Music Is Not Art

Argh, please, keep the quasi-philosophical threads to the 'off topic' forum. Please...

I think everything is art. It all depends on your conceptions and perceptions, thus the definition of art is highly subjective. I conceive that architecture is an art, but I don't perceive it as art.

Now let me add something a little more systematic. Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary says for 'art':

3. Any system of rules and principles that facilitates skilled human accomplishment.

4. A pursuit or occupation that depends upon the skilled application of such a system of rules and principles.

This shoots out the idea that such thing as a sunset or rainbow is art. It also straight-out defines mathematics as a form of art.

Now in contrast:

1. An esthetically pleasing and meaningful arrangement of elements, as words, sounds, colors, shapes, etc.

This is where things get muddy. What is esthetic? A sunset is, since we perceive it, if condering it a beautiful one, to be an esthetically pleasing arrangement of colors. The definition here also states that it may have meaningness. Both of those terms can be considered and perceived differently by different people. I think it is in that idea that art as a definition cannot be argued. In that, I say the our perceptions of music as an art is only opinion and can never be fact. Besides, the most foul and revolting thing you can think is could be perceived by at least one person as art by the definitions we have laid out, and it would take merely that one person to upset the idea that that thing cannot possibly be perceived as art, being as foul and revolting as it may be.

In other words, music as art cannot be argued. All we can do is express our opinions and feelings, we can't prove anything.

True, we've digressed from the relevance to composing... but it's not completely off-topic.

Now that we've gone off onto the perimeter ideas (specifically, conversation about mathematics, and art in general), we have a better grasp to come back to how it all relates to music.

I don't really think this is entirely "off-topic"... it just headed in that direction.

Some older threads by Sauls (I think) come to mind...

;)

I'm going to do my laundry but I'll be checking on this thread a lot today.

Now doing laundry really is an art.

And let's not forget about Zen and the art of motocycle maintenance!

This thread is interesting, please continue to argue, I may post some thoughts later, when I can think properly again.

*pokes fire*

I think everything is art. It all depends on your conceptions and perceptions, thus the definition of art is highly subjective. I conceive that architecture is an art, but I don't perceive it as art.

Now let me add something a little more systematic. Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary says for 'art':

3. Any system of rules and principles that facilitates skilled human accomplishment.

4. A pursuit or occupation that depends upon the skilled application of such a system of rules and principles.

This shoots out the idea that such thing as a sunset or rainbow is art. It also straight-out defines mathematics as a form of art.

Now in contrast:

1. An esthetically pleasing and meaningful arrangement of elements, as words, sounds, colors, shapes, etc.

This is where things get muddy. What is esthetic? A sunset is, since we perceive it, if condering it a beautiful one, to be an esthetically pleasing arrangement of colors. The definition here also states that it may have meaningness. Both of those terms can be considered and perceived differently by different people. I think it is in that idea that art as a definition cannot be argued. In that, I say the our perceptions of music as an art is only opinion and can never be fact. Besides, the most foul and revolting thing you can think is could be perceived by at least one person as art by the definitions we have laid out, and it would take merely that one person to upset the idea that that thing cannot possibly be perceived as art, being as foul and revolting as it may be.

In other words, music as art cannot be argued. All we can do is express our opinions and feelings, we can't prove anything.

If that Cage idea of "all things art" works for you then great. But I would never go to an art gallery to see eggs on toast. It just won't happen. It's great to keep an open mind. It really is. You should be able to give anything a chance but if everything is art then why are you listening to music? Why aren't you lying on the pavement marvelling at the beauty and richness of a cigarette butt?

I think that's my main point. If everything is art then the word has no meaning.

Oh... and manossg... nobody is forcing you to read this... If an admin doesn't like this thread here they can move it.

I know I'm not forced to read this, but such semantics topics are better suited in the 'off topic' forum.

By all means, carry on with your... 'debate'.

I wouldn't call this a debate. I'm just trying to get a handle on some concepts that I have no clue about. It helps me to bounce this stuff off of other people.

I didn't call this a debate either.

By all means, carry on with your... 'debate'.

Look, forget I said anything. I'm interested in what some people have to say.

The application of logic itself is an art in my mind. If you delved deep enough into mathematics you will find that it is genuinely inconsistent in the end. Kurt G

(The following is more personal opinion of what I consider good art/music.)

There are apparent near-universals among people.

Moving into music... we can say that, for the most part, a major chord sounds "happy" and a minor chord sounds "sad". Extend that to any art, and you can pretty much say that better art is better at expressing the same idea.

Let's say you're trying to convey the fear, desperation, and loss of hope of someone trapped at the bottom of a well trying to get out.

The piece of music that conveys this better is the piece of music that I consider better, overall. In this case, it's more than likely the one that most evokes my imagination and makes me feel the same as that person. It's almost as if the best music is that which invokes the listener's imagination the most... whether that be consciously or not. Film scores mostly un/sub-consciously invoke these feelings.

Does that mean the music itself is "beautiful"? Absolutely not. But that wasn't the intent.

If a piece of music was meant to capture beauty, the pieces that does so better is considered, in my mind, the better piece of music.

Sure, that's a mostly subjective way of doing it, but I think it allows you to see, relatively, how much better one piece is than another.

Whether that says anything at all about the nature of art or whether music is art... I don't know.

Sorry, what was proved was that mathematics cannot be proved to be consistent - there are different approaches in advanced math (e.g. set theory) , but each is consistent within its own axioms.

