Music as Art

[Victor Pross]

Introduction:

Torres and Kamhi’s What Art Is offers a coherent analysis of Rand's esthetic theory. They conclude that her views are compelling, and are corroborated by evidence from anthropology, neurology, cognitive science, and psychology. They call her approach to art "scientific."

They also apply Rand's theory to a deflate the work of prominent modernists and postmodernists—from Mondrian, Jackson Pollock, and Samuel Becket to John Cage. They defend Rand's stand that it is "anti-art." This is the "What Art Isn't" section.

What they have to say about Rand's definition of art --"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is a very interesting read. They conclude that it is the most cogent definition offered thus far.

A review of the book by Gary McGath is rather interesting itself. Here, we can see what he has to say about Torres and Kamhi's treatment of Rand's take on music as an art form.

***

Music as Art

"My own primary esthetic orientation lies in still another field, music. Music has generally been one of the hardest arts to fit into an esthetic theory, so I read the discussion of the subject with special interest. The authors point out the problems in Rand's discussion of music (the weakest part of her treatment of the arts), but I don't think they hit the mark precisely.

Rand made the error of supposing that musical tones are "pure sensations," rather than percepts. Lou and Michelle attribute this to "an insufficiently critical reading of Helmholtz," who used the word "sensation" in a different way from Rand. (1) To Rand, a sensation is a simple, atomic unit of sensory information. Musical tones in fact have considerable content, including attack, tone color (overtones), and changing volume. Tones, the authors state, "should be regarded as percepts." Partly because she failed to place tones on the appropriate cognitive level, Rand thought that music concretizes an epistemological, not metaphysical, abstraction, and that the pleasure obtained from music is largely that of integrating sensations (tones) into percepts.

The key question in relating music to Rand's theory of art is whether and how it constitutes a "selective re-creation of reality." Rand says little on this, except that it "evokes emotions." The authors note that with vocal music or music intended to be choreographed, this isn't a problem; the words or the dance make it clear what is being re-created. The difficulty applies to purely instrumental music. Lou and Michelle state that

the two main aspects of experience from which music derives its vital meaning -- and which it "selectively re-creates" -- are vocal expression and the sonic effects of emotionally charged movement.

Instrumental music makes use of the nonverbal, or prosodic, aspects of vocal expression [which] retain their pre-eminence in the communication of emotion. I think this still misses, though. The emulation of vocal expression and movement are the means, not the subject, of a piece of music. The first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is agitated music, but it isn't a depiction of movement charged with agitation.

The difficulty is that a piece of instrumental music (except for the few pieces that engage in literal imitation of ordinary sounds) does not re-create a single subject unambiguously; but how do we allow this without opening up the Pandora's Box of "abstract art"? To answer this, we have to consider the difference between hearing and the other senses.

Hearing is our primary sense of meaning and communication. All peoples developed language first as sound, and only later created written language as a visual encoding of spoken sounds. We can communicate our feelings with inarticulate sounds, and a leader can stir followers to a frenzy with his voice. Visual means alone cannot do nearly as much; and most of what they can do is tied to expressions of the face and movements of the body.

Thus, music does re-create reality in an abstract way -- it creates a "microcosm," to apply the apt term used by Leonard Peikoff, Roger Bissell, and others. It does this because it is capable of doing so meaningfully. Beethoven's Fifth creates an image of agitation, calming answers, and periods of falling back followed by redoubled fury, all without referring to any specific events.

If the visual arts could do the same without portraying physical objects, abstract painting or sculpture would be a legitimate phenomenon. Because of the way our senses relate to our mind, though, they can achieve "abstraction" only by portraying stylized or simplified, but recognizable, physical entities. What is usually called "abstract art" isn't abstraction at all, but meaningless shapes and markings.

