[DISCUSSION] The role of contemporary?

........................

I think the role of art is to project our sense of meaning into the universe, thus making our environment more legitimately meaningful. It (among many other things) is proving that an imagined sense of meaning is a real one.

I also believe that creating something tangible that makes you feel something, and then showing it to others and it makes them feel something, is almost like emotional telepathy. It is a much more direct mode of emotional communication than anything else. As humans we know meaning when we see it, it's an instinctual spiritual yearning, it is a bittersweet feeling of something greater than yourself. It makes you cry, and you don't know why. That is why I love music, because it is much bigger than the person who wrote it.

3 hours ago, Quinn said:

........................

Lol, the equivalent of a user-deleted post.

53 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

Lol, the equivalent of a user-deleted post.

 

No comment. LOL. (Aside, (no intention to derail the topic) two of my posts attempting to redress an imbalance were deleted so though I wanted to add about commercial purpose here, decided I wouldn't !)

1 minute ago, Quinn said:

No comment. LOL. (Aside, (no intention to derail the topic) two of my posts attempting to redress an imbalance were deleted so though I wanted to add about commercial purpose here, decided I wouldn't contribute any more!). 

I read the post before you "deleted" it. I thought it was on point.

1 hour ago, Left Unexplained said:

I think the role of art is to project our sense of meaning into the universe, thus making our environment more legitimately meaningful. It (among many other things) is proving that an imagined sense of meaning is a real one.

I also believe that creating something tangible that makes you feel something, and then showing it to others and it makes them feel something, is almost like emotional telepathy. It is a much more direct mode of emotional communication than anything else. As humans we know meaning when we see it, it's an instinctual spiritual yearning, it is a bittersweet feeling of something greater than yourself. It makes you cry, and you don't know why. That is why I love music, because it is much bigger than the person who wrote it.

Well said, @Left Unexplained.

1 hour ago, Left Unexplained said:

I think the role of art is to project our sense of meaning into the universe, thus making our environment more legitimately meaningful. It (among many other things) is proving that an imagined sense of meaning is a real one.

I also believe that creating something tangible that makes you feel something, and then showing it to others and it makes them feel something, is almost like emotional telepathy. It is a much more direct mode of emotional communication than anything else. As humans we know meaning when we see it, it's an instinctual spiritual yearning, it is a bittersweet feeling of something greater than yourself. It makes you cry, and you don't know why. That is why I love music, because it is much bigger than the person who wrote it.

 

Very true. As a medium it's a communication. 

6 hours ago, Maarten Bauer said:

Okay, sure, but when the purpose of the artist is to create more art. What is then the purpose of art? 

 

There is none. That is the purpose of it.

6 hours ago, marsbars said:

There is none. That is the purpose of it.

 

So why do we then create art? 

10 hours ago, Left Unexplained said:

I think the role of art is to project our sense of meaning into the universe, thus making our environment more legitimately meaningful. It (among many other things) is proving that an imagined sense of meaning is a real one.

I also believe that creating something tangible that makes you feel something, and then showing it to others and it makes them feel something, is almost like emotional telepathy. It is a much more direct mode of emotional communication than anything else. As humans we know meaning when we see it, it's an instinctual spiritual yearning, it is a bittersweet feeling of something greater than yourself. It makes you cry, and you don't know why. That is why I love music, because it is much bigger than the person who wrote it.

 

Exactly. I think art should move us or avoke thoughts and emotions, it is often the ultimate and best way to achieve this through art. 

18 hours ago, Maarten Bauer said:

What is then the purpose of art?

Why, to be created by the artist of course!

Why does art need to have a "purpose"? Do clouds or the ocean have a "purpose"? We can fit them inside a chain of events, OK, but they themselves are just acts of nature that don't have a "reason" to be, or a "role" to play. I posit that people's creations work in the same manner, and that asking if it has a role is solely dependent on the person who made the individual work since, as a whole, they're just like a force of nature that doesn't need a reason to be or exist at all, it just does.

