Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[Jonathan]

As to an earlier point - yes, colors and visual textures can convey certain moods, just as musical tone color and texture can convey moods. But this is background or foundational stuff. There is much more artistic merit in depicting a person or melody with deeply effective color, timbre, texture elements to support it, than in merely presenting those elements alone.

Who said anything about presenting elements "alone"? I've been talking about their being part of a composition, just as musical tones are.

Unlike Rand or Kamhi (I presume), I wouldn't throw out the latter and call it non-art. But I wouldn't give it the same exalted status as the former either.

Would you give music without lyrics the same status as music with lyrics? An abstract painting is to music what a realistic painting is to music with lyrics.

(My objection to "modern" abstract art isn't that it claims to be art but isn't, but that some of it claims to be profound and non-arbitrarily representing in the world.)

Well, we're right back at the unanswered question: To whom? Profound to whom? Why would anyone have a problem with another person's finding a work of art to be profound? Why would anyone be upset about another person experiencing deep emotion and meaning in a work of art that did nothing for the person who was getting upset? What's the problem? What's with the need to deny others' responses, or to attempt to invalidate them?

J

[Jonathan]

I see the thread as a person who can't stand anyone's having the opinion that art he likes isn't art producing hash.

It's amazing, Jonathan, the way you claim victories which you haven't won.

The usual.

Ellen

I've said nothing about liking any of the art that I've been discussing or giving as examples.

Ellen, you're trying very hard to read into my statements what's not there. You're failing miserably. There's a lot of abstract and postmodernist art that I personally dislike. There's some that does nothing for me either way. My liking or disliking a work of art has nothing to do with my accepting it as qualifying as a work of art.

J

Jonathan, you're trying very hard to get off on a technicality, "a work" versus a type of work.

Or is it someone else I've been reading all these years talking about the deep emotional reactions he can have to non-representational painting and sculpture?

Ellen

Oh, do I have deep emotional responses to some abstract art? Yes. Is it anywhere near to being my favorite art form or genre? No.

I don't think that I've ever had a deep emotional response to dance. Yet I consider it art, and would defend it as art. My liking it or disliking it has nothing to do with it.

I greatly dislike most operatic works. But, again, that has nothing to do with whether I accept them as art.

So, on to the next potentially slightly misplaced electron!

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Kamhi was referring to the historic definition within the arts as applied to visual art. She wasn't talking about music. I was asking where you got the extending of the meaning from visual arts to music.

Heh. I applied the meaning to music, not "extended" it! What do you mean in asking where I got the "extending" of the meaning?!!! If someone is talking about molten gold, and then I apply the concept of "molten" to chocolate, would you object that I was "extending" the meaning to chocolate? As if "molten" somehow refers exclusively to gold, and that it is an unnatural, inappropriate, and incommensurate "extension" to apply it to anything else?!!!

Jesus.

I'd object if you presented your extension as if it were standard usage when it isn't.

If I understand correctly what you're saying in the above response, it's that YOU apply the standard meaning of "abstract art" to music, but you don't know of anyone else who does. It's a Jonathan special. Is that correct?

Indeed, you are correct that Kamhi was not talking about music when talking about abstract art. I was!!!! I was identifying the fact that music is the aural equivalent of visual abstract art in that it does not present identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality, just as visual abstract art does not present identifiable visual likenesses of things in reality. Both generally deal with mere inessential attributes abstracted from things in reality. Music's abstractness is the reason that Fred Seddon calls it "aural wallpaper" and describes people identifying very different things in the same piece -- or "reading into it" or "attributing to it what's not there," as you like to say.

Maybe you didn't notice this part of my post #364:

That's you, using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" and saying that it applies to "abstract" art and to music.

Yes, it's me using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" as it might apply to abstract art and to music because I was responding to your having brought up Rand's notion of abstraction in regard to abstract art and music. I didn't know at the time that you were confusing "abstract art" with Rand's notion of "abstraction," so I was entertaining you introducing Rand's notion of "abstraction" to the discussion.

Now, carefully reread what I wrote in response to you then (with emphasis added): "Music's means may include abstractions from emotions," and "I think that emotional abstraction is one means that both music and abstract visual art might employ."

On the other hand, in the same post of yours, you say that in calling music an "abstract art form," you mean that music:

[...] does not present identifiable aural likenesses of things from reality.

So which is it?

Do you not understand what an "identifiable aural likeness" is?

