Unraveling the Mystery of How Music Evokes Emotions

[zoobyshoe]

lol yeah, based on the complexity of whacking something against the complexity of developing or using resonant cavities attached to stings or even blow holes makes that assertion likely. Not sure it's totally relevant though. Just because it happened to be a big part of the way we used to do things, does that mean it has to be an integral part of how we do things now?

It would be a big argument in favor of it being basic, intrinsic, primal, hard wired, is my point.

Could 'audible art' not qualify as a definition for music? On face value it seems rather fitting as a definition actually.

I know an artist here who makes amusing little surreal gizmos. They're audible when they're running, and they're art. They're not music, though.

Edit: I could take that "CRAZY" drawing and install a thing where you pressed a button and heard maniacal giggling. I could then easily call that "Audible Art" but it wouldn't be music.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not sure if BenG549 would agree, but let me try to explain why it's no big deal not to have a "consistent rhythmical structure".

I actually already get this just from having heard the example. My question was half-rhetorical and I went on to sketch out my answer. When you say, " I think it's like the 'rhythm' of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse." you haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse. I think I got more specific about it than you: "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence with a definite eye (ear) to creating an overall structure that is actually quite satisfying. There's a good balance of slow rhythm, rapid rhythm, and silence. I feel like the composer had good instincts about varying that which is similar with that which is novel such that it comes off as deliberate and 'composed'." The "art" here is editing, just as it is in collage or flower arranging: given an set of random elements, arrange them relative to each other such that there's an artistic structure to the overall picture.

Rhythm is an extremely important part of visual art, but it's not a matter of metering. I'm damned if I can define it, but I know it when I see it:

I can, therefore, accept a sound composition having that kind of rhythm rather than the usual associated with music. At any rate, though, look what Ben's original statement was: "Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music." What this says is a person doesn't even have to be able to keep time. Which is pretty crazy.

 

[BenG549]

When you say, " I think it's like the 'rhythm' of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse. You haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse."

OK well I guess that the temporal characteristics of speech; varying rate of speech for dramatic (or at least, non robotic) effect and not just speaking one word per beat in 4/4 time does give it some sense of rhythm it's just not strict. So in a sense I guess I'm actually starting to agree with you when you say "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence". Watch out this doesn't happen too often lol!

So can we say that any music has to be in essence rhythmical, however, there are varying degrees of "Rhythmical integrity". So we can say that some of the examples posted above are rhythmical, but just to a far lower degree than, say, a drummer playing a beat. Because that works for me. Having said that, even though we haven't actually defined how you would measure "rhythmicality", we would have to say that you can measure the rhythmical qualities of any audible sound (i.e. time varying signal) whether our measure be subjective or objective, I'm not sure you could say in this sense that things have no rhythm, because it would be very hard to define the boundary between a low rhythmicality and not rhythmical.

OK how about this of a draft definition: Music must contain of both rhythmical and tonal components, to some degree. For something to be considered 'very musical' it will have a high degree of both, however something with very low "rhythmicality" that has a high degree of tonality (or vise versa) will be 'more musical' than something with a low degree of both. As an example.

Low(Rhythmicality)Low(Tonality) - White Noise
Low(Rhythmicality)High(Tonality) - A singe tone or filtered noise (used far more in western music than white noise)
High(Rhythmicality)Low(Tonality) - Drumming your hands on a desk
High(Rhythmicality)High(Tonality) - A tune played on a piano in a strict time signature. It's a bit loose weave as a definition but are we on a potential line of agreement?

you haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse.

Rhythm is an extremely important part of visual art... I'm damned if I can define it, but I know it when I see it:

In the same way that everyone can hear the rhythmical qualities of a voice speaking prose or free verse, but most people can't define them? we don't all sound like robots after all. Plus, that was a bit of double standard you're laying out there. You haven't described what might constitute rhythm in art.

When I look at that picture I don't see "rhythmical" qualities, I don't really know what you mean by that (but it's a bit of a side issue i guess)

At any rate, though, look what Ben's original statement was: "Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music." What this says is a person doesn't even have to be able to keep time. Which is pretty crazy.