I mean people can get moved emotionally by a nice looking sunset or any other randomly-generated nature vista, why is art any different? In the end the most important part is the person experiencing the art itself, not the work in a vacuum.

15 minutes ago, SSC said:

Why, to be created by the artist of course!

Why does art need to have a "purpose"? Do clouds or the ocean have a "purpose"? We can fit them inside a chain of events, OK, but they themselves are just acts of nature that don't have a "reason" to be, or a "role" to play. I posit that people's creations work in the same manner, and that asking if it has a role is solely dependent on the person who made the individual work since, as a whole, they're just like a force of nature that doesn't need a reason to be or exist at all, it just does.

I mean people can get moved emotionally by a nice looking sunset or any other randomly-generated nature vista, why is art any different? In the end the most important part is the person experiencing the art itself, not the work in a vacuum.

 

Actually I was more aiming at what Marsbars statement.
Here we arrive at the point of beliefs in which we disagree, but still can discuss about.
I believe that your comparison to natural phenomenons and art is an understandable one, yet false in my eyes.

Art is something somehow organised / controlled / structuralised / realised by human beings. A sunset can be beautiful, can avoke emotions, but not everything that moves us is art.
In fact, I believe that everything that we do / make / feel has a reason and thus a role. Not all reasons and roles are explainable, yet I always try to find the reason behind what I am doing. Perhaps this quest does not give me the answer, but the quest itself is sometimes more valuable than the answer itself.
Therefore, I state these questions. I do believe there is a purpose in art, because we make it. Why would we make something that does not have a purpose?

9 minutes ago, Maarten Bauer said:

Art is something somehow organised / controlled / structuralised / realised by human beings.

Or not. You can assign that label to basically anything, which is why I don't like it. It's a semantics discussion which is pointless because it always results in the same thing: People have different definitions and they are not reconcilable, so the conversation goes nowhere.

11 minutes ago, Maarten Bauer said:

A sunset can be beautiful, can avoke emotions, but not everything that moves us is art.

That's a highly personal opinion, I'm sure you recognize that. I know plenty of people who think the exact opposite, as well.

12 minutes ago, Maarten Bauer said:

In fact, I believe that everything that we do / make / feel has a reason and thus a role.

Ah, well, no. Chaos is an actual thing, and many people do things and don't know why they did them. That's not even talking about art, just in life in general. You can try to say things have a role, but sometimes they may not. You even say yourself:

14 minutes ago, Maarten Bauer said:

Perhaps this quest does not give me the answer, but the quest itself is sometimes more valuable than the answer itself.

So, what's the difference between not getting an answer and there not being one to begin with anyway? Plus, this is already on shaky ground when talking about aleatory music, process music, AI-made stuff, etc. Sure, you can say there was still a person with the intention to do something, yeah, but their influence can be minimal or negligible at best.

18 minutes ago, Maarten Bauer said:

I do believe there is a purpose in art, because we make it. Why would we make something that does not have a purpose?

I think that you can look at human history and see more than enough actions and things that people have done that have no purpose and were not even conceived with a purpose. Again, chaos is a real thing in our lives, like it or not. This is also ignoring things people have done in altered states of mind (drug, sickness, etc) which will give you a pretty unsatisfying "reason" to exist, when one is given at all.

Thinking that people are that logical and reasonable at all times is giving humanity way too much credit.

What's forgotten is its social and economic relevance. It supports a host of musical/cultural eunuchs that probably way outnumber artists/composers: the critics; musicologists; historians, etc., people who've never composed anything worthwhile but feel a need to cling on all the same. At any level it's an industry. "Classical" is a bit of a by-water these days but it still comes down to money aside from a few aficionados who try to keep it going on a voluntary basis.

I think if you want a more clear answer. You need to define the word purpose.

Music can have an array of purposes. However I don't think it's ever clear.

