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


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

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"):

Huron said

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

Michael, are you saying that you classify all "sounds," individual "tones," and short, random "sequences" of tones as "music"? Are you saying that you believe that that's what Rand would have accepted as "music," rather than what she would have called "noise"?

If my wife and I are sitting in our living room watching a movie, and then suddenly we hear a loud, low-pitched sound outside, and it alarms us and makes us feel the emotion of fear, would you call that a musical experience? Would you say that we were just communicated to via an art form? Would you classify our reaction to the noise as scientific proof that people identify the same general emotion in a work of music?

Rand's position -- the position that I'm saying has no scientific proof yet to back it up -- was that each piece of music conveys the same general emotion to almost all people.

In the above quotes from Huron that you posted, he reports that "low-pitched quiet sounds are associated with both contentment and threat." Michael, do you think that Rand would have accepted contentment and threat as being the "same general emotion"? Do you think that the wide range of varying emotions that could constitute the excitement "associated with high metabolic arousal" should count as being the "same general emotion"? Is, say, the excitement of fear the same general emotion as the excitement of the triumph of winning a sporting event, and the same as the excitement of sexual arousal, or of the anticipation of a travel adventure or of Christmas morning? Is the definition of "same general emotion" that wide -- so wide as to be meaningless?

Huron reports that anger and fear are associated with high-pitch levels, ascending pitch contours, and fast event sequences. Rand's statement is that music conveys the same emotion to almost all people. So, wouldn't that mean that all works of music which contain high-pitch levels, ascending pitch contours, and/or fast event sequences would be interpreted by almost all people as expressing the emotions of anger and fear?

I've worked as a professional musician, most of my friends are deeply involved with music, I've had thousands of discussions with people about music, and I've read a hell of a lot of opinions about people's interpretations of individual works of music, and yet I've never encountered a single human being who has described most pieces of music which contain high pitches, ascending pitch contours and fast event sequences as expressing anger or fear.

As for the issue of volume, the same universality would have to apply. Does volume equal aggression, arousal and threat? If that were true, wouldn't that mean that increasing the volume of a piece of music would completely change the emotional meaning of the piece to almost all people? In other words, if we were to play a piece of music for Person A, and he felt that the melody conveyed the emotion of tranquil happiness, and then later we played it for him again with the volume turned up, are you saying that you believe he would suddenly experience it as conveying the emotion of threatening anger?

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.

I'm not looking for names of papers, but for proof to back up Rand's specific assertion. Her assertion was not that merely some people identify the same emotion, but that practically all do. And not just with a few select pieces of music, but with all music. So, scientifically, the idea would be to prove that position, which would mean testing actual pieces of music, rather than mere sounds, tones or noises. It would mean testing many, many pieces of music on many people. It would mean carefully defining and then tightly adhering to the term "same general emotion," and not accepting fear as being the same emotion as triumph, or contentment as being the same as threat. It would mean following the scientific method and tradition of trying one's hardest to disprove the proposed theory.

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.

False. It is accurate for me to claim that Huron did not present evidence to support Rand's position, which is that almost all people identify the same emotion in almost all works of music. Huron has shown that some people have the same responses to some "sounds."

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.

I'm really not into digging for something which someone else says supports their position and exists in there somewhere, even though they admit to not having read it yet.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

^ More "argument from personal incredulity."

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

When will you do so? Stop announcing that you're going to break out the whoop-ass, and get down to it! Stop talking' the talk and start walking' the walk! Bring it, don't send it!

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

Heh. Good one.

The forest that I'm talking about is my identification of the reality that Kamhi's position is nothing but her arbitrarily inserting her own personal lack of aesthetic response as the universal standard for judging what is not art. My forest is that Kamhi's book is nothing but the fallacy of the "argument from personal incredulity," and the attempt to act as if combining the personal incredulity of likeminded people somehow adds up to something other than a mound of personal incredulity -- that somehow their aggregated fallacies magically become non-fallacious when they reach a critical mass.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You can call it whatever you want. Others do. Some people do call it "non-representational art, " as you suggested above. Others call it "non-objective art."

