Forgot to ask the question I was aiming for (01)
>
> > As you can tell and no doubt know, aesthetics definitely needs syntax,
> > semantics, and pragmatics. But probably there is other stuff too.
>
> 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)
> (02)
How should we go about identifying and modelling that key
ingredient, 'other stuff' (03)
>
> Paola dm
>
>
>
>
> 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?
> >
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> School of IT
> www.mfu.ac.th
> *********************************************
> (04)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|