Possible objectives bases for music and visual art

[BaalChatzaf]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[think]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What of the neo-aesthetics = the novelty of something that is new compared to the same old stuff? at a point the industrial revolution was new. The musics of the industrial genre are new at times, new or old change of the obvious could be objected to by the masses and the individual in that mass of societies.

[shadesofgrey]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wouldn't think so. Even if you take it to the extreme in terms of sound, to the point where something is physically uncomfotable to hear, people could still choose to listen to it because they wanted to for some reason. There's plenty of photographs or art that's deeply disturbing, but people choose to look at it for one reason or another. They desire exposure to things that elicit a viscerally negative reaction. So in that sense, what may cause a physically negative reaction because of its ugliness may still be appealing for emotional reasons.

[Steve Gagne]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob --

As far as art goes,

I'm no expert on anyone's music but my own; on the other hand, I had several years of classical western music theory in school (as well as self-training in other areas), so I think I can consider the question. The root starts not in the field of music per se, but in the wider scientific field of acoustics.

First of all, we have a limitation on the frequencies we can hear, dictated by size and structure of the cochlea of the inner ear. The cochlea of each ear, small snail-shaped structures typically measured in units that are a function of the fibonacci series, are filled with cilia -- tiny hairs -- that isolate different sound wave frequencies. The cilia then transfer the stimulus to the auditory nerves, to be sent to the brain for processing. The detectable frequency range can differ from person to person, but typically is about 15Hz, about 4 octaves below middle 'C', to about 16kHz, about 6 octaves above middle 'C'. This effectively limits the frequencies that can be used to constitute music to that 10-octave range*; historically, the range is 4 octaves: middle 'C' +/- 2 octaves.

Secondly, every tool we use is an extension of a basic human capability. The basic human capability of making sound, our voice, has a typical range of about 2 octaves* when properly trained. Historically, most musical instruments, as extensions of that capacity to make sound, have likewise been limited to an approximate 2-octave range. But they don't all cover the exact same range, much as human voices can belong to, for instance, a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor, contralto, alto, mezzosoprano, or soprano range. These ranges, or "voicings", both vocal and instrumental, are typically mapped into the historic 4-octave range.

Both voices and instruments also bring a quality to their sound known as "timbre", which is the musical term for describing what set of acoustical characteristics are associated with a tone or "note". The first of these characteristics is known as the "envelope", and the second is known as the "waveform". The envelope describes the "attack" -- how quickly & how high the energy level of the note is at the beginning, and the "attenuation" -- how quickly the energy level decreases until the note stops. The waveform of a pure tone under ideal conditions is a represented by a smooth-curved sine wave, but other waveforms are possible, e.g. sharp-angled sawtooth-waves and square-waves. Waveforms can also be altered by being compounded with sound waves of secondary and tertiary notes -- produced naturally by the sound source -- called "overtones".

As our sense of touch can perceive sensations that are pleasurable due to their consonance with one another, likewise our sense of hearing can perceive sounds -- notes -- that are pleasurable for the same reason, if not in the same manner. This consonance is determined by the mathematecal relationships of the frequencies being perceived, and the fibonacci dividers measuring the cochlea. These relationships give rise to the assorted tone-sequences, or "scales" in use in music, be they pentatonic, diatonic, modal, or quarter-tone scales.

Whereas the mathematical consonance of these tones can be pleasureable, the mathematical dissonance can give the perception of an unpleasurable sound, or "noise". As frequencies may be consonant or dissonant among themselves, likewise with different timbres. Their combinations can be pleasureable, or they can be noise as well. But that concerns only the biological/acoustical themes of a single sound or combination of simultaneous sounds ("chord") rather than answering your biological/musical question.

The experience of music does not usually consist of a single acoustic incident, a single note or chord, but of sequences of such within the time domain, interrupted by changes and silences within the voicing(s). These sequences are defined by the patterns of notes ("melodies" and "counterpoints"), patterns of chords ("progressions"), and the timing of accents, changes, noises, and silences ("rhythms"). These patterns are defined and altered by the musician, and can be layered to create levels of complexity limited only by the imagination and creativity of the creator.

In its simplest form, music may be made using rhythm. A simple recognizeable pattern of tapping (or banging) on anything has already met the O-ist requirement of being "integrated", whether it is "auto-validating", i.e., recognizeable the first time it is heard, or merely "validated", i.e., recognizeable due to repetition. Note that if there is no recognizeable pattern, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In a more-commonly accepted form, music may be made using a melody. A single recognizeable pattern of notes with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In its mature form, music may be made using counterpoint and chord progressions. A single recognizeable countermelody and/or chord progression with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note that if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

But no matter how well or poorly created, every piece of music, or "song" has one of five basic structures: steady, rising, falling, rising then falling, or falling then rising. IOW there are only 5 songs in the whole world. Mozart could write all five; Jimmy Page three or four; Bach three; Bernstein two; most other composers only have one song. But everyone understands all of them. What allows each person to "connect" with a piece of music, is not so much its technical musical-acoustic characteristics, but what life experiences the person has during his exposure to the music.

