Subject: Re: art not music
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 16:09:10 EST
Quoting Eliot Handelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> When music tries to free itself from music it probably tends to embrace
> world-shaking plans rather than "art" plans -- it wishes to act on reality.
I also believe in 1 objective Reality (capital R), and that our perceptions of
this Reality are our own subjective reality (miniscule r). But when it comes to
art (in all its forms), there is no Reality.
In other words, there is nothing innately musical about any sound. Music
depends on individuals to recognize it as music in order to exist.
On the other hand, can we make the same conclusions about EA?
We must if it falls into the category of art, right?
In my understanding, we are inately programmed to extract meaning within sound
that is independent of music and language. Loud rumbles mean danger. A
crescendo means "attention!" A decrescendo means "at ease", this list should go
on and on. Could we call this EA in its most simple form?
If so, then perhaps we could say that EA is, to a degree closer to Reality than
music? Because when you take away music from music, what do you get?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST