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

[Jonathan]

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

J

After a quick search for references to music as an abstract art form:

Musical compositions are largely abstract in that they do not usually duplicate, reproduce, or represent the sounds we encounter in day-to-day life (cf. 'representational art'). Rather, they combine timbres and ratios of frequencies of sounds, distributing these abstract 'sequences of notes' (melodies) and chords over rhythmic or rational intervals of time.

---

Representation in music

On the other hand, composers today have synthesisers and sampling keyboards at hand which have the ability to reflect the 'objective or representational arts' in that they can digitally recreate, by a layering of waveforms, sounds which may very closely mimic a myriad of natural sounds and with which we are all well familiar (e.g. the sound of a car engine, the sound of bell, the sound of a door clicking shut, etc.) This new subset of music is more to do with sound engineeringand the synthesis and modulation of wave forms via electronic means.

---

As visual art becomes more abstract, it develops some characteristics of music: an art form which uses the abstract elements of sound and divisions of time.

---

Why has music been historically the most abstract art form?

We can see highly developed musical forms in renaissance polyphony and baroque counterpoint. The secular forms of this music is often non-programmatic or "absolute music." In contrast to this, the paintings and sculpture of those times are often representational.

---

Did music start as representational but merely move to a more abstract art form than other types of arts sooner? Does it lend it self to this sort of abstraction more easily?

---

I dispute the idea that visual art started out representational and then progressed toward greater abstraction. Architecture, textiles, tile work, face and body decorations and jewelry all use pattern, color and texture for their own sake, without any representational content.

---

Music is fundamentally an abstract art form, while visual art often uses literal or representational imagery to reflect realities in the natural world.

---

Whereas Scruton characterises music as an abstract art form because it is not representational in the way that painting is...

---

Nonrepresentational art (music, abstract painting) has a perceptible physical form, but no content.

---

Music is a completely different form of art, which we claim is entirely abstract in essence.

---

Music then IS purely abstract... it is as abstract as art can get.

---

J

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think atonal music is inferior to tonal or melodic music, just simpler. The effect on people of its culture can be deep and profound.

If you're a philistine and don't like opera--I don't much but prefer the female to male voice--you might try watching the old silent black and white movie "The Passion of Joan of Arc" with its opera score. It's the most powerful movie I've ever seen--and heard. Perfect integration.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the tip.

I mentioned that I dislike most operatic works. There are a very few that I like, and a couple that move me deeply.

Of the operatic works that I like, live performance is better than recorded. In fact, modern recording is one of the big problems that I have with opera as it is presented in the modern world. It usually isn't recorded as it was intended to be heard -- from a distance, and with voices projecting over the volume of the orchestra. Listening to operatic voice recorded from a foot away is like looking, from a foot away, at a face painted with stage makeup which was intended to be seen from fifty feet.

J

[Jonathan]

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.

What's nice about these sorts of improvisational group dicussions is that eventually things start to click and connections are made, and then sometimes, as in this case, something pops into mind that boils the whole expenditure of ink (or in this case, pixels) down to a simple little phrase (and which makes me feel disappointed that the fallacy's name took this long to arrive at the tip of my tongue).

"An Argument From Personal Incredulity."

It should be the subtitle of Kamhi's book. It is the essence, core, and entirety of her argument. It is also the whole of Tony's argument, and of Roger's, and Rand's. It is even a large portion of Ellen's.

J

[Jonathan]

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 wanted to point out to anyone who is actually interested that lots of explanations have been given over the years, beginning with Kandinsky himself. Read him. But if you're a reality-resistant type of Objectivish-type, you might want to first read Michael Newberry's essay on "transparency" (visual spatial depth), and then keep in mind that one of the effects that Kandinsky describes is the same thing that Newbery describes (see, your likeminded buddy Newberry unknowingly came to one of the same conclusions as Kandinsky did, so maybe it's okay for you to accept it too!)

J

[anthony]

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

---

Music is a completely different form of art, which we claim is entirely abstract in essence.

---

Music then IS purely abstract... it is as abstract as art can get.

---

J

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

"Abstractions as such do not exist: They are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists--and that which exists is concrete."(TRM)

"Abstract" is all in our heads.

[Brant Gaede]

Who said "sound" was abstract? Sound--layers of types of at one point in time--or only one needed actually--and through time is how music is created. It's the created music that's abstract. It can't be realist and still be music. Paintings can be either abstract or realist with the realist being in the mind's eye as having an actual existential referent or referents and the abstract having existential referent(s) only by implication. Ultimately all art is in the head with only the existential object real enough in itself. If a horse were to look at the Mona Lisa it would not experience art, but see the object.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

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."

Q: Which character in The Fountainhead actually embodied the "no explanation is necessary - no explanation is possible" attitude?

