Track 15

Track 14

Track 13

Track 12

Track 11

Track 10

Track 9

Track 8

Track 7

Track 6

Track 5

Track 4

Track 3

Track 2

Track 1 of Pictures at an Exhibition

9/28 response

I wonder if Schopenhauer would consider a-tonal or quarter tonal music, music. He calls upon the fundamental roots of the 1st 3rd and 5th, which pertains to most classical music, as it's the basis of the display of emotions and what have you. Since his time however, things have drastically changed, and I'm curious of his interpretation of the emotional concurrences.

Response 9/28

I think it's interesting how Schopenhauer says that music is the most powerful of all the arts. He makes a big argument about how the text should be written for the music, and not the music for the text, because the music is what gives the true feeling expressed in the words. He does not like when the music is used to tell what is going on in the specific story rather than just being an expression of the will itself. But this is what we talked about last time in class, so maybe I'm not reading the right section?

Response: 9/28/11

Shopenhauer attempts to systematically define aspects of music in his 39th chapter of WWR: "On the Metaphysics of Music". What I find interesting is his matter-of-fact approach of what makes music "correct". On the very first page [447] he states that in SATB voicing, the bass should be no shorter than an octave apart from the other voices, which by themselves form "correct triads". We learn from analyzing music that while this holds true for much of the music we know, there are countless songs that contain more complex textures, shapes and colors than basic triads accompanied with bass. For example, Bach's Christmas Oratorio contains a passage in which the bass sections re-enters the text above the tenors.

Later on page 452, he claims that: "the bass can never present the melody...if the melody is assigned to it, this is done by means of counterpoint..." He continues with restrictions and rules that apply to music that may have been indicative of his time, but as a philosopher, this holds no weight in the present day. On page 455 he begins to write about rhythm. He makes observations that are valid today due to the nature of rhythms. They have been, and always will be divisions of time, and so his points of placing an octave at the end of a measure before continuing to the major 7th of the scale on the downbeat of the next measure being rhythmically placed in a way that seems insignificant still makes sense. Resolution is found in rhythm, not only pitch, and i agree with him there.

9-28-11

I found this quote by Schopenhauer in the Second volume of his book in chapter 39  to be very interesting  "With regard to this superiority of music, and in so far as it stands to the text and the action in the relation of universal to particular, of rule to example, it might perhaps appear more suitable for the text to be written for the music than for the music to be composed for the text" [448-449]
Schopenhauer seems to maintain his same outlook on music as the same as what he has written in most of his previous writings. However I feel as if Schopenhauer is biased when he writes, because Schopenhauer personally feels that if it is licit to him directly it must make it licit to everyone else too. I feel as though what Schopenhauer says is true that music can make you feel a certain way so in order to express how you feel to connect that message across you may write lyrics to go with the music already produced. However if there is a certain message that you want to get across you may write out how you are feeling then use instruments to assist your lyrics. By doing this I feel like it doesn't necessarily make it wrong or make the music Noxious.

9/28/2011

Schopenhauer feels that music is much more important than the lyrics of a song, and in general music is stronger than the other arts. Though I agree (I prefer music over the other arts), Schopenhauer didn't really seem to think of how much one plays a part for the other in music. I, myself, that music is more of the focus, but lyrics in a sense gives music the picture frame to hold it in. Music is a very diversely emotional thing, capable of "reproducing one's inner most feelings," as Schopenhauer once said in WWR Vol. I. But lyrics in a sense gives a basic direction of thought, or a storyline or commentary one can choose to follow, allowing the music to create the mood or color of the story.

So lyrics, in a sense, creates the story, while music paints the emotion or mood the story will have, allowing infinite possibilities of combinations of moods and words.

Response for 9-28-11

While I enjoyed this chapter I would have to disagree with Schopenhauer on some things regarding his view of music. On page 448 he says that music comes before all arts. The way I see it while music is important to all of us and is known as the universal connector if a work of art in any form is expressing an feeling why should anyone place an order of importance on expression.