Personally, I don't care what name is attached to anything, as long as we understand that we're referring to the same phenomena in reality.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I misunderstood you.

I thought you were interested in science, not stories.

The science method is to focus in on details. But you prefer to ignore the science and stick to the stories. That's why you dismiss everything as "some people" etc. etc., etc.

Well some people call the basis of the information in Huron's book scientific experiments.

I have no stories in the mold you seek.

Besides, you said this: "I'm not looking for names of papers, but for proof to back up Rand's specific assertion."

And this is where I made a HUGE mistake. I thought you were interested in music and emotions and how all this works. Turns out, you are only interested in proving Rand wrong. (yawn...)

I already agree with that re Rand and music. I came to that conclusion ages ago. So that proposition is boring to me.

Please carry on.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the reader, if you are interested in how music and emotions work and what some of the best brains working in this field have to say about it, here is a partial repeat of the titles I suggest as a start.

I believe you will learn a lot. I know I have just from periodic skims. (Once I finish my work on story, I will delve into this stuff in earnest.)

Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation by David Huron
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin
The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature by Daniel Levitin
Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination by Robert Jourdain
Music and the Mind by Anthony Storr (this is an older work than the others and probably more speculative than scientific, but I love Storr's insights)
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain by Oliver Sacks

That's not all, but it's a good start. Every time I pass the shelf where my books on music and audio are, I pick up one of these, skim a little and sigh, hoping for more time one day. :smile: I'm particularly fascinated by fMRI scans and hormone secretions (dopamine, serotonin, etc.) with music.

I did read a lot of stuff on music and emotions in another time of my life, but those works are not nearly as good as the ones I listed above. Here are just a few from before:

Emotion and Meaning in Music by Leonard B. Meyer
The Language of Music by Deryck Cooke (an earlier edition than the one linked here)
Psychology of Music by Carl E. Seashore
Principles of Rhythm by Paul Creston (not as relevant to emotions, but I thought it was when I bought it way back when :smile: )

For those interested in the Rand-was-right vs Rand-was-wrong contest, I don't have much to offer.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I misunderstood you.

I thought you were interested in science, not stories.

I am interested in science, not stories. I'm asking for science rather than just accepting Rand's stories. Where's the science to back up her stories?

The science method is to focus in on details. But you prefer to ignore the science and stick to the stories. That's why you dismiss everything as "some people" etc. etc., etc.

The scientific method isn't to focus in on just any details. Rather, it is to focus in on relevant details as they pertain to the proposal that is being investigated.

I'd like answers to my questions. Do you define "music" as any individual sound, tone, or noise? Do you define it as any short, random sequence of tones? Do you think that Rand defined music that way? Do you classify fear as the same emotion as triumph, and contentment as the same emotion as feeling threatened?

Well some people call the basis of the information in Huron's book scientific experiments.

I also call them scientific experiments. They're just not scientific experiments that back up Rand's stories. Someone's testing whether or not tin is radioactive is also a scientific experiment. It's just not a relevant experiment to proving Rand's stories.

I have no stories in the mold you seek.

Besides, you said this: "I'm not looking for names of papers, but for proof to back up Rand's specific assertion."

And this is where I made a HUGE mistake. I thought you were interested in music and emotions and how all this works. Turns out, you are only interested in proving Rand wrong. (yawn...)

No, I'm interesting in seeing proof that Rand was right, rather than just accepting her stories as true without any proof.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in science, not stories. I'm asking for science rather than just accepting Rand's stories.

Jonathan,

I can look at what you say and what you do. From what you do (like not look at the science, ask questions about it instead and make broad dismissals), I disagree with your appraisal of your motives.

I don't think you are interested in the science at all.

From your comments, I have no choice but conclude you have not looked at the material. I know this just from looking at what you say and comparing it to my scans of the material. My only objection is you said you examined the material, then dismissed it with an incorrect identification of what was in it.

That might lead readers to likewise dismiss this stuff, or imagine there is nothing objective about music and emotions, etc.

