Quantifiable metrics certainly are not my only criterion for aesthetic truth! I wouldn't even say they are a criterion for aesthetic truth for me at all! There are certainly reasons I have for looking for objective, historical truth when it comes to music, or artistic history - for instance, seeing which artists were influenced by others, but aesthetic truth is not one of them.
What is "Profundity"?--Revisited!
Back in 2016, we had a wonderful exchange of views on the nature of profundity in the arts. The whole objectivist/subjectivist thang was aired as part of the discussion, as was the linked Understanding versus Appreciating a work. These topics have a life of their own, but I enjoyed this thread very much and trust that others might also. Just my opinion. But just try the first page....
See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.
See 4chamberedklavier's post below for link to old thread.
121 - 140 of 1661 Posts
Yes, for a few years young people immediately thought of Elvis Costello (married to Diana Krall). 'Funny that. It surprised me.What.
Does.
It.
Matter?
By the way, right now I'd give Bach the edge. That is, "love" vs "heard of".
Bach - Jonathan Livingston Seagull
“Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness.
Listen to it carefully.”
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah
The title of this thread is asking what profundity is. I don't think defining it as "the quality that makes works resonate with a great number of classical listeners" is a very interesting answer, because you could say that about "beauty", "transcendental sorrow", "brilliance", etc, etc. This is an aesthetic question, not a question about why works are popular, I think.I am completely in accord with this. I'll wager most people are. Appreciating artistic greatness and profundity has never depended on belonging to a cluster. Rather, it's a primary - in many cases, I think, the primary - explanation for the existence and size of the cluster.
Which is probably why these threads go nowhere fast. Son of Science Meets Son of Aesthetikon leaving Tokyo untouched.Quantifiable metrics certainly are not my only criterion for aesthetic truth! I wouldn't even say they are a criterion for aesthetic truth for me at all! There are certainly reasons I have for looking for objective, historical truth when it comes to music, or artistic history - for instance, seeing which artists were influenced by others, but aesthetic truth is not one of them.
Are you sure there's a difference?...This is an aesthetic question, not a question about why works are popular, I think.
When we talk about art in aesthetic terms, I certainly believe most of us don't start with talking about whether it's popular or not!Are you sure there's a difference?
To some extent I guess the question is if words like "Profound", "Brilliant", "Insightful", "Sorrowful", pick whatever response word you want are basically semantic nulls and all they mean is "I liked it". Which might be true but I don't really think that's an interesting way to discuss art!
Exactly. That part has not yet been addressed. Why the cluster to begin with? And boy, is it hard to resist a cluster_____ joke about now.I am completely in accord with this. I'll wager most people are. Appreciating artistic greatness and profundity has never depended on belonging to a cluster. Rather, it's a primary - in many cases, I think, the primary - explanation for the existence and size of the cluster.
I think we are attempting to answer entirely different questions.
How much of the "popularity" is due to the aesthetic appeal?When we talk about art in aesthetic terms, I certainly believe most of us don't start with talking about whether it's popular or not!
...
Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even after all the "propaganda".Are you sure there's a difference?
We don't know objectively how much of that has been solidified through (intentional or unintentional) "propaganda" in our culture. It's up to each of us to decide subjectively. — I'm not saying Bach, Mozart, Beethoven don't deserve their fame today, but
If we were educated from youth that a fair amount of things Bach did was the work of a typical "church kapellmeister" (I'm not saying it is), and chorales by composers far lesser-known today than Bach were used in teaching instead of Bach's, in all harmonization sessions, over a long period of time, how would it have affected the "consensus" in these matters?
What if we were taught to think like Kreisler jr about Bach, "the usual methods of Bach were things he resorted to to hide his (alleged) 'weakness' in dramatic music (compared to his contemporaries)"?
Who cares?How much of the "popularity" is due to the aesthetic appeal?
We pick words for reasons. When someone calls a work of music "profound", they may mean a different thing than if one calls it "spiritual", "mystical", "beautiful", etc even if all these words amount to positive aesthetic responses. I'm more interested in seeing if there are certain stylistic elements, methods of composition, or just personal emotional response that make a lot of us English-speakers pick the word "profound" over the other words.
We are in agreement with your first paragraph, but my original point that most scientists likely went into their professions because they shared this similar sense of awe in regards to nature and the universe. I'd wager that most people who went into the arts have shared a similar sense of awe with works in their artistic field of choice. Perhaps there are some authors who never read a book that blew their mind, just as perhaps there are some scientists that went into astrophysics without ever feeling a sense of awe with the universe; but it shouldn't be surprising that many (even most) of the people that go into these types of professions do so because of their predisposition towards experiencing awe and profundity in them.The writings and other testimony of many scientists is replete with references to their sense of awe and profound appreciation of the extra human world and its phenomena. The writings of Richard Dawkins show this, as do those of other scientists struggling to explain that they (too) can and do experience the profound. Most of these scientists are avowed Freethinkers, to use a fine old 19th century term. One difference between art and science lovers is that most scientists are conversant enough with the major theories of their own and other fields to share, when asked, very similar views of the direct, specific causes of that awe.
