Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: wmchauncey on October 03, 2013, 10:30:18 am

Title: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: wmchauncey on October 03, 2013, 10:30:18 am
We all have seen the questions from the neophytes among us asking about the wisdom/value of pursuing a degree in photography/arts with the conventional wisdom indicating that it's a dumb idea, a position to which I subscribe.
What is never mentioned is "why" that, as a group, we hold so little monetary value.  I would submit that the answer lies within Maslow's hierarchy of needs which indicates that the "need for art" lies at the top of the "need pyramid".
Everything below that tier is more fiscally rewarded in society.  "Satisfaction of life aside"...recall that pyramid when your advice is solicited for career guidance.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: amolitor on October 03, 2013, 10:50:18 am
Economics is a funny thing, basically.

Art is, especially in this day and age, profoundly easy to make. There is a vast glut of art out there, even good art. The fact that there's also a pretty brisk demand hardly matters, what matters is that there is less demand than there is product.

Maslow seems to be talking at least as much about MAKING it as BUYING it, though.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Chairman Bill on October 03, 2013, 11:09:13 am
Self-actualisation might include making art, or buying it. It depends on what it is that floats your boat - the sense of achievement from making it, the validation from others for what you've done, the sense of self-worth that derives from owning art, or indeed the part in the relationship with an artist, somehow contributing to a sense of community in the transaction between art buyer & art seller. Any, or indeed all of those might contribute.

It's worth noting the lack of evidence to underpin Maslow's work in relation to the hierarchy though.

 
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: SunnyUK on October 08, 2013, 06:17:35 am
I would submit that the answer lies within Maslow's hierarchy of needs which indicates that the "need for art" lies at the top of the "need pyramid".
Everything below that tier is more fiscally rewarded in society.

Try telling that to the countless contestants in talent shows, cookery shows, x-factor, xxx got talent, strictly come dancing, quiz shows, football clubs, Olympic water-bearers, etc, etc.

Maslow is not talking about money. And people fight to be recognised by others, to get their 15 minutes, to get a shot at the big one, to be famous, .... precisely because their fundamental needs have been taken care of, and now they want more. They want the self realisation that is the top of the pyramid.

As to whether classical training in a subject is the surest way to become famous is a very different question.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on October 08, 2013, 06:32:51 am
Also being famous/rich/important etc is a useful way of getting a lot more opportunities to try and reproduce as it were - a very basic need. :)
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 08, 2013, 12:50:52 pm
... the conventional wisdom indicating that it's a dumb idea,

Would that be the conventional wisdom amongst those who had not pursued a degree in photography/arts, or amongst those who had?

Do you think that would be the conventional wisdom amongst those who attended Rochester Institute of Technology (http://www.rit.edu/news/umag/winter2009/19_features_Turner.html)?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on October 08, 2013, 01:01:31 pm
My friend and I hold much the same view re Art college. Only one of us actually went to one.
He's a professor of neuro-science and head Psychology department at a highly rated University and I'm a photographer who studied Astronomy and Geology at Uni.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 08, 2013, 03:26:01 pm
So...?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: RSL on October 08, 2013, 03:47:37 pm
So. . . As Elliott Erwitt said: "What is there to teach?"
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Kirk Gittings on October 08, 2013, 03:50:16 pm
One will quickly become unnecessary if one believes they are unnecessary.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 08, 2013, 04:34:34 pm
So. . . As Elliott Erwitt said: "What is there to teach?"

What is there to learn?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: wmchauncey on October 08, 2013, 05:05:42 pm
Quote
One will quickly become unnecessary if one believes they are unnecessary
You, sir, are trying to put words in my mouth...I inferred that, perhaps "Art" is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 08, 2013, 07:37:19 pm
I inferred that, perhaps "Art" is unnecessary.

Do you have an example of a society without art?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: wmchauncey on October 08, 2013, 08:28:22 pm
Would that not require definitions?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 08, 2013, 08:42:53 pm
Did you provide a definition with "I inferred that, perhaps "Art" is unnecessary" ?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Peter Stacey on October 08, 2013, 08:47:31 pm
Would that not require definitions?

Only if you wanted to give an example of a no art society.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on October 09, 2013, 06:41:26 am
So...?
Too difficult to understand? Well let me type slowly and explain.....
You implied those who did an arts course had a different view from those who had not. Which is not necessarily the case, I simply gave an example of that. One where rather contrarily the person doing arts ended up in science and the other who studied science ended up working in the arts.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on October 09, 2013, 06:49:42 am
You, sir, are trying to put words in my mouth...I inferred that, perhaps "Art" is unnecessary.
But isn't that in one sense what defines what Art is....unnecessary. Not that that should devalue what art is.
For example - Graphic design is to do a specific job or practical function, say provide clear signage on a motorway sign or hard to read text on album by a Hip Hop artist. However art can be done simply for its own sake.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: hjulenissen on October 09, 2013, 07:45:51 am
...
What is never mentioned is "why" that, as a group, we hold so little monetary value.  I would submit that the answer lies within Maslow's hierarchy of needs which indicates that the "need for art" lies at the top of the "need pyramid".
Everything below that tier is more fiscally rewarded in society.  "Satisfaction of life aside"...recall that pyramid when your advice is solicited for career guidance.
What happens at the bottom of Maslow? Food, shelter, etc. What happens to those jobs? They seem to be rationalized, taken over by machines, outsourced to low-cost countries and offer little pay.

My ancestors were probably hunter/gatherers. Then they became farmers. Then they became industrial workers. Then office workers. The development seems to be towards more specialisation, more skill/education, further removed from basic needs.

It used to be that large parts of the population were farmers, in order to feed the population. In other words, each farmer could only produce enough food for his family and a few more people, meaning that you needed lots of them. Today, only a small percentage of the population are farmers.

If you extrapolate this, I predict that at some point in the future, our offspring will all be writing poems and playing the flute (possibly while getting maximum exposure in tv reality-shows) to make a living and to attract mates, while "trivial" aspects of society will be done by machines :-)

-h
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: hjulenissen on October 09, 2013, 07:49:45 am
A second observation.

When visiting Cuba, I commented that I had a background as an aspiring musician, but that I at some point in my life switched to technology. The response that I got was people slapping their foreheads and asking how I could do such a silly move.

Turns out that Cuban economy (at least at that time) was very different from my country. Technologists worked for the state at minimum wages. While musicians had the opportunity to play for tourists, and were therefore partially decoupled from the badly managed Cuban economy. Anyone with half a talent as a musician would rather play the trumpet and make a decent living than designing bridges for little money.

-h
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on October 09, 2013, 01:37:11 pm
Too difficult to understand? Well let me type slowly and explain.....
You implied those who did an arts course had a different view from those who had not. Which is not necessarily the case, ...

I implied that those who actually did an arts course may have a different view. Please don't misrepresent what I write.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on October 24, 2013, 02:28:03 am
We all have seen the questions from the neophytes among us asking about the wisdom/value of pursuing a degree in photography/arts with the conventional wisdom indicating that it's a dumb idea, a position to which I subscribe.
What is never mentioned is "why" that, as a group, we hold so little monetary value.  I would submit that the answer lies within Maslow's hierarchy of needs which indicates that the "need for art" lies at the top of the "need pyramid".
Everything below that tier is more fiscally rewarded in society.  "Satisfaction of life aside"...recall that pyramid when your advice is solicited for career guidance.

I can only answer your question from my own experience.  I did a BA in photography 1995-98 and have made a reasonable living from being a photographer since that time.  By reasonable I mean I feed and house my family - not accumulating any wealth.  But then I LOVE what I do. Are the Degree and my ability to make a living from photography linked?  Who knows - I could probably have made it without the college.  However it did give me three years to concentrate on my subject.  And some personal satisfaction.

Jim
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on October 24, 2013, 06:02:20 am
"Art is the occasion where god is setting foot on earth."
(my awesome arts teacher in school)

my € 0.02 ...

Have a good day
~Chris
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: petermfiore on October 24, 2013, 07:01:56 am
If one can provide for one's family by doing what one loves, one is rich beyond money.
 

Peter
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Gulag on November 01, 2013, 12:47:41 am
"Sex is everywhere else to be found, but that’s not what people want. What people deeply desire is a spectacle of banality. This spectacle of banality is today’s true pornography and obscenity. It is the obscene spectacle of nullity (nullité), insignificance, and platitude."

— Jean Baudrillard,  “Dust Breeding”,  2001.
 
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: slackercruster on November 01, 2013, 09:03:16 am
Try telling that to the countless contestants in talent shows, cookery shows, x-factor, xxx got talent, strictly come dancing, quiz shows, football clubs, Olympic water-bearers, etc, etc.

Maslow is not talking about money. And people fight to be recognised by others, to get their 15 minutes, to get a shot at the big one, to be famous, .... precisely because their fundamental needs have been taken care of, and now they want more. They want the self realisation that is the top of the pyramid.

As to whether classical training in a subject is the surest way to become famous is a very different question.


If you can afford it, education is a wonderful thing to supplement talent. But I agree, I would not expect too much from it.

Photography is a very tough field to make money in. Sure, some do it and do it well. But what % of the pie is composed of very successful, well paid photogs?

Over the past decade photography has been downgraded in value as a result of the digital revolution. As a social documentary photographer in the 1970's I could find strangers on the street and they would let me shoot them in their homes. Nowadays nobody will go for that. I ask people if they want free photos and they tell me they don't want or need any more photos. Why should they? With a cell phone and a $60 ink jet printer they are a photographer themselves.

I do photography for the love of it. I make no money from it and get little fame. I think if one desires fame and riches it would be easier to become a rich, world famous actor than a rich, world famous photog.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: slackercruster on November 01, 2013, 09:09:29 am
I can only answer your question from my own experience.  I did a BA in photography 1995-98 and have made a reasonable living from being a photographer since that time.  By reasonable I mean I feed and house my family - not accumulating any wealth.  But then I LOVE what I do. Are the Degree and my ability to make a living from photography linked?  Who knows - I could probably have made it without the college.  However it did give me three years to concentrate on my subject.  And some personal satisfaction.

Jim


Good for you Jim!
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: slackercruster on November 01, 2013, 09:16:30 am
Would that be the conventional wisdom amongst those who had not pursued a degree in photography/arts, or amongst those who had?

Do you think that would be the conventional wisdom amongst those who attended Rochester Institute of Technology (http://www.rit.edu/news/umag/winter2009/19_features_Turner.html)?

It is no dumber than a degree in philosophy or basket weaving. People have to follow their love. But it is good to know up front what type of love affair one is entering.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: slackercruster on November 01, 2013, 09:19:26 am
Do you have an example of a society without art?

Yes art serves a very important purpose for humans. Many of us 'pay to play' and get nothing back from it other than self satisfaction.

Lets say you like flower photos. Flickr has 3/4 of a million flower photos in just one of their many flower groups. As soon as you post a pix it is burried under the mass of new photos. And that is just one group. Tons of flower groups there and everywhere else. So of course it is hard to distinguish oneself. But we keep on shooting through thick or thin...it is in our blood.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 01, 2013, 09:26:13 am
In the future … ?