If music "may" and "might" include/employ "abstractions from emotions," then sometimes - according to you - music IS presenting "identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality," unless you think that emotions don't exist in reality, or unless you're meaning narrowly visual "aural likenesses.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

Like I said before, you're conflating two very different senses of "abstract," ...

No, I'm not conflating two different senses of "abstract." Rather, you are refusing to understand that people other than you do experience visual abstract art in the first sense of "abstract" that you identified -- that of presenting a "stylized, metaphorical image of human action." My explanation of how abstract visual art affects me and others is precisely the same method that you use in explaining how you think that music works. So what's the problem? The problem is that you are immersed in music, but not in visual art.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh, do I have deep emotional responses to some abstract art? Yes. Is it anywhere near to being my favorite art form or genre? No.

The last sentence is a surprise.

I mostly like abstract painting and sculpture better than representational.

We cross-posted again. Please see #378.

Also #369.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

This thread has been thrown up upon a fulminating plateau. It wants to fulminate but it can't.

--Brant

I have this hellish reddish image in my head I gotta paint: where's the nearest art school?

lava flowing out and spurting up all over the place as my brain re-creates reality using my metaphysical value judgments

(I'm beginning to understand why so many artists go nutso)

That's odd. I see this thread as cool blue. I see it as me having dowsed an arsonist's little brush fire with cold, refreshing water.

J

ROTFLMAO!

The tread's pushing 400. The Santa Ana Wind must be blowing, pushing fire through Los Angeles County.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wish we all had the shared context of the discussion by the Blumenthals in their 1974 lectures on music. They knew *so* much more than Rand (who attended) did about music.

Once again: The taped version you heard was revised from the 1974 course. It wasn't the version which Rand attended.

Judging from things you've said over the years about the revised version you heard, changes and additions that wouldn't have flown so well with Rand were made.

Also, Allan did all the talking in the 1974 course (though Joan did the art history parts of the writing and helped with style and passages here and there in the music parts).

Ellen

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #379:

Roger Bissell, on 27 Jan 2015 - 4:54 PM, said:

Like I said before, you're conflating two very different senses of "abstract," ...

No, I'm not conflating two different senses of "abstract." Rather, you are refusing to understand that people other than you do experience visual abstract art in the first sense of "abstract" that you identified -- that of presenting a "stylized, metaphorical image of human action." My explanation of how abstract visual art affects me and others is precisely the same method that you use in explaining how you think that music works. So what's the problem? The problem is that you are immersed in music, but not in visual art.

Did you ever mention human action in regard to visual abstract art? Sorry, don't recall that.

I do recall your mentioning color and texture and how these evoke feelings, emotions, etc. - and I agree that abstract visual art does this, just as the timbral and textural aspects of music can do this, or a descriptive scene in a novel can do it, without there being characters or action.

Yes, abstract visual art and modern non-melodic music - as well as the timbral and textural aspects of melodic music - *do* evoke emotions. But melodic music focuses all of that and more on music characters (themes) and action, while abstract visual art and modern non-melodic music dump them, thereby sacrificing a great deal of emotion-generating power by limiting themselves to color, geometric, timbral, and rhythmic effects. There's nothing wrong with that, but it simply does not represent or re-create reality (in particular, emotions) to the same fullness or depth, as by applying it in the presentation of a visual or musical entity. Mood/atmosphere evoked by attributes and events is just not as complete a re-creation as mood/emotion embodied in entities and actions.

So, I'm not clear on what it is that I'm "refusing to understand." I notice a lot of the things you refer to when I "immerse" myself in (some) modern art. But there is a lot of other modern art that (so I am told) is very profound, but that I just don't get it. No explanation is ever given, no demonstration of what it is that I "don't get," just the Toohey-esque attitude of "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary - to those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

Along with this non-argument, I also used to hear the old canard and untruth that "No great composer was ever appreciated in his own time," so we should set aside the fact that we are often offered garbage to listen to by modern "serious" composers and realize that we are just like the plebians in Mozart's or Chopin's era who didn't appreciate them, and we should just shut up and continue fork over our tax dollars to subsidize the true modern artists.

If there were a strictly free market in art and music, and no such thing as the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio, etc., we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

Would you give music without lyrics the same status as music with lyrics? An abstract painting is to music what a realistic painting is to music with lyrics.

I don't have access to the emoticon menu on my tablet and wonder if I could find an emoticon anyway that would depict my astonishment at that question and statement. Many, many misplaced electrons.

Ellen

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen in #382 wrote:

Roger Bissell, on 27 Jan 2015 - 4:54 PM, said:I wish we all had the shared context of the discussion by the Blumenthals in their 1974 lectures on music. They knew *so* much more than Rand (who attended) did about music.