Another was his view of lyrics, they can be meaningful and bring more to a song than he gives the words credit for. In the case of Joanna Newsom while her voice takes some getting used to her music is all about story telling and that's what music for the most part does it tells a story. I feel as if in certain cases the lyrics can be just as important as the music whether or not you can understand them, because the voice is also an instrument.

Response to 9/28

I have never thought that the lyrics of a song were less important than the music of the song, but in this chapter Schopenhauer convinces me that it is so. The lyrics simply state the reason for the emotions that the music is displaying, like the singers of an opera do for the musical piece. Schopenhauer states that music "expresses every movement of the will" while the lyrics give "the motives that give rise to that feeling." Music also keeps the song "beautiful and purity" when the lyrics could portray something absurd and ugly.

9/28/2011

Schopenhauer describes it best when he says that music "is the most powerful of all the arts, and therefore attains its ends entirely from its own resources… [in that]… it acts directly on the will, i.e., the feelings, passions, and emotions of the hearer, so that it quickly raises these or even alters them”(Page 448). What he's saying is that since music exhibits will itself, it therefore creates or changes will, while other arts express only the forms of the will’s objectification.

What confuses me about Schopenhauer is that though he seems to detest lyrics as being the dominant aspect of a piece of music, he says that “in [this case], the musical art at once shows its power and superior capacity” (Page 448). I understand he’s saying that though the music was written for the words, it still overpowers the lyrics, but this given seems to test his theory that it would even matter what order in which the piece was composed. In essence, either way, all the lyrics can do is compliment or accentuate the music; I might even be inclined to argue that if lyrics were written secondary to the music, it would mean the piece may be lacking in general.

On page 450, Schopenhauer's critique of Beethoven (the composer as a whole, not a particular piece of his music) says to me that he is no longer addressing his theory on the metaphysics of music, but rather his own personal tastes in music. On page 447, I noted how Schopenhauer seems to believe that music must be a certain way, i.e., the bass at no less than an octave from the three upper voices, the triad remains in the third octave from the fundamental note, etc.; he essentially wants to see perfect harmony in all music. That is why I must correct my little “note to self” in the margin that says, “Schopenhauer would have loved Cream!” Perhaps the more appropriate band would be the Everly Brothers, Beatles (early), or Simon and Garfunkel, but considering Schopenhauer has begun to base his philosophy of music off of personal taste, I can’t take him too seriously anymore.

9-28-2011

I enjoy listening to Schopenhauer talk about music. He understands that music is different than other forms of art. A song or a piece can posess an idea, like any other form of art, however music is something to be interpreted by both the listener and the musician. An Elliott Smith song can be sad and painful to one person, but bring joy or enlightenment to another.

A similar point that he makes is the importants of the parts of the music. The lyrics, a form of poetry, are less important than the music itself. I feel this is a very big point; I am constently listening to music, but rarely do I remember the lyrics as much as the melody or the tone.

9-28-2011

This chapter was really interesting. I like that Schopenhauer mentions music being its own art form. I fully agree with this. There are two types of art: visual and performing. Music is in the performing catagory. You have to play music in order to create it. It can't just be a random noise, unless, of course, someone gets a record label and puts it onto a CD. Everyone associates with music differently. There can be a sad song that can give someone a happy memory, but the same song could give someone else a terrible memory. Music is different to schopenhauer.

response to 9/28

In our most recent assignment in book II, I found Schopenhauer's view that the music is more powerful than the words interesting. At the beginning, he repeats his belief from Book I that music is the most powerful of all the arts because, "music does not, like all the other arts, exhibit the Ideas or grades of the wills objectification, but is directly the will itself; we can also explain that it acts directly on the will i.e., the feelings, passions and emotions of the hearer, so that it quickly raises these or even alters them" (448).

