Unraveling the Mystery of How Music Evokes Emotions

[fuzzyfelt]

Sharing views similar to some points made by some like Ryan, Ben and Atyy, I’ve enjoyed how they’ve been expressed and illustrated very much.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...44,d.d2k&fp=6e50a466800d3db0&biw=1111&bih=857

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're a biologist, right? If art can be anything, then biology is art. If biology is art, art must also, therefore, be biology. Therefore, I, as an artist, am a biologist. I honestly can't tell you what an enzyme is, but since everything is everything else, I am a biologist.

Lol funny but not quite firstly just because biology can be art doesn't mean that art is biology (all X can be Y but not all Y can be X). Secondly the term artist and biologist generally refer to people who get paid to do work in those respective fields so its easier to define.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lol funny but not quite firstly just because biology can be art doesn't mean that art is biology (all X can be Y but not all Y can be X). Secondly the term artist and biologist generally refer to people who get paid to do work in those respective fields so its easier to define.

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

Art is really in the eye of the beholder, but as I said above there are many things more recognisable as art because the majority of people find them so (or alternatively the art world define it as so and people go along with it). For most of what I do I doubt many people would get any aesthetic satisfaction from viewing or otherwise experiencing it. But if I were to do a fluorescent stain like the one shown below (which I didn't do but took from google) it would probably be a different story.

 

[BenG549]

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

Arguably anything creative can be artistic; intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge could be considered artistic in any field. I used mathematics as an example earlier but there is no reason why it couldn't apply to any other scientific field.

 

[BenG549]

Consider the difference between the "wrong" proportions in a good caricature, and the wrong proportions in a portrait done by someone who can't get the hang of proportion.

If this is what you mean my visual rhythm I think I get it. Analogous to John Cage intentionally playing in wacky (seemingly random) time signatures... and someone who can't play in time?

Just never heard the term visual rhythm before.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist? Were they stained in order to be pretty? Was the photo record made in order to communicate how pretty they are? There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

You might make a bunch of stains specifically in order to bring out how pretty they can be, photograph them, and present them, but at that point you would no longer be doing biology.

It's like art, it can literally be anything...

Try again: when is biology art?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist?

As I said art is in the eye of the beholder. If someone looks at this and gets aesthetic satisfaction then for them it's art. There isn't necessarily an artist in the sense that the maker might not refer to themselves as one even though it would be tempting to call them one. It comes down to whether or not you think to be an artist requires intent which is separate to the issue of whether or not art requires intent to be art (I'd argue no).

Were they stained in order to be pretty? Was the photo record made in order to communicate how pretty they are? There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

I'd argue that intent is irrelevant. Consider that intent can't necessarily be derived from the piece but can still be considered art. This is easiest to see in more "out there" pieces of art that resemble every day items like unmade beds, piles of rubbish, pieces of equipment etc. You could easily set up an exhibit wherein one such piece was intentional and one was left by the janitor and people wouldn't be able to tell which had intent and which didn't and could consider both art.

To look at it another way just the other day I saw on TV a man repeatedly describing an old bridge as a work of art. He was rapturous in describing the emotions he felt looking at the bridge which wasn't that special to look at at all and I doubt the designers and builders intended it to be art. Most likely they intended it to be a means to cross the river. But that doesn't change how the person viewing it felt.

You might make a bunch of stains specifically in order to bring out how pretty they can be, photograph them, and present them, but at that point you would no longer be doing biology.

I feel I've already addressed this but its worth noting that focusing on making images as aesthetically pleasing as possible can be important work as a biologist e.g. To create easy and pleasing to read papers.

Try again: when is biology art?

I don't feel I have to try again though I invite you to try again at understanding my point, now elaborated.

EDIT: to get back to the topic of music, is there a concrete definition that can take into account such disparate pieces as rap with no music and orchestras? If not then if say this question falls in line with art which makes it a more complex question regarding the neurological basis for aesthetics.

 

[BenG549]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist? Were they stained in order to be pretty?

Well you've said it's pretty, which is an artistic property. You have made the point that information content and artistic qualities exist together in speech, can this not be said of Ryan's example? If I hadn't been told what it was I might look at it and say "that's a nice picture" to me it looks artistic.

There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

A lot of people would describe these things as artistic. Didn't a urinal appear in the tate recently, I'm sure it's origonal purpose was not to be art but someone took it home who had different ideas... now it's famous art.