From this point, the neurological connection is best described as conjecture, projected from behavioural studies and their presumptive relationship to underlying neurological processes. The difference between auto-validating vs. validated rhythms/themes/progressions appears to be related to studies in the field of experimental psychology, specifically, the relationship between "prepared" vs. "unprepared" learning. In prepared learning, a subject appears to respond to iconic stimuli, in that an/the appropriate response is isolated with a single iteration of the SIR paradigm (with feedback loop). Whereas normal learning requires multiple iterations, as well as responding to external reinforcement for successive approximations of the desired outcome. This would suggest that the feedback loop substitutes for the external exposure, and is pre-existing within the individual, performing the iconic function as predicted by Jung's theory of archetypes. But as this is not a subject-specific phenomenon, it can be presumed to be a common if not universal condition, and thus probably being of biological origin rather than a socially conditioned response.

IOW, the music you hear in your head is real, it's always been there, everybody knows it, and always has. Damn I'm getting tired. Better quit here.

steve

*I know there are individuals for whom these limitations don't apply. So what. They aren't relevant here.

[anonrobt]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob --

As far as art goes,

I'm no expert on anyone's music but my own; on the other hand, I had several years of classical western music theory in school (as well as self-training in other areas), so I think I can consider the question. The root starts not in the field of music per se, but in the wider scientific field of acoustics.

First of all, we have a limitation on the frequencies we can hear, dictated by size and structure of the cochlea of the inner ear. The cochlea of each ear, small snail-shaped structures typically measured in units that are a function of the fibonacci series, are filled with cilia -- tiny hairs -- that isolate different sound wave frequencies. The cilia then transfer the stimulus to the auditory nerves, to be sent to the brain for processing. The detectable frequency range can differ from person to person, but typically is about 15Hz, about 4 octaves below middle 'C', to about 16kHz, about 6 octaves above middle 'C'. This effectively limits the frequencies that can be used to constitute music to that 10-octave range*; historically, the range is 4 octaves: middle 'C' +/- 2 octaves.

Secondly, every tool we use is an extension of a basic human capability. The basic human capability of making sound, our voice, has a typical range of about 2 octaves* when properly trained. Historically, most musical instruments, as extensions of that capacity to make sound, have likewise been limited to an approximate 2-octave range. But they don't all cover the exact same range, much as human voices can belong to, for instance, a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor, contralto, alto, mezzosoprano, or soprano range. These ranges, or "voicings", both vocal and instrumental, are typically mapped into the historic 4-octave range.

Both voices and instruments also bring a quality to their sound known as "timbre", which is the musical term for describing what set of acoustical characteristics are associated with a tone or "note". The first of these characteristics is known as the "envelope", and the second is known as the "waveform". The envelope describes the "attack" -- how quickly & how high the energy level of the note is at the beginning, and the "attenuation" -- how quickly the energy level decreases until the note stops. The waveform of a pure tone under ideal conditions is a represented by a smooth-curved sine wave, but other waveforms are possible, e.g. sharp-angled sawtooth-waves and square-waves. Waveforms can also be altered by being compounded with sound waves of secondary and tertiary notes -- produced naturally by the sound source -- called "overtones".

As our sense of touch can perceive sensations that are pleasurable due to their consonance with one another, likewise our sense of hearing can perceive sounds -- notes -- that are pleasurable for the same reason, if not in the same manner. This consonance is determined by the mathematecal relationships of the frequencies being perceived, and the fibonacci dividers measuring the cochlea. These relationships give rise to the assorted tone-sequences, or "scales" in use in music, be they pentatonic, diatonic, modal, or quarter-tone scales.

Whereas the mathematical consonance of these tones can be pleasureable, the mathematical dissonance can give the perception of an unpleasurable sound, or "noise". As frequencies may be consonant or dissonant among themselves, likewise with different timbres. Their combinations can be pleasureable, or they can be noise as well. But that concerns only the biological/acoustical themes of a single sound or combination of simultaneous sounds ("chord") rather than answering your biological/musical question.

The experience of music does not usually consist of a single acoustic incident, a single note or chord, but of sequences of such within the time domain, interrupted by changes and silences within the voicing(s). These sequences are defined by the patterns of notes ("melodies" and "counterpoints"), patterns of chords ("progressions"), and the timing of accents, changes, noises, and silences ("rhythms"). These patterns are defined and altered by the musician, and can be layered to create levels of complexity limited only by the imagination and creativity of the creator.

