Music's unique separation from its medium

[Sean]

Any comment on the notion that

With the sciences what you study, say chemistry or maths, necessarily is chemistry or maths.

With the humanities though there's slightly more room for a personal experiential dimension in addition to the subject's study- you can take an interest in history in terms of the magic of past cultures, perhaps more independent a thing than any magic of maths.

With the arts there begins to be a distinct bifurcation between what's studied and what's experienced: you can experience all the aesthetic content of paintings and literature in separation from their intellectual understanding, their technical matters or social context etc.

And with music the separation is complete. Whereas with architecture, scuplture, painting or literature the object of experience is the still same as the object of study, in the case of music they don't intersect at all. Music is that thing you listen to, the sound in the air, and what is studied is merely books of scores and analysis: the experience is completely transcendent, left brain and right brain in parallel.

Two points- music is the greatest of the arts and a very peculiar thing, and music academics who don't in fact know what music is at all are one of life's irritations.

[Elgarian]

With the sciences what you study, say chemistry or maths, necessarily is chemistry or maths.

It's not so simple. In physics, for instance, you study the natural world and construct models of it which are then tested and if necessary, refined or discarded. So there's a continual interplay between the study of physics (that is, the study of the models we invent) and the study of the natural world. (And even this is too simple, because somewhere in this we need to consider the role of the imagination in the invention of the models.)

With the humanities though there's slightly more room for a personal experiential dimension in addition to the subject's study- you can take an interest in history in terms of the magic of past cultures, perhaps more independent a thing than any magic of maths.

This isn't unique to the humanities. One can equally study the development of scientific or mathematical thought through history. How one regards the Kuhnian view of the progress of science in relation to the Popperian view (for instance) opens up quite a substantial personal experiential dimension.

With the arts there begins to be a distinct bifurcation between what's studied and what's experienced: you can experience all the aesthetic content of paintings and literature in separation from their intellectual understanding, their technical matters or social context etc.

There's an aesthetic component to the experience of science, too. You don't need to understand the technical aspects of relativity to experience awe while contemplating the physical model of the expanding universe. Indeed, aesthetics can play a part in the invention of models. I'm not an expert in particle physics, but I understand that the most successful models are often those that might be thought the most beautiful. Maybe someone here knows more about that.

And with music the separation is complete. Whereas with architecture, scuplture, painting or literature the object of experience is the still same as the object of study

Whether we agree with this or not will depend on our philosophy of art as observers - and/or even the philosophy which underlies its creation. If you adopt a philosophy of art something like Susanne Langer's, then works of art present us with symbols of feeling. We study the art object, and experience the feeling. On that basis, the object of experience is not the same as the object of study. One can see there's at least some truth in this by considering, say, Duchamp's Fountain. We see it as a urinal, presented on its side. Then we read the title, and see it differently. The object of study is the urinal; what we experience is a perception-shift.

I think it helps more clearly to distinguish between these two activities by thinking in terms of 'contemplation' (of an object) and 'enjoyment' (of an experience). We contemplate the painting, and enjoy the feeling it evokes.

in the case of music they don't intersect at all. Music is that thing you listen to, the sound in the air, and what is studied is merely books of scores and analysis: the experience is completely transcendent, left brain and right brain in parallel.

Is music so very different to literature in that respect? The Pickwick Papers is just so many words on a page, rather like a musical score. Only when it's read, and the imagination engages with the words, does Mr Pickwick come to life - rather as the Moonlight sonata comes to life when the pianist plays the music. It's equally possible to study The Pickwick Papers as a merely intellectual activity, robbing it of imaginative life - just as I presume can be done with a musical score.

Not sure why you brought in the unification of left and right brain activity; that certainly isn't unique to music, and I would say is a potential characteristic of all artistic activity. Scientific, too - potentially. Separate issue, I think.

[Sean]

Hi Elgarian, thanks for that- it's something I think about from time to time.

It's not so simple...

Good point, and I know a bit about Popper and the role of the investigator in subjectively defining what they're looking for.

Ah, you also know your philosophy of science, but I would question the degree of intuitive insight involved in science compared to that in art, and that's indeed why I moved away from it: fascinating though it is, the music repertory is yet more mind-blowing.

And about beauty and aesthetics in successful theories, well yes indeed but I'd argue that proves my point somewhat and points in the direction of a deeper and purer experience of the aesthetic (intuitive Hindu literature is also interested in parallels in science).

On that basis, the object of experience is not the same as the object of study. One can see there's at least some truth in this by considering, say, Duchamp's Fountain. We see it as a urinal, presented on its side. Then we read the title, and see it differently.

I'm not sure about this at all- the fact is that everyone is attending to the same object. Nice try but we're both saying that a split in the modes of experience is emerging here.

Is music so very different to literature in that respect? The Pickwick Papers is just so many words on a page, rather like a musical score. Only when it's read, and the imagination engages with the words, does Mr Pickwick come to life - rather as the Moonlight sonata comes to life when the pianist plays the music. It's equally possible to study The Pickwick Papers as a merely intellectual activity, robbing it of imaginative life - just as I presume can be done with a musical score.

Well the academic object of literary study is the printed text, and the aesthetic object of literary contemplation is the printed text: it's only in music that we're no longer concerned with the physical object the eyes can see- the sound is irrelevant to the score. Music is the Dionysiac and half way to the divine.