Lou and Michelle correctly state that "[m]usic is abstract, but in the true sense of the word, which implies an objective basis in reality." But they miss the actual object of the abstraction, which is a (hopefully) coherent progression of mental-emotional states, identified with the melodies or themes and their changing treatment. The "meaningful aspects of our aural experience" which they cite are the means, just as the experience of color and form in a painting are the means to seeing what is portrayed."

****

Edited January 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

You're definitely onto something there Victor. It certainly makes sense to me.

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

What they have to say about Rand's definition of art --"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" is a very interesting read. They conclude that it is the most cogent definition offered thus far.

If I recall, they offered modifications to Rand's definition.

Victor posted quotes from Gary McGath's review of What Art Is:

Thus, music does re-create reality in an abstract way -- it creates a "microcosm," to apply the apt term used by Leonard Peikoff, Roger Bissell, and others. It does this because it is capable of doing so meaningfully. Beethoven's Fifth creates an image of agitation, calming answers, and periods of falling back followed by redoubled fury, all without referring to any specific events.

If the visual arts could do the same without portraying physical objects, abstract painting or sculpture would be a legitimate phenomenon.

Then abstract art is a legitimate phenomenon.

Color, on its own, has strong effects on the mind and body. For example, deep warm tones, such as browns, dark reds and oranges, stimulate appetite, and blue suppresses it. Pink has a tranquilizing effect -- one shade of it is known as "drunk tank pink," and is applied to the walls of holding cells to effectively calm aggressive detainees -- where exposure to strong yellows and lime greens causes people to become irritable. Saturated colors are exciting, yet after a short time they induce a sort of visual fatigue, and the eye searches for relief in neutral or complementary hues. Paintings whose shapes, colors and compositional movements lead the eye through moments of excitement and rest convey the same thing that McGath describes as happening in Beethoven's Fifth.

My favorite paintings by Sam Francis evoke the feeling of boisterous, free-spirited joy. They do so through saturated, energetic colors, contrasts and playful visual motions. My favorite works by Helen Frankenthaler evoke a sense of openness and vulnerability through their soft, graceful color fields contrasted against sharper delicate forms. They're intimate images of a gentle, sensitive world. My favorites of Robert Natkin's works evoke a sense of dreamy weightlessness. Compared to Sam Francis's work, Natkin's is like a whisper. It's airy and free. My favorite of Roy Dowell's work is brassy and masculine. In contrast to the thin, faint washes and frail details of Frankenthaler's images, Dowell's work contains thick paint and bold, heavy brush strokes. Without containing specific likenesses of physical entities, Dowell's work has the "virtual" attributes of a bull, where Frankenthaler's works have those of a butterfly, Natkin's have those of a soft echo through light atmosphere, and Francis's have those of laughter.

There's also much more to the above works that can't easily be put into words or precisely agreed upon by everyone, or perhaps anyone, just as the emotional impact of Beethoven's Fifth is so much more than "agitation, calming answers, and periods of falling back followed by redoubled fury" (such a simple "plot" could be accomplished in a twenty-second snare drum solo). And whether or not my take on the art described above is what the artists intended is irrelevant. Composers of music often have something completely different in mind than what listeners hear in their work, and frequently they have nothing in mind at all as far as depicting actions of virtual entities. The same is true of visual artists.

Because of the way our senses relate to our mind, though, they can achieve "abstraction" only by portraying stylized or simplified, but recognizable, physical entities. What is usually called "abstract art" isn't abstraction at all, but meaningless shapes and markings.

I wonder what people who share McGath's views think is the essence of a "realistic" still life. What expressions do they think they see? In what way would they feel that a rendering of an apple is not a "meaningless" shape? Do they believe that the meaning of such a painting is "apple"? If so, is "apple" their idea of a "fundamental view of existence" or other significant value expression?

If I were to paint a group of slightly elongated red spherical shapes that were not "recognizable physical entities" and, therefore, had no meaning according to McGath, would they suddenly acquire deep, fundamental meaning if I added stems? Are beautiful arrangements of colored rectangles incomprehensible trash, but magically transformed into inspiring, intelligible expressions of man as capable of achieving his highest ambitions if we recognize them as realistic top-view renderings of square artist's pastels?

