Cudae
Sorry to be so argumentative, I really do appreciate your posts and your thoughtful exploring of these fascinating issues - but the attempt to reduce (or reappraise) music as a mathematical form is one I would take issue with (surprise [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Again, this process is applied almost exclusively to western classical music (which indeed was initially based on a series of theoretical strictures - just as with painting), and it presupposes that music is - like mathematics - a cerebral and linear activity.
Now, music is indeed cerebral at times, and often linear, but it is far more than that. A true, holistic view of music is one that accepts its physicality - it is produced physically, by action, and the action and physicality is a reflection of the artist. For example - two scientists can formulate a logical theory, and might each begin with a series of the same simple equations (rather like a chess game, perhaps). But the equations will always look, and mean, the same thing. On the other hand, two singers may sing the same piece, but the difference is obvious. Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual. It predates logic and western mathematical systems by thousands of years. It is universal to humanity. The attempt to reduce the greater to the lesser is only meaningful in relation to specific periods, or compositions, which in themselves represent a small fraction of music.
You could perhaps argue that
aspects of music can infer certain mathematical properties, I could go with that, but I think anything more definitive is necessarily a reduction that is rooted in mind-body dualism.
Aiwendil
Quote:
|
... the fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it.
|
I think this is perhaps the nub of our debate. Basically, I don't think this is the primary case - in effect the element of measurement or 'neutral' observation is not necessarily as important or meaningful as all the aspects of experiencing a work of art. You could argue that everything we do is simply an act of perception, and define that perception as 'measuring or observation', but you are still arriving at a particular notion of empiricism by inductive reasoning. It's like saying 'receiving' is the same as 'counting'.
Anyway, I enjoy the fact that we disagree on such fundamental principles and I am always agreeably challenged and stimulated by your articulacy, knowledge and robust references. My position, of rationalising a co-existent contradiction, is precisely that - a contradiction, and such I can only justify it by refuting the axioms on either side and if necessary, resorting to wordy mysticism [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Since we both unquestionably have staying power in these kind of debates, let's temporarily get back to Tolkien and the origin of our particular debate - that in order to make judgements about the succesors to Tolkien, a conception of why Tolkien is good - or those successors inferior by comparison (or inherently so).
If, without getting too technical, it's possible say that Tolkien is both popular and good (whether or not the two are related), the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.
My personal feeling is that perhaps we can or should look outside the accepted genre for examples of literature that carry the torch of mythology and folklore, yet does not simply become a dry academic exercise in philology. And perhaps that we think even more laterally ... for example, some modernity is essential and inevitable, just as in its way LotR is also clearly a 'modern' work. Is it absolutely essential that a worthy successor to Tolkien must refer to specific mythic archetypes - or perhaps attempt an equally eclectic mix of references? Or has it been possible to create a mythology for the 20th (and/or 21st) century?
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Kalessin
[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]