From this belief, Schopenhauer comes to the conclusion that since poetry is a lesser form of art, the effects of the musical tones in a piece are much more powerful to the listener; the words are a secondary value. He even says that some inspiring musical pieces have uninspiring lyrics.

I agree with Schopenhauer's conclusion to some extent. When listening to most songs, the musical tune is what catches my attention. For example, when listening to AC/DC, I'm not always sure of the actual lyrics, but Angus Young's catchy, offbeat guitar playing and their lead singer's emotional, raspy sounding voice (Bon Scott and now Brian Johnson) put me in pretty good mood.

However, in some music such as rap, I believe the words are more important than the music--an Eminem song would be quite different, almost boring, without his words. So, my conclusion is that it depends on the genre of music whether the music or the words are more powerful.

Response for 9-28-11

Schopenhauer's discussion and analysis of music in this chapter felt incredibly clinical to me. Not only that, but the topics he discusses aren't anything new. For people who are trained to compose, direct, and perform music for classic concert bands and choruses, none of his ideas on discord, reconciliation, rhythm, and intervals are earth-shatteringly new or strange. Anyone who knows a decent amount of music theory can explain to you why a certain part of a song sounds the way it does and why it might make you feel a certain way. This is the same for both instrumentalists and singers. Of course, for those who do not know music theory very well, this chapter has a good explanation for them, but still, a lot of what he talks about seems to be kind of obvious.

9/28/11

This chapter was kind of confusing. He did mention that music is it's own form of art which i can not disagree with, but i also feel like he has already touched on that subject in the previous chapters, I did not get much out of this section of reading so i do not have much to say this post.

Response to 9/26

I honestly couldn't wrap my mind around this chapter. Shopenhauer has good points, but he's also missing the feeling and soul of music and art. People who are musicians or artists in any sense of the word put their heart and soul into it. Peoples opinions of different types of expression are as different as every human alive. People can hear one type of music that is described as "happy" and to them it could sound angry. It all depends on what the person associates that sound with, people all experience music and art differently. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Response for 28-September-2011

As we have previous discussed, Schopenhauer restates that Music "does not, like all the other arts, exhibit the Ideas or grades of the will's objectification. but directly the will itself..." (448). This chapter though, seems to be merely a representation of Schopenhauers ideas regarding "Music Theory" which, for me, is in a category of its own within the "Metaphysics of Music". Furthermore, this chapter seems to be an introduction to said Music Theory. Nothing really new except restating, in perhaps simpler terms, the ideas within Volume I. Continuing, Schopenhauer lets the reader down, by continually repeating his words, perhaps in a desperate hope to help us understand, but ultimately failing.

Response to Prompt 09-28-11

I honestly got lost in this chapter, and not in the good way. It might be just me, but I feel like Schopenhauer is continually repeating himself, just in different ways. The only new thing that he mentioned and expanded on that caught my attention was how he said that the four different voices of a harmony correspond to the four grades in the series of existence. Other than that, nothing else within this chapter really interested me.

response for 9/28

I thought this chapter was the most interesting actually. "Far from being a mere aid to poetry, music is certainly an independent art; in fact, it is the most power of all the arts, and therefore attains its ends entirely from its own resources" (448). I really liked this point, because of all arts, music is on it's own wavelength. Sure, it can help with poetry, but a painting or sculpture doesn't give off the same, raw emotion as an instrumental, opera, etc. does.

It was also relieving to see some ideas about how music is created, with rhythm and such. Schopenhaur actually discusses the elements, rather than just describing his music in which he prefers to listen to.

Response: 9/26/11

What I found to be the most interesting concept that Schopenhauer brought to the table about his philosophy of Music was that it is a language and expression of its own. I brought up this point in a past blog and it struck me that his philosophy is similar to what I already hold true. He also talks about it representing emotion, "but entirely without reality and remote from its pain." This is another interesting concept that seems to ask a few questions. Can you endlessly revisit the same state of mind via music? Are there other things associated with your brain and nervous system's reaction to its environment that affects emotion that would cause the effect of music to be variable? How do we begin to describe the emotions of the complex musical language with a native tongue?