Lou and Michelle correctly state that "[m]usic is abstract, but in the true sense of the word, which implies an objective basis in reality." But they miss the actual object of the abstraction, which is a (hopefully) coherent progression of mental-emotional states, identified with the melodies or themes and their changing treatment. The "meaningful aspects of our aural experience" which they cite are the means, just as the experience of color and form in a painting are the means to seeing what is portrayed."

I think that visual art is capable of at least a couple of different means. It can be like music in that its abstract compositions have powerful effects without being specific. It can also be like literature in that it can depict "things from reality" quite clearly, and with a lot of narrative. Abstract artists (as well as many "realists") identify almost exclusively with painting's similarities to music. Others identify only with painting's similarities to literature. I identify with both.

J

Postscript to Ellen and Christian: Its two bad that Role end doesn't post hear. Eyed love to here his views on weather oar knot the London Derriere re-creates realty.

[Victor Pross]

Aesthetic feelings versus art.

"Color, on its own, has strong effects on the mind and body. For example, deep warm tones, such as browns, dark reds and oranges, stimulate appetite, and blue suppresses it. Pink has a tranquilizing effect -- one shade of it is known as "drunk tank pink," and is applied to the walls of holding cells to effectively calm aggressive detainees -- where exposure to strong yellows and lime greens causes people to become irritable. Saturated colors are exciting, yet after a short time they induce a sort of visual fatigue, and the eye searches for relief in neutral or complementary hues."

Jonathan,

Something that causes an aesthetic feeling does not make it a work of art. A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicating some aspect of the world. The greatest works explore beauty or tragedy in life. The most profound and universal of human emotions—states of mind that are timeless and have occurred in the ancient times and will be experienced again in the distant future is what art can capsulate. The same kind of subject matter is explored in poetry, novels, plays and movies. Human hopes, dreams, love, fear, Jealousy, greed, lust, ambition, traumas, prejudice, war, etc --ALL of it is fodder for art.

Now take any one or more of these themes and give it expression by the support of masterful skills---skills that are forged by the finest training available, from centuries of established knowledge of the craft, and all of it integrated by the perfection of composition, of design, drawing, modeling, perspective, tone, color, light, atmosphere, and paint handling. That is the description of art.

These are all things that we might experience in reality that actually have an aesthetic effect. But they are not art. Beautiful objects or scenes in nature that are aesthetic are not works of art in themselves. Rose petals floating in a basin is esthetic—it is not a work of art. Waves crashing on the shore are esthetically pleasing—it is not a work of art. And color qua color is not ‘art.’

Art is the selective recreation of reality for the purposes of expressing an idea. The artist takes elements of reality and rearranges them in such a way that he makes perceivable an idea, a concept, an impression of the world. In other words, it is the artist, a human being, who is doing the selecting - not nature and not chance. The real world or the natural world simply is. As a fellow artist, you and I know this: our experiences in reality can become the material of artworks when they are judiciously selected and arranged, with all the finesse and mastery of years of training, craftsmanship, and learning. And don’t’ get me wrong. Of course art can induce esthetic feelings.

But isn't an "abstract" painting by Jackson Pollock tangible in a similar way to the examples above? No. Stand close enough to a modernist painting and some patches of paint and blots of color are pretty to look at. Stare at them long enough you might even convince yourself that there is something meaningful in them, like a Rorschach ink blot test. Just because—as MSK said—one can daydream if they stare at a abstract painting long enough---does not transform it into art. As I have stated already, the usual description of a modern "abstract" painting is that it is "a painting about paint itself". Its subject matter is PAINT. A blob of paint nor a Rorschach test is a work of art--and neither are they truly meaningful. They aren't meant to be interpreted as selections of reality at all.