A: Howard Roark.

During his first trial, he offered no testimony, challenged no witnesses, and presented no arguments. He merely presented images of his work to the judge, apparently expecting that no explanation was necessary or possible. He apparently believed that, when viewing the abstract art form of architecture, there was no such thing as valid differences in taste or interpretation, but that the abstract form clearly communicated universally the same meaning, emotional depth and value to all rational viewers, and that if someone didn't get it just by looking at it, then there was no point in even trying to explain it to them.

J

[Jonathan]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

[anthony]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

You got it, well done. 'Abstract' with 'painting' is a contradiction in terms.

Can you see it and touch it?

"Abstract art" is a meaningless convention accepted by way of constant usage, I imagine.

[Jonathan]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

You got it, well done. 'Abstract' with 'painting' is a contradiction in terms.

Can you see it and touch it?

"Abstract art" is a meaningless convention accepted by way of constant usage, I imagine.

You're a grown man, Tony. Isn't it time that you weaned yourself off Rand's teat?

J

[Jonathan]

Kamhi and Torres gripe a lot about new art forms. But now I'm starting to wonder if that's just a part of a new art form that they're trying to pull off!

Their primary argument is fallacious, as I finally explicitly identified in #404, and they seem to be much more interested in crafting an illusion -- an aesthetic effect -- than a logical argument. It's as if their purpose is purely aesthetic. They seem to have the goal of "re-creating" the effect of their own authority and importance! They are engaging in art criticism and the philosophy of aesthetics as if they were practicing an art form rather than a scholarly endeavor. They are posing and acting the part while apparently expecting that their style is good enough that no one will recognize the fallaciousness of their argument or have the technical knowledge to see through the illusion. And perhaps they expect that their target audience will be made up of the Personally Incredulous who will be easily tricked into believing that a congregation of Personal Incredulity will somehow add up to something that is not fallacious. Fallacy + same fallacy + same fallacy + same fallacy + same fallacy = non-fallacy?

They're inventing and practicing the exciting new art form of "art criticism art!"

J

[anthony]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

You got it, well done. 'Abstract' with 'painting' is a contradiction in terms.

Can you see it and touch it?

"Abstract art" is a meaningless convention accepted by way of constant usage, I imagine.

You're a grown man, Tony. Isn't it time that you weaned yourself off Rand's teat?

J

Ha! You are surely a bundle of laughs. That was all basic, common philosophy, actually.

[PDS]

If Frank Lloyd Wright were alive today, and we were able to test his brain activity in response to the abstract compositions of architecture, do you think that we might observe more brain activity in him than in some average "ordinary citizen" dope who has no interest in the art form of architecture?

If we were to show Wright examples of great architecture versus simulations of architecture, do you think that his brain activity would be the same in response to both? Would it be rational to expect that he should have the same aesthetic and cognitive response to expertly crafted architectural compositions as he had to comparatively awkward simulations?

If we were to test Kamhi and Torres's brains for activity while viewing architecture, would the results apply universally to all people? Would it be logical to conclude that enthusiastic fans and practitioners of the art form would necessarily have the same level of brain activity as people who aren't interested in the art form and who admit to not getting enough out of it to classify it as an art form?

J

Now this is very interesting, and a great restatement of how to look at your position.

Somewhat apropos of nothing, I also think what FLW would say abuot his reactions to viewing architecture would be fairly consistent with evidence from his brain waves.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Art Instinct: from the paperback back cover

The Art Instinct by Denis Dutton was published in hardcover by Bloomsbury Press on April 27, 2009. Bloomsbury published a paperback edition on February 2, 2010.

Here is part of the paperback's back cover blurb and advertising:

The Art Instinct explores two fascinating and contentious fields - art and evolutionary science - in a provocative work that will change forever the way we think about the arts, from Polynesian carvings to Pride and Prejudice.

Human tastes in art, Denis Dutton argues, are evolutionary traits, shaped by natural selection. Our love of beauty is inborn, and many aesthetic preferences are universal - such as the one for landscapes that feature water and distant trees, like the savannah where we first evolved. Dutton overturns a century of art theory and criticism and restores the place of beauty, pleasure, and skill as artistic values. The Art Instinct offers radical new insights into both the nature of art and the workings of the human mind.

"This book marks out the future of the humanities -

connecting aesthetics and criticism to an understanding of human

nature from the cognitive and biological sciences. . .