If you extrapolate this, I predict that at some point in the future, our offspring will all be writing poems and playing the flute (possibly while getting maximum exposure in tv reality-shows) to make a living and to attract mates, while "trivial" aspects of society will be done by machines :-)

-h
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2013, 04:44:39 pm
"If you extrapolate this, I predict that at some point in the future, our offspring will all be writing poems and playing the flute (possibly while getting maximum exposure in tv reality-shows) to make a living and to attract mates, while "trivial" aspects of society will be done by machines :-)

-h"


I note the smile, but I don't accept the premise.

Those 'trivial' things already constitute the employment of the less skilled; if you put a critical mass of them into the unemployment basket, you will have revolution. Beyond a point we have probably already reached, the working people who support the rest will be of too low a number to support anything.

The worst of the credit society experience has yet to manifest itself, but it's crazy to imagine that an economy, our global one, can survive on money that is printed but based on nothing real, such as gold, and whose value is less than zero because it actually represents further debt. The world is toxic; how do you redeem that?

Without the bait of earning well, the overseers that machines require in order to function won't exist. I firmly believe that the time will come when people finally realise that doing away with human workers can't work, as it were; machines don't buy anything and if nobody buys anything, nothing gets made and people die of hunger. We simply need work, if only to establish a personal value that we can use as a means of trade for the things that we require and cannot provide for ourselves.

Rob C



Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 02, 2013, 01:25:28 am
...machines don't buy anything and if nobody buys anything, nothing gets made and people die of hunger. We simply need work, if only to establish a personal value that we can use as a means of trade for the things that we require and cannot provide for ourselves.

Rob C


Rob,
What people need is the intelligence and imagination to enjoy their free time without the need to spend money they don't have.

There are only two fundamental limiting factors on the future prosperity of mankind. They are, energy supplies and imagination.

Energy supplies are extremely abundant. I can't see any problem there. As an example of just one abundant source of energy; if one were to cover the largely uninhabited areas of the Sahara Desert (about 9 million square kilometres) with modern Solar Voltaic Panels, the amount of electricity generated would be about 20-30 times the current world-wide consumption of energy, converting all types of energy to kilowatt hours.

There are many deserts around the world which are just waste lands, serving no useful purpose, not to mention the millions of square kilometres of building-roofs and walls exposed to the sun.

Some folks seem worried about world food supplies. They believe that, with a rising world population, the planet might not be able to produce the amount of food required to adequately feed everyone.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The amount of food wasted worldwide, not eaten because the serving was too much, thrown away because it passed its use-by date, discarded during processing because only the refined tasty bits were required, inadequately stored due to lack of refrigeration, and not transported to markets where it's needed due to inadequate road systems, currently amounts to about 1.3 billion tonnes per annum. (That is, 1,300 million tonnes per annum).

In other words, the amount of food wasted is more than enough to feed all the world's hungry. In addition, the amount of food overeaten by all the overweight and obese people in developed countries would also be enough to feed more than another billion future population.

Some people believe there might be a shortage of water that would put a limit on agricultural production and that future wars might be fought over such shortage.

Wars are fought for all sorts of unjustifiable reasons, but there's definitely no shortage of water. It falls freely from the sky, and the seas around the world contain huge quantities of it.

What there may be a shortage of is imagination to devise ways of transporting water from where it's plentiful to where it's not, and recycling and purifying water to drinking standards. The technology and the energy supplies exist to solve all these problems. If they remain a problem, it's due only to incompetence in dealing with the obstacles.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 02, 2013, 06:33:33 am
Rob,
What people need is the intelligence and imagination to enjoy their free time without the need to spend money they don't have.

There are only two fundamental limiting factors on the future prosperity of mankind. They are, energy supplies and imagination.

Energy supplies are extremely abundant. I can't see any problem there. As an example of just one abundant source of energy; if one were to cover the largely uninhabited areas of the Sahara Desert (about 9 million square kilometres) with modern Solar Voltaic Panels, the amount of electricity generated would be about 20-30 times the current world-wide consumption of energy, converting all types of energy to kilowatt hours.

There are many deserts around the world which are just waste lands, serving no useful purpose, not to mention the millions of square kilometres
There is newer more efficient type of photovoltaic cell that was used to power the 'Big Brother' house (reality tv show) a few years back and you only needed a 10x10miles square in the Sahara to supply tthe entire world with power - distribution issues aside.  Distrribution being the food and water problem too.
Photovoltaic roads are actually the perfect solution as they can be both the source and the distribution. Just have to solve the issue of traction on a transparent surface......
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 02, 2013, 09:47:23 pm
There is newer more efficient type of photovoltaic cell that was used to power the 'Big Brother' house (reality tv show) a few years back and you only needed a 10x10miles square in the Sahara to supply tthe entire world with power..

jjj,
That sounds too incredible to be true. I'm not sure 'Big Brother' is a reliable source of information.

Figures on the internet for this type of situation vary wildly. It could be that some sources are referring only to the current use, worldwide, of electricity, excluding the huge amounts of energy consumed in the form of petrol, diesel and LPG.

My source converts all forms of energy currently used, into electricity equivalents, on the basis that the world will eventually have to move to all-electric machines and vehicles as we run out of fossil fuels.  http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

However, the main point I was trying to make in my response to Rob, is that all prosperity is irrevocably and directly linked to the cost of energy supplies. In a modern civilisation, nothing moves without expenditure of energy. How we use that energy is dependent upon our imagination (including education, training and competence).

In a society which has developed to the stage where the production of most essential goods and services are carried out by machines, requiring a relatively small labour force to construct, maintain and service such machines, then the rest of the population, who may have no interest or talent for servicing machines, are free to engage in other activities, whether they be surfing the waves, designing new styles of clothes or jewelery, painting pictures or taking photographs, reading the Classics, writing poetry, studying Philosophy, or studying anything that they may have an interest in, or talent for. The list of interesting activities that could occupy someone who is free from the slavery of doing a boring job that is more efficiently done by machines, is almost limitless.

Nobody need starve in a modern civilised society, or go without the essentials of food, shelter and medical care, except perhaps in America where social services seem very oddly deficient in some areas.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: wmchauncey on November 03, 2013, 09:10:49 am
Ponder this for a moment or two...For Art to flourish, must it be free from all commercial aspect, or...if it is truly great...must it be commercially successful.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 03, 2013, 10:09:16 am
Ponder this for a moment or two...For Art to flourish, must it be free from all commercial aspect, or...if it is truly great...must it be commercially successful.


In my case, the commercial aspect was essential for two reasons:

a.  provide the money with which to do it;
b.  the incentive to 'try harder' all the time.

If you refer to the gallery world, then I think you are wading in quicksands; quicksands with plenty of splintered glass inside to make it exciting.

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 03, 2013, 10:25:06 am
However, the main point I was trying to make in my response to Rob, is that all prosperity is irrevocably and directly linked to the cost of energy supplies. In a modern civilisation, nothing moves without expenditure of energy. How we use that energy is dependent upon our imagination (including education, training and competence).

In a society which has developed to the stage where the production of most essential goods and services are carried out by machines, requiring a relatively small labour force to construct, maintain and service such machines, then the rest of the population, who may have no interest or talent for servicing machines, are free to engage in other activities, whether they be surfing the waves, designing new styles of clothes or jewelery, painting pictures or taking photographs, reading the Classics, writing poetry, studying Philosophy, or studying anything that they may have an interest in, or talent for. The list of interesting activities that could occupy someone who is free from the slavery of doing a boring job that is more efficiently done by machines, is almost limitless.

Nobody need starve in a modern civilised society, or go without the essentials of food, shelter and medical care, except perhaps in America where social services seem very oddly deficient in some areas.


Ray, you are ignoring the simple fact that life gives you nothing for nothing.

There is no way that your Utopian vision can happen. Life is far too fragmented and divided into separate sorts of activity, services, production methods and needs. You really believe a machine can take a pile of mud and model a ’59 Coupe de Ville? Can even envisage such a creation? Why do you choose to forget about soul? Soul is the difference, and the reason anybody does anything well, including the manufacture of ocean liners, the designing of buildings and the making of a pair of shoes.

Few people do much of value for no return, at least, beyond the realm of charitable works etc. and I believe that man’s input is always going to be the final arbiter of what other people will want. I’m thinking now of all those poor guys in Salgado’s pictures, scrambling up ladders in open pits called mines… do you think their weary muscles will be replaced any time soon? Massive mechanical diggers have existed for decades; they are not much use in such circumstances and even less so deep down below the surface following the tiny threads of gold.

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 03, 2013, 04:49:29 pm
jjj,
That sounds too incredible to be true. I'm not sure 'Big Brother' is a reliable source of information.
It wasn't the source of the information, it just happened that BB also used the same type of PV.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 04, 2013, 12:32:20 am
Ray, you are ignoring the simple fact that life gives you nothing for nothing.
Can even envisage such a creation? Why do you choose to forget about soul? Soul is the difference, and the reason anybody does anything well, including the manufacture of ocean liners, the designing of buildings and the making of a pair of shoes

Rob, you are ignoring the fact that we don't even know what nothing actually is. The closest concept to 'nothing' in my mind is the soul. It has no weight, form or color, and cannot be measured or detected by any scientific process that I'm aware of. I prefer to use concepts such as intelligence, imagination, thoughtfulness, compassion, empathy, perception, taste and smell. All those activities can be measured.

Quote
There is no way that your Utopian vision can happen. Life is far too fragmented and divided into separate sorts of activity, services, production methods and needs. You really believe a machine can take a pile of mud and model a ’59 Coupe de Ville?

Surely you must be aware of the vast importance and necessity of machinery in the production and design of most of the goods and services we use. The modern digital camera is a marvelous little machine, as is the computer I use to process my images. Without machines we're back to slavery, or at best a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Surely you must also be aware of the vast progress in mankind's prosperity during the past few hundred years, due to the increasing sophistication of machinery. Why do you imagine such progress will now cease? Is it because the current economic downturn in Spain has clouded your vision?

Quote
Few people do much of value for no return, at least, beyond the realm of charitable works etc. and I believe that man’s input is always going to be the final arbiter of what other people will want.

That's a very uninspiring concept, Rob, and something we should try to change, if indeed it's true. Many of the great concepts, ideas and scientific theories that have contributed greatly to our progress and understanding have originated from people who didn't have to work for a living. In ancient Greece, most of the work was done by slaves, allowing people like Plato and Aristotle the time and freedom to think about important issues. Charles Darwin didn't work on his theories of evolution for monetary profit. Machines in modern societies are our slaves. They should free us from boring , but necessary chores, and provide us with the time to be creative in any way that gives us satisfaction, provided such creative activity doesn't harm others, of course.

Just read a bit of history of the lives of people in ancient civilisations before modern machinery existed. Life must nave been absolutely awful, by our standards, for those who were not in a position of power and authority. The trouble is that history tends to be glorified. One reads about the marvelous exploits and conquests of Alexander The Great, but not so much about the enormous suffering of innocent victims, whole villages burned to the ground and women and children hacked to death as a matter of course. In our modern era, someone like Alexander The Great would find himself in The Hague in a jiffy, charged with the most heinous crimes against humanity.

