"What value, if any, is there in an "authentic" musical performance, or is it merely a matter of differing tastes?" This question was posed by Edward Manak, and though I have already responded to a question this week, my idea for a blog came so close to this idea that I figured I would answer his instead.
First of all, there are many subjects upon which I can speak with confidence and competence; music is not one of them. This having been established, I shall continue.
I do not think that the authenticity of a musical performance is, at all, a matter of taste. Authenticity, at least according to Davies, is judged based upon how faithful the performers are to the composer's expressed instructions. In this, I agree with Davies, for I can see no other way to judge authenticity, of a musical performance that is.
Well, actually, I suppose I missed the point of the question. While taste plays no role in judging the authenticity of a performance, the value of an authentic performance would be a matter of taste. Personally, I would not enjoy a musical performance more knowing that it is purely authentic. My aesthetic reaction to a piece of music, or to a performance for that matter, is not impacted at all by the authenticity of that piece.
So I suppose, in my opinion, there is no value in an authentic performance.
And now for something completely different: I often feel the need to reiterate the distinction between art and beauty. I feel that we often get caught up in the moment and are too eager to ascribe the status of art to anything we find beautiful. Can not something be beautiful without being art? Or am I not right to make this distinction?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Art of Philosophy
A Response to Betsy's question: "Is philosophy an art?"
Because of the subjective nature of the question, I shall address it subjectively. As is often the case, before we determine whether or not a given thing fits into a certain set of qualities, we must first determine what these qualities are, therefore we must determine what qualities constitute art. We must first define art. Now, I do understand the intrinsic difficulties here, so while I do believe it is an apt definition, it is indeed, my definition.
Art = Creation + Intention. Art is anything that was created by man with artistic intent. Now, I understand your immediate objections, for many have made them. I cannot address them all here, nor will I try. I did write a lengthy (10-12 pages) dialogue last year in which I believe I adequately address them and defend this definition, and I would be happy to e-mail this to anyone who asks.
Philosophy, despite its imminent practicality and great interest to me, is, albeit a creation of man, rarely undertaken in an artistic intent. If a philosopher were to write a philosophical dialogue, were to give a speech of a philosophical nature, than both the dialogue and the speech would have the potential to be art, yes, but the philosophy itself would not. Likewise, if two persons were to enter into a discourse, it is their speech, their diction that would likely to be art, but the philosophy that may or may not be within that discourse would not be art, just as the moral within Moby Dick is not art, but the novel itself is.
In short, no, I do not think that philosophy would be considered art. As the definition of art is oh so elusive and equally subjective, here is my question: How do you define art?
Because of the subjective nature of the question, I shall address it subjectively. As is often the case, before we determine whether or not a given thing fits into a certain set of qualities, we must first determine what these qualities are, therefore we must determine what qualities constitute art. We must first define art. Now, I do understand the intrinsic difficulties here, so while I do believe it is an apt definition, it is indeed, my definition.
Art = Creation + Intention. Art is anything that was created by man with artistic intent. Now, I understand your immediate objections, for many have made them. I cannot address them all here, nor will I try. I did write a lengthy (10-12 pages) dialogue last year in which I believe I adequately address them and defend this definition, and I would be happy to e-mail this to anyone who asks.
Philosophy, despite its imminent practicality and great interest to me, is, albeit a creation of man, rarely undertaken in an artistic intent. If a philosopher were to write a philosophical dialogue, were to give a speech of a philosophical nature, than both the dialogue and the speech would have the potential to be art, yes, but the philosophy itself would not. Likewise, if two persons were to enter into a discourse, it is their speech, their diction that would likely to be art, but the philosophy that may or may not be within that discourse would not be art, just as the moral within Moby Dick is not art, but the novel itself is.
In short, no, I do not think that philosophy would be considered art. As the definition of art is oh so elusive and equally subjective, here is my question: How do you define art?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Classification and Evaluation
In response to Edward's question; "In the section 'works of art,' Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term 'works of art' is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses or should we use on sense over the other exclusively?"
It would appear to me that, all too regularly, patrons of aesthetics confuse the evaluative and classifying sense of the term 'work of art.' Especially in the last class, Art and Philosophy, many of the philosophers would, in my opinion, disregard an art form, not based on some evaluative and logical lack of attributes, but rather from a personal dislike of the particular form.
To answer the question, I do think that we need to look at a work of art in both a evaluative and classifying function; however, it would appear prudent to me to not use the classifying sense in an effort to determine the legitimacy of a certain piece. The classifying manner in which we all experience art is of merit and deserves its own discourse, but only in the application of taste. There is a place for evaluation, and there is a place for classification; I would just have us not confuse the two.
On a completely unrelated note, Korsmeyer says that food is surely not a fine art for it does not have the correct history. Did not all fine arts begin at some point? What history is Korsmeyer suggesting that food ought to have to deserve the additional label of 'fine?'