"Once again: The taped version you heard was revised from the 1974 course. It wasn't the version which Rand attended. Judging from things you've said over the years about the revised version you heard, changes and additions that wouldn't have flown so well with Rand were made. Also, Allan did all the talking in the 1974 course (though Joan did the art history parts of the writing and helped with style and passages here and there in the music parts)."

Aha - you are correct! I checked the cassettes I bought from Laissez-Faire Audio, and they are marked copyright 1987.

Still, I'll bet that the material on the music-drama analogy was from the original lectures. Without breaking copyright by posting a big chunk from my personal transcript of that lecture, in order to jog your memory (one way or the other), I'll just note that Blumenthal commented in lecture 6 (on the Classical era) that he had mentioned "throughout" the lectures various similarities between musical works and works of fiction. Whether he first said it in 1974 or 1987, it's certainly not original with him, just a more explicit tying together of the temporal arts than most theorists or critics cared to do, and in terms Rand specifically used for her views on literature (plot, characterization, etc.).

I had been working along these lines since undergraduate school in the late 1960s, waiting for Rand to come out with something even remotely resembling my (and Blumenthal's) views, to no avail. Her (to me) bizarre "psycho-epistemological" theory seemed no more appropriate to music than to literature, and not all that helpful in understanding either. I was very excited to find, two decades later, that Blumenthal had views similar to mine, but very disappointed when I offered him a copy of my transcript for possible publication, only to have him reply that he had no plans to publish the lectures. If The Great Courses weren't already super-saturated with Robert Greenberg's lectures on music, I'd think that they would welcome something like (an updated version of) the Blumenthals' lectures. Oh well...

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Ellen in #384 wrote:

Jonathan, on 27 Jan 2015 - 5:33 PM, said: Would you give music without lyrics the same status as music with lyrics? An abstract painting is to music what a realistic painting is to music with lyrics.

"I don't have access to the emoticon menu on my tablet and wonder if I could find an emoticon anyway that would depict my astonishment at that question and statement. Many, many misplaced electrons."

Right on, Ellen. I think someone needs a little more immersion in sound waves before making such comments! ;-)

Here are some comparisons/parallels that I think seem more apt and more helpful as an overview to this controversy:

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

2. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with title and written description is to melodic music with descriptive program notes.

3. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with an accompanying poem is to melodic music with lyrics.

As a musician/theorist interested in (nay, fascinated with!) analyzing meaning and emotion in music, I consider music with lyrics to be like "training wheels" for understanding music without lyrics. (Or, as Peikoff might call it, "the antechamber.") Of course, this presumes a "good match" between music and lyrics, and it entails a huge amount of grunt-work, going through the melodies that have stood the test of time - whether from the past several centuries of "serious" music, or from the past decades of popular music, to see what recurring patterns of melody &c emerge from the research.

It's one thing to hypothesize that thus-and-such a melody is most appropriate for conveying a particular meaning or emotion, and quite another to find out whether that meaning/emotion in fact was (most often and most effectively) conveyed that way. Step 1: hypothesis. Step 2: look at LOTS of songs with words, classical and popular, identify patterns and evaluate whether they confirm the hypothesis. If so, throw away the training wheels and go to Step 3: look at LOTS of purely instrumental pieces, identify the patterns and see whether they too confirm the hypothesis. (Look for anomalies and counter-examples, too. I already have a lot of them in mind, for popular songs.)

If I weren't so deeply "immersed" in writing about Rand's file folder metaphor and critiquing the Objectivist theory of volition, I'd be working on this project right now. But if someone out there wants to jump on it and do it themselves, be my guest.

REB

[anthony]

I think I do (understand).

First - you are kidding me! I could go back, if I bothered, and count the number of times, in a few threads, you've asked me to "Prove it!" or "Show me the science" (to that effect). Other times, you have considered what the consensus of opinion of many people would be. That isn't the nature of the "mind of man", Objectively speaking.

You're so lost that I'm not even interested in responding to the above. What waste of time that would be.

Next, I guess from Torres - and what I know of Kamhi - that they are conceptualizing art, in the manner of Rand. That takes some doing. Abstracting abstractions until one arrives at an over all principle, or principles. It's soft and easy criticism of these efforts to point at one purported mistake or exception, and scoff: "See, he/she is wrong" and "They can't even recognize that this painting's perpective is off!" "So what authority can they have...?"

