I think what Saul says reinforces my view. I say subject and content, he says signifier and signified. I agree that in a work of art, something different from what is not a work of art, has integrated parts, implying that the integration is form; that is, something added to purely objective facts or subject. What Saul says is the tension produced by the elusiveness of resolution between the signifier and the signified, is what I've called the ineffable or the paradoxical or even the superfluity of "aboutness" to extent of negating it or reaching the point where projected meanings contradict each other. One of my favorite examples of this is, again, Goya's Second of May 1808. The stabbed and dying warrior is being yanked from his horse, a scene of intense violence, but the color of his robe, a sweet and silky rose-pink, is delicately played off the white horse. All around is gloomy, dunnish gray. The moment of violent death contradicted by the loveliness of color, the sweetness of life heightened in a last breath. The paradox of life exemplified by death.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Allan Sutherland <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:47:57 PM Subject: Re: Reading Kivy: Chaper 6 - The Quest for Musical Profundity The work of art, regardless of medium has a bifurcated structure - it consists of a signifier (form)- whose components parts are so integrated as to be at times indistinguishable - the signified(content) on the other hand is fractured consisting of diverse linked texts, which impact and modify one another - the economy between the continuous text of the signifier and the fragmented on of the signified generates a tension which impels interpretation - but makes resolution (about-ness) elusive - this tends to be a good thing - in that those works that lack the tension produced by this economy often tend to be banal On 10/25/09 7:25 PM, "Allan Sutherland" <[email protected]> wrote: On 24/10/2009 21:18, "Saul Ostrow" <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is that when music takes music as its subject it generates primarily > formalist content that is the meaning, message or sense (reason) associated > with its forms, formats and disposition , as well as a full range of other > contents - as such we should be talking about forms and contents of a work of > art Thank you Saul, I understand better what you are trying to clarify, and detail. I have a singular problem with these sorts of divisions of form and content; that is once we have succeeded to distinguish them is it then possible to reintegrate them? Or if it is possible to distinguish one from the other, is it then the case that there is a problem with the artwork, here music. Also, what I am trying to get at is that music is also part of the exploration of the world of sound, and in that sense is a sound form about a sound content; in other words there are no differences between them; they are what they are. They lay before us aspects of sound in the environment. Sound is itself a worthy object and I am trying to say this without arguing for pure music. Also, I am not arguing that all music has this purpose and structure, but that some are, and many others could be considered so. I hope this is clear. -- http://braesidecottage-garden-music.blogspot.com/ Toodle-pip, Allan. --
