Music allows us to experience aesthetic pleasure in a way that literature or visual art really cannot: it gives us aesthetic pleasure through sound. True, some visual art can do this, but not to the full extent that music can. Music allows us to feel the direction that the song is going it, for in hearing the music, we feel it. Haven't you ever gotten shivers from a certain song or a certain part of a song? Not to mention sometimes you can feel a real low, bass-filled part of a song no matter what the genre. Music is not only a medium you can hear, but also feel.
Music allows your imagination to take over, which other mediums cannot. Especially when it comes to instrumental songs, the mind can do with the songs in terms of interpretation or visualization or what have you however it pleases. That is one of the beauties of music, for music provokes in us many different feelings all at once, and in a way can do more than other other medium of art.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Kivy Question: Can we really feel movement in music?
I'd like to think so. I feel as so that music, in a way, is like a fluid (when done correctly, that is). When a piece if put together in just the right way, it is like allowing water to flow into your ears. But this is all just conception on my end, so how can we make an actual case for this notion? That is a really difficult case to make.
The only way that I can truly try to make a point is simply through emotional reasoning alone. But consider this: we feel movement in music especially when we dance, for we are taking that sound that we are hearing in a song and moving our own bodies to the rhythm. The music then becomes externalized and made physical through a human puppet. No matter the type of dance: ballet, swing, salsa, moshing, etc. It really doesn't matter, for humans can feel movement in music and show it through dance.
But not only that, can one not envision movement from music alone without externalizing it? Can one not see flowers flowing in the wind, or someone running, or anything at all? I find that doubtful, and I find the notion that music doesn't contain anything at all to be a silly one as well.
The only way that I can truly try to make a point is simply through emotional reasoning alone. But consider this: we feel movement in music especially when we dance, for we are taking that sound that we are hearing in a song and moving our own bodies to the rhythm. The music then becomes externalized and made physical through a human puppet. No matter the type of dance: ballet, swing, salsa, moshing, etc. It really doesn't matter, for humans can feel movement in music and show it through dance.
But not only that, can one not envision movement from music alone without externalizing it? Can one not see flowers flowing in the wind, or someone running, or anything at all? I find that doubtful, and I find the notion that music doesn't contain anything at all to be a silly one as well.
Nicole's Question on Hanslick and Kivy
Is it not possible that the mysterious thing that Hanslick refers to is the emotional content that Kivy refers to? Granted, it is someone hard to believe that something like a willow tree actually contains sadness, but then it comes down to what exactly Kivy means by this, which isn't exactly clear. Does he mean that a willow tree contains the "essence" of sadness inside of it? I seriously doubt this, and I think it is foolish to take the concept that a willow tree "is" sad too far. This is not something which can be taken literally, for to do so is just being silly.
No, what I take from this is that the willow tree being the way that it is provokes a natural instinct within us that we thus conceive as sadness. Therefore, the willow tree naturally contains sadness within it to humans, and to make the argument that because it all rides on human perception is a factor is a good argument, but at the same time, humans are the only ones who attempt to perceive such notions in the first place. I have not heard of any bird philosophers, or tree philosophers, or anything of the like. Aesthetics is a purely human notion, and therefore the willow tree containing sadness is a purely human notion, but that does not dismiss the idea that it contains sadness within it.
True, that the willow tree has no intent of being sad, but because it provokes such an emotion it has a sad quality which makes it sad. Because humans can relate the willow tree to sadness going off of nothing besides looking at the tree, the willow tree, according to humans, is sad. And who can say this is wrong? Who has ever looked at a willow tree and not once thought that it looked sad? In this sense, we can take Kivy's notion of "emotional content" and say that is what Hanslick is refering to in that mysterious thing in music, for in this case, how is the willow tree different from music? If we cannot apply sadness to a tree, why not a song?
No, what I take from this is that the willow tree being the way that it is provokes a natural instinct within us that we thus conceive as sadness. Therefore, the willow tree naturally contains sadness within it to humans, and to make the argument that because it all rides on human perception is a factor is a good argument, but at the same time, humans are the only ones who attempt to perceive such notions in the first place. I have not heard of any bird philosophers, or tree philosophers, or anything of the like. Aesthetics is a purely human notion, and therefore the willow tree containing sadness is a purely human notion, but that does not dismiss the idea that it contains sadness within it.
True, that the willow tree has no intent of being sad, but because it provokes such an emotion it has a sad quality which makes it sad. Because humans can relate the willow tree to sadness going off of nothing besides looking at the tree, the willow tree, according to humans, is sad. And who can say this is wrong? Who has ever looked at a willow tree and not once thought that it looked sad? In this sense, we can take Kivy's notion of "emotional content" and say that is what Hanslick is refering to in that mysterious thing in music, for in this case, how is the willow tree different from music? If we cannot apply sadness to a tree, why not a song?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)