But truly, "abstract painting" - smears of colors- is a fabricated meaning for the term “abstract.” Let’s look at the word “abstract” for a moment: The real meaning of that term--which modernist critics have systematically sought to distort--is where an abstraction stands in for something. In other words, it represents something, as a form of communication. For example, the word "carnation" is an abstraction for a genus of botanical objects in the real world. It is an abstraction in words for those things or experiences in the real world. These abstractions are potentially meaningful because they refer to things. And put enough of them together in the right order and these abstractions we can become scientific treatises or lyrical ballads or... Atlas Shrugged! Art is the expressive intention--the “fictionalizing of reality” for the purpose of giving an idea in the artist's mind a concrete reality.

-Victor

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Postscript to Ellen and Christian: Its two bad that Role end doesn't post hear. Eyed love to here his views on weather oar knot the London Derriere re-creates realty.

He might say: Eye dew knot no, J; eye half knot scene London's Derriere bear.

E-

___

[Danneskjold]

Jonathan said:

If I were to paint a group of slightly elongated red spherical shapes that were not "recognizable physical entities" and, therefore, had no meaning according to McGath, would they suddenly acquire deep, fundamental meaning if I added stems? Are beautiful arrangements of colored rectangles incomprehensible trash, but magically transformed into inspiring, intelligible expressions of man as capable of achieving his highest ambitions if we recognize them as realistic top-view renderings of square artist's pastels?

Ya, in the same way that I can say "I love you" and it means one thing and then add the word "don't" and it means something completely different. Then I can take the word "don't" and put it before the "I" instead of after the "I" and it becomes a question (assuming you add punctuation). Small things make big differences sometimes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

This initial post still begs the question of why one art form can be abstract and another cannot. It appeals to a vague idea of a sense-communication connection for sound and implies that this is not present in sight, or at least not to a degree sufficient to be "meaningful."

Basically I see this as doublespeak. But let's look at a couple of Gary McGath's ideas (as quoted by you) in reviewing What Art Is by Torres and Kamhi to see:

[quoting McGath]

Rand made the error of supposing that musical tones are "pure sensations," rather than percepts. Lou and Michelle attribute this to "an insufficiently critical reading of Helmholtz," who used the word "sensation" in a different way from Rand. (1) To Rand, a sensation is a simple, atomic unit of sensory information. Musical tones in fact have considerable content, including attack, tone color (overtones), and changing volume. Tones, the authors state, "should be regarded as percepts."

Every word here could apply to abstract figures and colors (substituting the attributes of tones for similar attributes of figures and colors). Thus abstract figures and colors are also "percepts" in this meaning. So far, we have the same basic epistemological thing operating in both forms.

[quoting McGath]

The key question in relating music to Rand's theory of art is whether and how it constitutes a "selective re-creation of reality." Rand says little on this, except that it "evokes emotions."

I submit that so does McGath and all others with respect to evoking emotions (somehow). This is the whole problem. To be fair, McGath then states:

[quoting McGath]

... but how do we allow this without opening up the Pandora's Box of "abstract art"? To answer this, we have to consider the difference between hearing and the other senses.

Hearing is our primary sense of meaning and communication. All peoples developed language first as sound, and only later created written language as a visual encoding of spoken sounds. We can communicate our feelings with inarticulate sounds, and a leader can stir followers to a frenzy with his voice.

So now "communication" is tied to the idea of "recreation of reality." Hmmmm... For music to be able to be abstract legitimately and the visual arts not be abstract legitimately, this means that sound communicates emotions and light does not. Hmmmm again...

That is patently false. A sudden blinding flash of light will communicate one hell of an emotion, to use a very extreme example. Also, there are plenty of psychological studies on the emotions communicated by the different colors. That is why interiors are painted with different basic colors. Blue for more relaxed and soothing, red for more agitated, etc.

But it gets worse. McGath then states:

[quoting McGath]

Visual means alone cannot do nearly as much; and most of what they can do is tied to expressions of the face and movements of the body.

