RE: [microsound] Music, body, theory

["bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

listening to yourself talk?
well, but if the aesthetic experience does not lie entirely in the audienc=
e=20
or in the artwork or in the artist or in the mind, and if none of these=20=

things can be separated because art is a quasi-object being=20
quasi-experienced through a multitude of quasi-filters, then the act of=20=

art-becoming occurs nowhere in particular, yes? so tell me, what (to=20
you) determines the difference between a "thing" and a "work"? intent?=20
observation? what?
=2Edevon:

TOEN wrote -
<<Well, but the point is that I *do* have a qualified theory about the=20
artwork
and aesthetic experience, which is not advocating that it lies "nowhere=20=

in
particular" - THAT IS A VERY BAD READING OF MY POSTINGS=2E <--(i=20
LOVE this line)

Part of this theory is of course the essential bodily quality of (all) mus=
ic
- 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)=2E

Theorizing about music is not the same as asserting that music IS=20
primarily
intellectual=2E Anything can be theorized, also sex or sports=2E When=20
reflection
is good it conveys a better understanding of our world, often a critical
one=2E

Even though music is a body-centered experience, it is almost never=20
"purely
physical" - it is always already conscious and coded=2E>>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E

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