A bold and original contribution."

~~~ Steven Pinker, author of How the Mind Works

and The Stuff of Thought

From the snatches of The Art Instinct I've read so far, I'm suspecting that Dutton was too deficient in knowledge of evolution to have a good basis from which to argue. I'm wondering if the quotes from Pinker were excerpted in a way that makes Pinker sound more enthused by the book's content than he actually is.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"An Argument From Personal Incredulity."

It should be the subtitle of Kamhi's book. It is the essence, core, and entirety of her argument. It is also the whole of Tony's argument, and of Roger's, and Rand's. It is even a large portion of Ellen's.

I do often feel surprised at the extent to which you make things up, but I don't consider my surprise an argument.

Ellen

[anthony]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

But here is a great insight into how semantics rule common sense. Because a painting of a type has been (falsely) denominated "abstract" - the thinking goes - 'normal' evidence of the senses and perception no longer apply. Because it is not intelligible, is because it's "abstract". It's not intelligible to most, because it takes special (Platonic) ability to understand it. You don't have that ability? Too bad, but who are you to knock it when you don't understand it?. And so on...

A painting, and a single sound or a sequence of musical notes are existents - *concretes*. Whether the mind can understand and make abstractions from them, is another thing entirely. Anyone heard of existence being independent of consciousness?

[Jonathan]

"An Argument From Personal Incredulity."

It should be the subtitle of Kamhi's book. It is the essence, core, and entirety of her argument. It is also the whole of Tony's argument, and of Roger's, and Rand's. It is even a large portion of Ellen's.

I do often feel surprised at the extent to which you make things up, but I don't consider my surprise an argument.

Ellen

No one has said that your surprise is an argument. Rather, your belief that what others experience but which you don't is just being "made up" is an example of the fallacy known as the "argument from personal incredulity." (Um, you're not going to go all semantic electron-chase over the meaning of the word "argument," are you? God, I hope not!)

Anyhoo, do you have anything of significant substance yet, above the subatomic level? I'd still like to hear your big, devastating criticism of my forest, but if you need to work your way up to it, could you hurry it up a bit and at least move up to the molecular or cellular level right away? Please?

J

[Jonathan]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

But here is a great insight into how semantics rule common sense. Because a painting of a type has been (falsely) denominated "abstract" - the thinking goes - 'normal' evidence of the senses no longer applies. Because it is not intelligible, is because it's "abstract". It's not intelligible to most, because it takes special (Platonic) ability to understand it. You don't have that ability? Too bad, but who are you to knock it when you don't understand it?. And so on...

A painting, and a single sound or a sequence of musical notes are existents - *concretes*. Whether the mind can understand and make abstractions from them, is another thing entirely. Anyone heard of existence being independent of consciousness?

What do you want to call the stuff that people currently call abstract art? Almost everyone else on the planet gets what the term means. If you don't, and you need to change the name, fine. Pick a name! What do you want to go with?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael offered a slew of scientific sources. Have you looked at any of them?

Yes, I've looked at them. They don't contain scientific proof of people identifying the same emotional content in music. They don't contain what I asked about in that discussion. They're interesting speculations, and they contain mentions of certain scientific tests being used by some people in their explorations and investigations, but they don't contain what I asked about.

Jonathan,

This caught me by surprise.

So I went to the first book on my reading pile Sweet Anticipation by David Huron and flipped it open to a random page. I landed on page 324 (in the Chapter "Creating Tension"):

Throughout the twentieth century, numerous ethological studies were carried out to determine the purpose or meaning of various animal calls and signals. Loud sounds are generally associated with high arousal in a vast array of animals. Low-pitched loud sounds are associated with aggression, whereas high-pitched loud sounds are associated with alarm. High-pitched quiet sounds are often associated with deference or submissiveness, while low-pitched quiet sounds are associated with both contentment and threat.¹¹

The basic connotations of various sounds for human listeners has been explored extensively by Klaus Scherer at the University of Geneva. In one study, Scherer and his colleague James Oshinsky synthesized tone sequences whose basic acoustic properties were systematically manipulated. Listeners then describe the emotion suggested by different sound sequences. Scherer and Oshinsky found that anger and fear are associated with high pitch level, ascending pitch contours, and fast event sequences. In vocal production, all of these acoustical characteristics are associated with high metabolic arousal. When we are excited we speak faster, we speak at a higher pitch level, and we are more likely to glide upward and downward in pitch.¹²

If you like, I'll type out the names of the scientific papers referenced. They deal (in the second paragraph) with "people identifying the same emotional content in music." So they contain exactly what you asked for.

Glancing through the chapter, I saw it dealt with how sound operates on the limbic system in the brain (where the majority of our emotions come from) and I kept seeing the word "valence" pop up over and over. When valence is used to talk about emotions, it means attraction or aversion.