In my view, you are trying to battle one opinion with another. And this leads to where it always leads--testy insulting comments and endless repetitions of a handful of allegations.

Later, if you become interested in this topic for real and less interested in slaying dragons called Objectivist aesthetics, I have some very interesting information on what goes on in the brain with all sensory inputs. It is based on a recent DARPA project called Narrative Networks. This was about the neuroscience of story and persuasion, but it has direct bearing on music (and image art for that matter) as it lays a neuroscience foundation.

Also, the people tested were not just asked survey questions. They were wired up with EEG outfits, had their saliva tested for dopamine and oxytocin traces, had fMRI scans run on them, etc. I think this was the first time this level of study was done on narrative.

I am pretty convinced that what goes on with music is identical to narrative except that in the "Neural Story Network" (a group of sections of the brain that light up simultaneously when sensory input is not rejected), the part of the brain that processes sound lights up stronger than normal and a few other areas kick in. Possibly the part devoted to speech abates a bit.

The fact is, what reaches the conscious brain are not direct sensory inputs, but automatic stories about them that are generated in the Neural Story Network. (It also retrieves memories, but I don't want to get sidetracked by too many details for this point.) We think consciously with that material, with automatically generated mini-narratives (which include value judgments and emotions) based on directly observed facts, not with static directly observed facts themselves.

Interestingly enough, if we want to go back to the Rand-was-right vs. Rand-was-wrong thing, Peikoff's observation that every is implies an ought is literally true. (But not for the reasons Rand or he gave.) That's how the brain processes all information since everything goes into narrative form for conscious thinking, even math. It's an epistemological question, though, not a metaphysical one.

This implies that the connection between narrative and music is not just an opinion. It's a brain process. Lots of variables which will give different outcomes under differing circumstances, but still an objective brain process with measurable and repeatable parts.

Feel free to dismiss this, though, and say you are asking for science to prove or disprove Rand. It's probably not worth looking at.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument from personal incredulity. Is it the same argument an atheist brings to a debate with a religious person?

Like,

"Though I can accept that you sincerely believe in the existence of Something which I have never for an instant personally recognized, I am afraid that if you can't point to it this moment, I will remain as always, incredulous."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael: "Every is implies an ought."

True, if respecting possible human action--that is, ought or ought not. Very binary.

If you just intellectualize this it can seem quite weak, but if it's about an actual thing and your choice, that's got a little more whomp! The problem is in that situation you don't stop and contemplate it philosophically.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You can call it whatever you want. Others do. Some people do call it "non-representational art, " as you suggested above. Others call it "non-objective art."

Personally, I don't care what name is attached to anything, as long as we understand that we're referring to the same phenomena in reality.

J

Jonathan: It appears in earlier posts that you are under the misapprehension that me and others are looking to undercut your pleasure and expertise in art, and that's very wrong. You take art personally; it figures. Me too. But above this, there is a single idea at stake here which is ultimately bigger than personalities involved, and simply, it's the efficacy of man's mind in reality. Art is the perfect expression, consequence, benchmark and test of this capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument from personal incredulity. Is it the same argument an atheist brings to a debate with a religious person?

Like,

"Though I can accept that you sincerely believe in the existence of Something which I have never for an instant personally recognized, I am afraid that if you can't point to it this moment, I will remain as always, incredulous."

This is a perfectly valid position to take. No one should be convinced by another of anything that they do not know for themselves.

But notice that if this is true... it invalidates arguing! :laugh:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You can call it whatever you want. Others do. Some people do call it "non-representational art, " as you suggested above. Others call it "non-objective art."

Personally, I don't care what name is attached to anything, as long as we understand that we're referring to the same phenomena in reality.

J

Jonathan: It appears in earlier posts that you are under the misapprehension that me and others are looking to undercut your pleasure and expertise in art, and that's very wrong. You take art personally; it figures. Me too. But above this, there is a single idea at stake here which is ultimately bigger than personalities involved, and simply, it's the efficacy of man's mind in reality. Art is the perfect expression, consequence, benchmark and test of this capacity.