Oh, but they are posing as having authority, and they pretend to judge visual art objectively. So, when one or both claim that student-grade work is superior, world-class art, it most definitely has relevance to questions of the validity of their methods.

And, btw, it's not just Capuletti's perspective that is off, but his anatomy and color usage as well. He was not the quality artist that Torres rates him to be. Therefore Torres must be confusing his personal subjective tastes -- his likes -- with an objective judgment of Capuletti's talent. Perhaps he doesn't know the difference. I suspect that he doesn't. His comments on Capuletti suggest that he doesn't have even the most basic technical knowledge of the visual arts. He appears to be quite visually aesthetically incompetent.

Torres' arbitrary declaration that miniature realistic sculptures are not art is yet another example of the irrational authoritarian nature of his method, and it demonstrates the falsehood of his claims of objectivity and rationality.

From one instance of a painting to the broadest concept of all art, ever, and back down again - from principle to a single example - is rather like herding thousands of cats, I think. Several will escape. There will be some innocent errors, some misinterpretations and some areas for personal disagreement among otherwise totally assenting rational individuals. However, it's counter-reality and -reason (i.e. identity and consciousness), to remain concrete bound in singular instances. Additionally, it has to be rationalistic to embrace all instances of anyone's daubs of paint on some surface (and all the many, many variations on that theme) and to then decree: "This must be art - all of it - and I won't accept argument!"

What is actually rationalistic -- or actually I should say highly irrational -- is for people who have no real technical knowledge of the various art forms to decree: "This must not be art -- none of it -- and I won't accept argument!" That's what Kamhi and Torres do.

J

J.

You do make much of "technical knowledge'.

But to return to basics. Simply, as I see it, the aesthetic content and the subject content are inseparable and interdependent. The aesthetics are the vehicle for the subject matter. A subject without aesthetics would likely be stick figure sketches - while aesthetics without subject content would be (and is)abstract art. Abstract art, after all, portrays aesthetics as the subject itself.

"The 'how' can never replace the 'what'..."[AR]

There is really no big mystery about aesthetics (stylization and treatment: inclusive of decisions of composition, 'balance', color harmony or contrast, placement of horizon or center of interest, high key/low key lighting, perspective. Etcetera).

No big deal, although certainly it is, in terms of effort and dedication. But it can all be gradually learned and imbued in one's mind - until it almost becomes intuitive. From many sources, like contemplating great art and reading insightful art writers, and then integrating the known and traditional 'rules' of aesthetics to one's own purposes and style. (After which, the 'rules' can also be broken by choice).

"Sensitivity"? Indeed and of course: if you're meaning it as a heightened awareness ~ of what actually exists ~ down to any and all nuances in a picture, or in real life, or in one's mind/emotions. Past a point, one enters realms of mystique and subjectivity.

Do you mean to suggest that an abstract artist can communicate to you what very few others can see and sense?

While I agree that "a mood" can be conveyed by aesthetics alone, not always, and anyway as I've said decorators and many others are fully cognizant of the effects.

Even then, it seems to me that the moods are so few, generic and vague (e.g. action/dynamism/energy, or peace/calm/placidity) that they are limited in ' meaningful communication' to the point of uselessness.

And further, claiming to attach a 'mood' and abstract design to human life and human qualities - and to metaphysically given or man-made existents in reality - is entering into rationalism, and will be met with due skepticism.

As you say - "Prove it".

[Brant Gaede]

It's not what art (or aesthetics) communicates but how the experience is processed. A painting or piece of music or a story is literally the consumer's raw material. The artist's raw material is of a different order. "Abstract" this or that is completely beside this point for the only one to complain is the consumer and his process and thus the aesthetician can't complain except as a consumer. Qua aesthetician he's out of this loop which is strictly creator to consumer of the creation. Music, btw, is completely abstract except perhaps when opera (lyrics) is added.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Did you ever mention human action in regard to visual abstract art? Sorry, don't recall that.

Oh, I'm sorry, I assumed that you had a better memory of past discussions, and that you were aware of the fact that we've been discussing specific examples on this thread that I gave of abstract paintings, along with my description of their effects on me and others, as well as the meanings that we get from them:

The first gives me the feeling of energy, determination and action. It's meaning is that mankind should be strong and bold, and pursue his passions. The specific angularity and proportions of the shapes is what conveys motion and rising to me, the dramatic contrasts and bold colors suggest passion, heat, pressure and struggle, and the bulk of the forms and the roughness of the textures give me the feeling of strength and rugged durability. I see it as a very physically masculine painting. It's extroverted, dominant, serious and aggressive. It's like Atlas pushing upward.