Try again: when is biology art?

What stops intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge (in any field) being arguably artistic?

 

[zoobyshoe]

As I said art is in the eye of the beholder. If someone looks at this and gets aesthetic satisfaction then for them it's art.

You're simply conflating the words "art" and "pretty" (and whatever near synonyms mean aesthetically attractive).

art
/ärt/
Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Works produced by such skill and imagination.

You can get aesthetic satisfaction from all kinds of things without them being art. Art requires an artist and the intention to create art. Minimum.

I feel I've already addressed this but its worth noting that focusing on making images as aesthetically pleasing as possible can be important work as a biologist e.g. To create easy and pleasing to read papers.

At this point you're no longer doing biology. You're doing graphic art. See? If you are photographing amoeba and you decide to wait until the one on the left moves out of the frame in order to have a better composition, you are, briefly, doing photography and not biology.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're simply conflating the words "art" and "pretty" (and whatever near synonyms mean aesthetically attractive).

art
/ärt/
Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Works produced by such skill and imagination.

You can get aesthetic satisfaction from all kinds of things without them being art. Art requires an artist and the intention to create art. Minimum.

I disagree that intent is required for the reasons I've stated. Also I'm not conflating pretty as shown by my comment regarding certain types of modern art and my example of the man calling a bridge a work of art. The experience is far more than visual enjoyment, hence why I use the word aesthetic.

To reiterate my thought experiment: if I showed you a bunch of objects stuck together without telling you if the intent was art or not (or if there was any intent at all, it might have been thrown together by a machine) could you not say it was art on the basis of how it made you feel? And if it was made by machine and I put it in a gallery would that make it art? Even though no artistic intent went into its creation? And bringing this back to music has there not been entirely machine created music? Is that not art because there is no intent?

At this point you're no longer doing biology. You're doing graphic art. See? If you are photographing amoeba and you decide to wait until the one on the left moves out of the frame in order to have a better composition, you are, briefly, doing photography and not biology.

I think you're being too reductionist with this. That's like saying that organising cell stocks isn't biology, it's organisation. Or that ordering stocks isn't because it's admin. Or that putting a plate into a micro plate reader and adjusting the settings isn't etc etc. Why can't photography be a part of biology if its important to the process of research and publication?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well you've said it's pretty, which is an artistic property.
You have made the point that information content and artistic qualities exist together in speech, can this not be said of Ryan's example?

What I said was a lot more complex than that:

That's my personal take on why we respond so strongly to music. We recognize the texture, tone, color, line, and rhythm of the human speaking voice in it, greatly enhanced and concentrated, polished, formalized, and otherwise artistically edited.

If I hadn't been told what it was I might look at it and say "that's a nice picture" to me it looks artistic.

I agree, it could be mistaken for a deliberate work of art. Art often mimics biological and natural dynamics.

A lot of people would describe these things as artistic.

By which they would mean they find them aesthetically pleasing. I do too. I could see people using an image like this as a screen saver. It's a coincidence, though. That doesn't make it less pretty, it just makes it not-art.

Didn't a urinal appear in the tate recently, I'm sure it's origonal purpose was not to be art but someone took it home who had different ideas... now it's famous art.

Art can be hijacked for non-artistic purposes. Propaganda, for example:

The movement [Dada] primarily involved visual arts, literature, poetry, art manifestoes, art theory, theatre, and graphic design, and concentrated its anti-war politics through a rejection of the prevailing standards in art through anti-art cultural works. In addition to being anti-war, Dada was also anti-bourgeois and had political affinities with the radical left.

Dada was "anti-art" in the service of a political point. A lot of people never got over Dada and resurrected its "anti-art" aesthetic for shock value at various times. The urinal was one of those times. You're supposed to wonder how the hell it ever got put in a museum.

What stops intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge (in any field) being arguably artistic?

Nothing, but it's one thing to say, "Theory x is elegant and aesthetically pleasing." and saying, "Therefore, theorist x has demonstrated that physics is a form of art."

 

[zoobyshoe]

To reiterate my thought experiment: if I showed you a bunch of objects stuck together without telling you if the intent was art or not (or if there was any intent at all, it might have been thrown together by a machine) could you not say it was art on the basis of how it made you feel?