By my draft definition I would probably suggest that someone playing in time would be objectively more musical than someone playing out of time, but playing out of time can (and evidently is, given the above examples in this thread) a part of what a lot of people would consider musical.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How could Gregorian chant be the first music? Didn't the Sumerians have music? Isn't dance mentioned in the Old Testament?

Considering that there have been musican instruments dated as far back as 40,000 years the times you mention would be very recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_flutes

Coming late to this so apologies if this has already been discussed but doesn't singing count as music? If so the origin of music could be very nebulous, especially given that other human species had the potential to make the same sounds as us:

A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone
B. ARENSBURG*, A. M. TILLIER†, B. VANDERMEERSCH†, H. DUDAY†, L. A. SCHEPARTZ‡ & Y. RAK*

THE origin of human language, and in particular the question of whether or not Neanderthal man was capable of language/speech, is of major interest to anthropologists but remains an area of great controversy1, 2. Despite palaeoneurological evidence to the contrary3, 4, many researchers hold to the view that Neanderthals were incapable of language/speech, basing their arguments largely on studies of laryngeal/basicranial morphology1, 5, 6. Studies, however, have been hampered by the absence of unambiguous fossil evidence. We now report the discovery of a well-preserved human hyoid bone from Middle Palaeolithic layers of Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, dating from about 60,000 years BP. The bone is almost identical in size and shape to the hyoid of present-day populations, suggesting that there has been little or no change in the visceral skeleton (including the hyoid, middle ear ossicles, and inferentially the larynx) during the past 60,000 years of human evolution. We conclude that the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed during the Middle Palaeolithic.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6218/abs/338758a0.html

 

[atyy]

@Ryan_m_B, yes singing is universally believed to be the first music. Some people distinguish between speech and music based on the categorical perception of speech sounds, and the specialization of some areas of the brain for speech. However, I prefer an ideology that music is organized sound for communication, and would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

 

[BenG549]

However, I would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

Yeah I said something like this a few pages back, it got mixed responses lol... mainly negative. To be honest I'm still very much of the opinion that anything audible could be considered music, I think my definition above could work reasonably well, bar the lack of objectivity in assessing rhythm. But even using that definition, you can't really have audible sound that isn't, to some degree, musical.

Although the origins of music are possibly vocal, and we can discuss when speech developed and how the brain deals with speech (I say we, I mean people that know anything about it, which excludes me lol) but it would be interesting to know when vocals were first used in an intentionally artistic and creative way. This obviously bares a few problems, for a start, how do we define creative and when did we even develop "creativity", for example 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago* Homo habilis started creating simple, single faced, stone tools; "these were functional but simple and unspecialised, and by our standards, not very creative"** and they didn't exactly have the means of recording sound a million years ago so we are unlikely to find any real evidence of "creative" use of language...

Anyway, went off on a bit of a side note there.

My point was just that I would consider speech musical.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

** Cambrudge Handbook of Creativity (2010) edited by Kaufman and Sternberg

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&q=first evidence of human creativity&f=false

That second link is really rather interesting!

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK well I guess that the temporal characteristics of speech; varying rate of speech for dramatic (or at least, non robotic) effect and not just speaking one word per beat in 4/4 time does give it some sense of rhythm it's just not strict. So in a sense I guess I'm actually starting to agree with you when you say "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence". Watch out this doesn't happen too often lol!

I think we are starting to converge toward something.

Let me develop my model further:

Objectively, one whole note equals four quarter notes. It also equals thirty two thirty second notes, and so on.

In speech there are other things going on besides counting time that allow a "whole note" to be balanced psychologically by, say, only twenty four thirty second notes. In particular, emotional valence. We can try to emulate that with sound. We could make up for the eight missing notes by having the 24 played louder than the whole note, by having them crescendo in volume as they also rise in pitch, or by playing them on some vastly different instrument than the whole note which calls attention to itself. Anything we do that psychologically makes up for the apparently missing "weight" of the twenty four thirty second notes will suffice. I think this sort of thing is going on in speech all the time. It's very hard to put your finger on and define, but we all know a nice, satisfying prose sentence when we hear it, and it certainly does not involve one syllable per beat according to some time signature, as you pointed out. Balance is being created by balancing things of different species. Apples are as good as oranges, and can be brought into balance psychologically. Two apples = one orange, if the apples are dusty and muted in color and the orange is polished and bright. And so on, in the same vein.