Thank God I live in this modern age of relative sanity, peace and tranquility. Of course, at any given moment, in some part of the world, one finds examples of insanity prevailing, as in Syria today. But the significance and prominence of such events in a broad historical context tends to be exaggerated by the machinery of modern news reporting when every nasty event can be video recorded and instantly transmitted across the globe.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 04, 2013, 04:02:38 am
How can I discuss with an adversary who can't value soul?

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: petermfiore on November 04, 2013, 09:32:38 am
How can I discuss with an adversary who can't value soul?

Rob C

Soul also taps into the mystery and elusiveness of art.

Peter
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 04, 2013, 10:44:36 am
Soul also taps into the mystery and elusiveness of art.

Peter


When they are not being the same thing!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 05, 2013, 04:36:26 pm
How can I discuss with an adversary who can't value soul?

Rob C

That's easy, Rob. You should just explain clearly and concisely what you mean by the word 'soul'. Are you referring to the meaning in its original religious context, that is, an immortal and immaterial spirit which is independent of the physical mind and body and which survives after death, or are you using the word merely as a synonym for the totality of the 'self' with its unique, individual, emotional and intellectual energy and style?

In my earlier response, I assumed your meaning was the former, because it is true that I don't claim to have any knowledge or experience of anything I could identify as an everlasting, immaterial and immortal spirit.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 07, 2013, 02:56:08 am
For the benefit of those who are not satisfied with explanations of the nature of art which rely upon ill-defined concepts such as 'soul', the following quote from the freely available Project Gutenberg publication, The Psychology of Beauty by Ethel D. Puffer, might shed light on the issue.

Quote
When I feel the rhythm of poetry, or of perfect prose, which is, of course, in its own way, no less rhythmical, every sensation of sound sends through me a diffusive wave of nervous energy. I am the rhythm because I imitate it in myself. I march to noble music in all my veins, even though I may be sitting decorously by my own hearthstone; and when I sweep with my eyes the outlines of a great picture, the curve of a Greek vase, the arches of a cathedral, every line is lived over again in my own frame.

And when rhythm and melody and forms and colors give me pleasure, it is because the imitating impulses and movements that have arisen in me are such as suit, help, heighten my physical organization in general and in particular.

It may seem somewhat trivial to say that a curved line is pleasing because the eye is so hung as to move best in it; but we may take it as one instance of the numberless conditions for healthy action which a beautiful form fulfills. A well- composed picture calls up in the spectator just such a balanced relation of impulses of attention and incipient movements as suits an organism which is also balanced—bilateral—in its own impulses to movement, and at the same time stable; and it is the correspondence of the suggested impulses with the natural movement that makes the composition good.

Besides the pleasure from the tone relations,—which doubtless can be eventually reduced to something of the same kind,—it is the balance of nervous and muscular tensions and relaxations, of yearnings and satisfactions, which are the subjective side of the beauty of a strain of music. The basis, in short, of any aesthetic experience—poetry, music, painting, and the rest— is beautiful through its harmony with the conditions offered by our senses, primarily of sight and hearing, and through the harmony of the suggestions and impulses it arouses with the whole organism.

When I read the above passage, I'm reminded of some very basic subjective conditioning of most Westerners that can influence their appreciation of a particular work of art, and that is the habit of reading from left to right. Michael Reichmann made this point in an article a few years ago. Sometimes, simply flipping an image horizontally (ie, creating a mirror image) can improve the composition and make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Our eyes (in the West) are so accustomed to this movement from left to right, that a painting or photograph with compositional lines leading the eye in the opposite direction from right to left can sometimes jar or feel a bit unsatisfying.

The same principle can apply to the direction of the lighting in an image. There's a tendency for it to be more satisfying when the light source is on the left, perhaps illuminating the right cheek of a subject in the composition.

However, there should be no hard and fast rules about such matters because the balance and harmony of the conditions and impulses of our senses are complex. For example, whilst rays of light from the upper left part of an image, illuminating the right side a subject's face, might often appear compositionally more aesthetic, there is also a sense that the left side of the face can be emotionally more expressive, whereas the right cheek tends to hide emotion, depending on the subject of course.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 07, 2013, 06:42:14 am
That's easy, Rob. You should just explain clearly and concisely what you mean by the word 'soul'. Are you referring to the meaning in its original religious context, that is, an immortal and immaterial spirit which is independent of the physical mind and body and which survives after death, or are you using the word merely as a synonym for the totality of the 'self' with its unique, individual, emotional and intellectual energy and style?

In my earlier response, I assumed your meaning was the former, because it is true that I don't claim to have any knowledge or experience of anything I could identify as an everlasting, immaterial and immortal spirit.


Might as well try to encapsulate a precise definition of what constitues art.

Soul is something you either recognize in yourself through the emotional feelings that some certain things offer you, or you do not get those signals of oneness with whatever is causing (or not) the reaction in you. Beauty in the visual is close-cousin to beauty in the blues. It's an emotional trigger that does it for you or leaves you quite unmoved.

I would hazard that he who remains largely unaffected by such stimuli is pretty low in soul.

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 07, 2013, 08:13:40 pm

Might as well try to encapsulate a precise definition of what constitues art.

Soul is something you either recognize in yourself through the emotional feelings that some certain things offer you, or you do not get those signals of oneness with whatever is causing (or not) the reaction in you. Beauty in the visusual is close-cousin to beauty in the blues. It's an emotional trigger that does it for you or leaves you quite unmoved.

I would hazard that he who remains largely unaffected by such stimuli is pretty low in soul.

Rob C

As I thought, Rob, it seems you are using the term 'soul' as a substitute for the words 'emotion', and 'feelings of harmony', perhaps in order to confer greater status on particular works of art that might inspire such feelings in certain individuals, when such works might not be considered particularly great by the standards of others.

Music is considered by many to be the purest and highest form of art, perhaps because it is able to express beauty in the most direct way, unencumbered with extraneous meanings of a practical nature. However, 'soul' music is not a particularly great type of music requiring a finely developed sense of musical appreciation on the part of the listener, as is St Mathew's Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach.

The name 'soul music' is appropriate because of its association with the gospels which are inextricably linked to concepts of soul. But to use the term 'soul' to describe the greatness of any work of art in general is a cop-out. It's equivalent to saying, "I like this work of art. I think it's great, but I don't know why I like it, therefore I'll say it has soul, in order to create the impression that I know what I'm talking about."  ;)
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 07, 2013, 08:22:52 pm
Soul is something you either recognize in yourself through the emotional feelings that some certain things offer you, or you do not get those signals of oneness with whatever is causing (or not) the reaction in you. Beauty in the visusual is close-cousin to beauty in the blues. It's an emotional trigger that does it for you or leaves you quite unmoved.

I would hazard that he who remains largely unaffected by such stimuli is pretty low in soul.
I met someone yesterday who says he has never read any fiction, he doesn't see the point of reading anything not factual as you cannot learn anything from it. He's not interested in anything other than documentary stuff on TV either.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: petermfiore on November 07, 2013, 08:25:28 pm
I met someone yesterday who says he has never read any fiction, he doesn't see the point of reading anything not factual as you cannot learn anything from it. He's not interested in anything other than documentary stuff on TV either.

Now there is a soulless soul.

Peter
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 07, 2013, 08:34:04 pm
Music is considered by many to be the purest and highest form of art, perhaps because it is able to express beauty in the most direct way, unencumbered with extraneous meanings of a practical nature. However, 'soul' music is not a particularly great type of music requiring a finely developed sense of musical appreciation on the part of the listener, as is St Mathew's Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach.
What pretentious bollocks.

Quote
The name 'soul music' is appropriate because of its association with the gospels which are inextricably linked to concepts of soul. But to use the term 'soul' to describe the greatness of any work of art in general is a cop-out. It's equivalent to saying, "I like this work of art. I think it's great, but I don't know why I like it, therefore I'll say it has soul, in order to create the impression that I know what I'm talking about."  ;)
Which basically describes exactly what you did in your previous paragraph, except you substituted a different phrase.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 07, 2013, 08:38:25 pm
Now there is a soulless soul.
I have to say that I was quite shocked by this stance.
He's quite a smart fellow and very good at practical problem solving, but…
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 07, 2013, 09:59:25 pm
... lacks imagination?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 07, 2013, 11:51:56 pm
What pretentious bollocks.

Sorry, jjj. You're not making any sense. What is it that you consider pretentious bollocks? My statement that many folks consider music to be the highest form of art? That's not bollocks. It's a factual statement.

Or maybe you think that my praise of Bach's St Mathew's Passion as being a finer piece of music than "Papa is a Rolling Stone" is pretentious bollocks. If that's what you mean, come out and say it. Don't hide behind obfuscation.

Quote
Which basically describes exactly what you did in your previous paragraph, except you substituted a different phrase.

I substituted which phrase for which phrase? Again, you're not making any sense. Here is my previous paragraph.

Quote
Music is considered by many to be the purest and highest form of art, perhaps because it is able to express beauty in the most direct way, unencumbered with extraneous meanings of a practical nature. However, 'soul' music is not a particularly great type of music requiring a finely developed sense of musical appreciation on the part of the listener, as is St Mathew's Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach.

I'm recognising here a genre of music which is aptly called soul music because of its religious associations. I also think that many folks can enjoy such music regardless of their religious views. One doesn't have to be a pious Christian to enjoy the uplifting harmony and energy of a Negro Spiritual.

On the other hand, one usually does need a musical background, or a bit of training and understanding of musical principles, and a more finely developed musical sensitivity, in order to appreciate the great musical classics by geniuses such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, and so on.

However, you're quite entitled to have the opinion that such music is a load of pretension bollocks, if that's what you meant, just as someone is entitled to the view that most modern art is a load of crap.

If you do happen to think that the music of Bach is pretentious bollocks, I would never describe you as lacking soul... just plain ignorant.

On the other hand, there are certain people who really can't appreciate any type of music. They are literally tone deaf. The condition is called amusia, and it's hereditary. I believe about 4% of the population are affected.

It would be very cruel to describe such people as lacking a soul because they are physiologically and genetically unable to appreciate music.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 08, 2013, 03:38:43 am
... lacks imagination?
Not quite. He can invent stuff, but is unlikely to write a best selling vampire novel series.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 08, 2013, 04:22:56 am
Sorry, jjj. You're not making any sense. What is it that you consider pretentious bollocks? My statement that many folks consider music to be the highest form of art? That's not bollocks. It's a factual statement.

Or maybe you think that my praise of Bach's St Mathew's Passion as being a finer piece of music than "Papa is a Rolling Stone" is pretentious bollocks. If that's what you mean, come out and say it. Don't hide behind obfuscation.
Obfuscation! I was extremely blunt in my post, so anything but. The fact you could not see where you were being pretentious is not obfuscation.
You do it again in this post.  
On the other hand, one usually does need a musical background, or a bit of training and understanding of musical principles, and a more finely developed musical sensitivity, in order to appreciate the great musical classics by geniuses such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, and so on.
Utter nonsense. People or do not like certain types of music (or art) and then use silly post rationalisation such as you have done to justify their tastes, some credit music as having soul others think they have more refined tastes. And of course older folk always think the music young people is proper music like the stuff they liked as kids, completely forgetting that their parents said the same dumb thing about their music.