Some art, perhaps, but you can't claim all art without claiming the esthetic high ground of this is and that isn't "art." If music is art and literature is art, etc., you may be able to say this is music and that is not--and the same for all the particular arts (this is literature and that is not), but art in general is only a conglomeration of all arts with a definition hiding in each principal expression. It's "art" because music is art and it's music.

Also, everything that is man-made fits your peculiar definition of or description of "art," invalidating it on its face. It's way, way too broad.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I can look at what you say and what you do. From what you do (like not look at the science, ask questions about it instead and make broad dismissals), I disagree with your appraisal of your motives.

I don't think you are interested in the science at all.

I don't think that you're interested in the science. I've been addressing the science, point by point. You've been avoiding it, despite my having asked you questions twice. Answer the questions. That's the way that science works.

From your comments, I have no choice but conclude you have not looked at the material.

That's the conclusion that I have about you. You didn't really look at the material before posting it. You didn't ask yourself the questions that I've asked you, and which you still haven't answered.

I know this just from looking at what you say and comparing it to my scans of the material. My only objection is you said you examined the material, then dismissed it with an incorrect identification of what was in it.

The reality is not that I've dismissed anything without looking at it, but that you've accepted it as being relevant to the specific issue at hand without looking at it.

That might lead readers to likewise dismiss this stuff, or imagine there is nothing objective about music and emotions, etc.

The issue at hand is not whether or not there is anything objective about music, but whether or not almost all people experience the same emotions in each piece of music.

Later, if you become interested in this topic for real...

I am interested in the topic for real. I'm so interested in it that I brought my full attention to reading the materials that you posted, and I brought a degree of critical thinking that you didn't. I focused strongly enough to ask pertinent questions that you haven't answered.

...and less interested in slaying dragons called Objectivist aesthetics...

You're mischaracterization what I'm doing. For someone who just claimed to oppose "testy insulting comments," it's quite hypocritical. I'm not "slaying dragons called Objectivist aesthetics." I'm rejecting contradictions, double standards and arbitrary assertions. Your goal in your last few posts appears to be to create the illusion that I'm motivated by an irrational hatred of Rand and her ideas. It's as if you're trying to portray me as just out to get Rand. I'm not. I adore a lot about Rand. I respect her brilliant ideas. I respect them so much that I have adopted them and integrated them so deeply that I consistently practice them in critically analyzing all ideas, in testing and challenging ideas, and in rejecting very bad ideas, including those that happen to be Rand's.

I have some very interesting information on what goes on in the brain with all sensory inputs. It is based on a recent DARPA project called Narrative Networks. This was about the neuroscience of story and persuasion, but it has direct bearing on music (and image art for that matter) as it lays a neuroscience foundation.

Also, the people tested were not just asked survey questions. They were wired up with EEG outfits, had their saliva tested for dopamine and oxytocin traces, had fMRI scans run on them, etc. I think this was the first time this level of study was done on narrative.

I am pretty convinced that what goes on with music is identical to narrative except that in the "Neural Story Network" (a group of sections of the brain that light up simultaneously when sensory input is not rejected), the part of the brain that processes sound lights up stronger than normal and a few other areas kick in. Possibly the part devoted to speech abates a bit.

The fact is, what reaches the conscious brain are not direct sensory inputs, but automatic stories about them that are generated in the Neural Story Network. (It also retrieves memories, but I don't want to get sidetracked by too many details for this point.) We think consciously with that material, with automatically generated mini-narratives (which include value judgments and emotions) based on directly observed facts, not with static directly observed facts themselves.

I'm very interested in all of that. But it's just not relevant to the specific issue at hand. My identifying it as not being relevant to the specific issue is not grounds for believing that I'm not interested in it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But above this, there is a single idea at stake here which is ultimately bigger than personalities involved, and simply, it's the efficacy of man's mind in reality.

