Barry writes: >Apologies in advance to those whose tolerance for philosophy, > esoterica, debate, and indirect conversation have already been > exhausted. I'd strongly encourage abandoning this post and thread > now.
Ditto.
Mike Will wrote: > >"Art is skillfully crafted synergistic communication of emotion." And, there are "goodness" degrees of art; some can actually be considered better than others. > > Why skillfully? Can a child not create art? And why emotion? Why > synergy?
I can answer these, but it might get too long... Ah heck, I'll take a quick shot.
A definition is a filter, letting things pass that fit, and keeping out things that don't. A definition of art should let in things "readily acknowledged" as art and keep out things readily acknowledged not to be art. Then disputed things in the gray areas can be analyzed to see if they fit the definition, and even though it might not please everyone, we could agree on whether it's art or not.
Why skillfully? Relates to art having a "goodness" measure. All other things being equal, the more skillful the craftsmanship, the better quality the art. Also because when an elephant paints using its trunk, no matter what a critic says, I don't want to let it be called art. It may be pretty (as is a flower), it may be moving (as a sunrise can be), but it ain't art.
A child can create art. I think this is related to the "why skillfully?" question, with the same answer. The goodness of art can be assessed by looking at the degree of skill, communication, synergy, and emotion. Hold the rest constant, and increasing one increases the "goodness" of the art. Mix the ratings of the various categories to different values, and the "goodness" measure depends on the preferences of the individual. However, it is still useful to know that an increase in one area (the rest constant) improves the overall quality.
Why emotion? Communication of information is not normally considered art. A mere statement of the natural notes in a C harmonica as Blow: CEGCEGCEGC and draw DGBDFABDFA, or the scale tones in 2nd position as: Blow: 4614614614, Draw: 5135b7235b72 is not art at all, not merely low quality art. As you mentioned, normal speech is not art.
Why synergy? A measure of goodness of art is the communication of a realization (e.g. "Ah Ha!") from the artist to the observer. The artist constructs something (the more skillfully the better) that leads the observer to recognize (realize) something, and that experience is positive. This realization requires some common experience between the artist and the audience, and of course there will be many (mostly) different experiences as well. The interaction of these shared and unique experiences between the artist and the observer is synergistic, and causes the effective communication to be greater than the actually communicated elements.
Look, suppose the artist knows something we can characterize as A=>B, B=>C, and C=>D, (where => means implies) and you know A=>B, and C=>D. If the artist communicates B=>C, assuming you know A=>B, and you realize Ah Ha! A=>C! But you also know C=>D, so you also realize B=>D! And--Way Kewl--A=>D!! This is great stuff!
So, maybe you've come to realize what I'm talking about. I still can't call this art, because the emotional content is very low.
Exercise: How can one improve his/her music by incorporating these ideas?
MyQuill
- ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/harp-l/?start=18359 - -- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