No. This is what I mean by you conflating "art" and "pretty". "Pretty" stands for whatever aesthetic reaction. You can look at a flower, a biology stain, a cat, or a person and feel the aesthetic effect they inevitably have on you without them being art. I don't turn a flower into art by looking at it and becoming fascinated. It's not art till I draw it, and it's not art after I draw it. The drawing of it is the art.

http://thedailygib.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/magritte_ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-464x297.jpg

I think you're being too reductionist with this. That's like saying that organising cell stocks isn't biology, it's organisation. Or that ordering stocks isn't because it's admin. Or that putting a plate into a micro plate reader and adjusting the settings isn't etc etc. Why can't photography be a part of biology if its important to the process of research and publication?

All those things aren't biology, just like I'm not doing art when I empty my pencil sharpener or go buy art materials, or wash graphite smudges off my hands.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No. This is what I mean by you conflating "art" and "pretty". "Pretty" stands for whatever aesthetic reaction. You can look at a flower, a biology stain, a cat, or a person and feel the aesthetic effect they inevitably have on you without them being art. I don't turn a flower into art by looking at it and becoming fascinated. It's not art till I draw it, and it's not art after I draw it. The drawing of it is the art.

http://thedailygib.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/magritte_ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-464x297.jpg

We have different definitions of pretty because I find little of Magritte's works pretty but many aesthetically pleasing. Regarding a flower you're right I don't think natural things are art, I think they have to be created by people but that doesn't mean you can't get the same feeling towards natural things.

All those things aren't biology, just like I'm not doing art when I empty my pencil sharpener or go buy art materials, or wash graphite smudges off my hands.

So what is biology then? I'd say that biology is the study of living organisms and doing biology includes all the parts of the process.

 

[BenG549]

What I said was a lot more complex than that:

Yeah but I didn't want to take up soo much space posting your entire comment, I thought my comment would make sense without it, my bad. I'll take that back.

I agree, it could be mistaken for a deliberate work of art. Art often mimics biological and natural dynamics. By which they would mean they find them aesthetically pleasing. I do too. I could see people using an image like this as a screen saver. It's a coincidence, though. That doesn't make it less pretty, it just makes it not-art.

Interesting that you feel that art must be deliberate... to use a similar example to Ryan. If I fell over and dropped everything I had on the floor. Then someone said NO BEN DON'T TOUCH IT... took a picture of it and then a year later some said I want to buy that picture if you its an interesting bit of modern art... at what point did it become art? There is no intent to create art, but a picture of my mess is in the tate.

Nothing, but it's one thing to say, "Theory x is elegant and aesthetically pleasing." and saying, "Therefore, theorist x has demonstrated that physics is a form of art."

Bit picky but I don;t think art has to be aesthetic (assuming that means purely visual). Physics and scientific theories can be considered art without artistic intent... physics is not art.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then someone said NO BEN DON'T TOUCH IT... took a picture of it and then a year later some said I want to buy that picture if you its an interesting bit of modern art... at what point did it become art? There is no intent to create art, but a picture of my mess is in the tate.

To sidestep the (possibly legitimate) argument that the act of taking the picture made the art and that the picture, not just the subject, is the art we could propose that said person carefully picked up the mess and put it in the Tate.

 

[BenG549]

To sidestep the (possibly legitimate) argument that the act of taking the picture made the art and that the picture, not just the subject, is the art we could propose that said person carefully picked up the mess and put it in the Tate.

Yeah that makes sense... I was just trying not to directly copy your example lol.

 

[Ms Music]

I would like to throw my two cents in the hat for the topic, although I have only read the first page so I have no idea if someone else has stated this yet.

I see music as no different than color. We have settled on specific color frequencies, and have color wheels that show what colors go well with each other. If you like the color combinations an artist used on a painting, you will find it appealing. If you like the tone combinations in a music piece, you will find it appealing.

I remember a couple of years ago seeing an article about an ancient flute, and the scientists had made a replica that they had played and posted the mp3. I was amazed at the modern tones, it was "in tune" with any hand made modern flute might use. I think it is something in our brains, where we find the frequencies in color and music as universally appealing.

 

[BenG549]

I would like to throw my two cents in the hat for the topic, although I have only read the first page so I have no idea if someone else has stated this yet.

Given the name Ms Music I would imagine your 'two cents' are worth a lot more than that in this discussion!

