Dear colleagues,
I agree that art may produce or induce meaning, intentionally or
unintentionally. Also agree that art might provoke us to think about
ethics of a certain situation the artifact associates to. Much of the
social art or engaged art wants us to see the injustice, suffering,
uglyness in focus, to force us to notice it and reflect upon it.
Producing meaning is closely connected to making one sort of statement
or the other.
More generally I would say meaning provides resources for future actions
- for use of ideas or their real-world counterparts- physical objects.
But arts and especially music is much more than that! They make you feel.
It might be a pure feeling of sheer beauty or harmony (whatever it might
be).
I wonder is there any meaning in that feeling of being one with music in
the same flow, just dissolving in a moment?
Not the externalist meaning that you can ascribe to a music-loving
listener in an instant of exaltation, but the subjective meaning for me
as an individual. Is there meaning in a feeling?
May I say that music in that case is information that impacts my
physical body, my receptors, my brain, and changes its structure so that
in the next moment in my life I will experience things differently?
May I say that "meaning" of music for me as a subject is the result of
the difference that made the difference in my physical structures, somehow?
Best,
Gordana
Pavel Luksha wrote:
> [this email was supposed to go to the mailing list, but it only went
> into the private email, so I re-send it]
>
> Dear Lauri & Pedro,
>
> The claim that arts are there to obtain new meanings should be supported.
> Say, we keep up to three 'realms': the everyday social practice, the
> scientific practice, and the irrational (or far less restricted)
> practices
> of art, mysticism, religion etc.
> In order to avoid inconsistencies within social systems, the variety of
> meanings must be minimized. Consider globalization: standard exchange
> rules,
> unified language, unified culture etc. Also, science, as the method of
> production of verifiable inter-personal knowledge, tends to 'cluster'
> within
> certain domains of meaning.
> It is thus left to art to produce 'pictures of the world' that are
> inadmissable neither in everyday life nor in scientific practice.
>
> I would, however, object that this is the only 'function' of art:
>
> First, please note, apart from that, that artists frequently consider
> themselves 'explorers' - but what do they explore? Perhaps they are
> not only
> hinting everyday practices and science on 'where to go in the search
> of new
> meanings', they also look into areas where the science better should
> not go.
> If the science enters these chambers, the magic is dispelled: many poets
> spent nights writing sonets to their lovers, but is it as poetic if they
> knew they were attracted by a composition of pheromones? So, we could
> suggest that arts deal with subjects too delicate to have 'hard'
> knowledge
> about, to be experienced rather than expressed.
>
> Second, allow me to remind you that it was only in 'ratio-biased' 18th
> century that art has become clearly identified as an alternative
> method of
> meaning-production. Before that, it went hand in hand with either
> religion
> (the sacred art ) or with everyday life (known at the time as
> 'crafts'). It
> was not supposed to 'explore', it was supposed to support, to invoke
> spiritual attitude or good moods. Only when art was fully liberated from
> crafts and religion, we observe the 'explosion' of 'meaning-production'
> (spans across a range of arts from early 20th century). Many people claim
> that the art has lost its scope. It has also lost its moral imperatives,
> because these imperatives are NOT provided by arts.
>
> Therefore, I would also diagree that art is a technology of ethics.
> Ethical
> systems are not derived from art, they forerun artistic expressions of
> ethics. They are shaped by deep beliefs and values, that resolve personal
> existential questions (the problem of death and the meaning of life).
> This
> can only be done by some form of religion - or something that substitutes
> religion for a non-religious man.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Pavel O. Luksha
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lauri Grohn"
>> <lauri.grohn@kolumbus.fi>
>> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] art and meaning
>>
>>
>>> At 14:58 15.2.2006, Pedro Marijuan wrote:
>>>
>>> "Why do human individuals need arts at all? "To obtain
meaning" (to
>>> access varieties of meaning scarcely present in ordinary life)
would
>>> be the most economic response. By fabricating artificial
soundscapes
>>> or visual landscapes we enact intellectual episodes of remarkable
>>> gratification --for producers and consumers of art-- implying
thus a
>>> new source of "value" and "fitness" within
social groups."
>>>
>>> My explanation: Arts are technologies of ethics.
>>>
>>> This picture perharps explains a little bit more, I hope:
>>>
>>> http://www.kolumbus.fi/lauri.grohn/yk/text/typology.html
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Lauri Gr�hn
>>> metacomposer
>>> www.synestesia.fi
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Feb 16 15:12:10 2006