In its simplest form, music may be made using rhythm. A simple recognizeable pattern of tapping (or banging) on anything has already met the O-ist requirement of being "integrated", whether it is "auto-validating", i.e., recognizeable the first time it is heard, or merely "validated", i.e., recognizeable due to repetition. Note that if there is no recognizeable pattern, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In a more-commonly accepted form, music may be made using a melody. A single recognizeable pattern of notes with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In its mature form, music may be made using counterpoint and chord progressions. A single recognizeable countermelody and/or chord progression with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note that if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

But no matter how well or poorly created, every piece of music, or "song" has one of five basic structures: steady, rising, falling, rising then falling, or falling then rising. IOW there are only 5 songs in the whole world. Mozart could write all five; Jimmy Page three or four; Bach three; Bernstein two; most other composers only have one song. But everyone understands all of them. What allows each person to "connect" with a piece of music, is not so much its technical musical-acoustic characteristics, but what life experiences the person has during his exposure to the music.

From this point, the neurological connection is best described as conjecture, projected from behavioural studies and their presumptive relationship to underlying neurological processes. The difference between auto-validating vs. validated rhythms/themes/progressions appears to be related to studies in the field of experimental psychology, specifically, the relationship between "prepared" vs. "unprepared" learning. In prepared learning, a subject appears to respond to iconic stimuli, in that an/the appropriate response is isolated with a single iteration of the SIR paradigm (with feedback loop). Whereas normal learning requires multiple iterations, as well as responding to external reinforcement for successive approximations of the desired outcome. This would suggest that the feedback loop substitutes for the external exposure, and is pre-existing within the individual, performing the iconic function as predicted by Jung's theory of archetypes. But as this is not a subject-specific phenomenon, it can be presumed to be a common if not universal condition, and thus probably being of biological origin rather than a socially conditioned response.

IOW, the music you hear in your head is real, it's always been there, everybody knows it, and always has. Damn I'm getting tired. Better quit here.

steve

*I know there are individuals for whom these limitations don't apply. So what. They aren't relevant here.

One can then take on with the biological origin, and do as Attenburough did and consider birds, where sounds not only take on significance but musicalness as well - then turn to the human equivalent and the voice again, modulating its tuning to significances, this time not only in terms similar to birds [and others who make sounds, but birds are the most prevalent to come to mind] but in terms with the cognitive that is uniquely human, and which advances on the prior... the music as such, then, being aural in its 'abstraction', not visual, yet equally pertaining to the effect of reality... Roger Bissell has done good work in this area and is one's worth taking a look-see there...

[Jonathan]

One can then take on with the biological origin, and do as Attenburough did and consider birds, where sounds not only take on significance but musicalness as well - then turn to the human equivalent and the voice again, modulating its tuning to significances, this time not only in terms similar to birds [and others who make sounds, but birds are the most prevalent to come to mind] but in terms with the cognitive that is uniquely human, and which advances on the prior... the music as such, then, being aural in its 'abstraction', not visual, yet equally pertaining to the effect of reality... Roger Bissell has done good work in this area and is one's worth taking a look-see there...

Everything you've said about abstract sounds could be said, and has been said, about abstract visuals. And then some.

Robert, I'm wondering what it would take to get you to actually learn something about what you're talking about. Would you be willing to take elementary courses in visual art instead of limiting yourself to being self-taught? Would you be willing to open your mind to actually studying and learning about the expressiveness of compositional structures that trained, professional artists, architects, designers and even college freshmen have been using for centuries?

J

[anonrobt]

One can then take on with the biological origin, and do as Attenburough did and consider birds, where sounds not only take on significance but musicalness as well - then turn to the human equivalent and the voice again, modulating its tuning to significances, this time not only in terms similar to birds [and others who make sounds, but birds are the most prevalent to come to mind] but in terms with the cognitive that is uniquely human, and which advances on the prior... the music as such, then, being aural in its 'abstraction', not visual, yet equally pertaining to the effect of reality... Roger Bissell has done good work in this area and is one's worth taking a look-see there...

Everything you've said about abstract sounds could be said, and has been said, about abstract visuals. And then some.

Robert, I'm wondering what it would take to get you to actually learn something about what you're talking about. Would you be willing to take elementary courses in visual art instead of limiting yourself to being self-taught? Would you be willing to open your mind to actually studying and learning about the expressiveness of compositional structures that trained, professional artists, architects, designers and even college freshmen have been using for centuries?

J

heh - ye talking like one of them 'warm climate' believers... ought to be able to do better than that...

[Jonathan]

heh - ye talking like one of them 'warm climate' believers... ought to be able to do better than that...

No, I'm talking like someone who has enough knowledge and professional experience in a wide variety of the arts to know that you don't know very much about what you're talking about. It's fascinating, though. May I ask why you're so passionate about publicly opining about the subjects of music and visual art, yet at the same time you have no real interest in actually learning anything about them?

J

[jeffrey smith]

One can then take on with the biological origin, and do as Attenburough did and consider birds, where sounds not only take on significance but musicalness as well - then turn to the human equivalent and the voice again, modulating its tuning to significances, this time not only in terms similar to birds [and others who make sounds, but birds are the most prevalent to come to mind] but in terms with the cognitive that is uniquely human, and which advances on the prior... the music as such, then, being aural in its 'abstraction', not visual, yet equally pertaining to the effect of reality... Roger Bissell has done good work in this area and is one's worth taking a look-see there...