It would appear to me that, all too regularly, patrons of aesthetics confuse the evaluative and classifying sense of the term 'work of art.' Especially in the last class, Art and Philosophy, many of the philosophers would, in my opinion, disregard an art form, not based on some evaluative and logical lack of attributes, but rather from a personal dislike of the particular form.
To answer the question, I do think that we need to look at a work of art in both a evaluative and classifying function; however, it would appear prudent to me to not use the classifying sense in an effort to determine the legitimacy of a certain piece. The classifying manner in which we all experience art is of merit and deserves its own discourse, but only in the application of taste. There is a place for evaluation, and there is a place for classification; I would just have us not confuse the two.
On a completely unrelated note, Korsmeyer says that food is surely not a fine art for it does not have the correct history. Did not all fine arts begin at some point? What history is Korsmeyer suggesting that food ought to have to deserve the additional label of 'fine?'
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Thoughts on Telfer
Professor Johnson provided today an adequate explanation as to why Telfer seemed to disregard the visual and structural aspects of food. Telfer was not concerned with how well food would work as a medium for other art forms, rather how food would do as its own form. The only aspect of food that is unique to food and no other form of art is the necessity of taste to experience it.
...and...
Edward Manak, in response to my story about my grandfather's scotch, proposed the idea that art has no intrinsic meaning to it, the meaning is imposed upon it by the person experiencing that particular piece. After some thought, I have concluded that this is a perfectly valid observation, and an extremely sympathetic reading of Telfer's severely presumptuous claim. I would have no issue with Telfer had she phrased it as such, but she did not. While she would be right in the claim that food has no inherent meaning, she claims this as evidence of food's unimportance, implying therefore that the more important arts such as painting, music, and sculpture, do have innate meaning. This, I take issue with. Either all arts have meaning of their own or none of them do...Music possesses no unique attribute, that food lacks, to imbue it with natural meaning.
Telfer made many thoughtful and logically sound arguments in favor of cookery as a form of art in its own right and I can appreciate such. Her arguments begin to deteriorate as she pursues the additional labels of simple and minor.
In class, the people who contributed the most seemed to come to a consensus that Telfer was wrong and cookery is a major art form, but what do you think? I am interested in hearing whether you think food is minor, major, or not an art form at all.
...and...
Edward Manak, in response to my story about my grandfather's scotch, proposed the idea that art has no intrinsic meaning to it, the meaning is imposed upon it by the person experiencing that particular piece. After some thought, I have concluded that this is a perfectly valid observation, and an extremely sympathetic reading of Telfer's severely presumptuous claim. I would have no issue with Telfer had she phrased it as such, but she did not. While she would be right in the claim that food has no inherent meaning, she claims this as evidence of food's unimportance, implying therefore that the more important arts such as painting, music, and sculpture, do have innate meaning. This, I take issue with. Either all arts have meaning of their own or none of them do...Music possesses no unique attribute, that food lacks, to imbue it with natural meaning.
Telfer made many thoughtful and logically sound arguments in favor of cookery as a form of art in its own right and I can appreciate such. Her arguments begin to deteriorate as she pursues the additional labels of simple and minor.
In class, the people who contributed the most seemed to come to a consensus that Telfer was wrong and cookery is a major art form, but what do you think? I am interested in hearing whether you think food is minor, major, or not an art form at all.
A Bit of Business
I would like to first state that this is not my first official blog entry and this particular blog should not be graded, but I feel as if it should be said nonetheless.
I feel as if in any classroom, and especially a room devoted to discussion, that there needs to be a cohesive system that determines who is to speak and when they are to speak. I understand that such a suggestion reeks of lower level compulsory schools, but raising your hand and waiting to be called upon is not only the polite and civil behavior but also the practical obligation of anyone seeking an environment conducive to a substantial and meaningful discussion.
There were numerous times today that I had something to say, both relevant and positive in its contribution but did not get the chance due to other students talking as soon as there was a pause long enough for my hand to be noticed.
I do not wish to cause any trouble, to be disagreeable, or overly argumentative...I only ask for the same amount of respect that I go out of my way to show others.
I feel as if in any classroom, and especially a room devoted to discussion, that there needs to be a cohesive system that determines who is to speak and when they are to speak. I understand that such a suggestion reeks of lower level compulsory schools, but raising your hand and waiting to be called upon is not only the polite and civil behavior but also the practical obligation of anyone seeking an environment conducive to a substantial and meaningful discussion.
There were numerous times today that I had something to say, both relevant and positive in its contribution but did not get the chance due to other students talking as soon as there was a pause long enough for my hand to be noticed.
I do not wish to cause any trouble, to be disagreeable, or overly argumentative...I only ask for the same amount of respect that I go out of my way to show others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)