From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:53:57 BST
Ray,
Ray said:
My intention was to deliberately identify different subjects (such as physics) that are of a much more concrete nature, and then proceed to ask the same quesiton. And on physics, I'm in aggrement, for the same reasons. On the other hand, art cannot have such an easy answer. Absolutely no insult intended, but you sound like a musicologist, worlds away from a musician or artist. ;-) Art is both abstract (to the highet dgree) and simultaneously very close to human interaction. Bach's life (everything, high or low quality) had an immense and invaluable effect on his music. His "notes on the page" are much more than their definition. And while physics can be separated from the physician, I would strongly argue that art cannot be separated from the artist. There is very little that can be said about art, except that it is neither a scientific, nor a primarily moral pursuit. I think what I'm having so much trouble with is that art has a profound relationship with society, b
ut art itself is highly abstract at the same time. So it is extremely difficult to show either way that Bach's social patterns had or did not have an effect on his music.
Matt:
Well, yeah, I would agree about art being very close to an artist personally. But then, I would make that argument about most things. A physicist probably has a very strong tie to his research, on its importance (particularly if its something like gauging the hole in the ozone). Even though I strung out physics all the way across from politics, we have to be careful with scientists, too, because they fudge things, too, depending on their desires.
Plato himself thought art was very closely tied to the passions and so outlawed it in his utopia so it wouldn't disrupt society. Of course, I would also argue the same thing, that some art has probably a much greater impact on morality then moral treatises. The problem with art like music, paintings, and dance is that they are non-discursive, so it is much harder to tell what the effect is going to be on an audience. A person who experiences these arts interprets them in a very personal way that has a much smaller common language, rather than in discursive arts which will probably have a higher rate in convergence of interpretation.
My point about the continuum from physics to music to politics is that it all depends on what the purpose of the creator is and what medium they are using. With Bach, for all we know he did secretly compose St. Matthew's Passion to help himself steal horses. My point is that it wouldn't help him even if he did. With research physicists, the direct impact on social interactions is negligible. With research environmentalists, the direct impact is greater. With composers, its obscure, with moral philosophers its abstract, with politicians its direct and obvious. It all depends. Some works of art may have an obvious effect, others may not. We should remain aware of all this and take each instance of a molester doing something for culture one at a time.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:57:13 BST