In reference to the music of birds, check out some of the music of Messaien.

Jeffrey S.

[Steve Gagne]

heh - ye talking like one of them 'warm climate' believers... ought to be able to do better than that...

No, I'm talking like someone who has enough knowledge and professional experience in a wide variety of the arts to know that you don't know very much about what you're talking about. It's fascinating, though. May I ask why you're so passionate about publicly opining about the subjects of music and visual art, yet at the same time you have no real interest in actually learning anything about them?

J

Jonathan

Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it. You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own.

"I may not know art, but I know what I like!"

steve

[Jonathan]

Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it.

My point is that he should consider studying art.

See, my view is that art is a lot like any other field. One doesn't become very knowledgeable of it simply by drawing, just as one doesn't become very knowledgeable of, say, physics by mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own. There's only so far one can get by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand. "I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning.

You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own.

It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it), but of recognizing -- by looking at his art and reading his opinions -- that he's lacking a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that he appears to be very resistant to learning.

J

[anonrobt]

Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it.

My point is that he should consider studying art.

See, my view is that art is a lot like any other field. One doesn't become very knowledgeable of it simply by drawing, just as one doesn't become very knowledgeable of, say, physics by mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own. There's only so far one can get by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand. "I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning.

You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own.

It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it), but of recognizing -- by looking at his art and reading his opinions -- that he's lacking a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that he appears to be very resistant to learning.

J

perhaps it is that the presumption of lack of knowledge is really rejection, not of knowledge, but presumed opinions taken as if knowledge...

[Jonathan]

perhaps it is that the presumption of lack of knowledge is really rejection, not of knowledge, but presumed opinions taken as if knowledge...

No. In fact, I think that your lack of knowledge even extends to compositional theories and techniques that you'd agree with if you knew anything about them, and not just the modernist ideas that you've decided to reject prior to understanding them -- I don't think that you understand things like basic color theory, perspective, proportion, etc., let alone more complex ideas which depend on knowledge of those things.

J

[Steve Gagne]

Check the links in Robert's signature. He's not studying art, but creating it.

My point is that he should consider studying art.

See, my view is that art is a lot like any other field. One doesn't become very knowledgeable of it simply by drawing, just as one doesn't become very knowledgeable of, say, physics by mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own. There's only so far one can get by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand. "I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning.

If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology.

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own." No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation. (Anyone who tries to pull a bunch of atheist-chic on me right now for that last comment is debating the wrong questions.*)

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

BTW, do you two have a history? I ask because I can't find any evidence for the type of Luddite attitudes ("while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand" or ones that aren't "a very effective approach to learning") that you impute to Robert (anonrobt, not Bob, Ba'al Chatzaf).

You may not like his art, but your ad hominem attacks betray not his ignorance but your own.

It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) [how magnanimous of you], but of recognizing -- by looking at his art and reading his opinions -- that he's lacking a lot of knowledge on the subject, and that he appears to be very resistant to learning.

J

Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being

(1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not

(2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore

(3) Robert should do whatever I tell him.

And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.*

But what o' that.

steve

*Comment edited with a machete.

[Jonathan]

If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology.

No. Apparently you missed the part where I said that one can only get so far "by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand." Rearden and Wyatt were not resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that they didn't understand.

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own."

I'm not opposed to experimentation.

No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation.

Are you saying that you think that Robert is a trailblazer in the visual arts -- that he's discovering things that no one has known or done before?

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

So, how would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others?

Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being

(1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not

I didn't say that Robert was an ignorant fool. I said that he's not very knowledgeable of visual art and music.

(2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore

I've said nothing about producing "proper art." I've simply said that Robert's art and his comments reveal that there is much that he doesn't know about art.

(3) Robert should do whatever I tell him.

No, the point is that Robert's criteria for judging what qualifies or fails to qualify as art are not objective, consistent or informed.

And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.*

My point has nothing to do with telling Robert how to go about producing art. I'm not being critical of his art, but of his ideas, of his methods of classification, and of his qualifications to comment on the subjects that he's commenting on. My primary criticism is that his standard of judging what qualifies as art is highly subjective. His personal emotions are his standard, and yet he rejects the idea of others' emotions serving as their standard.

Why is so upsetting to you that I expect people in Objectivist forums who discuss art to have objective, consistent, and informed standards for determining what is or isn't art?

J

[anonrobt]

Does anyone have any ideas on using the neurophysiology of hearing and vision as a rational and objective way of -constraining- the aesthetic rules for music and visual art?

Given the multiplicity of aesthetic standards for music and visual art it is clear that human biology do not determine these. But human biology could conceivable constrain the rules. It is possible for there to be an objective basis for what is unbearably ugly.

