Frances to Cheerskep and others---
[More will come later on experiential subjectivity that we were
posting about earlier. My activity on the Peirce List and the
Biosemiotic List is taking up most of my time these days. There
are some good threads there on the topic of experience.]
This is not a rhetorical curiosity about the aesthetic experience
of audible and aural art works, but it is still a troubling issue
for me in my study of semiotic aesthetics. In regard to audibly
heard aural artifacts, that are mainly of sonic sounds or vocic
songs or music scores, my search is to find out what might be
their "material" form and stuff, and then its "original" work;
and also if such artistic audition arouses or incites or evokes a
visual imaginary "vision" in the mind. By way of a possible
analogy, it seems to me that the "materiality" of a painting is
canvas and paint as applied with a tool, and its "originality" is
the final artifact as seen on display. The thorn for me in
dealing with heard objects that must be listened to over time is
the role that scribed notation and delayed amplification and
recorded duplication might play in impacting on such objects, if
they are still to be deemed as lofty works of high fine art.
The other interesting thing here is the positing of terms often
used in fine aural art like "noise" and "sound" and others. If we
go back to the primal state of the continuing world, it seems to
be found filled with aspects of bodies like neutrinos and
particles. The realist evolutionary theory of pragmatism holds
that raw matter is always in continuous action, and mostly in
motion, whereby this motion gives off waves, which can be
detected by enabled matter a noise, which can further be detected
by more advanced matter and life as sound. This sound can be then
technically coded with tools as a sight or scene yielding a
graphic image of those bodies. For an aesthetic twist, the
detectable noisy waves of received sound might be called the
rhythmic audition of matter. There is also the issues of whether
there is a key difference between audible and aural in art that
is perhaps similar to visible and visual, and if audition is
equivalent to vision, and if the mental perception of any
artifice or artifact or artwork by way of any sensory modality
yields an immediate visionary vision as a brute reaction and even
as a crude response; and indeed how a conscious aesthetic
experience of any degree might emerge from all this sensory and
"visionary" activity.
Cheerskep partly wrote in my edited phrasing---
About the terms "reaction" and "response" which may be confused
when used differently to refer to the same thing.
About an "experience" whether aesthetic or non-aesthetic that may
happen when music is played and heard by ears in its presence.
About the sense of "noise" and "sound" and "wave" and an evoked
"picture" when an aural audition is felt to occur.
About a "reaction" to audition that is felt to be an "aesthetic
experience" as an effect, but not a response nor a reply.
About the "meaning" of reaction and response that is merely and
only a subjective mental notion.