If you're all interested in the epistemological efficacy and limits of "man's mind," then why are all of my opponents in these discussions only interested in the single issue of the rejection of abstract art due to its alleged lack of content and depth, but they're not at all interested in Kamhi's rejection of architecture for the same reasons? To those of my opponents who claim that architecture is a legitimate art form, why are you not interested in addressing your epistemological disagreement with Kamhi's assertions about the limits of "man's mind" which you are claiming to surpass in your classification of architecture as legit art? Why does Kamhi, and those who agree with her views on architecture, have no interest in applying the same judgments to Rand that she applies to all other people who claim that something is art which Kamhi thinks is not? If objectivity and "man's mind" are truly valued, then why aren't people here cheerfully and enthusiastically supporting my objective identification of the fact that Rand's and Torres's evaluations of Capuletti's talents were highly mistaken?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in the topic for real. I'm so interested in it that I brought my full attention to reading the materials that you posted, and I brought a degree of critical thinking that you didn't. I focused strongly enough to ask pertinent questions that you haven't answered.

Jonathan,

I'll be blunt right now.

I don't believe you.

You may have brought your "full attention to reading the materials" I posted where I typed out a quote, but you certainly didn't look at the links. You couldn't have said what you did if you had looked.

So I won't discuss that material with you again until you show some kind of familiarity with it. Wholesale dismissals (especially based on incorrect characterization) and allegations you have read it don't count for me.

...and less interested in slaying dragons called Objectivist aesthetics...

You're mischaracterization what I'm doing. ... Your goal in your last few posts appears to be to create the illusion that I'm motivated by an irrational hatred of Rand and her ideas.

Bull.

I think you are moved by a hatred of people who agree with Rand's aesthetics and express the same judgments she did about specific art works and media. That's your hot button, that's what you have expressed in your words for years, and that's what gets you moving--in a really nasty way, I might add.

I've seen it over and over. This isn't the first time.

The bitch of it I mostly agree with you on substance.

I have a tolerance for snark, but the accumulation coming from you is reaching the limit of what I want on OL.

(btw - For the record, I believe you often commit the same error they do, but from an opposite end. The process is the same, though, which is deduce reality from principles or a conclusion, then get obnoxious when people show you reality or otherwise disagree.)

I think you are intelligent and I wanted to interact with that intelligence, but I'm going to bow out of this conversation. You're attitude is too nasty for me to talk to you without pulling rank. Besides, I don't want to wallow in name-calling of hypocrisy and other crap like that. And if you keep it up, I will pull rank. Friendly warning. If you like that kind of rhetoric, there are other places on the Internet that cater to it. I don't want it here.

This is a philosophy forum, not a kindergarten or a site overrun with Randroids (who constantly do that crap, too). Do that stuff at places like that, not here.

I'm very interested in all of that. But it's just not relevant to the specific issue at hand.

That's another reason I'm bowing out.

It is far more relevant that you think, whether you say so or not. But I can't even get the idea, which turns everything upside down, out without instant dismissal. So I'm not going to talk anymore about it with someone who is convinced of an opinion, won't look, is on a crusade, and likes to provoke bickering.

Anyway, I've got a life to live.

I've wasted my time here.

Please take a look at the posting guidelines.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some very interesting information on what goes on in the brain with all sensory inputs. It is based on a recent DARPA project called Narrative Networks. This was about the neuroscience of story and persuasion, but it has direct bearing on music (and image art for that matter) as it lays a neuroscience foundation.

I'm very interested in all of that. But it's just not relevant to the specific issue at hand. My identifying it as not being relevant to the specific issue is not grounds for believing that I'm not interested in it.

I found some DARPA material on "Narrative Networks" from a page under their "Biological Technologies Office (emphases added):

NARRATIVE NETWORKS

Why do people accept and act on certain kinds of information while dismissing others? Why are some narrative themes successful at building support for terrorism? What role can narratives play in causing—and helping to treat—Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)? These questions deal with the role narratives play in human psychology and sociology, and their answers have strategic implications for defense missions.

DARPA launched the Narrative Networks program to understand how narratives influence human cognition and behavior, and apply those findings in international security contexts. The program aims to address the factors that contribute to radicalization, violent social mobilization, insurgency, and terrorism among foreign populations, and to support conflict prevention and resolution, effective communication and innovative PTSD treatments.