Since I am tune deaf and my ability as a drawer or painter is near zero, the opinion of people who are expert in these matters would be very, very welcome.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob --

As far as art goes,

I'm no expert on anyone's music but my own; on the other hand, I had several years of classical western music theory in school (as well as self-training in other areas), so I think I can consider the question. The root starts not in the field of music per se, but in the wider scientific field of acoustics.

First of all, we have a limitation on the frequencies we can hear, dictated by size and structure of the cochlea of the inner ear. The cochlea of each ear, small snail-shaped structures typically measured in units that are a function of the fibonacci series, are filled with cilia -- tiny hairs -- that isolate different sound wave frequencies. The cilia then transfer the stimulus to the auditory nerves, to be sent to the brain for processing. The detectable frequency range can differ from person to person, but typically is about 15Hz, about 4 octaves below middle 'C', to about 16kHz, about 6 octaves above middle 'C'. This effectively limits the frequencies that can be used to constitute music to that 10-octave range*; historically, the range is 4 octaves: middle 'C' +/- 2 octaves.

Secondly, every tool we use is an extension of a basic human capability. The basic human capability of making sound, our voice, has a typical range of about 2 octaves* when properly trained. Historically, most musical instruments, as extensions of that capacity to make sound, have likewise been limited to an approximate 2-octave range. But they don't all cover the exact same range, much as human voices can belong to, for instance, a contrabass, bass, baritone, tenor, contralto, alto, mezzosoprano, or soprano range. These ranges, or "voicings", both vocal and instrumental, are typically mapped into the historic 4-octave range.

Both voices and instruments also bring a quality to their sound known as "timbre", which is the musical term for describing what set of acoustical characteristics are associated with a tone or "note". The first of these characteristics is known as the "envelope", and the second is known as the "waveform". The envelope describes the "attack" -- how quickly & how high the energy level of the note is at the beginning, and the "attenuation" -- how quickly the energy level decreases until the note stops. The waveform of a pure tone under ideal conditions is a represented by a smooth-curved sine wave, but other waveforms are possible, e.g. sharp-angled sawtooth-waves and square-waves. Waveforms can also be altered by being compounded with sound waves of secondary and tertiary notes -- produced naturally by the sound source -- called "overtones".

As our sense of touch can perceive sensations that are pleasurable due to their consonance with one another, likewise our sense of hearing can perceive sounds -- notes -- that are pleasurable for the same reason, if not in the same manner. This consonance is determined by the mathematecal relationships of the frequencies being perceived, and the fibonacci dividers measuring the cochlea. These relationships give rise to the assorted tone-sequences, or "scales" in use in music, be they pentatonic, diatonic, modal, or quarter-tone scales.

Whereas the mathematical consonance of these tones can be pleasureable, the mathematical dissonance can give the perception of an unpleasurable sound, or "noise". As frequencies may be consonant or dissonant among themselves, likewise with different timbres. Their combinations can be pleasureable, or they can be noise as well. But that concerns only the biological/acoustical themes of a single sound or combination of simultaneous sounds ("chord") rather than answering your biological/musical question.

The experience of music does not usually consist of a single acoustic incident, a single note or chord, but of sequences of such within the time domain, interrupted by changes and silences within the voicing(s). These sequences are defined by the patterns of notes ("melodies" and "counterpoints"), patterns of chords ("progressions"), and the timing of accents, changes, noises, and silences ("rhythms"). These patterns are defined and altered by the musician, and can be layered to create levels of complexity limited only by the imagination and creativity of the creator.

In its simplest form, music may be made using rhythm. A simple recognizeable pattern of tapping (or banging) on anything has already met the O-ist requirement of being "integrated", whether it is "auto-validating", i.e., recognizeable the first time it is heard, or merely "validated", i.e., recognizeable due to repetition. Note that if there is no recognizeable pattern, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In a more-commonly accepted form, music may be made using a melody. A single recognizeable pattern of notes with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

In its mature form, music may be made using counterpoint and chord progressions. A single recognizeable countermelody and/or chord progression with a specific rhythm has already met the O-ist requirement of being integrated, whether it is auto-validating or validated. Note that if there is nothing recognizeable, it cannot be integrated, it cannot be validated, it is noise.

But no matter how well or poorly created, every piece of music, or "song" has one of five basic structures: steady, rising, falling, rising then falling, or falling then rising. IOW there are only 5 songs in the whole world. Mozart could write all five; Jimmy Page three or four; Bach three; Bernstein two; most other composers only have one song. But everyone understands all of them. What allows each person to "connect" with a piece of music, is not so much its technical musical-acoustic characteristics, but what life experiences the person has during his exposure to the music.