Quote
I substituted which phrase for which phrase? Again, you're not making any sense.
Some people use 'soul' to justify their post rationalising and others 'more refined tastes'.

Quote
I'm recognising here a genre of music which is aptly called soul music because of its religious associations. I also think that many folks can enjoy such music regardless of their religious views. One doesn't have to be a pious Christian to enjoy the uplifting harmony and energy of a Negro Spiritual.
That's where the term originated. But the term soul to describe an aspect of music moved on from there many decades back.
The British weekly newspaper, The NME had an argument about what was or wasn't soul in music. And no joke, this debate went on for several years through the letters' page and articles.


Quote
If you do happen to think that the music of Bach is pretentious bollocks, I would never describe you as lacking soul... just plain ignorant.
There you go with the (ironically ignorant) snobbery again. If I do not like, say Bach it has nothing to do with ignorance, it has everything to do with personal taste and very likely what era I was born in.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 08, 2013, 08:38:41 am

There you go with the (ironically ignorant) snobbery again. If I do not like, say Bach it has nothing to do with ignorance, it has everything to do with personal taste and very likely what era I was born in.


Really! So you don't think that education has anything to do with appreciation of art or music and that it's all to do with personal taste and the era in which you were born? I find that very odd.

It's clear to me that personal taste is certainly a factor, as well as natural talent and intelligence, but is not the whole explanation. If two children are exposed during their upbringing to the same type of classical music and receive the same musical education, it's true that their preferences for certain composers and styles of music might well differ as they mature into adults, as a result of their individual taste. One might prefer Beethoven to Bach, the other Bach to Beethoven, or one might prefer Stravinsky, or even jazz, but I think it's extremely unlikely that one or both of them would end up not liking Bach, unless they had received a very bad and tyrannical education causing them to dislike the subjects being taught.

I've assumed it's axiomatic that the purpose of education is to foster an appreciation and understanding of the subjects being taught, whether the subjects are mathematics, science, literature, history, foreign languages, music or the visual arts.

If it's the case that a person never received a musical education, or was rarely exposed to serious music at home and never given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, then it's quite possible that such a person would find the music of Bach quite boring, not necessarily because he is tone deaf or has some strange taste that precludes his enjoyment of classical music, but because he's never learned to understand and appreciate the music.

A lack of learning, understanding and appreciation is called ignorance.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 08, 2013, 10:40:00 am
As far as I'm concerned, and within the limits of my personal lexicon, the term 'soul' has little to do with Motown or Stax; it describes a much wider orbit than that (you could go further back than the 50s/60s to the early 1900s blues of King Oliver and Bessie Smith's heart-jerker deliveries if you insist on musical illustrations), and touches upon literature, painting and pretty much any branch of the arts of self-expression that you like.

It's the quality something has when it transcends the simply useful, entertaining or even widely popular; it's the magical ingredient that Sinatra had over, say, Crosby. Neither was Motown... ;-) It's Chuck Berry over Bo Diddley.

Keeping it within Ray's preferred musical matrix, where his argument feels more at home, I'm sure many instrumentalists play and sight-read perfectly well, but that doesn't make them equal. That would just be mechanical competence, lacking the stardust.

In jazz, for example: Armstrong had soul, but for me, Gillespie not. Great technicians both, but that's not enough. Which also shows you that soul is a very subjective quality. Properly so.

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 08, 2013, 10:54:12 am
As far as I'm concerned, and within the limits of my personal lexicon,...

It's equivalent to saying, "I like this work of art. I think it's great, but I don't know why I like it, therefore I'll say it has soul, in order to create the impression that I know what I'm talking about."

QED
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 08, 2013, 03:45:09 pm
QED


Did you, at some point in this chat, think we were talking about a science??

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 08, 2013, 04:34:47 pm
Do you think aesthetics is science rather than philosophy?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 08, 2013, 04:53:14 pm
You guys have way too much time discussing silly things on forums. Go out and shoot some ...
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 08, 2013, 06:46:08 pm
You guys have way too much time discussing silly things on forums. Go out and shoot some ...

C'mon! Be reasonable. We're mostly amateurs here. Don't you know that the problem for an amateur is that he/she has no reason to take a photograph. I'm sure Rob would agree on that point.  ;)
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 08, 2013, 06:47:57 pm
You guys have way too much time discussing silly things on forums. Go out and shoot some ...

This particular thread features some of the most earnest and arduous mental masturbation to be found anywhere. 
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 08, 2013, 06:53:05 pm
You guys have way too much time discussing silly things on forums. Go out and shoot some ...

I'm processing photos. What's your excuse?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 08, 2013, 07:00:21 pm
I'm processing photos. What's your excuse?
Scanning ....
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 08, 2013, 07:30:36 pm
This particular thread features some of the most earnest and arduous mental masturbation to be found anywhere. 

I see. So you are claiming to be an expert on such matters are you, assessing the qualities of all threads you read in terms of their degree of mental masturbation. I presume this is a pejorative term.

I don't use the term, just as I don't use 'soul'. I tend to think that both terms are used as a last resort to express something one doesn't understand.

You might find the following article illuminating.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-coffeen/2012/07/three-cheers-for-mental-masturbation/
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 08, 2013, 07:51:02 pm

You might find the following article illuminating.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-coffeen/2012/07/three-cheers-for-mental-masturbation/


Illuminating? Not really. I did find it interesting, and my quick take is that the author prizes mental masturbation as he defines it, yet acknowledges that it's a personal pursuit, thus, "But talking about it to others quickly becomes not just strange, annoying, and pedantic. It becomes obscene. Ergo, mental masturbation." But I'm too shallow to really appreciate the ramblings of a guy with a PhD in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley.

And if it makes you happy, I'll edit my original comment to read "This particular thread features some of the most earnest and arduous mental masturbation to be found anywhere I've seen lately."
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 09, 2013, 04:06:01 am
Do you think aesthetics is science rather than philosophy?


Yes and no: in practical terms, insofar as the awakening to the light of an aesthetic consideration, bringing about its physical manifestation, yes - a science. As to the quality of its reception or rejection, that's a philosophical judgement.

But none of that hides the fact that your statement is a non sequitur disguised as a question.

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 09, 2013, 04:24:59 am
You guys have way too much time discussing silly things on forums. Go out and shoot some ...


Chris, how many Cokes do you want me to drink?

;-)

Rob C

P.S. I jest: it's always the same empty bottle; I never drink the stuff now because it would make me desire its complement. But, it does remind me every time of my initial introduction to the brew, back on Marine Drive in old Bombay. Magical how we conflate drive-ins, American cars, school dances, metallic paint, dirndle skirts, beautiful legs, jive, bright lipstick, jukeboxes, Tin Pan Alley - Fabian, Dion and the Belmonts and Connie Francis into one thing: Coca-Cola. No, forget Fabian: nothing reminds me of him - best forgotten as girlie-fodder. He was better-looking than I, though, even then.

http://youtu.be/j8_oucBYblI

Aaaaah!
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 09, 2013, 05:00:02 pm
Really! So you don't think that education has anything to do with appreciation of art or music and that it's all to do with personal taste and the era in which you were born? I find that very odd.
I find you very odd, but there you go.  :P
More seriously, why do you think you need to be educated to like something? People hear music, they like it or do not like it. Certainly some pieces of music grow on you after a few listens, but education that is not. Education can definitely give you an appreciation for something in how it was created, the milieu in which surrounded it or the context in which it appears. But thinking that is the reason why you like something like music or art or photography, etc is a bit bonkers in my view.

Quote
It's clear to me that personal taste is certainly a factor, as well as natural talent and intelligence, but is not the whole explanation. If two children are exposed during their upbringing to the same type of classical music and receive the same musical education, it's true that their preferences for certain composers and styles of music might well differ as they mature into adults, as a result of their individual taste. One might prefer Beethoven to Bach, the other Bach to Beethoven, or one might prefer Stravinsky, or even jazz, but I think it's extremely unlikely that one or both of them would end up not liking Bach, unless they had received a very bad and tyrannical education causing them to dislike the subjects being taught.
Really!? You think that someone may only dislike Bach because of some bad education? Did it never occur to you that some people may not like Bach, because he simply does not appeal? Or that they think his music is naff and old fashioned/hate harpsichords and would rather listen to some Drum+Bass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBI7VOd-VeE) or Dubstep (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejYnWMNbuKI)?

Quote
I've assumed it's axiomatic that the purpose of education is to foster an appreciation and understanding of the subjects being taught, whether the subjects are mathematics, science, literature, history, foreign languages, music or the visual arts.
A good teacher can certainly foster an appreciation for something that may be otherwise overlooked. Doesn't mean you will definitely like something though.

Quote
If it's the case that a person never received a musical education, or was rarely exposed to serious music at home and never given the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument, then it's quite possible that such a person would find the music of Bach quite boring, not necessarily because he is tone deaf or has some strange taste that precludes his enjoyment of classical music, but because he's never learned to understand and appreciate the music.
Or maybe Bach is simply not to their taste. You seem to have a particular thing about JSB. Out of curiosity, let's mention some different composers, Philip Glass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsOPR9659Ww) and Michael Nyman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDkyT2QU6k). Do you like their work, which is usually though of as being Minimalist or by those who do not like it, boring?  Boring [and repetitive] when applied as an adjective to music, usually means the person describing it does not like it and fails to understand that the music that they like is usually equally as repetitive.
As for 'or was rarely exposed to serious music at home' dear me, music is music. Some people are a bit up themselves in thinking certain music is superior to other music, which is utter nonsense. Particularly as the venerated music of past times may have been the outrageous pop music of its period. I should point out that I had little to no musical education, had no 'serious' music played at home and no opportunity to play an instrument, yet I quite like Bach - the reason, I like minor chords particularly if combined with a fast rhythm as counterpoint and Bach often ticks those boxes. Just been refreshing myself with old Johann whilst typing and may use 'Concerto for Violin and Oboe BWV 1060 - Allegro' in a dance mix tape.

Quote
A lack of learning, understanding and appreciation is called ignorance.
Apart from the fact at times ignorance can be bliss - which is a whole other discussion, one of the best things about music is that no knowledge whatsoever is required to enjoy it.  ;D
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2013, 09:29:59 am
More seriously, why do you think you need to be educated to like something? People hear music, they like it or do not like it. Certainly some pieces of music grow on you after a few listens, but education that is not. Education can definitely give you an appreciation for something in how it was created, the milieu in which surrounded it or the context in which it appears. But thinking that is the reason why you like something like music or art or photography, etc is a bit bonkers in my view.

Dear me, you do seem to have a very narrow view of education, jjj.  ;)

Education does not just consist of theoretical lectures on the abstract principles relating to a particular subject, but also consists of continual exposure, in a friendly environment, to the subject being learned.

If a kid at school is having trouble with grammar and spelling, the reason is more likely due to the kid being exposed at home to incorrect spelling and grammar as a result of having semi-illiterate parents who don't speak proper; not simply because the kid lacks talent in this field, or because he has a different 'taste' to other kids who have no problem with grammar.