So can we say that any music has to be in essence rhythmical, however, there are varying degrees of "Rhythmical integrity". So we can say that some of the examples posted above are rhythmical, but just to a far lower degree than, say, a drummer playing a beat. Because that works for me. Having said that, even though we haven't actually defined how you would measure "rhythmicality", we would have to say that you can measure the rhythmical qualities of any audible sound (i.e. time varying signal) whether our measure be subjective or objective, I'm not sure you could say in this sense that things have no rhythm, because it would be very hard to define the boundary between a low rhythmicality and not rhythmical.

I'm with you, except that I think you're taking it in the wrong direction to call speech-like rhythms examples of "lower" rhythmicality. I'd actually characterized them as more sophisticated. More complex. If we think of conventional rhythm as many stacks of, say, 4 equal weights (4/4 time with each stack representing a measure) balanced against various stacks of whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, thirty second, etc, notes, all in different proportions but each stack, again, equaling one measure, then we can imagine speech as being just as balanced, but balanced by all kinds of sophisticated irregular considerations, none of which have to literally be weight. A short, sudden crescendo of 8 sixty-forth notes might, psychologically, turn out to be just as "heavy" as two mildly sounded whole notes joined by a tie. If they do balance, then the rest of the two measures (the remaining unsounded 64th notes) might be required to be silence. I heard something like this going on all over the place in the piece linked to by atyy.

I think this mobile by Calder is a good analogy:

http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/uploade...-Century_Art/Calder_51_20_s1_TF_200910_XL.jpg

One side balances the other, but both sides consist of irregularly measured weights and shapes.

I would argue that we're naturally tuned into this kind of balance when it's translated to sound sequences, and that when it doesn't happen, we know it.

The rhythm is right in that mobile, even though it's unmetered. Same with the Duchamp, though that one is not literally hanging in balance to prove it.

By my draft definition I would probably suggest that someone playing in time would be objectively more musical than someone playing out of time, but playing out of time can (and evidently is, given the above examples in this thread) a part of what a lot of people would consider musical.

Consider the difference between the "wrong" proportions in a good caricature, and the wrong proportions in a portrait done by someone who can't get the hang of proportion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If someone wanted to argue that speech is a form of music, I think they could make a good case for it.

However, I prefer an ideology that music is organized sound for communication, and would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

Yeah I said something like this a few pages back, it got mixed responses lol... mainly negative. To be honest I'm still very much of the opinion that anything audible could be considered music, I think my definition above could work reasonably well, bar the lack of objectivity in assessing rhythm. But even using that definition, you can't really have audible sound that isn't, to some degree, musical

The problem with what you're saying, Ben, is that by your criteria we can call a tree falling over, or thunder, or an avalanche "music". Also, a guy shaving, the sound of a book page being turned, the sound of a car door closing, the sound of a plastic bowl being set on a kitchen counter, a guy belching, and a guy coughing. I don't think any of those sounds is music or musical. The reason we glom onto SHM exiting resonant cavities and keep working with that, is exactly because that has audible properties which are unlike the sounds I mentioned.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The problem with what you're saying, Ben, is that by your criteria we can call a tree falling over, or thunder, or an avalanche "music". Also, a guy shaving, the sound of a book page being turned, the sound of a car door closing, the sound of a plastic bowl being set on a kitchen counter, a guy belching, and a guy coughing. I don't think any of those sounds is music or musical. The reason we glom onto SHM exiting resonant cavities and keep working with that, is exactly because that has audible properties which are unlike the sounds I mentioned.