The second image gives me the feeling of serenity. It's meaning is that peace and gentleness are important human qualities. The colors are subdued and calming. There is practically no drama or contrast -- the forms are delicate and faint, and they convey a soothing gentleness, playfulness and weightlessness. The image is like a visual whisper. I see it as a very physically feminine painting. It's withdrawn and introverted, and anything but aggressive. It's like a mother caressing a child.

They're examples that I've given to you in the past. I'm surprised that you don't remember.

I do recall your mentioning color and texture and how these evoke feelings, emotions, etc. - and I agree that abstract visual art does this, just as the timbral and textural aspects of music can do this, or a descriptive scene in a novel can do it, without there being characters or action.

In the above examples that I posted, notice that I described human actions, events, personalities, etc., and I did so in exactly the same manner that you do when describing the effects that music has on you. Despite the absence of overtly mimetic visual or aural imitations of things in reality, humans can identify virtual actions, events and personalities, etc., via attributes in the abstract art forms of music, architecture and abstract paintings and sculptures.

Yes, abstract visual art and modern non-melodic music - as well as the timbral and textural aspects of melodic music - *do* evoke emotions. But melodic music focuses all of that and more on music characters (themes) and action, while abstract visual art and modern non-melodic music dump them, thereby sacrificing a great deal of emotion-generating power by limiting themselves to color, geometric, timbral, and rhythmic effects.

That's false. Like music, abstract art "dumps" direct visual likenesses of things in reality, but that doesn't mean that it "dumps" indirect visual likenesses of things in reality. As I described above, abstract visual art can create "virtual" characters and actions. You should understand that since you recognize that architecture, an abstract art form which "dumps" direct likenesses, does exactly the same thing: it operates via indirect likenesses, as does music.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it simply does not represent or re-create reality (in particular, emotions) to the same fullness or depth, as by applying it in the presentation of a visual or musical entity.

Music does not "re-create" reality to anywhere near the same fullness or depth as realistic paintings. In order to do so, it would have to employ direct aural likenesses of things in reality, like imitations of birdsong, for example, or the laughing guitar effect that Steve Vai created in the opening section of David Lee Roth's Yankee Rose. Very few pieces of music use that level of mimesis/imitation/representation. That's because most music is abstract.

Mood/atmosphere evoked by attributes and events is just not as complete a re-creation as mood/emotion embodied in entities and actions.

It is true that music, architecture and abstract paintings, all of which are abstract art forms which rely only on attributes, are not as complete of a re-creation of reality as art forms which directly imitate reality and do not rely only on attributes. But that doesn't mean that they suffer aesthetically from not making use of everything that is available. Using every possible means -- making a work of art as "compete" of a re-creation as possible -- doesn't necessarily make the work better art.

Roger, is it your view that most music suffers when it doesn't take advantage of the ability of musical instruments to directly and overtly imitate the sounds of things in reality? Do you believe that most music is "limiting" itself by not taking advantage of the "emotion-generating power" of creating identifiable imitations of the sounds of entities in reality?

So, I'm not clear on what it is that I'm "refusing to understand." I notice a lot of the things you refer to when I "immerse" myself in (some) modern art.

My use of the term "immerse" was meant to describe the depth of your personal involvement with music. You are a professional musician. You've made your living with music. My understanding is that your life has been one of great passion for music. You are immersed in it.

You have not been a professional visual artist. You haven't eaten, drank and slept visual art. You are not immersed in it. Get it?

And I'm not just talking about abstract art when saying that you're not immersed in visual art. I mean that you're also not immersed in realistic visual art. It's nowhere near to being a major or primary interest or passion of yours.

But there is a lot of other modern art that (so I am told) is very profound, but that I just don't get it.

There's also a lot of art that I don't get. When someone tells me that a certain work of operatic music is deeply emotional and meaningful to them, they usually can't explain to me why they feel that way. Even if they could, no explanations will be able to talk me into sharing their experience. It simply does nothing for me. And I know of many people who feel the same way about most operatic works.

Should I therefore assert that the art form isn't a valid one? Would it be rational and objective of me to deny that others experience great depth and meaning in it because I don't?

No explanation is ever given, no demonstration of what it is that I "don't get," just the Toohey-esque attitude of "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary - to those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

I'm getting really tired of Objectivish-types dragging out the tired old lie/fantasy that they're being told "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary - to those who do not understand, no explanation is possible." Especially after I've explained to them multiple times how abstract art affects me and others.