I see music as no different than color. We have settled on specific color frequencies, and have color wheels that show what colors go well with each other. If you like the color combinations an artist used on a painting, you will find it appealing. If you like the tone combinations in a music piece, you will find it appealing.

I agree, but I also made the case that what we find appealing is learned behaviour and things 'foreign' to us will be less appealing because it's different, not because it is objectively worse. I used example such as Gamelan music.

I remember a couple of years ago seeing an article about an ancient flute, and the scientists had made a replica that they had played and posted the mp3. I was amazed at the modern tones, it was "in tune" with any hand made modern flute might use. I think it is something in our brains, where we find the frequencies in color and music as universally appealing.

The basic physics of most traditional instruments (particularly ones involving subtractive synthesis; woodwinds and brass i.e. make a noise source (lips) and a cavity will 'filter' this noise) has not really changed. It's just resonance and you change the length or size of the cavity to change its resonant frequencies, and hence, harmonics (over tones). Dissonance in music can however be used to invoke emotion as much as nice harmonies. Not so pleasing though.

I tried to find articles on testing different musical intervals on infants i.e. blank un socialised canvases, to see if there was any truth in the idea that we are inclined naturally to appreciate 'nice harmony' over clashing tones, but couldn't really find anything.

 

[Ms Music]

Hi Ben. Certainly, you learn to like certain music styles because of familiarity. I was going for a more fundamental aspect, but there is nothing wrong with your point. FYI I listened to Rachmaninoff the other day. His music makes me happy.

And BTW, I found the article with the mp3. 35,000 years ago this flute played tones that modern man still find appealing.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/06/24/4349670-music-for-cavemen?lite

Now that I find amazing. My brother makes native American flutes, and it is basically the same tones, 35,000 years later. Awesome.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We have different definitions of pretty because I find little of Magritte's works pretty but many aesthetically pleasing.

To repeat, "Pretty" stands for whatever reaction. I specifically said "pretty" earlier because it fit the biological stain, but we could have a huge range of aesthetic reactions depending on what we're looking at. You are conflating art and...(insert aesthetic reaction here).

The Magritte was not posted to illustrate "pretty" anyway. It was posted to illustrate that the thing you draw is not the art, the drawing is the art. "This is not a pipe" is true because it's a painting of a pipe, not the pipe itself. As Magritte said, you can't fill the painting with tobacco and smoke it. Likewise, the pipe is not a painting, even if you have an aesthetic reaction to it.

Regarding a flower you're right I don't think natural things are art, I think they have to be created by people but that doesn't mean you can't get the same feeling towards natural things.

Agreed. Here I think you understand that your reaction to a thing is not what makes it art. You've stopped defining art as 'something one has a strong aesthetic reaction to.'

So what is biology then? I'd say that biology is the study of living organisms and doing biology includes all the parts of the process.

Doing biology entails a lot of peripheral activities that aren't, specifically, biology. It's the same in all fields. In order to do particle physics you have to get out of bed in the morning, get dressed, and drive to work. Those activities aren't particle physics, though.

If you want to define those peripherals as part of doing biology, consider this: Biologists and artists have to clean their glasses. Since cleaning one's glasses is part of the process of biology, I am, when I clean my glasses, a biologist, am I not? I must be at least partially a biologist since I do one thing that is part of the process of biology. No?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Interesting that you feel that art must be deliberate... to use a similar example to Ryan. If I fell over and dropped everything I had on the floor. Then someone said NO BEN DON'T TOUCH IT... took a picture of it and then a year later some said I want to buy that picture if you its an interesting bit of modern art... at what point did it become art? There is no intent to create art, but a picture of my mess is in the tate.

Complete fiction. Nothing created this way ever ended up in the Tate. Jackson Pollock did not accidentally drip paint for hours and hours off the end of a stick onto canvas.

It could well happen that an accident would produce something that was cool to look at. Here again though, just because you have a positive aesthetic reaction to a thing doesn't mean it's art.

Bit picky but I don;t think art has to be aesthetic (assuming that means purely visual). Physics and scientific theories can be considered art without artistic intent... physics is not art.

Art certainly doesn't have to depict what is beautiful, but, when it doesn't, it has to depict what is ugly in some way we might call "beautiful" in the sense of 'with astonishing skill" as in: "Jack Nicholson did a beautiful job of depicting an arrogant bastard in 'A Few Good Men'." The beauty is in the way the beauty or ugliness is communicated.