I don't see a problem with this. It's like art, it can literally be anything yet we still have a use for the word. The way I see it music and art are so loosely defined (not necessarily a bad thing) that it's isn't unreasonable to apply them to almost anything however they are still very useful as words because when we use them we're normally referring to a narrow range of things that we would collectively think of first.

IMO it's because there isn't necessarily any similarity between two recordings that people would call music or two objects that people would call art. It's the classic "music today is just noise" problem where for some people certain things count as music and for others they can literally be nothing but a collection of noises. Place what the latter think is music next to the former and you don't necessarily find similarities.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see a problem with this. It's like art, it can literally be anything yet we still have a use for the word. The way I see it music and art are so loosely defined (not necessarily a bad thing) that it's isn't unreasonable to apply them to almost anything however they are still very useful as words because when we use them we're normally referring to a narrow range of things that we would collectively think of first.

IMO it's because there isn't necessarily any similarity between two recordings that people would call music or two objects that people would call art. It's the classic "music today is just noise" problem where for some people certain things count as music and for others they can literally be nothing but a collection of noises. Place what the latter think is music next to the former and you don't necessarily find similarities.

You're a biologist, right? If art can be anything, then biology is art. If biology is art, art must also, therefore, be biology. Therefore, I, as an artist, am a biologist. I honestly can't tell you what an enzyme is, but since everything is everything else, I am a biologist.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Sharing views similar to some points made by some like Ryan, Ben and Atyy, I’ve enjoyed how they’ve been expressed and illustrated very much.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...44,d.d2k&fp=6e50a466800d3db0&biw=1111&bih=857

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're a biologist, right? If art can be anything, then biology is art. If biology is art, art must also, therefore, be biology. Therefore, I, as an artist, am a biologist. I honestly can't tell you what an enzyme is, but since everything is everything else, I am a biologist.

Lol funny but not quite firstly just because biology can be art doesn't mean that art is biology (all X can be Y but not all Y can be X). Secondly the term artist and biologist generally refer to people who get paid to do work in those respective fields so its easier to define.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lol funny but not quite firstly just because biology can be art doesn't mean that art is biology (all X can be Y but not all Y can be X). Secondly the term artist and biologist generally refer to people who get paid to do work in those respective fields so its easier to define.

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

Art is really in the eye of the beholder, but as I said above there are many things more recognisable as art because the majority of people find them so (or alternatively the art world define it as so and people go along with it). For most of what I do I doubt many people would get any aesthetic satisfaction from viewing or otherwise experiencing it. But if I were to do a fluorescent stain like the one shown below (which I didn't do but took from google) it would probably be a different story.

 

[BenG549]

So, when is biology art? Are you an artist when you do your biological thing?

Arguably anything creative can be artistic; intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge could be considered artistic in any field. I used mathematics as an example earlier but there is no reason why it couldn't apply to any other scientific field.

 

[BenG549]

Consider the difference between the "wrong" proportions in a good caricature, and the wrong proportions in a portrait done by someone who can't get the hang of proportion.

If this is what you mean my visual rhythm I think I get it. Analogous to John Cage intentionally playing in wacky (seemingly random) time signatures... and someone who can't play in time?

Just never heard the term visual rhythm before.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist? Were they stained in order to be pretty? Was the photo record made in order to communicate how pretty they are? There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

You might make a bunch of stains specifically in order to bring out how pretty they can be, photograph them, and present them, but at that point you would no longer be doing biology.

It's like art, it can literally be anything...

Try again: when is biology art?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist?

As I said art is in the eye of the beholder. If someone looks at this and gets aesthetic satisfaction then for them it's art. There isn't necessarily an artist in the sense that the maker might not refer to themselves as one even though it would be tempting to call them one. It comes down to whether or not you think to be an artist requires intent which is separate to the issue of whether or not art requires intent to be art (I'd argue no).

Were they stained in order to be pretty? Was the photo record made in order to communicate how pretty they are? There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

I'd argue that intent is irrelevant. Consider that intent can't necessarily be derived from the piece but can still be considered art. This is easiest to see in more "out there" pieces of art that resemble every day items like unmade beds, piles of rubbish, pieces of equipment etc. You could easily set up an exhibit wherein one such piece was intentional and one was left by the janitor and people wouldn't be able to tell which had intent and which didn't and could consider both art.