Um, Roger, when someone gives you an explanation, maybe the idea should be to pay attention, try to understand it, learn from it, and remember it, rather than having an emotional reaction, immediately rejecting it, attempting to ridicule it, and then later falsely claiming that you were told that no explanation was possible. Maybe address the substance of the explanation rather than emotionally dismissing it by reporting that you and your wife's response was "Give me a break!" The 'argument from personal incredulity' is never going to be effective.

Along with this non-argument, I also used to hear the old canard and untruth that "No great composer was ever appreciated in his own time," so we should set aside the fact that we are often offered garbage to listen to by modern "serious" composers and realize that we are just like the plebians in Mozart's or Chopin's era who didn't appreciate them, and we should just shut up and continue fork over our tax dollars to subsidize the true modern artists.

If there were a strictly free market in art and music, and no such thing as the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio, etc., we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I think you need to immerse yourself in a little art history and reality. Kandinsky and the boys were around and successful long before the existence of the NEA and NPR, and their work has been very successful in the private market. Conversely, if it were not for public radio and public funding, your preferences in music wouldn't be getting anywhere near the air time that they do. In a strictly free market, your tastes would be dead. If it were not for public funding throughout all of history, as well as the arbitrary aesthetic dictates of political tyrants, much of the music that you love would likely not exist or have the form that it has.

J

[Jonathan]

Right on, Ellen. I think someone needs a little more immersion in sound waves before making such comments! ;-)

That someone is you, Roger.

Here are some comparisons/parallels that I think seem more apt and more helpful as an overview to this controversy:

1. An abstract painting is to a (non-melodic, mood-evoking) tone poem what a realistic painting is to music with melody.

2. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with title and written description is to melodic music with descriptive program notes.

You've missed the point. The idea of my original comparisons/parallels was to use only self-contained art forms as examples, not to introduce external means of achieving meaning. The point was to compare one abstract art form to another, and one realistic form to another. See, music without words is not a realistic art form. It is abstract, just as abstract paintings are. Music doesn't present identifiable likenesses of entities in reality. Music with words, however, does present conceptual likenesses of identifiable entities in reality, and realistic paintings present identifiable likenesses of things in reality. Get it?

3. A realistic painting is to music with melody what a realistic painting with an accompanying poem is to melodic music with lyrics.

I see what the problem is. You've made a category mistake. Here's where you appear to have initially made it:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14839&page=18#entry224893

Case 3: Traditional tonal music is "abstract 1" in that it presents a stylized, metaphorical image of human action, while modern atonal music is "abstract 2" in that it does not present a stylized, metaphorical image of human action.

Case 4: Traditional realistic painting is "abstract 1" in that it presents a stylized image of (say) a human face or body, while modern non-realistic painting is "abstract 2" in that it does not present a stylized image of a human face or body.

In Case 4, you start with a visual art form which overtly mimics/imitates/represents reality: It creates a direct likeness of things in reality; and you finish with an art form which does not overtly mimic/imitate/represent reality: It creates an indirect likeness of things in reality.

In order for Case 3 to be a true and valid parallel, it would have to start with an example of aural art which overtly mimics/imitates/represents reality: One which creates a direct aural likeness of things in reality (such as birdsong, Steve Vai's laughing guitar, etc.); and it would have to finish with an aural art form which does not overtly mimic/imitate/represent reality: One which creates an indirect likeness of things in reality.

So, these would be the categories:

1) Realism (direct, identifiable likenesses, overt mimesis/imitation).

2) Abstraction (indirect, vaguely identifiable likenesses, non-mimesis/non-imitation)

Your mistake was in making traditional tonal music, which belongs in category 2, parallel to art forms that are in category 1. And it's the mistake that you continue to make. You are misidentifying music as belonging in category 1. It does not meet the criteria despite your wanting it to.

As a musician/theorist interested in (nay, fascinated with!)...

Yeah, that's what I meant by "immersed."

...analyzing meaning and emotion in music, I consider music with lyrics to be like "training wheels" for understanding music without lyrics. (Or, as Peikoff might call it, "the antechamber.") Of course, this presumes a "good match" between music and lyrics, and it entails a huge amount of grunt-work, going through the melodies that have stood the test of time - whether from the past several centuries of "serious" music, or from the past decades of popular music, to see what recurring patterns of melody &c emerge from the research.