Likewise, when people have no interest in classical music and are quite unmoved by it, but demonstrate an interest in other forms of music such as pop, jazz, funk, rock, and so-called 'soul' music etc, the reason is quite likely that such people were rarely exposed to classical music during their upbringing.
In fact, their lack of interest might even have been reinforced by prejudicial talk from people like yourself who claim that the music belongs to a different era and has no relevance to modern life.

Fortunately, my time in a Grammar School in the Manchester area of northern England many years ago, included one period per week for musical education, when excerpts of classical music were often played in the classroom and discussion encouraged.

I'll always remember the first school outing to a concert at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where I experienced for the first time the thrill of a full orchestra playing live in a large auditorium with good acoustics. (The Halle Orchestra conducted by Sir John Barbirolli.)

The richness and texture of the sound was amazing. It was so palpable, thrilling and all-encompassing I would have found it difficult to understand how any youngster could have failed to be moved. In those days concepts of amusia or tone deafness were not so well understood.

However, don't think that because I generally prefer classical music to 'pop' music I therefore cannot enjoy pop music of the various genres. Melody and harmony also exist in pop music. I can enjoy any song that has melody and harmony and is performed well. What I don't appreciate are untrained, amplified voices repetitively screaming incoherent lyrics at ear-damaging sound levels.

The analogy between music and photography has been made before, and I think it's a useful analogy. I'd equate a good classical symphony to a very large and detailed panorama of a city or landscape, or a large and detailed wall mural.

The landscape photo or painting will likely have interrelated compositional elements covering the whole canvas, just as a symphony has interrelated movements and themes.

If the landscape photo has been processed in 16 bit ProPhoto RGB and printed on a modern printer, it should display a lot of subtle tonality and color, just as a symphony does with its many different instruments playing loud and soft, with soaring crescendos one minute gradually turning into soft whispers the next.

If the panoramic photo was taken with a high-res MF camera like the IQ180, or is a stitch from a number of images taken with a D800E, then the texture and detail in the foliage and tree trunks, or in the brickwork of buildings, will be amazing, as is the texture created by the different instruments in an orchestra, some playing the same tune, and some playing different but complementary tunes simultaneously, which create both a harmony and a rich texture.

By contrast, the average pop song would be analogous to a 'selfie' taken with a low-resolution camera phone, or the average snapshot taken with a compact camera.

Of course, all analogies tend to break down if extended too far. A pop song takes more work to produce than a snapshot from a camera, and a complete symphony takes more work to write, rehearse and get played than even a very detailed, stitched panorama printed as big as a wall. The analogy works only if one allows for such inherent differences in the nature of the two forms of art, auditory and visual.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 10, 2013, 11:30:42 am
I'll always remember the first school outing to a concert at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where I experienced for the first time the thrill of a full orchestra playing live in a large auditorium with good acoustics. (The Halle Orchestra conducted by Sir John Barbirolli.)

The richness and texture of the sound was amazing. It was so palpable, thrilling and all-encompassing I would have found it difficult to understand how any youngster could have failed to be moved. In those days concepts of amusia or tone deafness were not so well understood.


For me it was Louis Armstrong's All Stars in the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow and, much later, Chuck Berry in the same city.

Armstrong gave VGVFM where Chuck, bless his soul (dangerous word, there), played the miserable mother at the end, giving not a single encore despite ecstatic applause.

Just shows to go you that you don’t need Route 66 to get yo’ kicks; can get ‘em in Glasgow, too, just as long as you don’t seek them in the ultimate photographic opportunity.

http://www.jazzradio.com/

Give it a whirl; all sorts of cool or hot stuff à la carte...

Rob C








Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 10, 2013, 11:01:32 pm
For me it was Louis Armstrong's All Stars in the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow and, much later, Chuck Berry in the same city.

Armstrong gave VGVFM where Chuck, bless his soul (dangerous word, there), played the miserable mother at the end, giving not a single encore despite ecstatic applause.

Just shows to go you that you don’t need Route 66 to get yo’ kicks; can get ‘em in Glasgow, too, just as long as you don’t seek them in the ultimate photographic opportunity.

http://www.jazzradio.com/

Give it a whirl; all sorts of cool or hot stuff à la carte...

Rob C


That certainly looks like a great source for jazz and related music, Rob. However, there can be a problem with the amount of time one has available to listen to music.

My musical needs are satisfied quite adequately by the government-supported ABC Classic FM service which operates 24 hours a day and is totally free. One can listen live, at any time of the day or night, through one's state-of-the-art hi-fi system and FM Receiver, or at a lower quality through one's laptop, or download and listen to the music later. Whilst the emphasis on program material is very largely classical, or serious music, there is a couple of hours a week devoted to jazz.

However, when it comes to opera I do prefer to get the visual effects in addition to the music, so I usually listen to and watch opera on my large plasma display from a Blu-ray player.

ABC, of course, stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not to be confused with American Broadcasting Company or the Annapurna Base Camp in Nepal.  ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/programs/
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Rob C on November 11, 2013, 11:00:02 am
That certainly looks like a great source for jazz and related music, Rob. However, there can be a problem with the amount of time one has available to listen to music.

My musical needs are satisfied quite adequately by the government-supported ABC Classic FM service which operates 24 hours a day and is totally free. One can listen live, at any time of the day or night, through one's state-of-the-art hi-fi system and FM Receiver, or at a lower quality through one's laptop, or download and listen to the music later. Whilst the emphasis on program material is very largely classical, or serious music, there is a couple of hours a week devoted to jazz.

However, when it comes to opera I do prefer to get the visual effects in addition to the music, so I usually listen to and watch opera on my large plasma display from a Blu-ray player.

ABC, of course, stands for Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not to be confused with American Broadcasting Company or the Annapurna Base Camp in Nepal.  ;)

http://www.abc.net.au/classic/programs/



Well, if musical education ¡s de rigueur, what better than some Texas-originated material? I promise: neither cowboys nor stetsons.

http://youtu.be/13DgGtDGIpg

Rob C
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 11, 2013, 12:38:22 pm
Dear me, you do seem to have a very narrow view of education, jjj.  ;)
Not at all as you seem to be completely missing the point, which is that I don't think education is necessary for liking music.

Quote
If a kid at school is having trouble with grammar and spelling, the reason is more likely due to the kid being exposed at home to incorrect spelling and grammar as a result of having semi-illiterate parents who don't speak proper; not simply because the kid lacks talent in this field, or because he has a different 'taste' to other kids who have no problem with grammar.
Irony overload!! Well that's a fantastic example of a rambling run on sentence. It also has a random semicolon, an unnecessary comma and best of all the phrase - 'parents who don't speak proper'.
Now my sister has trouble with spelling as does my best mate, yet both love reading, are from good homes with highly educated and well spoken parents. My sister is dyslexic and my mate simply has a rubbish memory for spelling and directions. Though he has an extremely good musical memory as it happens, but very little interest in music. Not sure what the cause of your rubbish writing is though.  :P
As for the point you are trying to make, it's gibberish or the writing is. Maybe both are, it's hard to tell.

Quote
Likewise, when people have no interest in classical music and are quite unmoved by it, but demonstrate an interest in other forms of music such as pop, jazz, funk, rock, and so-called 'soul' music etc, the reason is quite likely that such people were rarely exposed to classical music during their upbringing.
In fact, their lack of interest might even have been reinforced by prejudicial talk from people like yourself who claim that the music belongs to a different era and has no relevance to modern life.
Did you even bother to read my post. I was certainly not saying anything prejudicial thing with regard to orchestral music and in fact I wrote something the complete opposite of that.

Quote
Fortunately, my time in a Grammar School in the Manchester area of northern England many years ago, included one period per week for musical education, when excerpts of classical music were often played in the classroom and discussion encouraged.
Grammar schools were before my time, but in Junior Comprehensive [ages 11 + 12] we had exactly the same thing and for a double period too I seem to recall. I seem to think that was the norm. But the kids didn't rush out and buy Peer Gynt, they bought pop records of the day. I just asked my eldest niece about music lessons. She does music lessons, just as I did, but hates them even though she's the school swot. She much rather listen to Imagine Dragons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU) than orchestral stuff, despite learning the violin/flute for several years. Did you not get taught the expression, you can take a horse to water at Grammar School then?

Quote
I'll always remember the first school outing to a concert at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where I experienced for the first time the thrill of a full orchestra playing live in a large auditorium with good acoustics. (The Halle Orchestra conducted by Sir John Barbirolli.)
The richness and texture of the sound was amazing. It was so palpable, thrilling and all-encompassing I would have found it difficult to understand how any youngster could have failed to be moved. In those days concepts of amusia or tone deafness were not so well understood.
I'll always remember my first gig, the band were incredibly good and had a really knack at playing to live audiences. The sound was amazing. It was so palpable, thrilling and all-encompassing I would have found it difficult to understand how anybody could have failed to be moved by such a performance. Unless of course they simply didn't like the band/music/orchestra etc.
I've also seen orchestras and as good as they can be, they simply lack the sheer energy and verve of a truly great gig, getting up to dance isn't usually the done thing. Heck I've heard DJs move the crowd better because watching music, no matter how good is nothing compared to dancing to great music. Dancing takes music to another level way above simply listening to it. I could have gone to see Muse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhduQhDqtb4) in concert recently, but because their tickets my friend had were seated, I didn't see any point in going. If it had been standing tickets for the event then I would have been far more interested.

Quote
However, don't think that because I generally prefer classical music to 'pop' music I therefore cannot enjoy pop music of the various genres. Melody and harmony also exist in pop music. I can enjoy any song that has melody and harmony and is performed well. What I don't appreciate are untrained, amplified voices repetitively screaming incoherent lyrics at ear-damaging sound levels.
And right on cue, there's the standard old person moan about music made after their time.

Quote
The analogy between music and photography has been made before, and I think it's a useful analogy. I'd equate a good classical symphony to a very large and detailed panorama of a city or landscape, or a large and detailed wall mural.
The landscape photo or painting will likely have interrelated compositional elements covering the whole canvas, just as a symphony has interrelated movements and themes.
If the landscape photo has been processed in 16 bit ProPhoto RGB and printed on a modern printer, it should display a lot of subtle tonality and color, just as a symphony does with its many different instruments playing loud and soft, with soaring crescendos one minute gradually turning into soft whispers the next.
If the panoramic photo was taken with a high-res MF camera like the IQ180, or is a stitch from a number of images taken with a D800E, then the texture and detail in the foliage and tree trunks, or in the brickwork of buildings, will be amazing, as is the texture created by the different instruments in an orchestra, some playing the same tune, and some playing different but complementary tunes simultaneously, which create both a harmony and a rich texture.
And yet many pictures done just the way you describe are simply boring and are dull compared to an Henri Cartier Bresson shot taken on low quality 35mm, which is a much more accurate analogy than an iPhone selfie.
Quote
By contrast, the average pop song would be analogous to a 'selfie' taken with a low-resolution camera phone, or the average snapshot taken with a compact camera.
Utter bollocks. Non-classical musicians can actually be very talented, despite not playing in an orchestra. Comparing pop to an aimless snap on a phone simply shows how little you value non-orchestral music.