Physics and scientific theories are certainly not ever considered art. Art allows for complete fiction, fiction as the ultimate goal of a piece. Science absolutely not. An artist may pour his soul into depicting the way he wishes things were. The most a scientist can do is construct a gedanken fiction in the service of illuminating the way things actually are.

 

[atyy]

Physics and scientific theories are certainly not ever considered art. Art allows for complete fiction, fiction as the ultimate goal of a piece. Science absolutely not. An artist may pour his soul into depicting the way he wishes things were. The most a scientist can do is construct a gedanken fiction in the service of illuminating the way things actually are.

I think that is such an interesting distinction. My inclination is to accept it. Yet in both art and science, truth and beauty are ideals. Truth first even in art, yet one hopes that the two are somehow fundamentally united.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I hope this might clarify some things-

"The choice of Duchamp's Fountain as the most influential work of modern art ahead of works by Picasso and Matisse comes as a bit of a shock," said art expert Simon Wilson. "But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing - the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm
The person responsible for the snow shovel, urinal and “Nude Descending a Staircase” was Duchamp.

Reading on further down the page that included Zoobyshoe’s quote-
“In 1917 he submitted the now famous Fountain, a urinal signed R. Mutt, to the Society of Independent Artists exhibition only to have the piece rejected. First an object of scorn within the arts community, the Fountain has since become almost canonized by some as one of the most recognizable modernist works of sculpture. The committee presiding over Britain's prestigious Turner Prize in 2004, for example, called it "the most influential work of modern art."[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

“Anti-art”, if you get the joke, in denying artistic boundaries, denies itself (or it affirms both boundaries and itself, or in achieving a redefinition or lack of definition of art makes the term in that application obsolete). The term has been described as a “Paradoxical neologism”, and is like the ironical term “postmodernism”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art

“The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.” Claims denoting clear boundaries suggest an agreed definition. Some definitions of art are too narrow to include “the most influential work of modern art”, and many other works considered art. There are various definitions here.
Definitions of art-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

Formalist definitions (elements of design, etc.) combined with intentionalism was one way of allowing for Abstract Expressionism, in that formalism allowed for non-figurative works and placing importance on intention helped distinguish their expressions from “kitsch” or wall-paper. Greenberg had been regarded as a leading promoter of this idea, but distances himself in a quote here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(art )

Intention might not be important, e.g.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

Although I don’t consider them necessary, some examples come to mind. I relinked this recently, exhibited at the Hayward and Serpentine Galleries-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=?v=Ec1TBxGYHm4

Or there were the working diagrams by theoretical physicists who were invited to show their images on the walls at the RA.
(http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/)

 

[BenG549]

Complete fiction. Nothing created this way ever ended up in the Tate. Jackson Pollock did not accidentally drip paint for hours and hours off the end of a stick onto canvas.

OK, yeah that's fair. Until I can find a 'real' example. I'd be surprised if there is no example out there of someone creating something widely considered 'artistic' by accident though, especially in the tate modern, I'll have a look.

It could well happen that an accident would produce something that was cool to look at. Here again though, just because you have a positive aesthetic reaction to a thing doesn't mean it's art.

Hmmm I'm inclined to agree actually. Unless I can find a reasonable example not borne out of fiction, it might be reasonable. The only problem here is that if I fall over and spill/drop a bunch of stuff, we can agree that is not art because there is no artistic intent, and that if someone were to, for purely artistic means, create a scene exactly the same (not outrageous given that the tate modern has mounds of clothes on the floor and the like passing for art) there is no visual difference between them but one is definitely art and one definitely is not... that's difficult to accept, two man made things that look exactly the same but one is art and the other isn't.

Art certainly doesn't have to depict what is beautiful, but, when it doesn't, it has to depict what is ugly in some way we might call "beautiful" in the sense of 'with astonishing skill"

Disagree, things don't have to be aestheticly beautiful (beauty in a traditional sense or beauty as a way of appreciating the subtleties of a great 'dark' performance or piece of visual art) the piece below is by Kazimir Malevich entitled "Suprematist Composition: White On White" 1918, Museum of Modern Art New York. It couldn't be more neutral, it's white, on a white background.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Marevich%2C_Suprematist_Composition-_White_on_White_1917.jpg

Physics and scientific theories are certainly not ever considered art. Art allows for complete fiction, fiction as the ultimate goal of a piece. Science absolutely not. An artist may pour his soul into depicting the way he wishes things were. The most a scientist can do is construct a gedanken fiction in the service of illuminating the way things actually are.