From this point, the neurological connection is best described as conjecture, projected from behavioural studies and their presumptive relationship to underlying neurological processes. The difference between auto-validating vs. validated rhythms/themes/progressions appears to be related to studies in the field of experimental psychology, specifically, the relationship between "prepared" vs. "unprepared" learning. In prepared learning, a subject appears to respond to iconic stimuli, in that an/the appropriate response is isolated with a single iteration of the SIR paradigm (with feedback loop). Whereas normal learning requires multiple iterations, as well as responding to external reinforcement for successive approximations of the desired outcome. This would suggest that the feedback loop substitutes for the external exposure, and is pre-existing within the individual, performing the iconic function as predicted by Jung's theory of archetypes. But as this is not a subject-specific phenomenon, it can be presumed to be a common if not universal condition, and thus probably being of biological origin rather than a socially conditioned response.

IOW, the music you hear in your head is real, it's always been there, everybody knows it, and always has. Damn I'm getting tired. Better quit here.

steve

*I know there are individuals for whom these limitations don't apply. So what. They aren't relevant here.

One can then take on with the biological origin, and do as Attenburough did and consider birds, where sounds not only take on significance but musicalness as well - then turn to the human equivalent and the voice again, modulating its tuning to significances, this time not only in terms similar to birds [and others who make sounds, but birds are the most prevalent to come to mind] but in terms with the cognitive that is uniquely human, and which advances on the prior... the music as such, then, being aural in its 'abstraction', not visual, yet equally pertaining to the effect of reality... Roger Bissell has done good work in this area and is one's worth taking a look-see there...

http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11k.html ,for instance...

[anonrobt]

"...dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand..."

....................

What makes you presume that they not be understood? to understand is not to agree - there is a pronounced difference...

[Steve Gagne]

If I were to read your comments in the context of say, Atlas Shrugged, what I would be hearing you say is that Hank Rearden needed to go study chemistry and that Ellis Wyatt needed to go study geology.

No. Apparently you missed the part where I said that one can only get so far "by being self-taught while being resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand." Rearden and Wyatt were not resentful and dismissive of complex concepts that they didn't understand.

No, I got the part about the resentful attitude &c. It's just that I haven't engaged with Robert in any venue where he has acted that way toward me. That's why I asked if you two had a history. Where did he actually act that way? Where & how was he resentful, dismissive, rejecting misunderstood complex concepts, resisting education, and so on?

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own."

I'm not opposed to experimentation.

OK. It's just that an objective sentence diagram of your statement in English would show that you had said:

one doesn't become very knowledgeable...by...experimenting on one's own.

[GODMODE ON] Is that how you intended to play? Is that what you intended to say? If so, how is that a statement that is "not opposed to experimentation"? And if not, what was your intention? (Embedded Game Cheat -- GODMODE allows you infinite do-overs)

No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation.

Are you saying that you think that Robert is a trailblazer in the visual arts -- that he's discovering things that no one has known or done before?

Naaah. What he is doing is creating art by his own vision, which no one else could or can do for him, and having the balls to actually put it out there and let the market decide what to do about it. A little different than my becoming an Ellsworth Toohey-style armchair critic and stating what I think of the quality of his art. Of course if I did that latter thing, I wouldn't be speculating on his attitudes or education, just on the quality of his work, stating whether I intended to buy any of it. (You gotta admit, his take on jackson pollock is hilarious.)

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

So, how would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others?

In this discussion, it appears to me that you have missed several references to key expressions, at least once with Robert, and twice with me. And because of the ensuing misunderstanding, I now find you are misapplying my words to a wrong situation. (IOW, the answer to your question is "Not Applicable.") Perhaps -- shall I taunt you again -- for not checking the links first, or shall I unrepentantly rail at you for your craumzoyl attitude?

Again with the ad hominem attack, the paradigm being

(1) Robert is an ignorant fool & I am not

I didn't say that Robert was an ignorant fool. I said that he's not very knowledgeable of visual art and music.

OK, I still don't know what your objective basis is for that statement. "Not knowledgeable" and "ignorant" are pretty close synonyms. And if someone insists upon forcefully expressing an opinion without an objective basis, I'm willing to venture a guess here that you would consider that person a "fool". So "ignorant fool" is really just the simplest form of expressing what is, after all, your own opinion. It still sounds to me like a taunt I might hear on Friday Night Smackdown. "Them's fightin' words, boy."

(2) Ignorant fools are incapable of producing proper art, therefore

I've said nothing about producing "proper art." I've simply said that Robert's art and his comments reveal that there is much that he doesn't know about art.

Earlier, you had said

..."I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning....

I can certainly understand why you would object to someone throwing that kind of garbage in your face, and further, can envision it occurring with a supercilious sneer, and his expecting you to "deal with it". But I did not see this comment posted here and do not understand where you are getting it from. Is this a direct quote from him that I missed from somewhere, or are you just imputing this attitude to him, as I did to you with the "ignorant fool" statement?

But beyond that, you damn his work with faint praise ("It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) "), then claim that you are not doing so, saying

In fact, I think that your lack of knowledge even extends to compositional theories and techniques that you'd agree with if you knew anything about them, and not just the modernist ideas that you've decided to reject prior to understanding them -- I don't think that you understand things like basic color theory, perspective, proportion, etc., let alone more complex ideas which depend on knowledge of those things.