To look at it another way just the other day I saw on TV a man repeatedly describing an old bridge as a work of art. He was rapturous in describing the emotions he felt looking at the bridge which wasn't that special to look at at all and I doubt the designers and builders intended it to be art. Most likely they intended it to be a means to cross the river. But that doesn't change how the person viewing it felt.

You might make a bunch of stains specifically in order to bring out how pretty they can be, photograph them, and present them, but at that point you would no longer be doing biology.

I feel I've already addressed this but its worth noting that focusing on making images as aesthetically pleasing as possible can be important work as a biologist e.g. To create easy and pleasing to read papers.

Try again: when is biology art?

I don't feel I have to try again though I invite you to try again at understanding my point, now elaborated.

EDIT: to get back to the topic of music, is there a concrete definition that can take into account such disparate pieces as rap with no music and orchestras? If not then if say this question falls in line with art which makes it a more complex question regarding the neurological basis for aesthetics.

 

[BenG549]

Pretty, but is it art? If yes, who's the artist? Were they stained in order to be pretty?

Well you've said it's pretty, which is an artistic property. You have made the point that information content and artistic qualities exist together in speech, can this not be said of Ryan's example? If I hadn't been told what it was I might look at it and say "that's a nice picture" to me it looks artistic.

There are lots of things that quite incidentally happen to be aesthetically pleasing without that being their intended purpose.

A lot of people would describe these things as artistic. Didn't a urinal appear in the tate recently, I'm sure it's origonal purpose was not to be art but someone took it home who had different ideas... now it's famous art.

Try again: when is biology art?

What stops intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge (in any field) being arguably artistic?

 

[zoobyshoe]

As I said art is in the eye of the beholder. If someone looks at this and gets aesthetic satisfaction then for them it's art.

You're simply conflating the words "art" and "pretty" (and whatever near synonyms mean aesthetically attractive).

art
/ärt/
Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Works produced by such skill and imagination.

You can get aesthetic satisfaction from all kinds of things without them being art. Art requires an artist and the intention to create art. Minimum.

I feel I've already addressed this but its worth noting that focusing on making images as aesthetically pleasing as possible can be important work as a biologist e.g. To create easy and pleasing to read papers.

At this point you're no longer doing biology. You're doing graphic art. See? If you are photographing amoeba and you decide to wait until the one on the left moves out of the frame in order to have a better composition, you are, briefly, doing photography and not biology.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You're simply conflating the words "art" and "pretty" (and whatever near synonyms mean aesthetically attractive).

art
/ärt/
Noun
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Works produced by such skill and imagination.

You can get aesthetic satisfaction from all kinds of things without them being art. Art requires an artist and the intention to create art. Minimum.

I disagree that intent is required for the reasons I've stated. Also I'm not conflating pretty as shown by my comment regarding certain types of modern art and my example of the man calling a bridge a work of art. The experience is far more than visual enjoyment, hence why I use the word aesthetic.

To reiterate my thought experiment: if I showed you a bunch of objects stuck together without telling you if the intent was art or not (or if there was any intent at all, it might have been thrown together by a machine) could you not say it was art on the basis of how it made you feel? And if it was made by machine and I put it in a gallery would that make it art? Even though no artistic intent went into its creation? And bringing this back to music has there not been entirely machine created music? Is that not art because there is no intent?

At this point you're no longer doing biology. You're doing graphic art. See? If you are photographing amoeba and you decide to wait until the one on the left moves out of the frame in order to have a better composition, you are, briefly, doing photography and not biology.

I think you're being too reductionist with this. That's like saying that organising cell stocks isn't biology, it's organisation. Or that ordering stocks isn't because it's admin. Or that putting a plate into a micro plate reader and adjusting the settings isn't etc etc. Why can't photography be a part of biology if its important to the process of research and publication?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well you've said it's pretty, which is an artistic property.
You have made the point that information content and artistic qualities exist together in speech, can this not be said of Ryan's example?