An architect builds a bridge for the purpose of transporting people to and fro.

Does music have such a function? I don't know. I don't think anyone does 

The only thing I have to contribute is sometimes the whole 'lets debate music'

can go too far. Because aside from analysis, we are essentially talking in circles.

Anyway that's my take.

10 minutes ago, marsbars said:

The only thing I have to contribute is sometimes the whole 'lets debate music'

can go too far. Because aside from analysis, we are essentially talking in circles.

Yeah that's the thing I said. These "debates" usually go nowhere because the beginning arguments are pretty flawed, so it turns into a game of semantics and personal feelings and opinions, which we can SHARE, but necessarily debate. I'm all for sharing opinions, sure, but to have an actual discussion there needs to be something that can be argued without falling into those previous trappings and with art that's nearly impossible. We can discuss musicology, theory, history, all that, but if someone thinks that X composer is trash, well that's not conducive to a discussion.

Also, why discuss at all? So, to get anything out of a discussion you need to want to get something out of it too, and that something can't be just the inherent competitiveness of it. No, it needs to be a desire to actually examine your own statements vs those of other peoples and see if yours hold up. Believe it or not, I became an atheist due to debating religion, and I have changed many things about my self and my opinions by contrasting them with others. It's a crucial part of trying to assess if what you believe is at all close to something resembling "truth." You gotta be honest enough to know that there are a lot of things that go nowhere even if they may feel like they're discussion topics, since they end up just being either excuses to rant on about stuff you don't like, or the opposite, looking for legitimization for things you already do but aren't sure.

But the only way to get any better at any of it is actually trying and failing, just like anything else. That's why I think it's worth it to discuss things, even if the discussion may seem pointless, you never know what others may actually take from it that is valuable to them.

9 hours ago, SSC said:

Also, why discuss at all? So, to get anything out of a discussion you need to want to get something out of it too, and that something can't be just the inherent competitiveness of it. No, it needs to be a desire to actually examine your own statements vs those of other peoples and see if yours hold up. Believe it or not, I became an atheist due to debating religion, and I have changed many things about my self and my opinions by contrasting them with others. It's a crucial part of trying to assess if what you believe is at all close to something resembling "truth." You gotta be honest enough to know that there are a lot of things that go nowhere even if they may feel like they're discussion topics, since they end up just being either excuses to rant on about stuff you don't like, or the opposite, looking for legitimization for things you already do but aren't sure.

 

Why say anything at all? About 99% of what's worth saying can't be put into words. Talking about what music sounds like is useless. But it does keep all these musicologists and hangers-on - failed composers and artists, most of them - off the welfare queue, doesn't it?

1 hour ago, Quinn said:

Why say anything at all?

I'll repeat.

10 hours ago, SSC said:

That's why I think it's worth it to discuss things, even if the discussion may seem pointless, you never know what others may actually take from it that is valuable to them.

4 minutes ago, SSC said:

I'll repeat.

 

 

And I'll repeat. "About 99% of what's worth saying can't be put into words. Talking about what music sounds like is useless. But it does keep all these musicologists and hangers-on - failed composers and artists, most of them - off the welfare queue, doesn't it?"

By the way, I couldn't find any of your compositions on the site. Have you a link to any (music (that you have composed)). That's the limit of anything of which you can inform me in a reply, thank you.

On 6/5/2020 at 3:25 AM, Quinn said:

And I'll repeat. "About 99% of what's worth saying can't be put into words. Talking about what music sounds like is useless. But it does keep all these musicologists and hangers-on - failed composers and artists, most of them - off the welfare queue, doesn't it?"

By the way, I couldn't find any of your compositions on the site. Have you a link to any (music (that you have composed)). That's the limit of anything of which you can inform me in a reply, thank you.

