do that same thing
> (at least some of us do).
>
> I think part of the John Cage et al movement was to focus on the
> receptor of the art, i.e., the actual or possible audience. And this
> happened in literature too, to my direct knowledge, i.e., initial
> so-called "reader response", quasi-deconstructivist criticism (ALERT: I
> think most of so-called deconstructionism is a load of crap). That is,
> what is the contribution of the reader/receptor to the work of art? We
> know the anecdote of sound of the tree falling in the forest. That's
> perception. But the sound of that tree's falling in the forest
> encountering a human ear may not just be about perception, but
> interpretation: "Ah, that's sublime!" The modernist or perhaps emerging
> postmodernist music movement (John Cage et al) would say that nature
> can create music (indeed does, but "create" here is used
> non-agentively), but it is only recognizable as music by an intentional
> (interpreting) mind. And so, similarly, silence.
>
> And yes, there was and still is probably that kind of debate going on.
> I'm not a historian of art, but I think that these kinds of thoughts
> have passed through most artists' minds in the past, i.e., what exactly
> is it that I'm doing? What is it that I have created? I know it has
> passed through mine, as a practicing poet. If you read the literature
> on literary artistic introspection (I won't speak for other arts), you
> find that most of us don't know where the best of what we come up with
> comes from.
>
> By the way, I think similar thoughts pass through the mind of the
> mathematician and the scientist, except of course it's refracted to be
> about "important stuff". I.e., what it is that I describe and
> characterize? Am I inventing it? Did God create it? Was it there before
> I grew aware of it? Is the way we've learned to address this stuff the
> right way, the wrong way, a way? What do I really know about this
> stuff?
> (09)
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >Jay Halcomb
> >Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 3:37 PM
> >To: [ontolog-forum]
> >Subject: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Current Semantic Web Layer pizza
> >(was ckae)
> >
> >Correction: does music need to be sound *or silence*
> >intentionally produced?
> >
> >Wasn't there a big debate about this sort of thing in Cage's
> >day? Musique
> >concrete? Taped sounds, etc.?
> >
> >Analogous to 'assemblage art'?
> >
> >BTW, what about the difficulty in hearing real silence?
> >Anechoic chambers?
> >Is that any element of this discussion?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jay
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Config:
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (010)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|