Subject content Form content Aesthetic content Narrative content Structural content Style content Social content Artistic content Conceptual/ philosophical content
On 10/23/09 11:49 PM, "Allan Sutherland" <[email protected]> wrote: On 23/10/2009 23:26, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: > None of what you say affects the simple clarity and truth of my comment that > subject is to be distinguished from content. None of what you have said makes this distinction clear and truthful. > In fact, what you say is not at > all clear. That is probably true, as my mind felt, maybe remains, somewhat foggy. But, the simple clarity and truth of what I wrote was to initiate a more engaging response to what Chris had taken the time to read and summarise. > You state: ..."content seems to imply something added to, probably > not essential to music". So, then, do you say music (subject) is different > from what's added to it (content)? Yes, as a question asking must music be different from music; that it is its own subject and content; which seems clear and simple: > Then you say, "Surely music too is a > content...it can have profundity itself without having to rely on other than > itself". OK, there are two kinds of content, you say. But what is content > (to call it profundity is merely passing the problem to another word)? What > is the essential difference between the two kinds of content? One might > conclude that you mean there is a subjective content (in the reception of > music) and an objective content (in the music itself). This returns us to the > perennial problem: Is aesthetic quality in the subject or in its reception? > Oh well to cut through this I will simply and clearly say that there are no two contents; music is music, music is what it is, music. It itself has effect and it is organised by specific principles, sometimes harmonic sometimes dissonant - in challenge to harmonic theory, for example. Sometimes music is structured rhythmically and texturally, for example, sometimes by volume. The structuring is not the subject nor is it necessarily the content separate from the music; the structuring makes the music. The music is listened to and has effect, it is an exploration of patterns of sound. In essence that is what I was trying to say, to ask that deeper engagement with what Chris had written be given on a list discussing aesthetics. It somewhat worked in the latter sense. Toodel-pip, Allan (less but not completely free of being befuddled). > I have argued consistently (with a tiny admission of skepticism) that > aesthetic quality must be in the subjective personal and cultural perception > -- the reception -- of the subject, in this case, sound, whereas the sound > itself, has only sound, unqualified by perception. I do allow that the human > brain, (and some other animal brains), does have cellular structures that > respond in ways that are taken as pleasing or unpleasing and help to construct > cognitive patterns, release "pleasure" chemicals, and so on, and that these > products of the perception of sound may lead us to assign aesthetic quality to > it. But even in that case, the attributes of quality are in the brain and not > in the sound itself. The musician manipulates sounds to produce the "pleasing" > sensation in the brain (a electro-chemical situation) and the brain advises > the hearer to pretend that the pleasure is not only coming from the sound but > in fact is intrinsic to it. It's a form of > make-believe that we all do in every conscious moment. We attribute our > sensations to something external even though we actually project them to > something external. Some external things, subjects, will cause us to respond > in more or less predictable and measurable ways (making content). That does > not mean the objects contain the content any more than the falling rock > contains the sound of its thud upon the ground. This is the same as seeing. > In seeing, our visual cortex responds to stimulus and produces patterns which > we then project as templates to the objects we see. In this way we > continually construct our seeing, affected by visual data that is stimulating > our visual cortex (and involving other brain areas as well). This is not my > solipsistic invention. It is my admittedly clumsy synopsis of science. Look > it up yourself. Start with your London colleague, Semir Zeki. > > If aesthetic quality, content, is hard to encircle, the even more vague, > organic, leaky and oozing word, profundity, is impossible to measure. It is > one of those words for which any definition will do. Start anywhere. With > aesthetic quality, we at least have the engagement of our brain and its > chemicals and synapses and "pleasure" originating in the impulse for survival > and reproduction. Profundity? It is more likely to be a matter of > socialization, a class-associative notion, a self-fulfilling prophecy to > enhance self-esteem, and a roundabout way to induce pleasure. How profound! > Say it, without irony, and then ask yourself how the word affects your > self-regard. > > My so-called breezy distinction between subject and content is not my own > solipsistic "profundity" but a concise restatement of what many others have > noted for centuries. As in Shakespeare: "words (subjects) fly up, thoughts > (content) remain below; words without thoughts never to heaven go." --