But you now insist that this is not a condemnation of his work, but state that he, Robert, the "ignorant fool" is not capable of producing art according to your ideas because he doesn't know what these rules for proper art are, nor does he have any basis or capability for learning these rules.

(3) Robert should do whatever I tell him.

No, the point is that Robert's criteria for judging what qualifies or fails to qualify as art are not objective, consistent or informed.

So your point is not that you demand he go back to school, which is what you had actually talked about, but that he start using objective criteria for his judgments. Good. You're finally getting around to the point. En buenahora. Please elaborate.

And in the form you show, of course the second premise is superfluous; your real message consists of statements 1 & 3. If you are going to appraise and analyze his art, fine. But I don't see where you get off making presumptions about his level of learning, stating them as if they were indisputable facts, and using that as an excuse to tell him how to go about producing his own artworks. Your actions and assertions are not rational.*

My point has nothing to do with telling Robert how to go about producing art. I'm not being critical of his art, but of his ideas, of his methods of classification, and of his qualifications to comment on the subjects that he's commenting on. My primary criticism is that his standard of judging what qualifies as art is highly subjective. His personal emotions are his standard, and yet he rejects the idea of others' emotions serving as their standard.

Why is so upsetting to you that I expect people in Objectivist forums who discuss art to have objective, consistent, and informed standards for determining what is or isn't art?

J

Jonathan, it may not have been your intent to try to tell Robert what to do, but I would be hard put to prove that assertion by the content of your earlier posts. I would like to know what "ideas" and "methods of classification" he has used that you have judged invalid, where and how he expressed such, and what "qualifications" you demand of a creative artist. Then I would be interested in knowing what superior "ideas" and "methods of classification" you use, as well as your qualifications as a non-artist to judge the work of a creative artist.

It doesn't upset me in the least for a general expectation of objectivity to obtain here; what I find peculiar is the demand coming from someone who is not yet demonstrating it himself.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Steve Gagne

[Jonathan]

No, I got the part about the resentful attitude &c. It's just that I haven't engaged with Robert in any venue where he has acted that way toward me. That's why I asked if you two had a history. Where did he actually act that way? Where & how was he resentful, dismissive, rejecting misunderstood complex concepts, resisting education, and so on?

That's a good point. In my last post I did neglect to answer your question about whether or not Robert and I had a history. Sorry about that. Yes, Robert and I do have a history -- my impression of his level of knowledge about visual art comes from several years of viewing his art and reading his comments online.

You seem to hold a highly idealized image of the progress of human knowledge. Virtually all advances in KNOWLEDGE per se are actually the direct result of the individuals that stumble around, "mixing vinegar and baking soda in one's kitchen or otherwise experimenting on one's own."

I'm not opposed to experimentation.

OK. It's just that an objective sentence diagram of your statement in English would show that you had said:

one doesn't become very knowledgeable...by...experimenting on one's own.

[GODMODE ON] Is that how you intended to play? Is that what you intended to say? If so, how is that a statement that is "not opposed to experimentation"? And if not, what was your intention? (Embedded Game Cheat -- GODMODE allows you infinite do-overs)

The statement "one doesn't become very knowledgeable by experimenting on one's own" isn't the equivalent of saying "I'm opposed to experimentation."

No-one can "teach" you something new that no-one has known or done before. Every new piece of knowledge must be discovered through accident, experimentation, or revelation.

Are you saying that you think that Robert is a trailblazer in the visual arts -- that he's discovering things that no one has known or done before?

Naaah. What he is doing is creating art by his own vision, which no one else could or can do for him, and having the balls to actually put it out there and let the market decide what to do about it. A little different than my becoming an Ellsworth Toohey-style armchair critic and stating what I think of the quality of his art. Of course if I did that latter thing, I wouldn't be speculating on his attitudes or education, just on the quality of his work, stating whether I intended to buy any of it. (You gotta admit, his take on jackson pollock is hilarious.)

Actually, I think Robert's take on Pollock, or, more precisely, his attempt at mimicking/mocking Pollock, supports my contention that he doesn't understand much about composition.

This is not to discount the importance of the accumulation of knowledge passed through societal learning, but such learning is by its nature, second-hand, and thus incomplete; or it is a knowledge stub, a lie or an arbitrary assertion we tell ourselves is true, in order to deal with the sense of ambiguity induced by our own first-hand ignorance; or it is propaganda (a lie) fabricated by someone in order subjugate another's mind.

So, how would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others?

In this discussion, it appears to me that you have missed several references to key expressions, at least once with Robert, and twice with me. And because of the ensuing misunderstanding, I now find you are misapplying my words to a wrong situation. (IOW, the answer to your question is "Not Applicable.")

The question is quite applicable to my criticism of Robert's inconsistency and the subjectivity of his standards of classification.