Narratives may consolidate memory, shape emotions, cue heuristics and biases in judgment, and influence group distinctions. To determine their influence on cognitive functions requires a working theory of narratives, an understanding of what role they play in security contexts, and an examination of how to systematically analyze narratives and their psychological and neurobiological impact.

Narrative Networks has three parallel tracks of research and development:

  • Develop quantitative analytic tools to study narratives and their effects on human behavior in security contexts;
  • Analyze the neurobiological impact of narratives on hormones and neurotransmitters, reward processing, and emotion-cognition interaction; and
  • Develop models and simulations of narrative influence in social and environmental contexts, develop sensors to determine their impact on individuals and groups, and suggest doctrinal modifications.

I'm not sure about this: "Also, the people tested were not just asked survey questions. They were wired up with EEG outfits, had their saliva tested for dopamine and oxytocin traces, had fMRI scans run on them, etc. I think this was the first time this level of study was done on narrative."

Michael, do you have anything further to that? I'd like to track down just what you are describing here (not sure if it is/was done under DARPA auspices).

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - I am not too impressed with Capuletti.

I never have been, but I've never considered it a litmus test, either.

I agree lots of people like Capuletti because Rand liked him.

What do I base that on? Years of online discussions where I have seen the same words and observations Rand used being parroted without much new.

But I do believe some people who do this actually begin to like his work after a while. I base this on what happened with me and Rachmaninoff.

I started liking his music without knowing it way back when because Rand said so. Yup. I did the shallow thing, too. But I have since learned that this is not a sin, but the human impulse of imitation. (The main way primates learn is through imitation.) It's only a sin if it hardens into dogma.

Over time, I fell in love with a few of his works and even conducted a few. But ironically, it was not the Second Piano Concerto. I leaned toward the saxophone melody in Symphonic Dances (which comes back in full strings during the recap), and the third movement of the Symphony No. 2 in E minor, which to me contains the mother of all wistful musical climaxes.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, do you have anything further to that? I'd like to track down just what you are describing here (not sure if it is/was done under DARPA auspices).

William,

I've only been able to come across private stuff put out by people who were involved in the DARPA program and I have been constantly scanning for more for a long time. I am extremely interested in this.

Here are a few of the main people. The first is William Casebeer, who is a project manager at DARPA. (Please go to that link since there are several papers by him there. In fact, I'm glad you asked about this because I did not know of that page and now I have more material to download and read about this program.)

There used to be a video on YouTube of a lecture he gave at DARPA about Narrative Networks (about an hour and a half). It did not go into a huge amount of depth and, for someone like me, it mostly teased, but now it seems to be scrubbed from the interwebs.

A person whose work has been funded by DARPA (not sure if it was specifically within the Narrative Networks program, but I suspect it was) is Paul Zak. Here is an article by him from 2013:

How Stories Change the Brain

... and the video he presented in that article (based on DARPA funding):

There are other videos of Zak talking on YouTube, including a round table where Casebeer is present, but I want to watch them before I post them. He also wrote some interesting books. I recently got:

The Moral Molecule

... but I haven't had time to dig into it. From skimming through it, I only found where he gives a casual reference to Department of Defense funding and expressing happiness he is included (pp. 203-204).

The place where I managed to get some great information is in the following book:

Story Smart: Using the Science of Story to Persuade, Influence, Inspire, and Teach by Kendall Haven (this came out in October, 2014).

I don't have time to type up the excerpts on the DARPA program, but he talked about it on pp. 16, 65, 85 and 104. He gave an overview of how he conducted his research within the program.

I don't know how much of the information from Narrative Networks is classified, but it has intrigued the hell out of me.

They want to weaponize story (being the Department of Defense and all :smile: ), but I want to understand how it works.

btw - The term "neural story network" comes from Haven. It's not in popular scientific usage yet, but I suspect it will be over time.

Another name that comes up when referencing DARPA and storytelling is Nahum Gershon. There are some things on Google searches, but I haven't had time to dig into him. And I am sure I missed a lot of people, too.