Response for 9/26

I found it interesting that Schopenhauer refers to music as a universal language. I really liked this idea, because I believe it to be true. For music without words, the emotions that the music expresses can be agreed on by people from all over the world. I occasionally will listen to songs that have lyrics in a language that I cannot understand, and will find that I enjoy the music anyway, and even if I cannot even come close to guessing the lyrics, I still know the feeling of the song just by listen to the music, and the way that the words are being sung.

I also thought it was interesting what Schopenhauer says about words in music: "Therefore, if music tries to stick too closely to the words, and to mould itself according to the events, it is endeavouring to speak a language not its own." (262) Today's music is very much based on words, and it makes me wonder what Schopenhauer would say about music today. Are the words still true enough to the music itself, or have they taken over?

9/29/2011

I really enjoyed when Schopenhauer said the reason for music's inexpressible depth or mystery, they reason it is so mysterious, loved, and yet so undefineable is that "music can reproduce all emotions from our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain."

I completely agree with this, because music is able to create emotion without having the physical world affect it, almost like its own reality. A reality that we can not see, hear, nor touch. Music is a realm that almost seems to exist on it's own dimension, by it's own rules, or possibly no rules at all. It is the only one thing that is capable of evoking any emotion, while the same piece of music may evoke an entire different mood or emotion for the next person. Music is the only thing that can be physically always be right, no matter what, and morally never be wrong.

9-26-2011

Schopenhauer views Music as the ultimate form of art. All other arts are a representation of ideas, which are objectification of Will. Painting, photography, sculpting; all of these can convey an idea. What separates Music from these other forms of art is that Music is the representation of Will itself. A composition may convey an idea or a theme, but it still possesses the physical manifestation of one's Will. I also enjoyed Schopenhauer's view of Music in relation to Nature; how music, like nature, is infinite, making both life and expression of Will infinite.

9-26-2011

I like that Schopenhauer says that music is a representative of the will that than a representation of Ideas. Music and art will always represent a form of idea. In fact, they all started out as ideas. Whenever someone looks at a piece of art or hears a song or any form of music, they gather ideas for something else. The difference is, artwork isn't a representation of the will. The artist can easily paint a tree but say it is a car. They will only ever be ideas. Music is will because it will always be what it is. Music tells stories, and those stories are sometimes true. the story will always be in that piece of music, and it will always be the will.

Response to 9/26/2011 Prompt

“The effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence”(Page 257). What Schopenhauer has done is distinguished the importance of music from the rest of the arts. Perhaps I’m out of line, but what I get from the imagery in this sentence is that the Allegory of the Cave can explain the effects of arts; all other arts are comparable to the cave dwellers entertaining themselves with the jumping shadows on the wall of the cave while music, separate from these arts, reveals a sort of true objectification rather than imitation which we could equate to the guardian emerging from the cave enlightened.

Schopenhauer says that “music is independent of the phenomenal world, positively ignores it, and to a certain extent, could still exist even if there were no world at all” (Page 257). The analogy he uses, which I believe, if applied by men of science, could change the understanding of the way at least how the phenomenal world works, basically applies the idea of harmonics to the world around us (i.e. deep bass notes are represented as “inorganic matter” like the earth, middle tones would represent the organic nature around us like plants and animals, while the highest melodies we “recognize the highest grade of the will’s objectification, the intellectual life and endeavor of man” (Page 259)). Schopenhauer also explains how the progression from low to high is a “departure of the individual from the type of species” (Page 258+259). This leads perfectly into the conclusion of a piece of music in that no matter how dissonant a piece of music may be, and no matter what the objectification may be, “there always follows a final return to the keynote” (Page 260+261).

