| | Thanks everyone for the many comments. I would like to answer a few questions and objections; so here goes. And I think pride of place should goes to Our Majesty.
Barbara, You wrote,
“I don't understand the point you are making”
In the second last paragraph I wrote,
“I think together they [the tales] represent a kind of reductio ad absurdum on representationalism in music.” So I guess the point is that music is non-representational—non mimetic.
In both of your paragraph you use the word “denigrating.” I certainly don’t mean to denigrate music, but rather to place it in what I believe to be it proper category, i.e., non-representational art as opposed to representational art like literature etc.
“And how do your two novel people, who don't know how to read, tell you anything about the nature of the novel?”
First of all, since this is a reductio argument; some of it has to be absurd. Lou’s reading is absurd. [I would not, however, say that Bud does not know how to read—ATLAS is a story about Galt’s strike, isn’t it?] Second, my purpose was not to tell us anything about the nature of the novel except that it is representational.
You also wrote,
“your two people are nutty enough to treat it as though all music tells a specific word-story.”
In a sense they are not my people. Art’s words are a direct quotation from Schopenhauer and Sue’s words are McClary’s. But I agree with you that they do seem “nutty.” But that is the point. That is what happens when one thinks that music is representational, or more modestly, that is what happened to these two thinkers because they were operating under that paradigm.
“I don't think you would denigrate the novel form because it sings off key.”
You are right. I wouldn’t. But when the representationalist tells me music is like literature in that it represents reality, then I have some questions. And thanks for your time—you made my day.
Michael,
You wrote,
“I missed the support of his conclusion that ‘…it means that music is more akin to aural wallpaper…’” “Wallpaper design is not known for its themes, composition, depth, form, movement, or non-decorative content.”
Notice, Michael, that I said “akin” not “identical with.” It is akin in the sense that, like wallpaper, it represents nothing.
Jonathan, you wrote,
“According to Rand, ‘As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited be the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not represent an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art.’"
For me, music is an art, but a non-representational one. So I guess I use the word more broadly than she does. For me there are representational arts like literature, painting and sculpture; non-representational arts like music and abstract painting; and useful arts like architecture.
Robert, You wrote,
“There are no 'subjects of abstract expressionism' - it's all gibberish”
If by “gibberish” you mean “non-representational” then I agree with you, but would add music into the mix, of course.
Robert, You wrote,
“Since Schopenhauer died in 1860, he couldn't have heard Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony...”
And not only that, but since he died in 1860 and I was born in 1942, there is no way I could have met him at the Concert Hall. I bet I was writing fiction Of course, the some of the blame lies with me. I did write, “Art IS Arthur Schopenhauer” [emphasis mine] But here I will, if you permit, invoke the Bill Clinton defense. It depends on what the meaning of IS is. Tee hee. My Art IS Schopenhauer, but in ideas only.
“I'd also like to hear from Fred, on the subject of music as "aural wallpaper."
The idea comes from Kant’s 3rd Critique, Section 16 where he writes “wallpaper [and musical fantasias and all music not set to words] represent nothing.” That’s all I meant.
“It's easy to make fun of the elaborate "programs" that people used to fit to pieces of instrumental music in the 1800s”
But why is it easy? I would answer because music in non-representational. But I have to be careful. Maybe I’m picking examples that lie at the extreme.
“But I'm surprised to see Fred taking a position on music similar to Kant's.”
In so far as Kant is a non-representational vis-à-vis music, then I agree with him. Also see my book, AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY for two chapters that defend poor old Kant.
“Kant gives no examples in his discussion, and I suspect that his evaluation has never been taken very seriously.”
You are right about Kant—he has long been criticized for lack of examples, although as my quotation above indicates, he does instance ‘musical fantasias or music without words’. But that may be too general an example to satisfy, since it seems to include most instrumental music.
As far as being taken seriously, anyone who merits mention is the HISTORY OF MUSICAL AESTHETICS as one who “provides a substantial foundation for the development of aesthetic formalism,” (293) is being taken seriously. And thinkers like Hanslick, Herbart, Kivy et all take Kant very seriously, although this hardly means they agree with him on every point.
Joe,
I am familiar with both Fantasias. I had forgotten about the clouds. I particularly hated the cuts they made on the first movement of Beethoven’s Fifth. I can still remember feeling like I was punched in the stomach when what I was expecting to come didn’t come. Lousy editor.
I do occasionally find some music inappropriate in certain films. Recently I saw a forgettable (hench not title) movie on IFC and they kept using Mozart’s Fantasy in D minor, K. 397 all through the film and in very diverse scenes. If the scenes hadn’t been so different then I could have bought into their use of the Mozart as a kind of Wagnerian leitmotif. But alas, it was simply awful.
“In the Critique of the Power of Judgment, Kant wasn't sure that music qualified as a fine art.”
Although be the time he gets to Section 51 in the CJ, where he divides the fine arts into three categories, he does include music under the third category, i.e., arts that involve a “beautiful play of sensations.” (324 in the German)
"Music cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside...The theme of a composition entitled "Spring Song" is not spring, but the emotions which Spring evoked in the composer. Even concepts...such as "peace"...are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music. All that music can do with such themes is convey the emotions of serenity, or defiance, or exaltation. Liszt's “St. Francis Walking on the Waters" was inspired by a specific legend, but what it conveys is a passionately dedicated struggle and triumph-by whom and in the name of what, is for each individual listener to supply."
Fred, is this what you had in mind when you wrote your essay?”
Close, but “passionately dedicate struggle and triumph” is a little too specific for me. And not just that, but notice that Rand only refers to music with verbal clues provided by the composer. The music I’m referring to when I try to make my case is music with only an opus number. Is Beethoven’s Opus 2 about the struggle and triumph of the only even number to be a prime. I think not. In fact, for the nonce, let me give all music with, at least some, words to the representationalist. I’m focused on what various theorists have called “absolute music” or “music alone” or “instrumental music.”
“a song by Led Zeppelin called "The Rain Song" which, to me, sounds like a lazy day in Hawaii sipping a Corona, nice and relaxing. My Grandmother listened to it, and liked it, but to her it evoked sadness.”
This happens in my house all the time. You might want to look at Hospers’ MEANING AND TRUTH IN THE ARTS, p. 93 where he writes, “The great ‘subject’ of the first movement of Schubert’s B flat trio, represents to me and many the ne plus ultra of energy and passion; yet this very movement was described by Schumann as ‘tender, girlish, confiding; adding that …Schumann held the movement in equally high regard as music.”
Once again, thanks to you all.
Fred
|
|