It's one thing to hypothesize that thus-and-such a melody is most appropriate for conveying a particular meaning or emotion, and quite another to find out whether that meaning/emotion in fact was (most often and most effectively) conveyed that way. Step 1: hypothesis. Step 2: look at LOTS of songs with words, classical and popular, identify patterns and evaluate whether they confirm the hypothesis. If so, throw away the training wheels and go to Step 3: look at LOTS of purely instrumental pieces, identify the patterns and see whether they too confirm the hypothesis. (Look for anomalies and counter-examples, too. I already have a lot of them in mind, for popular songs.)

Do other people's responses count? When other people don't feel what you feel, does it cancel out what you feel?

Why do your and Kamhi's lack of depth of response cancel out my depth of response, and the depth of response of millions of others?

If I weren't so deeply "immersed" in writing about Rand's file folder metaphor and critiquing the Objectivist theory of volition, I'd be working on this project right now. But if someone out there wants to jump on it and do it themselves, be my guest.

Wow, you're just super uptight about my use of "immersed," huh?

J

[Jonathan]

I'm actually trying to discuss Rand and Kamhi (and other theorists), but you make this difficult to do past all your distorting. (Speaking of other theorists, do you have criticisms of Dutton?)

I'm not distorting anything. Well, it's possible that my forest has one or two electrons slightly misplaced accidentally. But my main point -- that Kamhi's entire argument comes down to her arbitrarily promoting her own aesthetic limitations to the status of universal standard -- contains no distortion. Her position is based on nothing but her personally not getting anything of depth out of the art forms that she rejects.

I don't agree. I'll possibly come back to your charges against Kamhi later.

I wish you would! I'd love to see you address the forest -- the main substance of my views -- rather than all of the irrelevant electron-chasing.

If Kamhi isn't arbitrarily inserting her own lack of aesthetic response as the universal standard for judging what is not art, then identify the standard that she is using. If her personal subjective limitations are not the standard, then identify the rational, objective means that she uses for measuring depth of emotional response and meaning in art works. Identify the means that she has used in determining that people who claim to deeply respond to abstract art are pretending.

J

[Jonathan]

Maybe you didn't notice this part of my post #364:

That's you, using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" and saying that it applies to "abstract" art and to music.

Yes, it's me using Rand's meaning of "abstraction" as it might apply to abstract art and to music because I was responding to your having brought up Rand's notion of abstraction in regard to abstract art and music. I didn't know at the time that you were confusing "abstract art" with Rand's notion of "abstraction," so I was entertaining you introducing Rand's notion of "abstraction" to the discussion.

Now, carefully reread what I wrote in response to you then (with emphasis added): "Music's means may include abstractions from emotions," and "I think that emotional abstraction is one means that both music and abstract visual art might employ."

On the other hand, in the same post of yours, you say that in calling music an "abstract art form," you mean that music:

[...] does not present identifiable aural likenesses of things from reality.

So which is it?

Do you not understand what an "identifiable aural likeness" is?

If music "may" and "might" include/employ "abstractions from emotions," then sometimes - according to you - music IS presenting "identifiable aural likenesses of things in reality," unless you think that emotions don't exist in reality, or unless you're meaning narrowly visual "aural likenesses.

Ellen

No, "may" and "might" don't mean "is." They mean that music might, may, or potentially could include or employ "abstractions from emotions." It would depend on what "abstractions from emotions" means. Does it mean that an aural re-creation of laughter on a musical instrument, like Steve Vai's guitar work on Yankee Rose, is an abstraction from an emotion? If so, then music could use such abstractions, and many others that haven't yet been imagined, as one of its means of expression.

J

[anthony]

It's not what art (or aesthetics) communicates but how the experience is processed. A painting or piece of music or a story is literally the consumer's raw material. The artist's raw material is of a different order. "Abstract" this or that is completely beside this point for the only one to complain is the consumer and his process and thus the aesthetician can't complain except as a consumer. Qua aesthetician he's out of this loop which is strictly creator to consumer of the creation. Music, btw, is completely abstract except perhaps when opera (lyrics) is added.

--Brant

I think the "abstract" in abstract art is a mislabeling or misnomer, little more than spin put on something nobody really understood.

There is no relation between the concepts, 'abstraction', and the 'abstract' in art.

Sound - music specifically ("periodic vibrations") - is what it is. It can't be any more than that, essentially.

It is why it's hard for one to conceive of a composer desiring to create a piece which would be musically 'unintelligible'. That is, to deliberately make it fully lack any melodic or harmonious integrity.