I am just too excited about what I have learned from Kendall Haven right now to dig much further. You have no idea how many hours I used to search about Narrative Networks, and how many videos I watched looking for clues. Then Haven just came right out with it. I already read his previous book (Story Proof), but I had no idea he was involved in DARPA's program until I bought Story Smart and started reading it. Talk about a pleasant surprise! In fact, it appears Haven was invited by DARPA based on Story Proof (which reads more like an overview of the science than a book on how to do stories).

If I remember anything else, I will let you know. And I will definitely be discussing this further.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote Fest - 1

In #401, Jonathan posted a bunch of quotes with no sources provided. I tracked the sources.

The first two quotes come from an arrantly mystical, neo-Pythagorean site.

The site is called "Principles of Nature: towards a new visual language."

I suggest that those following this thread click and look to get an idea of what the site's author, Wayne Roberts, is on about.

The side-bar with the table of contents provides immediate clues as to the mysticism. The Preface & HOME page provides multiple further indicators.

Regarding Roberts' use of "abstract" as applied to music:

Although the two paragraphs Jonathan quoted (first two quotes, #401), might seem to be in keeping with Jonathan's usage, what Roberts is talking about in calling music "abstract" is his belief that music "harmonises with the 'composition of Nature'," the "covert orders and principles (traditionally in science called, 'laws')" of which are "metaphorically reflected within the form and syntax of 'music'." See the excerpt below.

See also this statement from an indented passage on the "Preface and HOME" page:

"Music alone is the only language on Earth that comes closest to the

Universal Principle of Interconnectedness (UPI)."

The page "Music as abstract art" gives a relatively clear overview of the author's "language" thesis:

[bold emphasis added; the bracketed sentence is the author's]

Music as a universal (abstract) language

The abstract nature of most music may seldom occur to us, nor even perhaps to many students of the subject, so 'natural' does it seem to our ears and minds when well-composed and performed. But this naturalism is an in-principle naturalism. It harmonises with the 'composition of Nature' in principle. What do we mean exactly? Simply this: that beneath the apparently haphazard external forms and motions of the Universe, there exist covert orders and principles (traditionally in science called, 'laws') that link or tie everything together and choreograph the unfolding panoply of motion, position and timing. This linkage is metaphorically reflected within the form and syntax of 'music'. [in this document I call many of the Universe's syntactic and ordering principles 'resonant scale structures', in the musical sense of "scale".]

[....]

This metaphor has not yet found a significant parallel within the visual arts to this day. We do not yet have (at least in common usage) powerful visual scale structures per se.

This document will present a number of scale structures applying to the visual arts, number theory and geometry, and proposes various ways they might be implemented and, together acting in synchrony, empower the emergence of a new visual language and logic. Later in this document, scale structure theory is applied to discover Pythagoras-like theorems relating to new classes of triangles, and these findings point to a need for a (possibly major) revision of some of the 'fundamentals' of mathematics and of the sciences more generally.

Ellen

PS: I see just glancing at this page that more fire-works have been going on. I'll try to catch up a bit in awhile. Thing is, I've become really interested in the saga of 20th-century visual art/"art," so I've been looking into lots of stuff elsewhere than here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note to the reader:

How do you measure something like an emotional response to music?

That is a good question. Scientists, until quite recently, have had to rely on self-reported reactions. This means a person listens, then tells you what they feel.

Does anyone see anything that could go wrong with this?

:smile:

Heh.

So modern scientists have become quite clever at getting more accurate findings from self-reporting. What they do is set up one experiment and trick subjects into thinking that they are being tested on the announced thing, but meanwhile the scientists measure their automatic reactions to something else entirely.

Since I have only skimmed the science stuff I posted about music, I can't come up with an example dealing with music off the top of my head (well... maybe I could, but it would take more creative work than it's worth right now), but I can come up with an example that clarifies what I am talking about.

(Even then, this is not a real experiment. I've read so many, though, that the following experiment resembles one. I'm merely making it up for the sake of time.)

