Page or Fripp

I'm a big fan of Zep and I'll just go for the underdog here.

harmonium.ro wrote:

Alex, I really don't have the strenght for this now. This whole month has been excrutiating for me, and I feel like I'm close to a mental breakdown. I just can't think straight at the moment. Is it OK if we continue sometime in the future?

Anderson III wrote: You said that "pleasure is the expression of taste", but this is completely untrue. It's actually a positive experience of any kind. Now that we've got that corrected, I'm happy we are in agreement!

Once again, you use the words in the way you want (which is fine) and dismiss any other way to use them.  For your information, even though I have nothing against anyone making one's own way with words, I can not accept the consecrated form of these concepts by a long-standing theoretical discipline to be called "completely untrue". Instead of forcing your interpretation to us, you should read a bit and update your views to the proper way to express them.

For example,

Anderson III wrote: I feel that aesthetic philosophy, unlike music, studies only beauty. I could even describe some pieces of music as ugly, meaning that aesthetically I don't find them appealing at all. But there's plenty of other adjectives I could use: captivating, interesting, hypnotizing, awesome, impressive, powerful, stimulating, soothing, etc... Each of these things produce a positive feeling, and none of them has anything to do with beauty or aesthetic!!! This is what I meant when I said you underestimate music's potential as a communicative tool. I most definitely didn't reject aesthetic philosophy!

You can't reject aesthetic philosophy if you don't know it The fundamental concept of pleasure is based on an almost arbitrarily chosen word, which is brought to mean much more than it does in regular speak. All those experiences you described above are aesthetic experiences. Every powerful reaction that your conscience feels to a work of art or of nature is the so called "satisfaction" provided by the aesthetic "pleasure", even when we're talking about perceiving the ugly, the horrific, the hypnotizing, etc. Aesthetic "pleasure" is not about the type of the sensations you perceive, but about the very existence of response to the sensations (response which certifies the artistic quality of the object of the subject's perception). You can't minimize aesthetics to the aesthetics of the agreeable and the beautiful! There's much more to it. Aesthetics is about all those kind of experiences that you descried above.
Also, I can't underestimate music's potential as a communicative tool, since it's been accepted since quite some time that all art is language (the most unreliable of all, that's true, but a language nonetheless, and the most "universal" of all.

harmonium.ro wrote: Anderson III wrote: First of all: if I suggest that saying musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the mind, and you go and claim just that without any arguments to back it up... I take it as a direct insult and nothing else! If you weren't derogatory, I misunderstood your original comment. You come with a simple, unsupported statement that throws the whole aesthetic philosophy (a respectable discipline who had the contributions of some of humankind's greatest minds, like Kant, Hegel, Fiedler, Croce, etc.) to the rubbish but still it's you who feels offended for being contradicted. I'm sorry but that makes me smile Now back on topic... Anderson III wrote: What I disagree with is that taste is the only factor that counts. The question is: the only factor that counts... for what exactly? The term you used was enjoyment. I'm not the greatest master of the English language and will never be, so I can't feel all the nuances that might be stuffed in the semantic area of this word. I would assume enjoyment refers to pleasure; and pleasure is the expression of taste. You may think the completely opposite regarding these concepts and words, but these are the meanings which have been consecrated by almost three centuries worth of intellectual tradition. You need to adjust to the terms, not vice versa. As I said, if by enjoyment you meant more than the dual concept of pleasure/taste, then yes, I'm completely with you. Taste should actually be irrelevant to the appreciation of works. Again as I said, I even appreciate a lot works of art (of any kind) that I don't enjoy (meaning that they don't provide me with aesthetic pleasure).

I'd say my original statement, in fact, was not unsupported. I tried to explain that my taste (or what I personally find beautiful) doesn't completely dominate my musical enjoyment. I feel that aesthetic philosophy, unlike music, studies only beauty. I could even describe some pieces of music as ugly, meaning that aesthetically I don't find them appealing at all. But there's plenty of other adjectives I could use: captivating, interesting, hypnotizing, awesome, impressive, powerful, stimulating, soothing, etc... Each of these things produce a positive feeling, and none of them has anything to do with beauty or aesthetic!!! This is what I meant when I said you underestimate music's potential as a communicative tool.