You can believe that if you like. My experience with mathematics has lead me to different conclusions. I'm not alone in my thinking, there are actually quite a few famous mathematicians throughout history who feel the same way I do.

It is really a misconception to believe that mathematical formalism is either complete or consistent. But this isn’t really the thread to discuss this issue. Moreover, I’m not the slightest bit interested in “arguing” the point. I seriously don’t care what you might believe. I know better. So I’ll just say that I read your comments, acknowledge them, and add that I still disagree with your conclusion, although I have no desire to change your mind on the topic. Just want to make it clear that I don’t accept your statement as fact so there’s no need to be “sorry”.

In fact, in the first part of your statement you say, “what was proved was that mathematics cannot be proved to be consistent”

And then you go on to claim, “but each is consistent within its own axioms”

Do you see the contradiction here? It can’t be proved to be consistent, yet you claim that it is????

Where’s your proof that it is? And without proof, why would you make such a claim????

No need to respond to this. Like I say, I’m not interested in arguing this. I’m just offering you food for thought. This thread is about music as art, or not.

Ugh. I just remembered why I hate posting these topics. Forget I said anything.

It is really a misconception to believe that mathematical formalism is either complete or consistent. But this isn

Art is what people do when they are not having to kill for their supper. So art is a way for man to idle away the time. Or can the way you hunt be a form of art? Is it art when I plant my corn in a certain way? Did art exist before man? Before God? Will it still exist after the universe ends? Did art ever exist? Art is a waste of time. Music is art. Music is a waste of time. Does music exist without time? Time is a waste of art. Is music art? Am I an idiot? Am I a genious? Relativity expands in all manners.

So, you make your own wine?

:)

It's easy. You can actually do it for real cheap at the very common(and cheap) U-Brew.

They're everywhere in my town.

My point exactly.

Art is what people do when they are not having to kill for their supper. So art is a way for man to idle away the time. Or can the way you hunt be a form of art?

Is it art when I plant my corn in a certain way? Did art exist before man? Before God? Will it still exist after the universe ends? Did art ever exist? Art is a waste of time. Music is art. Music is a waste of time.

Does music exist without time? Time is a waste of art.

Is music art? Am I an idiot? Am I a genious?

Art is what people do when they are not having to kill for their supper. So art is a way for man to idle away the time. Or can the way you hunt be a form of art? Is it art when I plant my corn in a certain way? Did art exist before man? Before God? Will it still exist after the universe ends? Did art ever exist? Art is a waste of time. Music is art. Music is a waste of time. Does music exist without time? Time is a waste of art. Is music art? Am I an idiot? Am I a genious? Relativity expands in all manners.

False.

Pre-agricultural societies produced art.

Music is art. But it doesn't fall into the same categories as other arts.

Let's name some arts - Art, Drama, English Literature... that's all I can think of at the moment. It has occurred to me that people who like art often also are interested in drama and literature, and vice versa. However, though there are musicians who like other forms of art, most of them tend to stick to the maths and science subjects - it is a common known fact - maths and music go together. I personally get very annoyed when I see this in quizzes -

Do you like one of the following - art, music or drama?

For goodness sake, Mr quizwriter, music is not related to art or drama, and should therefore be a different question.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a musician, but that is what I have come to observe over the years.

Art is something that humans create that reveals our philosophy on life and/or view of the way the world works. Music is an artform. Art is not always beautiful. Music is not always beautiful. Music is always art. Art is always telling the viewer the artists view of the world. Music is always telling the listener the musicians view of the world. Most of the time the thing being told is not in question as to whether it is true or not. It is just presented as if it was the way things really are. It is expected that the listener or viewer would accept the worldview that is being told.

My music doesn't communicate my view of the world. So is it not art?

If you compose music, then you know that music, like every other art, uses the creative process. You put something down on paper then judge weather or not it suits you or accomplishes what you set out to accomplish. (The painting of the guitar player by Picasso was not correct the first time around. It is hanging at the art institute in Chicago and if you look at it just right, you can see that the head was 'up' in a previous attempt.) I think that this is one reason why Chopin hung out with Sand and Delacroix, so much in common.

There are similarities between music and painting besides the lines and colors etc. Basically, you are trying to move people or convey a specific message. You have a set of tools to help you do that. There is a method that we use to create in a given style or with a finished product in mind. There is form and a layout to all good art. Eventually, we'd like the work to be viewed/heard by the public and get paid for it.

I would be willing to bet that the reason that you haven't heard really "moving" classical music is because 99.8% of performances of it violate the laws of aesthetics. For one, the insistant use of metronomic playing. This yields very stiff performances. There is nothing that stiff in nature. (Even the biggest trees will yield to a strong wind.) Liszt did not stand for metronomic playing in performances of his students.

To those that argue that music should have no meaning or is not a language, you are wrong. If you take the time to read about the great composers in their own words, you will find that they all had meaning in their music and insisted on having meaning in the performance. If music is to have meaning, than it is communicating and therefore, a language. Afterall, what is the point of talking if nothing is being communicated.

If we are just writing music for ourselves "to get our rocks off", that is simply masturbation. I'm not going to pay high ticket prices to watch somebody do that, nor would most people. That is why so little 'new' music is getting played.

If you do not think that music is art, you need to reconsider your life path. But really, you can't listen to us because you need to find it for yourself. The only things in life that are learned well are the things learned hard. The things where you put the blood, sweat and tears into discovering for yourself. Those are the 'lessons' you never forget.

Cheers!