Subjects are called in to test how many words flashing on a screen they can remember. A short-term memory test. Then they are tested at different speeds and so on. They are paid for this, so after the test, they are told to take a voucher to someplace down the hall and bring back a receipt to get their money. Once they arrive, they are either dismissed or invited to continue for another session. When that second session ends, they are given another voucher, they deliver it down the hall and come back with the receipt to get paid.

Unbeknownst to them, both sessions are to really test how much a set of vocabulary words could affect their general mood. So the first session includes words like elderly, retirement, sunshine, aches, time, and so on. The second session includes other words like exciting, rock, young, breathtaking, vibrant, and so on.

Then they measure how long it takes for the subject to deliver the voucher and return with the receipt. The real findings of the experiment are these measurements. The test itself is bogus.

btw - I recall reading a similar experiment that actually took place and the findings were when people were subjected to words about old people, they walked a lot slower than when they were subjected to words about young people.

Anyway, this is just one methodology I have read over and over in the psychology and neuroscience books I have studied recently where self-reporting was necessary. Duping the subject while measuring something else is a very common practice. This is a way to eliminate as much as possible cognitive biases in self-reporting.

The music authors I referenced swim in the same waters as the scientists and related authors I have read, so it is a very good presumption that they relied on reports and experiments that used the same methodology. I am so tempted to read the music books and list some of these experiments just to prove this point, but I cannot interrupt my current work.

That is why I cannot accept seriously statements like: "They don't contain scientific proof of people identifying the same emotional content in music."

I have little doubt there are common and universal emotional reactions to music (under controlled situations) presented in this material, but these reactions won't be "identified" by the subjects unless they are part of a bogus test to measure something different on the sly.

To do so would be pure amateurville for a modern scientist. It would be embarrassing.

For those interested in studying this stuff, this is one way it's done.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - I am not too impressed with Capuletti.

I never have been, but I've never considered it a litmus test, either.

I agree lots of people like Capuletti because Rand liked him.

There are also people who have never heard of Rand who love Capuletti's work. Something about it connects with them on a very deep level. They see it as having that "magical" aesthetic effect on them. The same is true of fans of any artist's work that isn't technically great. I think one of the wonderful things about art is that it can have an inexplicable subjective appeal and massive personal impact despite its not being technically masterful by any objective standards.

Capuletti does that for some people just as Alfred Wallis does it for others. There are certain people whose socks are just knocked off by Wallis, and they think that he should be rated as one of the greatest artists ever. Just like Torres's praise of Capuletti, they're actually rating their own subjective responses, and they would be mistaking their subjective tastes for objective judgment if they were to claim that Wallis was technically great.

I have no problem with anyone liking Capuletti's work, or Wallis's, or anyone else's. Whatever blows your hair back, go for it. Love it. Drink it in, eat it up! But just realize that your liking it doesn't make it "supremely masterful technique" or "sheer perfection of workmanship" or whatever. Understand that if you're promoting the view that your judgments of art are objective, you're not going to succeed in making your case by issuing such easily demonstrable false judgments of artists' technical merit.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand did not elaborate well on one aspect of art. I think she didn't deal with it at all, but I don't want to make that claim without checking.

In literature, this is a relationship of meaning called a "story triangle," but this applies to all art.

The image below shows it pretty clearly:

triangle_graphic.jpg

The arrows stand for relationship. Where there is relationship, there can be fundamental aesthetic meaning. The deeper the relationship, the deeper the meaning and alignments.

In other words, in a story (or any work of art), there is:

1. The relationship between the storyteller and the story.

2. The relationship between the audience and the story.

3. The relationship between the storyteller and the audience.

Each of these have their own reality and principles.

(As an aside, even in a novel written in the omniscient third person voice, that omniscient third person is still a storyteller.)

Like I said, all art has a similar triangle of meaning, except there is the artist, artwork and audience.

There is no way to make universal objective judgments about the meaning of art without including the nature of these relationships. That will account for a lot of variability, but that is different than the arbitrariness implied by a statement like "all art is subjective" or calling artistic attraction inexplicable.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now