I most definitely didn't reject aesthetic philosophy! What I actually said was: it plays a part in my enjoyment!

You said that "pleasure is the expression of taste", but this is completely untrue. It's actually a positive experience of any kind. Now that we've got that corrected, I'm happy we are in agreement!

harmonium.ro wrote: Please, Nico, I wasn't derogatory towards you, so keep it that way. What you explained makes very much sense, but doesn't eliminate the aesthetic factor at all. When you have access to the inner-working of a work of art, of any kind, you don't skip the aesthetic reaction (the so called "taste"), on the contrary - you have better access to it. From my experience as an art critic, I have never stopped liking artworks because I came to understand them "from the inside". Maybe what you wanted to talk about judgment and evaluation, and used the wrong term? (Judgment is not at all the same to enjoyment). If so, then you are correct. Better understanding ("from the inside", if possible) does provide better grounds for judging an artwork. You can definitely better appreciate the success and effectiveness of the usage of a certain artistic method employed in an artwork when you know this method and how it works. One great example comes from the visual arts: think of conceptual art, where the "aesthetic" aspect of the work is completely or almost completely avoided, there's basically almost no aesthetic enjoyment or even none at all, but still, knowing what a "piece" of conceptual art is supposed to be and how it should work, it can be appreciated/judged/evaluated.

OK.

First of all: if I suggest that saying musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the mind, and you go and claim just that without any arguments to back it up... I take it as a direct insult and nothing else! If you weren't derogatory, I misunderstood your original comment.

Furthermore, I never said taste doesn't play a part! If you read my original post again, you'll notice that I wrote it is one of the factors that help to create an experience. What I disagree with is that taste is the only factor that counts.

I believe a proper evaluation of difficult music is extremely important if I want to appreciate everything it has to offer. How do I know if I like it if I don't even realize what's going on? Or why it's going on? I don't really understand how you can appreciate something without liking it at some level... I've always felt that appreciation and liking goes hand in hand.

I too didn't try to sound so insulting, and I apologize. Provocative maybe...

Please, Nico, I wasn't derogatory towards you, so keep it that way. What you explained makes very much sense, but doesn't eliminate the aesthetic factor at all. When you have access to the inner-working of a work of art, of any kind, you don't skip the aesthetic reaction (the so called "taste"), on the contrary - you have better access to it. From my experience as an art critic, I have never stopped liking artworks because I came to understand them "from the inside".

Maybe what you wanted to talk about judgment and evaluation, and used the wrong term? (Judgment is not at all the same to enjoyment). If so, then you are correct. Better understanding ("from the inside", if possible) does provide better grounds for judging an artwork. You can definitely better appreciate the success and effectiveness of the usage of a certain artistic method employed in an artwork when you know this method and how it works. One great example comes from the visual arts: think of conceptual art, where the "aesthetic" aspect of the work is completely or almost completely avoided, there's basically almost no aesthetic enjoyment or even none at all, but still, knowing what a "piece" of conceptual art is supposed to be and how it should work, it can be appreciated/judged/evaluated.


Edited by harmonium.ro - March 21 2010 at 07:49

Anderson III wrote: Anderson III wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Padraic wrote: Anderson III wrote: To say my musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the way the mind works! Your musical enjoyment comes down to taste. Well, that was... stupid. How can you be sure? I'm still waiting for your arguments.

Myself I'm not interested in explaining the obvious. The contrary, now that would be worth my time.

Fripp, but Page comes close.

Anderson III wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Padraic wrote: Anderson III wrote: To say my musical enjoyment comes down to taste is an insult to the way the mind works! Your musical enjoyment comes down to taste. Well, that was... stupid. How can you be sure?

I'm still waiting for your arguments.