Yeah ok I can accept that, I wouldn't necessarily describe science as art (possibly some areas of engineering, I know my electronics engineer friend always describes PCB design as art more than science. Certainly architecture, but not science in general) I was just asking if creativity in general was a qualifier, whether is be creative use of colour patterns or creative use of knowledge... I can see why people would think it isn't.

 

[BenG549]

I hope this might clarify some things-

First of all, very good post! Pretty much covered all the bases. Some of those links are pretty interesting as well.

“The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.” Claims denoting clear boundaries suggest an agreed definition. Some definitions of art are too narrow to include “the most influential work of modern art”, and many other works considered art. There are various definitions here.
Definitions of art-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

And there in lies the problem or trying to objectify something inherently subjective. Still, can be fun to try!

Intention might not be important, e.g.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author...

...Or there were the working diagrams by theoretical physicists who were invited to show their images on the walls at the RA.
(http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/)

That is very interesting, particularly the wiki page "Death of the Author".

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that is such an interesting distinction. My inclination is to accept it. Yet in both art and science, truth and beauty are ideals. Truth first even in art, yet one hopes that the two are somehow fundamentally united.

I'm not aware of any aspect of science in which beauty is an ideal. What is it you mean by that?

Something art and science share is their investigative nature. In that they're united, I'd claim. However, art allows an individual to investigate his own psyche and present the results for consideration. The truth he tries to unravel is something like, "This is how my mind operates." Every psyche is valid here. The success or failure lies in how effectively the artist manages to communicate whatever part of his psyche he's working on to his audience. A scientist, on the other hand, is not permitted to explore how he wishes the universe operated and present it as science. What we want from a scientist is someone who more accurately explains the external, objective truth.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hmmm I'm inclined to agree actually. Unless I can find a reasonable example not borne out of fiction, it might be reasonable. The only problem here is that if I fall over and spill/drop a bunch of stuff, we can agree that is not art because there is no artistic intent, and that if someone were to, for purely artistic means, create a scene exactly the same (not outrageous given that the tate modern has mounds of clothes on the floor and the like passing for art) there is no visual difference between them but one is definitely art and one definitely is not... that's difficult to accept, two man made things that look exactly the same but one is art and the other isn't.

Your confusion arises from equating the Tate with art: 'The Tate is an art museum. Piles of clothes are displayed in the Tate. Piles of clothes must therefore be art.' Really, the Tate's function is merely to present what enough important people claim is art. The thought, "That which appears in the Tate must, automatically, be Art," is wrong. That would be like saying, "Those theories that appear in peer reviewed journals must all be correct." as if appearing in a peer reviewed journal made them bullet-proof.

Disagree, things don't have to be aestheticly beautiful (beauty in a traditional sense or beauty as a way of appreciating the subtleties of a great 'dark' performance or piece of visual art) the piece below is by Kazimir Malevich entitled "Suprematist Composition: White On White" 1918, Museum of Modern Art New York. It couldn't be more neutral, it's white, on a white background.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Marevich%2C_Suprematist_Composition-_White_on_White_1917.jpg

What's not beautiful about that painting?

Yeah ok I can accept that, I wouldn't necessarily describe science as art (possibly some areas of engineering, I know my electronics engineer friend always describes PCB design as art more than science. Certainly architecture, but not science in general) I was just asking if creativity in general was a qualifier, whether is be creative use of colour patterns or creative use of knowledge... I can see why people would think it isn't.

Let me just address the concept of there being an art to something not usually considered an art. What is usually meant is that there is no set 'algorithm' or procedure in certain cases, and so the person is free to develop their own. You amass a collection of rules of thumb and then 'artfully' apply them as needed, operating on informed intuition more than anything else. Engineering is not one of the arts, but it's perfectly OK to say there's an art to it.

 

[atyy]

I'm not aware of any aspect of science in which beauty is an ideal. What is it you mean by that?

To me the subject of study is often beautiful, just as the view from across the Golden Gate bridge is. Here's a bunch of quotes that show that scientists consider beauty important.