And in a different book I studied (Contagious: Why Things Catch On by Jonah Berger--but that one only deals marginally with music), valence refers to the excitation of emotions--excitation meaning the emotion's capacity to prompt action. In other words, rage and passion have a high degree of valence whereas sadness and contentedness have a low degree. High degree of emotional valence makes you move while low degree shuts you down. I'm not sure if Huron is using the same meaning here (I have to read it to be sure), but one thing is clear. In discussing valence, he is discussing emotions.

If I start in on this book, I have little doubt Huron discusses exactly what you asked for all over the book. Unless you mean something other than "people identifying the same emotional content in music" like people identifying the same emotional content in the music you want them to react to.

While you may agree or disagree with the material and ideas Huron presents, it is inaccurate to claim he did not present studies of people giving the same emotional reactions to music.

I didn't even look at the other books because I'm not into gotcha. I just want the reader to be clear that this information is available if he or she wishes to dig.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm wondering if the quotes from Pincker were excerpted in a way that makes Pincker sound more enthused by the book's content than he actually is.

Ellen,

Don't you mean Pinker?

I have his books and that's the way it's spelled on my copies.

Michael

EDIT: Since you are an English language geek, I am almost positive you will enjoy his most recent book, which I discussed elsewhere.

I bought Pinker's most recent book, The Sense of Style, and am around page 100 so far. This is the best book on nonfiction writing I have encountered.

It really is a fantastic book.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm wondering if the quotes from Pincker were excerpted in a way that makes Pincker sound more enthused by the book's content than he actually is.

Ellen,

Don't you mean Pinker?

Yikes. Yes, I meant Pinker, and that's how the name is spelled on the back cover.

I corrected the post. Thanks for the alert.

Also for the recommendation of The Sense of Style.

I might get to that someday, but I have a lot else ahead of it on my list, and I can't read for long at a time.

I'm confident that I'd enjoy the book. I've read a number of Pinker's books and irrespective of agreements/disagreements I always enjoy the way he writes.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"An Argument From Personal Incredulity."

It should be the subtitle of Kamhi's book. It is the essence, core, and entirety of her argument. It is also the whole of Tony's argument, and of Roger's, and Rand's. It is even a large portion of Ellen's.

I do often feel surprised at the extent to which you make things up, but I don't consider my surprise an argument.

Ellen

No one has said that your surprise is an argument. Rather, your belief that what others experience but which you don't is just being "made up" is an example of the fallacy known as the "argument from personal incredulity." (Um, you're not going to go all semantic electron-chase over the meaning of the word "argument," are you? God, I hope not!)

Not over the meaning of "argument." However, yes, over your misstatement of what I'm saying.

The issue is that what a form lacks the signifier and/or symbol capacity to express can't be provided by the form to be experienced. What isn't there, isn't there, whoever and however many claim to experience it as being there, and even if the person who produced the form claims to have put it there.

Interesting that you barked at Michael Marotta for calling music a kind of language, yet you make the same type of error yourself regarding some works of visual art.

I'll also "go semantic" over your mischaracterization of Kamhi's, Tony's, Roger's, and Rand's arguments.

Anyhoo, do you have anything of significant substance yet, above the subatomic level? I'd still like to hear your big, devastating criticism of my forest, but if you need to work your way up to it, could you hurry it up a bit and at least move up to the molecular or cellular level right away? Please?

What forest are you talking about? You mean your bramble thicket?

Ellen

[anthony]

Sound is abstract? No, as with 'organized sound', it is an existent. "Abstract", referring to any existent, is a blatant mis-use.

So, you're saying that there is no such thing as abstract paintings, because the paintings are existents?

You should try thinking before you post.

J

But here is a great insight into how semantics rule common sense. Because a painting of a type has been (falsely) denominated "abstract" - the thinking goes - 'normal' evidence of the senses no longer applies. Because it is not intelligible, is because it's "abstract". It's not intelligible to most, because it takes special (Platonic) ability to understand it. You don't have that ability? Too bad, but who are you to knock it when you don't understand it?. And so on...

A painting, and a single sound or a sequence of musical notes are existents - *concretes*. Whether the mind can understand and make abstractions from them, is another thing entirely. Anyone heard of existence being independent of consciousness?

What do you want to call the stuff that people currently call abstract art? Almost everyone else on the planet gets what the term means. If you don't, and you need to change the name, fine. Pick a name! What do you want to go with?

J

Too late for anything but to go along with the convention "Abstract art". Clearly, I just can't start calling it 'non-representational art', or 'non-realist aesthetics', or anything else. Hopefully the term is understood (at least in my use) to signify that it isn't an "abstract", but a very "concrete" image - purportedly linking directly into an artist's conscious/subconscious. A concrete, in which he is maybe trying to somehow physically illustrate his abstractions from reality, or an emotion, his inner state or a dream, or hallucination, iow.

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen can't see the bramble thicket for the brambles so asks Jonathan for a ticket out of his thicket.

Tony decides to conform to common usage, but it hurts to bow down to our cultural fascism--aka, democracy in action?

--Brant