Quote
Of course, all analogies tend to break down if extended too far. A pop song takes more work to produce than a snapshot from a camera, and a complete symphony takes more work to write, rehearse and get played than even a very detailed, stitched panorama printed as big as a wall. The analogy works only if one allows for such inherent differences in the nature of the two forms of art, auditory and visual.
The analogy was very ropey to start with and it's not important how much effort was put in or how complex it is, the only thing that counts is the end result. A simple melody played on a single instrument can be better than a whole orchestra playing really complex tune. A friend of mine who is a skilled cabinet maker once commented that making a piece of minimal modern furniture can be much harder than a more old fashioned piece with lots of complex detailing. The reason being is that you have to get the proportions exactly right or it doesn't work, fancy detailing helps take your eye away from poor design, flaws in material or craftsmanship.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 11, 2013, 12:45:41 pm
Well, if musical education ¡s de rigueur, what better than some Texas-originated material? I promise: neither cowboys nor stetsons.

http://youtu.be/13DgGtDGIpg
Not a fan of Boogie Woogie myself, it's too much like the keyboard equivalent of twiddly guitar solos. I prefer swing myself.
Quite an amusing intro on the railway platform though.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 11, 2013, 01:12:34 pm
Entertainingly,  it looks like pop aint noise pollution as it's better at saving the world (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_6-11-2013-11-35-3) than classical!
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 11, 2013, 07:12:41 pm
Not at all as you seem to be completely missing the point, which is that I don't think education is necessary for liking music.

jjj,
You're obviously tying yourself in knots. At this point I think we should go back to the statement you made in reply #53 which I've done my best to address in subsequent posts. Following is what you wrote. I've emphasised certain words in bold.

Quote
If I do not like, say Bach it has nothing to do with ignorance, it has everything to do with personal taste and very likely what era I was born in.

And this was my response: 
Quote
It's clear to me that personal taste is certainly a factor, as well as natural talent and intelligence, but is not the whole explanation.

Perhaps the problem here is with your understanding of the term 'ignorance'. I'm not using this term in a pejorative sense, but in an objective and factual sense. We are ignorant of all the things that we do not know and understand.

The highly educated person with a PhD in his field of study, or even two, is still ignorant. He is ignorant of everything in other fields which he doesn't know about, and ignorant of everything in his own field which has yet to be discovered.

Another confusion over the definition of key terms used in this discussion, is the term education. By education I'm referring to any process of learning about something, whether or not that learning takes place formally in a school or university, non-formally as in school-sponsored visits to museums or concerts, or completely informally as a child learning to speak during the first few years of life before primary school, or indeed a person learning how to use Photoshop only through a process of trial and error.

Enough said! If you find what I say gibberish, I can only assume you're adopting some face-saving attitude to convince yourself and others that your appreciation of music is not lacking.

What Rumsfeld did not include in his statement about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns", is the concept that there can also be things that we know, but do not know that we know, or to put it another way, things that we really do know but pretend that we don't. This type of ignorance can take the form of denial or suppression of uncomfortable facts.

I hope I have at least succeeded in getting you to admit what you already know.  ;)
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 12, 2013, 06:40:59 am
jjj,
You're obviously tying yourself in knots. At this point I think we should go back to the statement you made in reply #53 which I've done my best to address in subsequent posts. Following is what you wrote. I've emphasised certain words in bold.

And this was my response: 
Perhaps the problem here is with your understanding of the term 'ignorance'. I'm not using this term in a pejorative sense, but in an objective and factual sense. We are ignorant of all the things that we do not know and understand.

The highly educated person with a PhD in his field of study, or even two, is still ignorant. He is ignorant of everything in other fields which he doesn't know about, and ignorant of everything in his own field which has yet to be discovered.

Another confusion over the definition of key terms used in this discussion, is the term education. By education I'm referring to any process of learning about something, whether or not that learning takes place formally in a school or university, non-formally as in school-sponsored visits to museums or concerts, or completely informally as a child learning to speak during the first few years of life before primary school, or indeed a person learning how to use Photoshop only through a process of trial and error.

Enough said! If you find what I say gibberish, I can only assume you're adopting some face-saving attitude to convince yourself and others that your appreciation of music is not lacking.

What Rumsfeld did not include in his statement about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns", is the concept that there can also be things that we know, but do not know that we know, or to put it another way, things that we really do know but pretend that we don't. This type of ignorance can take the form of denial or suppression of uncomfortable facts.

I hope I have at least succeeded in getting you to admit what you already know.  ;)


So I take time to carefully respond to specific points in your posts and you ignore it all bar one sentence/paragraph once again.
Not only that, a straightforward sentence where I'm am supposedly tying myself in knots, is fully in keeping with everything I have written previously.

Just because I pointed out that your amazing grammar school musical education from ye good old days that led you to classical Nirvana is much the same in Comprehensives today, doesn't mean I think school is the only form of education. Don't be so literal. Though thinking everything you do in life is education is misusing the word. Maybe if you had gone to a better school..... :P
The fact that kids today do in fact have a similar experience to you rather undermines your argument, as they mostly prefer contemporary music.

When I said you were talking gibberish, it had nothing to do with face saving. It however had everything to do with the ironic fact that the sentence where you denigrate other's bad grammar, was very poorly written indeed and riddled with errors of English. Plus you thinking I have no appreciation of music because I do not worship Bach and sneer at pop the same way you do, is simply asinine. And a particularly dumb thing to stay as I do actually like Bach and not only have been a collector of music from an extremely wide range of genres, but I DJ too - for quite different dance forms.

All you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you have the standard old fogey attitude to music, pretentiously thinking the music you like is somehow superior to the music others may like. Sir, you are an utter snob. Trying to justify it by some ridiculous analogies that are not even analogous, will not change that fact.
Trying to post rationalise one's personal taste is one of the most pointless tasks imaginable. And yet people keep on doing it. Imagine if people did the same ridiculous thing with colour. "Oh you like blue, how unsophisticated. The subtleties of the more complex fuchsia are far superior, I imagine you must have had very plain walls in your home growing up and your ignorant parent wore grey"  ::)

Your statement regarding Rumsfeld and 'known unknowns' is possibly even more ironic than your sentence of mangled grammar. Which is a remarkable achievement, not one to applaud though.
Oh and Mozart, the classical composer I am probably the least 'ignorant' about, is the one I really cannot stand. Too many notes indeed.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 12, 2013, 07:00:32 am
The only thing missing now is Floyd Davidson.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 12, 2013, 07:14:03 am
Not lacking pointless, smart arse comments though are we.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: amolitor on November 12, 2013, 02:35:11 pm
You certainly don't need any education at all to like Bach, and there's plenty of pop music that is quite sophisticated, musically.

People who refer to Bach as someone requiring education to "get" and who simultaneously denigrate pop music are, generally speaking, people who lack the musical education they are extolling the virtues of.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Kirk Gittings on November 12, 2013, 03:02:31 pm
You, sir, are trying to put words in my mouth...I inferred that, perhaps "Art" is unnecessary.

You sir are not looking at the logical consequences of your question. If "art" is unnecessary then "artists" are unnecessary. Art is not auxiliary to me as a person. I make my living completely as an artist (commercial and art photographer for 35 years). My hobby is art (I photograph for fun-I take vacations so I can photograph more). I routinely visit art shows and even fly across country to see them (Monet, AA, Lichenstein, Rivera  etc.). Life and art are inseparable to me.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 12, 2013, 10:34:22 pm
You certainly don't need any education at all to like Bach, and there's plenty of pop music that is quite sophisticated, musically.


I find that a very pessimistic statement and it seems quite incorrect to me. You're implying, if one doesn't like Bach, there's nothing one can do about it. Education cannot help. Education has no bearing on the matter. One is stuck with a genetically-wired taste, so to speak, which cannot be modified. Dear me! How awful!

Quote
People who refer to Bach as someone requiring education to "get" and who simultaneously denigrate pop music are, generally speaking, people who lack the musical education they are extolling the virtues of.

For this statement to be meaningful, you need to define what you mean by education. If you mean 'formal' education consisting of lectures on the history and development of music, analyses of the interplay of themes and harmony in specific pieces of classical music, and/or 'hands-on' education consisting of instruction on how to play certain classical pieces on an instrument such as a piano or violin, then I would agree that 'education' is not necessarily a requirement in order to 'appreciate' or like the music of Bach, but I would add that it certainly might help.

A piece of classical music, especially a whole symphony or opera, is a vastly more complex work than the average pop song. An explanation (education) as to what's going on can often increase one's enjoyment of the music.

I've made it clear in previous threads that I have a broad view of education. It can be divided into 'formal', 'non-formal' and 'informal'.
Informal education plays a huge role in shaping people's likes and preferences. In fact, there's some scientific evidence that the first stages of learning begin in the womb. Refer to the following article at:  http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb

Surely you have heard of the concept of 'acquired taste'. One acquires a taste for something through repeated exposure to it and a willingness to be receptive and learn. Whether the acquired taste be for food, wine, music or any other form of art, it is all a part of education in the broad sense. It should be a lifelong learning experience.

If a Westerner has never been exposed to Arabian, Indian, or Chinese music, for example,  it could be said he is ignorant of it. On first hearing it, he will most probably dislike it. However, through repeated exposure to the music, perhaps as a result of moving to Arabia, India or China for work purposes, he might acquire a taste for the music.

On the other hand, he might choose to remain ignorant, even when living in the foreign country, and insulate himself as far as possible from any exposure to the traditional music of that country.

Now, as for denigrating pop music, I don't know if you are referring to me, but I have written that I can enjoy any type music if it has pleasing or interesting melody and harmony, and if the music is performed with a reasonable degree of skill. I happen to like much of Abba's music for example.

What I dislike are incoherent lyrics screamed by untrained voices at amplified, ear-damaging levels, a situation which appears to be common in the case of rock and pop concerts.

This view is not a result of my being an old fogey who deprecates the tastes of the younger generation. I've always avoided uncomfortable sound levels, and as a result, my hearing is still good in my old age. In fact, it's good enough for me to still detect and feel the discomfort of amplified music which is dangerously loud.

Of course, classical music can sometimes be dangerously loud for the musicians in the orchestra, but rarely for the audience who is seated some distance away. Also, a characteristic of classical music is that the really loud passages are quite brief. Damage to one's hearing is related not just to the sound pressure levels but also to the duration of those levels. For example, the following noise exposures are considered to have the same ear-damaging potential: 80 dB for 8 hours; 83 dB for 4 hours; 86 dB for 2 hours; 89 dB for 1 hour; 92 dB for 30 minutes.

In my experience, a characteristic of many rock concerts is the continuity of the deafening sound levels. There's no respite. I've seen reports that such sound levels can be as high as 140dB for someone close to and in front of the loudspeakers.

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 12, 2013, 11:12:37 pm
What I dislike are incoherent lyrics screamed by untrained voices.....

Perhaps it's an acquired taste.