As ridiculous as I’ve considered Schopenhauer to be so far, in reading his thoughts on music (in particular) I have come to appreciate the musicality of all things. This doesn’t mean I’ve necessarily dropped all hard feelings for Cage and his 4’33” piece, but I have come to the conclusion that although 4’33” may not be a piece of music or even a piece of art, it’s still very important to me as a philosophy of music.

response for 9-26

Schopenhauer describes music as being different from any other art form. Music isn't a copy of an idea like Schopenhauer describes the other forms of art, it is the essence of the idea itself. He describes the relationship between music and the world as the relationship between the depiction and the thing depicted, music being the thing depicted.

I believe that what Schopenhauer is saying about the relationship between music and the world is that the world is a depiction, or representation of will. Music is pure will that is immediately and effortlessly understood by the individual.

Response for 9-26

What I found interesting about Schopenhauer's view of what music is that he says that music is a copy of the will itself 'cou.d to some extent exist if there was no world at all' (257). This reminded me of a book I read where the author imagined that the sun rose and set to a composer 'playing the sunset' because to him the world revolved around music and human beings' tie to it. Schopenhauer believes that music has a will and reveals the deepest of human secrets which can never be understood. Which to me to some extent makes sense because certain pieces make us feel a certain way and at times we don't know why it makes us react the way that it does.

9-26-11

What I found interesting in Schopenhauer interpretation of how he sees music is how Schopenhauer said that music is the best form of art, because it is derived from Will. He indicated that when people hear music they get to feel the emotions in the song and relate it however they fell in their life. Music contains a lot of emotion's inside of the musical piece which makes it the best piece of art. While in drawing an art Schopenhauer says that it contains Will and how the person visualizes the world. It does not have the same emotional effect that Music can give to someone.

9-26-11

"How is it that rhythms and melodies, although only sound, resemble states of the soul?" -Aristotle
"Hence it has always been said that music is the language of feeling and of passion." Schopenhauer
"But we must never forget when referring to all these analogies I have brought forward, that music has no direct relation to them, but only an indirect one; for it never expresses the phenomenon, but only the inner nature, the in-itself, of every phenomenon, the will itself." ... Music, a will in itself, represents a separate will in itself in a language of tonic structure. I love Schopenhauer's analysis of music, however it's esteem over other art forms as a pure representation of emotion I feel is rather ignorant, or perhaps lacking in full perspective. Of course, this is speaking from the perspective of an individual formally/formerly raised in a culture devoted to visual stimulation..

Schopenhauer again brings will in to his definition of music along with everything else that he explains. But what was interesting to me that he brought up that a high pitch is always with a low tone and so far no one else has mentioned that in their definition of music. another thing that caught my eye was the fact that he brought will into music "This corresponds to the fact that no matter is perceivable without form and quality, in other words, without the manifestation of a force incapable of further explanation, in which an Idea expresses itself, and, more generally, that no matter can be entirely without will" (258). In this case he is describing music as matter that can not be described in words, is my view of it.

Response for 26-September-2011

Schopenhauer's idea of music seems to place music apart from the world, as it is an idea created by people. As a result, it is mere representation. However, it seems as though it is actually will, too, because it goes beyond that of the other arts, in that, it is not simply a copy of ideas. I would agree that music, unlike, say medieval or renaissance painting, is more than copies of ideas (here we see a connection of Schopenhauer to Plato [copies of Forms]). Music is, rather, a creation from the inner being, the will. It must be because music, except that from nature, and not all music is a representation of nature, does not emulate anything outside ourselves, but rather, emulates ourselves from within. Painting however, are complete copies of the visual. Music does not require this as it can be a complete original creation (I say this because even paintings that may not seem to represent anything do represent something, at least in terms of color or other technical aspects). Music, on the contrary, can be a representation of itself.