Wait a minute. "Cannot do nearly as much" or "not at all"? If the idea is "cannot do nearly as much," then why exclude it as a legitimate form? This is a matter of degree, not kind. One does not make definitions of kind based on degree. That is a contradiction. But it even gets worse.

[quoting McGath]

Thus, music does re-create reality in an abstract way -- it creates a "microcosm," to apply the apt term used by Leonard Peikoff, Roger Bissell, and others. It does this because it is capable of doing so meaningfully.

Now the standard is "meaningfully" even though by McGath's own standard, visual means can also communicate emotions, but merely "cannot do nearly as much" as sound. It can do so "meaningfully," too, if it is communicating an emotional meaning.

I could go on, but the whole problem relates to a tremendous epistemological error Rand made in The Romantic Manifesto, "Art and Cognition" (p. 46):

The development of human cognition starts with the ability to perceive things, i.e., entities. Of man's five cognitive senses, only two provide him with a direct awareness of entities: sight and touch. The other three senses—hearing, taste and smell—give him an awareness of some of an entity's attributes (or of the consequences produced by an entity): they ten him that something makes sounds, or something tastes sweet, or something smells fresh; but in order to perceive this something, he needs sight and/or touch.

The concept "entity" is (implicitly) the start of man's conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure. It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe. And in order to concretize his view of existence, it is by means of concepts (language) or by means of his entity-perceiving senses (sight and touch) that he has to do it.

Music does not deal with entities, which is the reason why its psycho-epistemological function is different from that of the other arts, as we shall discuss later.

Why does sight and touch provide man with a "direct awareness of entities" and not awareness of attributes just like the other senses? Because she said so? So if I see or feel a person, I have "direct awareness" of that person, but if I hear him or smell him or taste him, I do not—I only have awareness of his attributes or consequences produced by him?

That's one hell of a statement. I see no way on earth to sustain that logically (not even from simple induction alone).

But this is the premise that allows Objectivists to treat hearing as a completely different psycho-epistemological tool than sight. Hearing continues to be an organ for transforming waves emanating from an entity into information, but sight allows us to somehow experience something critically different, a "direct awareness" of the entity (whatever that means). So since hearing is fundamentally different, there is now a hole you can drive a truck through. Organized sound can be "abstract" and still directly access our emotions, etc.

And so it goes. You can make up anything like that your heart desires and it sounds good. There is the appearance of some kind of logical underpinning.

There too many problems with this approach to debunk every one without getting tedious. The premise is flawed at the root. There is no fundamental difference in "psycho-epistemological function" between any of the senses other than the type of attribute they process.

My observation still stands. If material for one sense can be organized abstractly for art, so can it be for another sense.

This even brings up the question of whether art exists for smell, touch and taste. (I am beginning to think it does.) And there is another question of just how many senses man actually has. I have read many claims that there are several senses in addition to the big 5. Apparently touch can go up to 17, for example. Perception of gravity is another. There are others.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Good to see that you are still talking to me, even after I have been rather snooty and impatient. I suppose I have an artistic temper. :aww:

You make some interesting points. I’ll have to do some serious thinking about the challenges and insights you put forth, and this post will fall short of a satisfactory response. I will get to it. Until then, let me put this forward:

Sight and hearing are entirely different sense modalities –and whatever the genus between the two, the differentia will call for a different set of principles. Don't you find that such is the case when it comes to genus and differentia? So don’t be too surprised if “pure abstraction” is not suited to the visual arts, but may have a place in music with, perhaps, a different meaning of “abstraction” being applied in this specific context. That’s all I can say now.

Abstract painting is to art what postmodernist “noise music “is to actual music. Speaking of which, what do you think of the phenomenon of noise music?

One last thing: I offered up the McGath's quotes to stimulate thought. Nothing more.