In the arts, the objects of those feelings are, by contrast, all over the map, with some experiencing awe and sensing profundity in places and things where others see nothing of the sort; hence the much more highly variable, individualistic responses. We have talked of clusters--I submit that the cluster of scientists sharing an near-equal sense of awe and profundity is far larger (as a percentage) and more unified than the numerous clusters of art lovers who pursue very different subjects upon which to focus their enthusiasm. A lover of the works of Jackson Pollack will likely not be taken with those of Giorgione or Pierre Cot, whereas a scientist who is a physicist will strongly appreciate the workings of evolution or the movement of huge crustal plates. I think this says something about the relative "strengths" and seriousness of the profundity experienced by the two groups.
We also don't disagree over the greater variability of feelings in the arts, but, to me, this is a feature rather than a bug. In science, reality is only one way, in contrast to the human imagination which can imagine reality being a near infinite number of ways. The process by which we find out which one way reality is among all those imaginative possibilities is what the scientific method is designed to do, and the results can be profound in its way. In contrast, art is not about picking out the one way reality is among all the ways we can imagine it to be; art is more about speaking to our experiences of reality, including our imaginations, in all its wondrous variability. Given that, it's not surprising that, just as human subjectivities are immensely variable, the art that speaks to those subjectivities and which those subjectivities find profound are also much more variable.
Has anyone defined it that way?The title of this thread is asking what profundity is. I don't think defining it as "the quality that makes works resonate with a great number of classical listeners" is a very interesting answer,
Certainly, many qualities determine the popularity of music. Profundity - the power to represent and evoke more consequential and permanent, and not always easily accessible, aspects of human life and being - may not be quickest route to popularity (which is why we have the realm of artistic ephemera known as "popular music"), but it's at least worth a mention that works that speak to more aspects of human experience are apt to prove more enduringly popular (and that emphatically includes the best popular music of every era).because you could say that about "beauty", "transcendental sorrow", "brilliance", etc, etc.
The ones who think it's about "polling" should care. You have to take polling questions into consideration.Who cares?
...
But for the moderators...And boy, is it hard to resist a cluster_____ joke about now.
I don't know, you could make the case that the Air from the third Bach orchestral suite is even more popular. And you think Bach's "popularity" is due to "propaganda"? Do people like the aforementioned Air because they've been forced into it?Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even with all the "propaganda".
I don't think music is about polling. I think "polling" (which doesn't just include popularity, but things like historical repute, historical influence etc) amounts to the objective criteria we have on the qualities of music, but I also think this data has very little to do with the act of us listening and responding to music.The ones who think it's about "polling" should care. You have to take polling questions into consideration.
The objective evidence I have that Montgomery Clift was a great actor is the reputation of his peers. The reason I revere Montgomery Clift is Red River.
I've had enough experience with that already, thankyouverymuch.But for the moderators...
No no no, A Place in the Sun or From Here to Eternity.I don't think music is about polling. I think "polling" (which doesn't just include popularity, but things like historical repute, historical influence etc) amounts to the objective criteria we have on the qualities of music, but I also think this data has very little to do with the act of us listening and responding to music.
The objective evidence I have that Montgomery Clift was a great actor is the reputation of his peers. The reason I revere Montgomery Clift is Red River.
Not directly, but it almost doesn't matter. I'm less interested in what "profundity" means for the enduring universality of music, and more interested in why we're sometimes compelled to use that word in the first place, versus any other word that defines a positive aesthetic response we have to music.Has anyone defined it that way?
As I said I think people are attempting to simultaneously answer entirely different questions at this point which is causing obvious problems.
Simple. Because it's based on a sure-fire structural idea and a sure-fire harmonic progression, and because someone decided that everyone on earth needed to hear it every time they turned on the radio. I don't think most of the people who've enjoyed it are aware of the "propaganda" you're talking about, but the popularization of pieces of music nowadays is just a variant of the standard propaganda technique of telling people that something is great - or true - until they're brainwashed into believing it.Of course there is a difference. Why is Pachelbel's canon more popular than a lot of Bach, even after all the "propaganda".
You do know about "apples and oranges," don't you...?
121 - 140 of 1661 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Seattleoperafan
482 Replies
Art Rock
450 Replies
PHOENIXFIRERAPTOR
357 Replies
Recommended Communities