Response to Prompt 09-26-11

There are a few things with in this chapter that I found interesting. One of the things that really caught my attention when reading this chapter was on page 257. The sentence that caught my attention was "For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only to the shadow, by music of the essence." Then later on, on page 264 one of the paragraphs mention something like music "reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain."
In a way, I agree with both of those things, but a part of me just can't fully agree. When people are sad, most people tend to listen to sad music. So is that music really remote from the pain of reality? I understand what Schopenhauer was getting at, but I'm not sure if music truly "reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain." I would think one would have had to have felt that, to create music that speaks to that part of us.

Response 9-26

"music, since it passes over the Ideas, is also quiet independent of the phenomenal world, positively ignores it, and, to a certain extent, could still exist even if there were no world at all, which cannot be said of the other arts. Thus music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music by no means like other arts namely a copy of the Ideas, but copy of the will itself." (257)

The last line especially struck out to me for the rest of the reading. Thinking about it when I listen to certain types of music I consider "great," my body (something I represent with my will) gets goosebumps and chills while my will warms up to the flow of the sound and the lyrics (sometimes) corresponding with the sound. While say art for example is a copy of what we represent, while music as Schopenhauer, how I understand it states it's not a copy of representation yet of our will in that current moment.

Response for 9-26-11

I really enjoy and agree with what Schopenhauer says about music in this chapter: "Music expresses in an exceedingly universal language, in a homogeneous material, that is, in mere tones, and with the greatest distinctness and truth, the inner being, the in-itself, of the world, which we think of under the concept of will, according to its most distinct manifestation." (pg. 264) It's so incredibly true. It reminds me of a performance I was in with my high school jazz band. We were at a state wide competition and we had made it to the night finals for Class C. During the last performance, our energy went through the roof and on our last song (it had a trumpet solo and they did the coolest bit of choreography with them), the feeling that I got was just so amazing. I felt like I was plugged in to something I couldn't describe. We had practiced our set list for months and we had never played the song so well or had so much fun and enjoyment. I think we all were smiling and laughing for a good fifteen minutes after we got off the stage. It was an incredible experience that, looking back, embodies everything that Schopenhauer says at the bottom of page 262 to the top of page 263.

2-26-11

I was very interested in the analogies Schopenhauer made between music and nature. It was something new to me and unique. For example, he said the higher notes related to the animal world and were therefore more rapid than the lower notes but they did not have as much of a present progress. Though I found this connection to nature curious, there was a lot that stood out to me; many lines that I really enjoyed. I liked how Schopenhauer related the many tones and notes to different events in life, and the keynote representing peace. This was really intriguing to me. He then went on to say there are an infinite number of melodies and therefore infinite number of ways of life. This was one of the lines I really appreciated. Lastly, I think my most favorite line was none other than this “…music expresses in an exceedingly universal language…”(pg 264) I really liked this line because I agree with. All music is different and though the lyrical language may be different it is something that everyone can understand. I think this is one of the reasons music is so important to the world.

response for 9/26

I enjoyed the fact, or it struck me when he said, "its essence can never be representation, and claims to regard music as the copy of an original that can itself never be directly be represented," (257). So the music is will, rather than representation, but still considers a representation, because we are put along through it like a ride, but we are persuaded to think and understand them differently.

The will is copied into the will, making music extremely powerful, making it the highest hierarchy of the arts.

Music is a form of expression that can change, or be adapted into something that describes the "ordinary happiness," (261) but also can define a goal or a stronger attainment in life of some sorts.

Music is considered to be "in the highest degree a universal language that is relate to the universality of concepts much as these are related to the articular things," (262). Music.. the highest universal language. If you think about it.. music is the same all around the world-- the beauty of self-expression and passion with or without voice or words.

response to 9-26

Part of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of music that is interesting to me has to do with his explanation of why and how music affects me. He states that music “floats past us as a paradise quite familiar and eternally remote, and is so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, […] it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain” (264). Music expresses the inner nature of the will, which is the universal joy, pain, sadness, desires, and peace in everyone’s mind.