[Elgarian]

the fact is that everyone is attending to the same object [Duchamp's 'fountain']. Nice try but we're both saying that a split in the modes of experience is emerging here.

No, this has nothing to do with different people looking at the same object. I was addressing very specifically your point that (I quote) "with architecture, sculpture, painting or literature the object of experience is the still same as the object of study"; I don't think that statement is correct. And to understand why, we need to distinguish between the contemplation of the object and the enjoyment of the experience. In Duchamps' case, we contemplate the urinal-on-its-side (the object), and enjoy the perception shift produced by regarding it as a 'fountain'. To express it in your terms: the object of study is the urinal; the object of experience is the perception change.

Let me give another example. Suppose you're looking at a painting with deep pleasure. You're contemplating the painting, and enjoying the pleasure. Now, suppose for a moment you stop and ask yourself, 'Am I getting any pleasure from this painting?' You'll discover that you aren't. You might notice certain physical sensations of excitement - a flutter in the stomach, or something - but all that remains is a memory of a pleasure, not the pleasure itself. And the reason surely is clear? You won't be experiencing the pleasure, because you're no longer contemplating the painting. You're trying to contemplate the pleasure; but the pleasure was something that could only be enjoyed whilst contemplating the painting.

To sum up: the object of study is not the same as the object of experience. The contemplated is not the same as the enjoyed.

[Sean]

Elgarian, yes that's a very insightful and accurate understanding for sure- you know precisely what I'm getting at. There are two modes of experience and the mind switches between them (left and right...). I was just making the point that in music the aesthetic object is not the artist's finished product at all- ie not their score but sound. Thanks though.

And unless you're an academic into physics of music or such, sound is actually completely irrelelvant to study. You can happily become a professor of music, and I've met several, without knowing or experiencing the great works of the repertory- in fact they've lived in a cut off world such that they don't know what you're talking about. And it can cause great discomfort, especially if they begin to think you have something on them.

[DavidW]

And unless you're an academic into physics of music or such, sound is actually completely irrelelvant to study.

No!  What are you saying that composers don't think about how the music will sound?  They only care about music as an abstraction?   Give me a break!

Anyway what you're saying is very much like a play where there is an intermediate (and in fact the intermediate is an artist) between the artist and the audience.  So it's not a matter of music being unique but the performing arts being unique in that need for an intermediate to translate, interpret, perform the art.

[Sean]

Elgarian

Note though that in physics for instance you study the natural world and construct models of it which are then tested and if necessary, refined or discarded. So there's a continual interplay between the study of physics and the models we invent, and the study of the natural world.

There's a similar split within the study of scores: theories are constructed to make sense of them, independently of them as it were, but of course the study is only the study of the object and nothing else- there's no study without the object.

Yet music is attended to without the object of study.

[Sean]

David

No!  What are you saying that composers don't think about how the music will sound?  They only care about music as an abstraction?   Give me a break!

I'm speaking of academics not the artists that composers are...

[Elgarian]

Elgarian, yes that's a very insightful and accurate understanding for sure- you know precisely what I'm getting at. There are two modes of experience and the mind switches between them (left and right...).

Left and right? You're talking here, I presume, of the distinction between left brain, broadly analytical, thinking, and right brain, broadly intuitive thinking? (I'm aware that my descriptions of the differences are too elementary - I mean them as labels, not definitions.) But that's quite a separate issue from the two modes of mental operation that I'm talking about. I'm distinguishing between a mental process which is directed towards an object (which I called 'contemplation'), and one which is an internalised experience dependent on it (which I called 'enjoyment'). I think it's important to distinguish between these two if we're trying to understand what happens when we engage with art of any kind, but I shouldn't want to equate these with left and right brain activity without a good deal more thought (which probably wouldn't be helpful anyway).

I was just making the point that in music the aesthetic object is not the artist's finished product at all- ie not their score but sound.

Isn't this inevitable though, given that in classical music the composer is often not the performer? (The distinction breaks down for someone like Bob Dylan, for example, where the artist's finished product is the sound: very little, if anything, is written down.) When the composer writes the score, the score isn't an end in itself, but a guide to the performer(s) on how to produce the intended aesthetic object. In that respect (which I think is the point you're making?) one can contemplate the score, or contemplate the sound (as heard) - but see David W's point below.*

And unless you're an academic into physics of music or such, sound is actually completely irrelelvant to study.

I don't understand what you're getting at, here.

You can happily become a professor of music, and I've met several, without knowing or experiencing the great works of the repertory- in fact they've lived in a cut off world such that they don't know what you're talking about.

I imagine this is true of a proportion not just of music professors, but of academics of all kinds; indeed, of a proportion of all those who set themselves up as critics or judges of art.



*see above

Anyway what you're saying is very much like a play where there is an intermediate (and in fact the intermediate is an artist) between the artist and the audience.  So it's not a matter of music being unique but the performing arts being unique in that need for an intermediate to translate, interpret, perform the art.

I think David's right - this is an issue concerning the performing arts in general, not merely music.

[Sean]

Okay Elgarian, I've read that carefully and take your points, thanks. You've said a few things that I've added to my file of notes on this, but maybe we should move on...