What I said was a lot more complex than that:

That's my personal take on why we respond so strongly to music. We recognize the texture, tone, color, line, and rhythm of the human speaking voice in it, greatly enhanced and concentrated, polished, formalized, and otherwise artistically edited.

If I hadn't been told what it was I might look at it and say "that's a nice picture" to me it looks artistic.

I agree, it could be mistaken for a deliberate work of art. Art often mimics biological and natural dynamics.

A lot of people would describe these things as artistic.

By which they would mean they find them aesthetically pleasing. I do too. I could see people using an image like this as a screen saver. It's a coincidence, though. That doesn't make it less pretty, it just makes it not-art.

Didn't a urinal appear in the tate recently, I'm sure it's origonal purpose was not to be art but someone took it home who had different ideas... now it's famous art.

Art can be hijacked for non-artistic purposes. Propaganda, for example:

The movement [Dada] primarily involved visual arts, literature, poetry, art manifestoes, art theory, theatre, and graphic design, and concentrated its anti-war politics through a rejection of the prevailing standards in art through anti-art cultural works. In addition to being anti-war, Dada was also anti-bourgeois and had political affinities with the radical left.

Dada was "anti-art" in the service of a political point. A lot of people never got over Dada and resurrected its "anti-art" aesthetic for shock value at various times. The urinal was one of those times. You're supposed to wonder how the hell it ever got put in a museum.

What stops intelligent, innovative, creative use of knowledge (in any field) being arguably artistic?

Nothing, but it's one thing to say, "Theory x is elegant and aesthetically pleasing." and saying, "Therefore, theorist x has demonstrated that physics is a form of art."

 

[zoobyshoe]

To reiterate my thought experiment: if I showed you a bunch of objects stuck together without telling you if the intent was art or not (or if there was any intent at all, it might have been thrown together by a machine) could you not say it was art on the basis of how it made you feel?

No. This is what I mean by you conflating "art" and "pretty". "Pretty" stands for whatever aesthetic reaction. You can look at a flower, a biology stain, a cat, or a person and feel the aesthetic effect they inevitably have on you without them being art. I don't turn a flower into art by looking at it and becoming fascinated. It's not art till I draw it, and it's not art after I draw it. The drawing of it is the art.

http://thedailygib.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/magritte_ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-464x297.jpg

I think you're being too reductionist with this. That's like saying that organising cell stocks isn't biology, it's organisation. Or that ordering stocks isn't because it's admin. Or that putting a plate into a micro plate reader and adjusting the settings isn't etc etc. Why can't photography be a part of biology if its important to the process of research and publication?

All those things aren't biology, just like I'm not doing art when I empty my pencil sharpener or go buy art materials, or wash graphite smudges off my hands.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No. This is what I mean by you conflating "art" and "pretty". "Pretty" stands for whatever aesthetic reaction. You can look at a flower, a biology stain, a cat, or a person and feel the aesthetic effect they inevitably have on you without them being art. I don't turn a flower into art by looking at it and becoming fascinated. It's not art till I draw it, and it's not art after I draw it. The drawing of it is the art.

http://thedailygib.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/magritte_ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe-464x297.jpg

We have different definitions of pretty because I find little of Magritte's works pretty but many aesthetically pleasing. Regarding a flower you're right I don't think natural things are art, I think they have to be created by people but that doesn't mean you can't get the same feeling towards natural things.

All those things aren't biology, just like I'm not doing art when I empty my pencil sharpener or go buy art materials, or wash graphite smudges off my hands.

So what is biology then? I'd say that biology is the study of living organisms and doing biology includes all the parts of the process.

 

[BenG549]

What I said was a lot more complex than that:

Yeah but I didn't want to take up soo much space posting your entire comment, I thought my comment would make sense without it, my bad. I'll take that back.

I agree, it could be mistaken for a deliberate work of art. Art often mimics biological and natural dynamics. By which they would mean they find them aesthetically pleasing. I do too. I could see people using an image like this as a screen saver. It's a coincidence, though. That doesn't make it less pretty, it just makes it not-art.