I also found it interesting that he says the structure of music imitates the universe as a whole. He states that music is a universal language and imitates the both inorganic and organic will of the entire world. The planet is represented by the low tone base harmony that moves slowly. The world is what all matter and species evolve from, just like the low tones and slow rhythm are the origin and base of music. The intermediate ripienos, higher pitch harmonies, represent the plant and animal worlds; the higher the pitch, the more advanced the species. Finally, the melody represents man because he is able to reason. The melody is “one thought from beginning to end, and expressing a whole”; man has the intellectual ability to unconsciously connect these thoughts (259). Thus, the whole world through music works in harmony together. I never really thought of music this way; I don't know if I agree, but it gave me something to think about.

Prompt for 9-26

Open reaction to Chap 52 in Vol I of WWR - What about Schopenhauer's philosophy of music interests you?

Art is the perfect way to express life. An artist's painting of a still life is the exact representation of what the artists sees, to view this painting is to see through the artist's eyes and to see how objects in space represent themselves in the artist's life. As humans we only know our own perspective on life, there is no way of truly knowing that others exist and that the world we see is not a world designed by our own brain; yet it is understood that we are all equals with the same ways of viewing the world. Art is reinforcement of our coexistence with other intelligent human beings, for its gives us a glimpse of another person's perspective on life. The artist can sink their own emotions into art, even more so through musical expression. As listeners, we feel and sense their emotions through their music. The artist's emotions seem similar to our own emotions, we feel connected with the artist and we can feel that the artist is as alive as we are.

9/21/10

Art is the most individualistic medium of expression. No two representations are the same. It's a manner of conveying those emotions that cannot be captivated by words. There's no wrong way to go about it either, it simply is the artists emotive release. In the same right, the art piece beyond the artist is open to any number of interpretations, leaving (art) a limitless vein of representation.

Response: 9/21/11

Schopenhauer's belief regarding art is that it is its own form of communication. I agree in a very technical sense that inflections in pitch are registered by the brain and we respond to it emotionally. However, nearly all music is based solely on pitches and their combinations (known as chords), so like Schopenhauer loosely states, music transcends normal speech.

9/21/11

Just as everyone else is saying, Schopenhauer believes that art is the purest form of expression. One can take a concept or idea and turn it into a physical object. It seems to be a physical representation of will. Only humans are capable of creating art, which boosts Shopenhaur's argument (from my probably incorrect interpretation) that humans are the center of everything.

Response to 9/21/2011 Prompt

“Through [art] he communicates to others the idea he has grasped;… the work of art is merely a means of facilitating that knowledge in which this pleasure exists.” (Page 195) The genius, or rather a person with greater understanding of the nature of things, uses art as a means of conveying his or her understanding of the subject. Schopenhauer also goes on to say at the end of section 37 (page 194-195) that art can be used not only as a medium for inspiration by nature or by life, but also by the sake of doing the art and that it is equally outwardly expressive of his or her knowledge of the subject.

While Schopenhauer’s bit about concept and the Idea (on page 234) is superb, what bothers me is his distinction between the genius and the “dull majority of men.” This sets up quite a dilemma in that a regular man, or even a genius, can easily create a piece of art without having any understanding of the subject at all. So this leads me to ask what the difference is between the man who cannot grasp the art, and the artist who cannot grasp the understanding of the subject. This is what leads to my critique of the abstractness and eccentricity of pieces such as 4’33” and the like (not that I doubt Cage's genius-ness of music in general).

Response: 9/21/2011

Schopenhauer knows that art is expression of emotion. Any emotion, in any style, so there really isn't a wrong in art or music. It is a reflection of the artists mind and/or an emotion they are trying to release, or even vent off. And even if one is not able to interpret the art how the artist envisioned it, one can still pull emotion and feelings out of the art, for there is no wrong when making witnessing art. Art is the act of acknowledging emotions and using them to create an original manifestation that holds the emotions one is feeling at the time. It is a physical expression or interpretation of what isn't physical.