"This result is too beautiful to be false; it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment." -- Dirac

"It seems that scientists are often attracted to beautiful theories in the way that insects are attracted to flowers — not by logical deduction, but by something like a sense of smell." -- Steven Weinberg

"The emergent physics laws (such as the law of dipolar interaction and the law of non-interacting phonons) are simple and beautiful" -- Xiao-Gang Wen

Of course it's harder to see why cancer might be beautiful, and similarly there are subjects in art which are not beautiful such as war, which is why I agree that truth comes first both in art and science - but I think we do hope that at some deep level truth and beauty are allied.

This book is not about heroes.
English Poetry is not yet fit to speak of them.
Nor is it about deeds, or lands, nor anything about glory, honour, might,
majesty, dominion, or power, except war.
Above all I am not concerned with Poetry.
My subject is War, and the pity of War.
The Poetry is in the pity.
Yet these elegies are to this generation in no sense consolatory. They may
be to the next. All a poet can do today is warn. That is why true Poets
must be truthful.

~Wilfred Owen
http://www.illyria.com/poetry.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

To me the subject of study is often beautiful, just as the view from across the Golden Gate bridge is. Here's a bunch of quotes that show that scientists consider beauty important.

"This result is too beautiful to be false; it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment." -- Dirac

"It seems that scientists are often attracted to beautiful theories in the way that insects are attracted to flowers — not by logical deduction, but by something like a sense of smell." -- Steven Weinberg

"The emergent physics laws (such as the law of dipolar interaction and the law of non-interacting phonons) are simple and beautiful" -- Xiao-Gang Wen

Here again, though, a physicist can't construct a law that is beautiful and have it accepted because it is beautiful. It has to be true. I think you can compose music that is extremely beautiful but ultimately pure fiction, and it will represent successful art: it tells the true story of someone's desire. Beauty may be desirable in science but it is an occasional incidental perk. Dirac, in saying beauty is more important than fitting with experiment, sounds a little crazy in that quote if you ask me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

How/why does this sucession of notes convey such a sense of anxious fury? Such furious anxiety? I get all tense listening to it, and my heart rate goes up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zucBfXpCA6s

 

[atyy]

How/why does this sucession of notes convey such a sense of anxious fury? Such furious anxiety? I get all tense listening to it, and my heart rate goes up.

That's a difficult question to answer because the basic data aren't universal. I fall asleep every time I hear that. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed a lot of her playing, but not this.

This performance is not note-perfect, but the variety of appropriate articulation is much greater, don't you think?
352qLWqKN-U[/youtube] Let me ask a...ppropriate simplification of the OP question?

 

[Pythagorean]

As a generality, there are four things you can do as a musician to evoke tension: higher notes, faster playing, dissonance, louder notes.

Considering doppler shift, these all simulate something approaching (with the exception of dissonance... though dissonance does produce a rapid beat note

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's a difficult question to answer because the basic data aren't universal.

I can't tell what "basic data" you mean.

I fall asleep every time I hear that. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed a lot of her playing, but not this.

This performance is not note-perfect, but the variety of appropriate articulation is much greater, don't you think?

Are you saying you find the piece, itself, soporific, but that despite that Perahia is less soporific than Listitsa? Or are you saying Listitsa is soporific and Perahia not?

Let me ask a counter-question: are there things that don't evoke any emotion? What is the physiological basis of flat affect?

I don't think any sensory stimulus is felt without an emotional reaction, however subtle. What I'm calling attention to here is that the Beethoven conveys a complete and elaborate narrative of a human being's train of emotion through sound alone (no words).

Also, would fear conditioning using sound be an appropriate simplification of the OP question?

I think the assumption is that there's more "natural," unconditioned response than conditioned when we respond to music. Music = salivation caused by meat, not by the bell that rings at the same time. Sudden, loud noises are inherently frightening, for example. It's not something that requires conditioning.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As a generality, there are four things you can do as a musician to evoke tension: higher notes, faster playing, dissonance, louder notes.

Good start. I think all these things have a psychological effect. What's the neurological basis for that? To call one note "higher" than another is a psychological assessment of it. The note is actually merely faster in cycles per second. Why do we equate that with elevation?

Considering doppler shift, these all simulate something approaching (with the exception of dissonance... though dissonance does produce a rapid beat note

And this incomplete sentence is a good illustrative example of how to create tension. We're set up to expect something that never arrives. Music is full of this. A pattern is implied then deviated from.