 

https://ytmh.bandcamp.com 

On 6/5/2020 at 12:25 PM, Quinn said:

And I'll repeat. "About 99% of what's worth saying can't be put into words. Talking about what music sounds like is useless. But it does keep all these musicologists and hangers-on - failed composers and artists, most of them - off the welfare queue, doesn't it?"

Great, so we know that you won't be engaging in these kind of discussions in the future, right? I mean, why should you waste your time with stuff "failed composers and artists" do, eh?

On 6/5/2020 at 12:25 PM, Quinn said:

By the way, I couldn't find any of your compositions on the site. Have you a link to any (music (that you have composed)). That's the limit of anything of which you can inform me in a reply, thank you.

It's on my profile page here on the site. It has been there for years (on the left under websites.) I don't understand what the mystery is. Even ACO is able to figure it out, I mean, come on now.

Blanking this post out as it was about a literary figure who few if any other than me, here, would have an interest.

On 6/3/2020 at 8:06 AM, Maarten Bauer said:

So why do we then create art? 

 

Helloooo... sorry to comment on this thread months later but the topic greatly interests me... I too have been through existential crisis as a music student, and since graduating (and leaving the greatly damaging stress of it all behind!) I have come to see things much more clearly....

It is easy for music students, in the intensity and wild ambition of youth, to build such a big sense of identity on a dream for which there is seemingly unquenchable enthusiasm, which may very well cave in when one finds that the roads are not paved with gold, that the grandiose image of the 'great composer' is one built over the appreciation of millions of people over centuries, and that one can not have it all to begin with.  Indeed, achieving such status is as much skill as it is simply luck of the draw, to be well received by society and to achieve prominence in history. 

HOWEVER - the composer him/herself is but a mere mortal human being, with mortal concerns... Mozart was primarily concerned with paying the bills - music being the talent at which he excelled, it was of course the path he took professionally, and bear in mind that the musical establishment and audience were different in the era and location in which he was composing, he very much wrote for a market - a very clear cut audience, and very powerful patrons - the double edged sword of a far less egalitarian society than we know today, with a more feudal kind of domineering aristocracy... their power and privilege was in many ways tyrannical and unjust, but equally they funded a lot of powerful art which transcends the power structures in which it was produced.

Please forgive the deeply academic and possibly pompous language... but this is where we get to the crux of the matter, the purpose of art - the simple fact is, it is a part of what it means to be human.  It is expression... art in itself is largely abstract, and thus so too is its 'purpose'.

Perhaps an analogy might prove helpful; I pose the question - imagine a highly unaesthetic dystopian future world as found often in science fiction, where with great technological advancement, people have reduced the time and energy taken to fulfil the need of fuelling the body, to a process of such simple convenience that they need only swallow a pill once a day... But I ask you, if such a convenience were to exist, would you willingly give up the pleasure of experiencing a full plate of the most delicious meal, cooked to the highest standards of gourmet perfection - perhaps you might say, artistry?  We know it is not a NEED, but do people not have the right to enjoy such a pleasure?

In one of his books, one of my university professors, Julian Johnson wrote something along the lines of "artistry and culture emerges in societies whose subsistent needs have been met"... essentially, if you're a hunter gatherer tribesman, you're far less concerned with composing symphonies than hunting for your next meal, so as not to starve to death.  

We have been left with a legacy from the age of enlightenment, that of classical music, which emerged in a society whose level of wealth and technology began to allow such music to be created and enjoyed.

I know the professionals will scoff at this remark, but in many ways music is a hobby... it is simply something to be enjoyed, to enrich life.  The fact is, entertainment is a function.. and thus that is the function of music, to make life more bearable and provide enjoyable moments.  It matters not what particular taste one has, or the personal identity one may form with the aid of it, and whether the way in which this entertainment is conducted is ethical or not, but the fundamental purpose remains the same.

And on that note...  perhaps have a break and try another hobby for a little while, then when there has been enough time to come back refreshed, maybe try listening to something new - who knows, you might enjoy it!