Interesting that you feel that art must be deliberate... to use a similar example to Ryan. If I fell over and dropped everything I had on the floor. Then someone said NO BEN DON'T TOUCH IT... took a picture of it and then a year later some said I want to buy that picture if you its an interesting bit of modern art... at what point did it become art? There is no intent to create art, but a picture of my mess is in the tate.

Nothing, but it's one thing to say, "Theory x is elegant and aesthetically pleasing." and saying, "Therefore, theorist x has demonstrated that physics is a form of art."

Bit picky but I don;t think art has to be aesthetic (assuming that means purely visual). Physics and scientific theories can be considered art without artistic intent... physics is not art.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then someone said NO BEN DON'T TOUCH IT... took a picture of it and then a year later some said I want to buy that picture if you its an interesting bit of modern art... at what point did it become art? There is no intent to create art, but a picture of my mess is in the tate.

To sidestep the (possibly legitimate) argument that the act of taking the picture made the art and that the picture, not just the subject, is the art we could propose that said person carefully picked up the mess and put it in the Tate.

 

[BenG549]

To sidestep the (possibly legitimate) argument that the act of taking the picture made the art and that the picture, not just the subject, is the art we could propose that said person carefully picked up the mess and put it in the Tate.

Yeah that makes sense... I was just trying not to directly copy your example lol.

 

[Ms Music]

I would like to throw my two cents in the hat for the topic, although I have only read the first page so I have no idea if someone else has stated this yet.

I see music as no different than color. We have settled on specific color frequencies, and have color wheels that show what colors go well with each other. If you like the color combinations an artist used on a painting, you will find it appealing. If you like the tone combinations in a music piece, you will find it appealing.

I remember a couple of years ago seeing an article about an ancient flute, and the scientists had made a replica that they had played and posted the mp3. I was amazed at the modern tones, it was "in tune" with any hand made modern flute might use. I think it is something in our brains, where we find the frequencies in color and music as universally appealing.

 

[BenG549]

I would like to throw my two cents in the hat for the topic, although I have only read the first page so I have no idea if someone else has stated this yet.

Given the name Ms Music I would imagine your 'two cents' are worth a lot more than that in this discussion!

I see music as no different than color. We have settled on specific color frequencies, and have color wheels that show what colors go well with each other. If you like the color combinations an artist used on a painting, you will find it appealing. If you like the tone combinations in a music piece, you will find it appealing.

I agree, but I also made the case that what we find appealing is learned behaviour and things 'foreign' to us will be less appealing because it's different, not because it is objectively worse. I used example such as Gamelan music.

I remember a couple of years ago seeing an article about an ancient flute, and the scientists had made a replica that they had played and posted the mp3. I was amazed at the modern tones, it was "in tune" with any hand made modern flute might use. I think it is something in our brains, where we find the frequencies in color and music as universally appealing.

The basic physics of most traditional instruments (particularly ones involving subtractive synthesis; woodwinds and brass i.e. make a noise source (lips) and a cavity will 'filter' this noise) has not really changed. It's just resonance and you change the length or size of the cavity to change its resonant frequencies, and hence, harmonics (over tones). Dissonance in music can however be used to invoke emotion as much as nice harmonies. Not so pleasing though.

I tried to find articles on testing different musical intervals on infants i.e. blank un socialised canvases, to see if there was any truth in the idea that we are inclined naturally to appreciate 'nice harmony' over clashing tones, but couldn't really find anything.

 

[Ms Music]

Hi Ben. Certainly, you learn to like certain music styles because of familiarity. I was going for a more fundamental aspect, but there is nothing wrong with your point. FYI I listened to Rachmaninoff the other day. His music makes me happy.

And BTW, I found the article with the mp3. 35,000 years ago this flute played tones that modern man still find appealing.

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/06/24/4349670-music-for-cavemen?lite

Now that I find amazing. My brother makes native American flutes, and it is basically the same tones, 35,000 years later. Awesome.