Music, body, theory

[Torben Sangild <sangild@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, but the point is that I *do* have a qualified theory about the =
artwork
and aesthetic experience, which is not advocating that it lies "nowhere =
in
particular" - that is a very bad reading of my postings.

Part of this theory is of course the essential bodily quality of (all) =
music
- this is one of the reasons why I say that it is not a thing of the =
mind (I
do not even subscribe to a dichotomy between the two).

Theorizing about music is not the same as asserting that music IS =
primarily
intellectual. Anything can be theorized, also sex or sports. When =
reflection
is good it conveys a better understanding of our world, often a =
critical
one.

Even though music is a body-centered experience, it is almost never =
"purely
physical" - it is always already conscious and coded.

Torben

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] =

Sendt: 7. november 2003 17:02
Til: microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Emne: RE: SV: [microsound] no OS

apologies for not trimming the post, but i wanted both statements to be =

side by side...
toren - if you check, you will see that i already agreed with you on a=20
number of points. and all i have to say about artwork has already been=20
said really. what i was trying to illustrate is what an empty gesture =
it is=20
to have a conversation at all about where the meaning of the artwork=20
lies when the only thing that can be proven is that it lies nowhere in=20
particular. that's not a very satisfying conclusion to come to, so why=20
raise the point at all? i don't necessarily feel, like Graham, that=20
discussion is INHERENTLY all about self-aggrandizement...but the=20
style of music this list covers is certainly given to =
overintellectualizing=20
something which is purely physical in response, no matter how much=20
math goes into it...the experience of LISTENING. bernhard gunter,=20
bless him, has a way of imbuing his music with physicality beyond=20
whatever process was utilized to make the music, and beyond=20
whatever personal theories he may have about sound or politics or art.=20
he may be willing to say these things if asked, but i think its clear =
from=20
his music that he puts it through an intensive purifying process to=20
ensure that by and large the SOUND remains its own world. which i=20
THOUGHT was what microsound was all about.
.devon:

TOBEN WROTE
<<Critiquing is not about certainty. When we analyze/interpret an=20
artwork or a
group of works the interpretation is always open to discussion. There=20
is
never a final word. In contrast, "bimoth"'s pathetic positivist attempt =
to
shut up anything not 100% certain is totalitarian and na=EFve. (This =
goes=20
for
Graham Miller as well, who tries to shut up intellectual discussions=20
with
the claim that they are per definition only about boosting self images.
Where did you get that notion from? How can you generalize from what=20
you may
have experienced in college? This list may be different. At least that=20
was
my hope. I find the discussion far more interesting than my ego - I=20
could
boost that elsewhere and otherwise if that was my urgent need.)

So, since the ones who are not interested in the discussion are free to =

just
stop reading now, I will continue the discussion about the meaning of
artworks.

You (i.e. "bimoth") put a false dichotomy between a thing in-itself and =
a
thing for-us. Few people would deny that meaning is partly dependent=20
on
historical, societal and institutional interactions. When I speak of a
quasi-objective meaning I am not talking about acces to any=20
metaphysically
consciousness-independent being (this notion has been mor or less=20
dead since
Kant). Still, you must admit that the artwork resist any meaning or
experience subscribed to it. There are various (but limited) potentials =
of
meaning in every artwork. The dialectics of (quasi-)subject and
(quasi-)object is the interaction of work (as gestalt) and audience. =
You
simply cannot locate the meaning of an artwork inside anyone's mind.

The audience is not the place to look for the meaning, yes, this was=20
also my
point. The artwork is. And "the artwork" means, of course,
the-artwork-as-experienced-through-dozens-of-filters-laid-down-by-inst
itutio
ns-etc. What else would it mean?

Torben

----bimoth wrote---

i agree, though i resist the implication that the artwork ITSELF =
contains=20
any kind of meaning. any artwork. no matter what, it is a thing until=20
regarded. art is not art by itself, it needs the interaction of =
SOMEthing.=20
but my question, basically, and this is a life-long obsession of mine, =
is=20
why bother critiquing anything unless you can say for CERTAIN in=20
whose mind the correct view of the piece exists. is it the artist or =
the=20
audience? if you can't say, and if you can't say for certain, then you=20
should simply shut up and enjoy it or despise it in private. =
signifigance=20
is added to art by society, as i was saying before, but it can be just =
as=20
fickle as a society's political leanings. so if the opinion of art =
wavers=20
and alters, but the artwork does not, this suggests that the audience =
is=20
the incorrect place to look for a work's true meaning. artists die, of=20
course, and society (so far) has not (though SOME have, natch). this=20
means the artist is difficult to ask past a certain point (and probably =

difficult to approach even while alive). so this poses a quandary. =
there=20
is no reliable place to look for a truthful definition of the meaning =
of a=20
piece of art, or even the truth of it's "art"liness. certainly not the =
art
itself,=20
unless you're a meglomaniac, or utterly self-possessed. we should,=20
then, abandon that line of inquiry all together, declare all art merely =

things, sell off posessions, sit smiling all day in the glowing =
knowledge=20
of everlasting nothingness. the tug between the void that we intuit and =

the wall we so desperately try and build to obscure that void is long =
and=20
well-built, but from nothingness we came, and to nothingness we=20
return. might as well not even buy a ticket on this particular train of =

thought unless you're willing to ride it straight through the wall of =
your=20
percept system.
.devon:
(my meglomaniacal oratorio)>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------