[Danneskjold]

The question of "noisemusic" can be answered by Roger's thread on art as a microcosm. Music moves the representation of a character through the music in the form of different techniques utilized exclusively in music. "Noisemusic" does not contain these techniques and therefore isn't a microcosm.

[Victor Pross]

The question of "noisemusic" can be answered by Roger's thread on art as a microcosm. Music moves the representation of a character through the music in the form of different techniques utilized exclusively in music. "Noisemusic" does not contain these techniques and therefore isn't a microcosm.

I only read the below now before posting to MSK. As an adjunct to what I hinted at above, I think we are on the same page when you wrote this:

"So what is being said here, correct me if I’m wrong, is that abstract “art” cannot be art even though it is abstract in the same way as music, it is missing the key element of having a body to carry it where music’s body rests in the melodic movement.

Another thing I like about your explanation of how music is a microcosm [speaking here of Bissell's article] is that it also selects what of modern music is and is not art. To choose two popular songs that I know the words to well enough to speak on, “Lose Yourself” by Eminem and “Stunt 101” by 50 Cent. The song by Eminem tells a story, how things work go in one persons life as they happen. It contains motion. Conversely in “Stunt 101” there is no story, only statements each independent of the ones around it. The music itself in both songs is a repetitive beat and therefore doesn’t contain the motion necessary for it to be defined as art."

You are a smart dude.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, guys.

Melody as a defining characteristic of music as art instead of as one possible element?

What about music of other cultures? How about percussion only? I heard this guy in Brazil once and he blew me away (for an "easier" form of percussion music): Guem. You can go to the link and sample a minute of each piece for free.

Tell me that ain't music.

Stop thinking and talking.

Listen. Then think. Then talk. That is if you want to make sense about music as art.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

My point wasn't melody, my point was structure. It's like the analogy I used on the "Art and Subobjectivity" thread talking about how music needs a certain structure. In any case, what I was alluding to was Roger Bissell's "Art as Microcosm" essay. He articulated it far better than I am able to in a brief synapsis suitable for a comment on this thread. However, you have read that essay so I would assume you know what I am talking about. Melody is not the essential, there are many things one of which is essential. Melody was just the one I could pull off the top of my head. In any case, think of "noisemusic" in the context of how it would be art according to the "Art as Microcosm" essay and you'll see my point.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I am not sure what you mean by noisemusic, but I once wrote music for a horror film soundtrack that was mostly noise (screams, small snatches of incomplete motives, grunts and percussion banging) that worked beautifully for increasing the tension. I would not want to hear it in a concert hall or on the radio, but in the movie, I would call it art. (That movie was not what I would call great art, though. Actually, it was a pretty grungy bash and slash circus.)

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Noisemusic, as I am speaking of it, is music without form. Now, I have not heard that bit of music you made for that soundtrack, however I would have to know if the sounds you used for the music were structured using a recognizable techniques or if they were thrown together without structure. However, I will ask you this, could your music have stood alone? Or was it completely dependent on the movie in order to make sense? If it could have stood alone, made sense, and presented a plot line/story such as the music that Roger Bissell talks about in "Art as Microcosm" then I would say yes it is music. However, if it lacked such structure and could not have made sense standing alone I would say that it is a crucial part in the movie and the movie is art, that would not mean that the music itself is art.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

For some people, believe it or not, that section was good as a stand-alone piece of music. It "spoke" to them.

All in the life of a professional composer (which is what I was at the time).

btw - Of course my music is art. Even that piece.

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

Postscript to Ellen and Christian: Its two bad that Role end doesn't post hear. Eyed love to here his views on weather oar knot the London Derriere re-creates realty.

He might say: Eye dew knot no, J; eye half knot scene London's Derriere bear.

E-

___

I think Roll & may be wading four a statue of limitations to run out

be four he posts a gain (he hasn't posted on ATL2 recently ether).

If he comes back, I'm wondering if he can tell us how to tell, just

by looking at her, weather a woman is a heterosexual or a thespian. -- Mike Hardy