Surely you have heard of the concept of 'acquired taste'. One acquires a taste for something through repeated exposure to it and a willingness to be receptive and learn.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 13, 2013, 12:29:30 am
I find that a very pessimistic statement and it seems quite incorrect to me. You're implying, if one doesn't like Bach, there's nothing one can do about it. Education cannot help. Education has no bearing on the matter. One is stuck with a genetically-wired taste, so to speak, which cannot be modified. Dear me! How awful![
Yeah, terrible that. Fancy being born with a liking for Bach. If not, you enjoy something else - just as much.

Quote
If a Westerner has never been exposed to Arabian, Indian, or Chinese music, for example,  it could be said he is ignorant of it. On first hearing it, he will most probably dislike it. However, through repeated exposure to the music, perhaps as a result of moving to Arabia, India or China for work purposes, he might acquire a taste for the music.
That's a sdifferent thing from acquired taste and exactly the same can be said about all genres of music you are not familiar with. With unfamiliar music or languages, all you hear all the similarities. Once you know something, then you can start to discern the differences between say a son, a cumbia and a merengue in Latin music or that someone is speaking Hokkien and not Mandarin and that their accent is from a particular region in South China. And guess what, my personal tastes that determine whether I like individual Latin tracks do not differ from what I like about specific Western songs. Same goes for African music, the things I do not care for in Jit music I also dislike in say rock music. For example a high proportion of tracks that I really like in a variety of very different musical genres, swing. Something I only realised after learning various swing dances. Swing does not equate as many people incorrectly think to jazz music. Particularly 1930's jazz.  


Quote
Now, as for denigrating pop music, I don't know if you are referring to me, but I have written that I can enjoy any type music if it has pleasing or interesting melody and harmony, and if the music is performed with a reasonable degree of skill. I happen to like much of Abba's music for example.

What I dislike are incoherent lyrics screamed by untrained voices at amplified, ear-damaging levels, a situation which appears to be common in the case of rock and pop concerts.

This view is not a result of my being an old fogey who deprecates the tastes of the younger generation. I've always avoided uncomfortable sound levels, and as a result, my hearing is still good in my old age. In fact, it's good enough for me to still detect and feel the discomfort of amplified music which is dangerously loud.
Actually if your hearing becomes impaired, you may get more sensitised to loud volumes. And thinking you are down with the kids and not an old fogey because you like Abba, only proves how stuck in the past you are. ABBA are from the 1970s, we are now in the second decade of the following century. Original ABBA fans are probably grandparents by now.

Quote
In my experience, a characteristic of many rock concerts is the continuity of the deafening sound levels. There's no respite. I've seen reports that such sound levels can be as high as 140dB for someone close to and in front of the loudspeakers.
I like my hearing, so I always use ear protection if somewhere loud, so not an issue. I also would not be stupid enough to stand in front of speakers designed to fill a stadium with adequate volume.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: amolitor on November 13, 2013, 10:40:21 am
I find that a very pessimistic statement and it seems quite incorrect to me. You're implying, if one doesn't like Bach, there's nothing one can do about it. Education cannot help. Education has no bearing on the matter. One is stuck with a genetically-wired taste, so to speak, which cannot be modified. Dear me! How awful!

I am implying no such thing. I have no idea where you got this from, but it's a complete misreading of a fairly simple statement.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 13, 2013, 12:29:18 pm
I am implying no such thing. I have no idea where you got this from, but it's a complete misreading of a fairly simple statement.
Ray seems to have misconstrued most of my posts, not matter how plain the meaning of them may be. So par for the course.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: amolitor on November 13, 2013, 09:17:21 pm
Ray seems to have misconstrued most of my posts, not matter how plain the meaning of them may be. So par for the course.

It's a pretty common modus operandi among people who mainly want to fight on the internets. It saves you both the trouble of reading what the other chap wrote, and of making a coherent counter-argument. You just assume he said something really dumb, and rebut that instead. I get this rather a lot, and have for, gosh, 25 years now.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 14, 2013, 05:28:19 am
I don't think Ray simply wants a fight, he genuinely has a different opinion. But somehow he is unable to see sentences with information that may contradict his world view.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 14, 2013, 05:31:40 pm
Ray is the sort of person who has a clear sense of the importance of the meaning of words and understands that many apparently endless arguments result from the lack of a common understanding among the participants of certain key words and terms that both sides are using.

It has become very apparent to Ray that key words in this thread that could potentially be the source of much confusion, are 'education' and 'ignorance', so Ray has attempted to define what he means when using such words, but apparently to no avail.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 14, 2013, 05:52:08 pm
And....Ray is now referring to himself in the third person, which is odd, and should be discouraged. Kind of like Elmo on Sesame Street.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 15, 2013, 06:06:10 am
Ray is the sort of person who has a clear sense of the importance of the meaning of words and understands that many apparently endless arguments result from the lack of a common understanding among the participants of certain key words and terms that both sides are using.

It has become very apparent to Ray that key words in this thread that could potentially be the source of much confusion, are 'education' and 'ignorance', so Ray has attempted to define what he means when using such words, but apparently to no avail.
We know exactly what those words mean, the problem is that you don't acknowledge posts that contain information that runs counter to your world view. Which in fact is the biggest issue with discussions of any kind. The irony being [are you after an award for unintentional irony or something] is that you are choosing to remain ignorant of alternative viewpoints.

What you have been doing is using yourself, your own very personal taste and your own specific experience to generalise to everyone else on the planet. Not only is that a bit daft, but you've done it despite evidence of others with the same opportunities still not liking 'complex' music.
Personal taste is personal taste. No more no less. Do you really think if you hadn't had music lessons in school that you would dislike Bach?

And referring to yourself in the third person - really? Should we be getting worried about you?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2013, 06:45:43 am
We know exactly what those words mean

If that's the case, you should tell the readers what your exact understanding is, because most words of an abstract nature have a number of variations in meaning, depending on use and context.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2013, 07:01:51 am
And....Ray is now referring to himself in the third person, which is odd, and should be discouraged. Kind of like Elmo on Sesame Street.

Why should it be discouraged? Was my meaning not clear? Using the third person is quite a common literary style. Check your dictionary.

What is less common is using the second-person in which the narrator refers to the reader as "you", as in Reply #80 where amolitor wrote, "You certainly don't need any education at all to like Bach."

Using the second person in this context can be confusing. Is amolitor trying to say that I personally (that is, Ray) do not need any education at all to appreciate Bach because I'm such an inherently cultured person, having been exposed to the music of Bach whilst still in my mother's womb?

Whilst that might not be an entirely implausible scenario, I suspect amolitor really means that people in general do not need any education at all to appreciate Bach. If that's what he means, one can't help wondering what other process is required for someone to appreciate Bach, apart from education of some form, because I think it is true to say that most people do not particularly like Bach.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: mezzoduomo on November 15, 2013, 08:32:35 am
Why should it be discouraged? Using the third person is quite a common literary style.

It should be discouraged because mezzoduomo says so, that's why. And mezzoduomo does not agree that its a 'common' literary style. Mezzoduomo would characterize it as a quirky style, often used to highlight a character's narcissism. Finally, mezzoduomo would posit again that the use of the third person in a forum post is odd, supported by the contention that forum posts are not exactly 'literary'.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 15, 2013, 09:12:13 am
hWhilst that might not be an entirely implausible scenario, I suspect amolitor really means that people in general do not need any education at all to appreciate Bach. If that's what he means, one can't help wondering what other process is required for someone to appreciate Bach, apart from education of some form.
PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL TASTE. PERSONAL EFFING TASTE!
It varies. Duh!

This is getting like your utterly ridiculous posts on perspective.
Besides, since when was it a requirement to like Bach, Beethoven or indeed Bieber?
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 15, 2013, 11:50:45 am
Whilst that might not be an entirely implausible scenario, I suspect amolitor really means that people in general do not need any education at all to appreciate Bach. If that's what he means, one can't help wondering what other process is required for someone to appreciate Bach, apart from education of some form, because I think it is true to say that most people do not particularly like Bach.

Besides, since when was it a requirement to like Bach, Beethoven or indeed Bieber?

Those words do not suggest that Ray considers it a requirement to like Bach.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 15, 2013, 12:40:09 pm
They do in context of whole thread and the parts of my post you elided.
Apparently the only reason why Bach isn't more popular is due to everyone's lack of education in Bach.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 15, 2013, 12:50:48 pm
No, "in context of whole thread" the words are about what factors are required to form an appreciation of Bach's music, not about a requirement to appreciate Bach's music.

You seem to be quarrelling with yourself.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 15, 2013, 02:03:57 pm
Ray's seems quite perturbed that people do not like Bach. He seems to think we should like Bach or we are missing out. If only we had the right education.
Not sure why he thinks we should like any musician/composer.

And how on Earth am I now quarrelling with myself?  ??? I'm not the one talking about myself in the third person.


Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 15, 2013, 07:48:30 pm
Ray's seems quite perturbed that people do not like Bach. He seems to think we should like Bach or we are missing out. If only we had the right education.
Not sure why he thinks we should like any musician/composer.

And how on Earth am I now quarrelling with myself?  ??? I'm not the one talking about myself in the third person.


Ray is honest enough to admit that he is disappointed that the standard of musical appreciation throughout the population at large is so abysmally low, but Ray also understands why musical education is not a priority within the education system and that the apparent lack of an obvious and practical use for music is partly the cause.

Of far more concern to Ray is the belief system, as expressed by jjj and others, that a taste in music, and the arts in general, is some sort of fixed, inborn quality, and not something which can be acquired through a process of learning and accustomisation.

This view seems to Ray to be not only false, but very pessimistic. People tend not to excel in subjects which they don't like. If one extends the principle, whether or not one likes something is all a matter of taste, to subjects other than music, such as mathematics, then such a view could have negative consequences for the progress of education in general.

"Johnny, you must try to do better in maths. It's very important for your future job prospects." "But mummy, I just don't like maths. I'm never going to like maths because it's all a matter of taste, and I just don't have the taste for maths. Please have a look at the posts from jjj on Luminous-landscape. He knows."  ;D

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/23/how-learn-love-maths
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 18, 2013, 09:00:17 am
Ray is honest enough to admit that he is disappointed that the standard of musical appreciation throughout the population at large is so abysmally low,
TRANSLATION - Ray is disappointed that no everyone likes the same 'superior' music as he does.
[Why do people insist on thinking their taste is better than everyone else's? It's just their taste, no more, no less.]

Quote
but Ray also understands why musical education is not a priority within the education system and that the apparent lack of an obvious and practical use for music is partly the cause.
TRANSLATION - Ray thinks he was taught music in a way that has been lost to the younger generations and that's why his taste is better than everyone else.
[Ray also doesn't realise that music is still taught much as he described even in, dum, dum, dum…dum lowly comprehensive schools. Or that music actually still as 'useful' as it ever was.]

Quote
Of far more concern to Ray is the belief system, as expressed by jjj and others, that a taste in music, and the arts in general, is some sort of fixed, inborn quality, and not something which can be acquired through a process of learning and accustomisation.
TRANSLATION - Ray is concerned that other people hold different views to him. Usually based on facts that Ray does not like to acknowledge. Ray is also trying to suggest that other people's views are akin to religious faith, thus of little/no value as it's just a belief.
[Ray appears not to have come across the phrase - 'You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink', despite it being one of the oldest proverbs in English.]