Steve, instead of focusing on what you think are my misapplications of your words, I think we'd have a more productive discussion, and you might have a chance of actually understanding my views and my purposes if you were to answer my questions and address the substance of my point.

Here are my questions again:

How would you respond if someone who was not sensitive to the effects of music said that you and everyone else who claims that music evokes strong emotions and has meaningful content are lying and engaged in a sham? What would you say to someone who claimed that the idea of pretending that music has deep meaning is a lie or an arbitrary assertion fabricated by someone in order subjugate the minds of others?

..."I don't want to hear no bullshit about 'atoms' or 'abstract visual composition' or other things I can't see," isn't a very effective approach to learning....

I can certainly understand why you would object to someone throwing that kind of garbage in your face, and further, can envision it occurring with a supercilious sneer, and his expecting you to "deal with it". But I did not see this comment posted here and do not understand where you are getting it from. Is this a direct quote from him that I missed from somewhere, or are you just imputing this attitude to him, as I did to you with the "ignorant fool" statement?

Yes, the comment was not meant to be taken as a quote of something that Robert actually said, but was meant to characterize his attitude.

But beyond that, you damn his work with faint praise ("It's not an issue of my liking or disliking Robert's art (I like some of it) ")

I'm not "damning" Robert's work. An artist need not have mastered every aspect of his craft in order for me to like his work. A good example of this would be a guitarist whom I briefly played with in a band several years ago. He couldn't read a note, and he knew nothing of music theory, but I thought he was excellent at improvisation and that he came up with some very expressive original work. I liked it. I thought it was very good.

But you now insist that this is not a condemnation of his work, but state that he, Robert, the "ignorant fool" is not capable of producing art according to your ideas because he doesn't know what these rules for proper art are, nor does he have any basis or capability for learning these rules.

It's not an issue of "rules" and "proper art" but of knowledge of past discoveries and techniques. Color theory is about understanding the effects of light, the constituent elements that make up any color, and, like musical tones, the relationships that colors have to each other and how and why they can harmonize or clash, etc; perspective is the geometry of representing on a two-dimensional surface what the eye sees in three-dimensional space, and understanding perspective is relevant to judging the expressive effects that conforming to or deviating from it (intentionally or not) can have on a work of art; composition is the selective arrangement of graphical elements, and various visual compositional ideas, much like musical compositions, are discoveries of how and why different arrangements of form and color commonly affect people, etc. All of these things are complex, and they consist of vast amounts of accumulated knowledge which can't be understood or re-discovered by a single person experimenting on his own.

Jonathan, it may not have been your intent to try to tell Robert what to do, but I would be hard put to prove that assertion by the content of your earlier posts. I would like to know what "ideas" and "methods of classification" he has used that you have judged invalid, where and how he expressed such, and what "qualifications" you demand of a creative artist.

Robert's belief that abstract arrangements of sounds can be art but that abstract arrangements of forms and colors can't is one thing that I judge to be invalid. Another is his use of his emotions as the standard for determining which things are art, while rejecting others' emotions as a standard for determining which things are art.

Then I would be interested in knowing what superior "ideas" and "methods of classification" you use, as well as your qualifications as a non-artist to judge the work of a creative artist.

A superior method of classification would be one that seeks to be as informed as possible about the entities being classified, and one that doesn't contradict itself or use different standards according to a subjectively desired outcome.

J

[Jonathan]

"...dismissive of complex concepts that one doesn't understand..."

....................

What makes you presume that they not be understood? to understand is not to agree - there is a pronounced difference...

My views are based on reading your comments and viewing you art over a period of several years. It's an issue of many little bits of information adding up to a general conclusion.

An example of one of the bits, off the top of my head, of your being dismissive of things about the visual arts that you don't understand is that for years you've been asserting that photography is a mere "craft" and that it is not art, yet when I first saw you making such assertions you were also posting images of some of your earlier drawings which you had photographed through what seemed like it must have been a Fisher Price camera, and you hadn't even mastered that at the level that my toddler nephew had -- the point being that clearly you didn't even own a mediocre camera or know how to use it, let alone high-quality professional equipment, and therefore you had no understanding of what is or is not possible with the medium, and no basis, other than your own severe limitations, upon which to comment on the medium's nature or status as a visual art form.

J

[Jonathan]

Then I would be interested in knowing what superior "ideas" and "methods of classification" you use, as well as your qualifications as a non-artist to judge the work of a creative artist.

I just noticed that I misread Steve's comment above. Somehow I missed the "non-artist" part. Steve, I'm an artist. I'm a sculptor, painter, photographer/special-effects artist/digital artist and occasionally an animator, and I've played in several bands, which included creating original music.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

You can see a tidbit of Jonathan's work here.

Given his views on abstract painting, it's an interesting experience.

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

Steve,

You can see a tidbit of Jonathan's work here.

Given his views on abstract painting, it's an interesting experience.

Michael

Since I haven't been here as long as J has, his thread had fallen into the back before I ever saw it. Thanks, Michael.