Otoh, Sight and vision is man's most direct relation to reality. Visual arts *can* display reality - mostly do, in fact. For an artist to deliberately shun the option of a realistic representation, is an admission of some sort, and I believe integrity has to do with it, too.

Interesting how different the "consumer" is with visual arts. I take it you mean the end buyer. As opposed to literature and music (buying books and CD's), in a sense, the "consumer" is everybody. The artwork enters the public domain, unless it never sees the light of day before and after its transaction (rarely). Once we see it, we all 'own' a piece of it, metaphorically and abstractly.

[Jonathan]

You do make much of "technical knowledge'.

Are you saying that having technical knowledge is not relevant to making objective judgments of technical abilities? Is that true in all cases, or only when you and other Objectivish-types don't have the requisite technical knowledge?

Do you mean to suggest that an abstract artist can communicate to you what very few others can see and sense?

Where did you get the idea that few others can see and sense it?

Anyway, what I'm saying is that abstract art can communicate more effectively to some people than realist art can communicate to others. Notice that no one has yet explained or described the emotional expressions, emotional depths and meanings of the realist still life paintings that I posted earlier. Why do you expect abstract art to communicate but you don't expect the realist still lifes to communicate?

While I agree that "a mood" can be conveyed by aesthetics alone, not always, and anyway as I've said decorators and many others are fully cognizant of the effects.

Even then, it seems to me that the moods are so few, generic and vague (e.g. action/dynamism/energy, or peace/calm/placidity) that they are limited in ' meaningful communication' to the point of uselessness.

And further, claiming to attach a 'mood' and abstract design to human life and human qualities - and to metaphysically given or man-made existents in reality - is entering into rationalism, and will be met with due skepticism.

As you say - "Prove it".

What would you accept as proof? You don't allow for any possible proof. Apparently my word of what I experience isn't enough for you. Apparently you believe that if you don't experience something, then I can't possibly experience it either.

J

[Jonathan]

Kamhi was referring to the historic definition within the arts as applied to visual art. She wasn't talking about music. I was asking where you got the extending of the meaning from visual arts to music.

Heh. I applied the meaning to music, not "extended" it! What do you mean in asking where I got the "extending" of the meaning?!!! If someone is talking about molten gold, and then I apply the concept of "molten" to chocolate, would you object that I was "extending" the meaning to chocolate? As if "molten" somehow refers exclusively to gold, and that it is an unnatural, inappropriate, and incommensurate "extension" to apply it to anything else?!!!

Jesus.

I'd object if you presented your extension as if it were standard usage when it isn't.

If I understand correctly what you're saying in the above response, it's that YOU apply the standard meaning of "abstract art" to music, but you don't know of anyone else who does. It's a Jonathan special. Is that correct?

Many people have used the word "abstract" to categorize music.

J

[Roger Bissell]

Jonathan in #389 wrote:

"Wow, you're just super uptight about my use of "immersed," huh?"


Says the man who ridicules every word out of everyone's mouth who disagrees with him.

I guess I said "immersed" enough times that it really bugged you, and you had to say something about it. Fine.

I notice that you haven't yet gotten enough pleasure out of mentioning my wife (post #389) in order to resume ridiculing us, as you did several years ago, when we stated an opinion that disagreed with yours about certain abstract art objects. You really know how to push people's hot buttons, all right. That's an art form in itself. You really ought to consider finding a way to make money doing it. But to psycho-analyze me for pushing back with "immerse" - that would be laughable, if it weren't so hypocritical.

At the risk of appearing that I have nothing to say in reply to your rebuttals above, I am again going to discontinue taking part in these discussions. You can, and I'm sure will, continue to ridicule me behind my back - but I'm not going to stay here and let you spit in my face.

REB

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I suspected that you wouldn't be able to handle the substance of my last posts.

Come back when you can handle it.

J

[Jonathan]

I'd still like to hear answers, from anyone who shares Kamhi's mindset, to these questions that I asked in #376:

"Well, we're right back at the unanswered question: To whom? Profound to whom? Why would anyone have a problem with another person's finding a work of art to be profound? Why would anyone be upset about another person experiencing deep emotion and meaning in a work of art that did nothing for the person who was getting upset? What's the problem? What's with the need to deny others' responses, or to attempt to invalidate them?"

J

[Brant Gaede]

Roger is like Tibor Machan respecting Internet discussions. Thanks, but no thanks.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Roger is like Tibor Machan respecting Internet discussions. Thanks, but no thanks.

--Brant

Does Tibor also post his wife's opinions and then cry like a baby when someone references his posting of her opinions?

J