Quote
This view seems to Ray to be not only false, but very pessimistic. People tend not to excel in subjects which they don't like. If one extends the principle, whether or not one likes something is all a matter of taste, to subjects other than music, such as mathematics, then such a view could have negative consequences for the progress of education in general.

"Johnny, you must try to do better in maths. It's very important for your future job prospects." "But mummy, I just don't like maths. I'm never going to like maths because it's all a matter of taste, and I just don't have the taste for maths. Please have a look at the posts from jjj on Luminous-landscape. He knows."  ;D
TRANSLATION - Ray is very, very confused as to what aesthetic taste is and attempts more useless analogies that are once again not analogous. Then Ray claims [incorrectly] that jjj supports these ridiculous ideas.
[Not to mention that liking something has zero to do with the ability to do something. Look at art critics for example, they may like art but are not necessarily up to creating it. And you can be really good at doing something, yet not like it.]

Quote
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/23/how-learn-love-maths
Entertaining article, but has nothing to do with the argument about aesthetic tastes.


Fundamentally Ray, you seem to be confusing people discovering things that they didn't realise they liked with the 'education' of discovering something being the real reason for liking the new discovery. Bad, bad science.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 18, 2013, 12:07:20 pm
Ray is ... Ray thinks ... Ray is ... Ray is very, very confused ...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 18, 2013, 12:44:18 pm
For someone who likes to think he's good at parsing English, you manage to get things so very wrong a lot of the time Isaac.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 18, 2013, 12:54:45 pm
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 18, 2013, 01:04:31 pm
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/too-many-logical-fallacies-per-minute (http://www.disney.com)
:P
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 18, 2013, 01:31:11 pm
Adding more tedious links will not change the fact, that you misread things Isaac.

People who think they can quote their way out of arguments usually do so because they do not actually have valid actual point of view. Are you trying to make up for Floyd?

And selectively quoting out of context, is a sly and underhand way of changing the meaning of someone's post.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 18, 2013, 02:25:42 pm
Your comments became a personal attack on Ray.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 18, 2013, 05:08:12 pm
And who was the one who destroyed MY sandcastle?
 :P








Note to self: I really should stop watching this thread any longer.
Not pointed at anyone personal ...
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 18, 2013, 06:04:06 pm
Not sure, but I think Isaac may point out that you didn't wet your sand enough or something similar.

Isaac, in case you hadn't noticed, Ray was talking about himself in the third person. I replied in the same strange manner as a parody of Ray.
Ray has not responded to any dissenting facts or counter arguments to his claims, so taking the mickey out his bizarre posts is a change of tack to see if that works as a communicative method.

You however, are getting as annoying and as pointless as Floyd with your similarly inane comments, accusations of ad-hominen attacks and tedious quotes from other people.
Why don't you partake or add to the actual debate for a change, rather than indulging in irrelevant and inaccurate nitpicking? If not, you can join Floyd in the ignore posts section.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 19, 2013, 01:02:34 pm
Your latest comments are not "debate" they are personal insults.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 19, 2013, 01:36:18 pm
You are an increasingly annoying forum pest and I'm simply letting you know that.
Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time that has happened to you, so maybe you want to rethink your style of posting.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: hjulenissen on November 19, 2013, 02:01:36 pm
You certainly don't need any education at all to like Bach, and there's plenty of pop music that is quite sophisticated, musically.

People who refer to Bach as someone requiring education to "get" and who simultaneously denigrate pop music are, generally speaking, people who lack the musical education they are extolling the virtues of.

So are you a cultural relativist or the opposite (absolutist?)?

I used to spend a lot of time in high-scool learning the history and technique of (predominantly) dead composers, directors, arrangers, performers, as well as practicing an instrument. My institution actually felt "modern" because we had a significant focus on jazz, while many others were classical-music only. I used to think that music should be distinguished into "high culture" and "low culture" based on how intricate theory was used in forming it, and how hard it was for "regular people" to appreciate it (have you ever heard 12-tone music ala Schoenberg? Zappa is not always easy-listening, either)

I don't think so anymore. I think that the value of music (or any cultural expression) lies in the perception of the listener, some kind of social contract between composer/performer and listener or similar. I do think that our education should make us aware of what lies beyond current popular culture, and that this will make us into "better" people.

Every generation have their heroes and there is little doubt that Elvis, Beach Boys, The Beatles, Metallica, Nirvana etc had importance to "their" generation (and later ones). Why is that any different from some great classical composers writing music on a paid-per-tune basis, scoring women and dying early from syphilis?

Why did I get into this discussion? I am not aiming for great art in photography. I am contempt with "purdy" or "interesting" or "do you remember that, dear?".

-h
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Ray on November 20, 2013, 02:09:16 am
I don't think so anymore. I think that the value of music (or any cultural expression) lies in the perception of the listener, some kind of social contract between composer/performer and listener or similar. I do think that our education should make us aware of what lies beyond current popular culture, and that this will make us into "better" people.

I would agree that at least part of your above statement is indisputable (within reason and logic). The value of anything, of whatever description, lies in the perception of the recipient. The colour 'green' is not a property of a leaf. It's a property of human perception involving the structure of our brain. The leaf certainly does have specific properties which can be associated with a causal effect in relation to the human sensation of green, but the quality and sensation of greenness exists only in the mind, not in the leaf.

I find the term 'social contract' a bit too vague. My view is that everything a person is, including his/her tastes, intelligence, talents, character, personality and so on, is dependent upon the interaction between a person's genetic make-up and all the experiences, of all descriptions, including education in its broadest sense, that the person has been exposed to, from life in the womb to the present day.

It is well-understood that the earlier experiences in a person's life can have a greater and more long-lasting effect than the later experiences. Sigmund Freud tried to analyse the effects of early, unpleasant experiences that some people had successfully suppressed so that they weren't even aware of having had such experiences, yet such experiences continued to influence their behaviour.

Sometimes, to get one's point across, it helps to create an extreme example, so I'll create a fictitious scenario to explain what I mean. Imagine two adopted children of similar age. One child was adopted because his mother died whilst giving birth. The other child was adopted because he was removed by social workers from a dysfunctional family.
Whilst bringing up these two children, the foster parents noticed some radical differences in musical taste at a very early stage in the children's schooling. One child seemed to instinctively like the music of Bach, whenever it was played, without having had any musical instruction. The other child seemed quite disturbed when such music was played. It wasn't that he was bored or not interested, he was actually very upset.

The foster parents, being very inquisitive sorts of people, like Ray is, did some research into the parents of their adopted children. What they found, from discussions and interviews with people who had known the parents, was that the mother of the child who instinctively liked Bach was a great fan of Bach's music. In fact, the neighbours used to complain that whilst she was pregnant, and living alone, she would play Bach Cantatas and organ music at levels which disturbed the neighbours, who only appreciated pop music.
Clearly, the child who intuitively and instinctively like the music of Bach had an unconscious memory of hearing the music whilst still in the womb.

However, the accounts from the neighbours regarding the dysfunctional family were quite different, except for the music of Bach. The parents were described as continually arguing and shouting, with violence against the wife often occurring, which is why the child was removed by social workers and subsequently adopted.
Revealingly, the neighbours claimed that during such disruptions of shouting and yelling and bashing, they would often hear the music of Bach played loudly. Is it any wonder that that child disliked Bach?

What I'm trying to say here, is that people who claim that one cannot acquire a taste, or that one person's taste is no better than another person's, or that all tastes are equal because they are just tastes with no accounting for, are not digging deep enough.

As I write this, I'm reminded of that first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris. I had to search the internet to find the exact date, May 29th 1013. That event has always stuck in my mind because I found it very bizarre that differences of opinion on matters of taste could flame into violence in the stalls.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/29/4375736/igor-stravinsky-rite-of-spring-100-anniversary-paris-riot
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 05:37:49 am
Sometimes, to get one's point across, it helps to create an extreme example, so I'll create a fictitious scenario to explain what I mean………...
So whilst some of us like to use facts to put across our way of thinking you make up stories that 'prove' your point.. Way to go Ray, carry on making science up. Besides, did it even occur to you that taste my also be an inheritable trait? Which could also be an explanation for your fairy tale. You seem to have been struggling with causality all the way through this discussion and as usual, you simply ignore points made above that challenge your views.
Also, have you not noticed the potential fatal flaw in your argument re education? You liked Bach after your education, yet I bet a lot of other kids were not so bothered. Now if your hypothesis was actually true then all kids coming out of your school would have been Bach fans. Now my nieces are having/had a similar musical education to you which also includes playing orchestral instruments and they are certainly not fans of classical music.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 05:51:29 am
So are you a cultural relativist or the opposite (absolutist?)?

I used to spend a lot of time in high-scool learning the history and technique of (predominantly) dead composers, directors, arrangers, performers, as well as practicing an instrument. My institution actually felt "modern" because we had a significant focus on jazz, while many others were classical-music only. I used to think that music should be distinguished into "high culture" and "low culture" based on how intricate theory was used in forming it, and how hard it was for "regular people" to appreciate it (have you ever heard 12-tone music ala Schoenberg? Zappa is not always easy-listening, either)

I don't think so anymore. I think that the value of music (or any cultural expression) lies in the perception of the listener, some kind of social contract between composer/performer and listener or similar. I do think that our education should make us aware of what lies beyond current popular culture, and that this will make us into "better" people.

Every generation have their heroes and there is little doubt that Elvis, Beach Boys, The Beatles, Metallica, Nirvana etc had importance to "their" generation (and later ones). Why is that any different from some great classical composers writing music on a paid-per-tune basis, scoring women and dying early from syphilis?
It isn't. What some people forget is that the old classics or old masters were the populist works of their time.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: Isaac on November 20, 2013, 01:18:48 pm
What I'm trying to say here, is that people who claim that ... are not digging deep enough.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We'd need an explanation with supporting evidence, not a fictitious scenario.
Title: Re: Are we unnecessary?
Post by: jjj on November 20, 2013, 01:59:59 pm
As I write this, I'm reminded of that first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Paris. I had to search the internet to find the exact date, May 29th 1013. That event has always stuck in my mind because I found it very bizarre that differences of opinion on matters of taste could flame into violence in the stalls.
Forgot to address this specific part. But along with what I said above 'what some people forget is that the old classics or old masters were the populist works of their time', a lot of what may be seen as fuddy-duddy/old fashioned art now was shocking in its time. Even chocolate box impressionism was once a radical art form! The Ballet Russe who were involved with 'Le sacre du printemps' were the cutting edge of the Avant Garde and the ballet/theatre were not quite the same as the rarefied genteel places that they are today. No-one would be that surprised at things being hurled at a rock concert which is probably more similar to what was going on then than something playing today at the Royal Opera House. The opprobrium that Dylan or Neil Young received when they changed their style of music are two well known example in the rock genre of music fans getting a bit cross about new ideas.

As it happens, I prefer Stravinsky to Bach.