9-21 response

Schopenhauer thinks art is special because it allows those of genius to convey ideas to those who are incapable of seeing such ideas for themselves. He believes, like Plato, only a certain kind of people can see such ideas and therefore art is an important way to express these pure ideas. This leads into the idea that art is a very special form of expression as it does not need words. Schopenhauer also states that art allows us to lose our individuality and therefore more easily be able to think about these ideas.

9/21 response

Schopenhauer believes that art is special because it allows one to lose himself/herself in the work, and to forget individuality and will, and just focus on the idea that is being presented. Also, when an artist comes up with an idea, the artist is able to share that very idea with others through art. Another thing that is special about art is that it gives others the chance to see the world through someone else's eyes. When the artist shares his/her idea through the artwork, not only is the artist sharing the idea, but it is the idea in the way that the artist sees it.

Response to 9-21-2011

Schopenhauer believes that art is so special because it's individualized and unique. Art is a way of expressing feelings and ideas without actually using words. You can't be told what is right and wrong in art. Whatever you do is the way you interpret it. According to Schopenhauer, art allows you to feel another's feelings and meld with the art. Art is your own impression of the world.

9/21/2011 BAM!

Schopenhauer believes art is so special because it is the purist form of expression. Through art, humans transcend the boundaries of communication and are able to express and create new ideas. Art is imperfect in the sense that no two impressions will ever be the same. It is also perfect, as it is the inner vision of one's own will.

Responce to 9-21-11

Schopenhauer believes art is so special because it is so individualized. Schopenhauer says that art allows us to express out own freedom. He indicates this gives us a break from our Will. I feel as though Schopenhauer indicated that every one person will make their own interruption of what that piece of art is. However he also indicated that he felt as if you could view how the artist saw things, or what he was perhaps feeling at the time. Schopenhauer also believes that music is the true art because of how it affects people. He also says that the true art music is rare to get. He says that an original piece of art is hardly found because of other songs using pieces of other songs.

Response to 9-21 Prompt

I don't know if I have interpreted this right, but I believe Schopenhauer thinks the following about what is truly considered art. Schopenhauer distinguishes between ideas and concepts. True art is a newly discovered idea while a concept is a regurgitation of what already exists (i.e.: a musician copying the structure and style of a Beatles song). When something comes from a concept, it only lasts for that particular generation and then dies. Art is discovered by a genius and is a totally new idea; it becomes a part of the world forever (maybe Mozart?). Art is special since it lives on forever. Schopenhauer also point outs that only a few people that have attained a certain level of knowledge understand true art. Some pretend they do, while others put down true art because they don't want to feel inferior to those that do.

9/21/11

Schopenhauer believes that art is beautiful thing, that art is what we express in words but so much better. He thinks it is the expression of ideas, "the communication of the apprehended idea"(237). He also believes that the capability of seeing the knowledge and ideas behind the art is in every man and if they can not enjoy it they do not have the capability of enjoying any aesthetic pleasure(195)

Response for 9-21-11

Schopenhauer believes that art is special because it can encompass both the Idea and the concept. Because of this, the viewer can experience the piece of art completely free from the ever-present will and take whatever we want from it. There is no right or wrong interpretation when it comes to art and that makes it a truly unique experience. It also gives us the ability to see the world through another person's perspective, which is impossible to do in any other circumstance.

Response to Prompt 09-21-11

I believe Schopenhauer thinks art is so special because each piece of art is unique in its own way. No piece of art is the same. We might not be able to make the distinct difference between pieces of art, but they are there. He mentions how an artists, through his artwork, allows us to see into the world how he sees it. I believe that it's a true statement. When looking at a piece of art we see the world how the artist saw it to us. Not everyone is going to have the same view of what they think the artists view was, but nonetheless they are still going to have a view of they think the view of the artist was.

Response for 9/21/11

Schopenhauer believes that art is special because it is the purest form of expression. It is the way we relate to reality and nature through another human being because it lacks the impurities that make reality and nature so hard to understand especially because it comes straight from the mind of the creator. He looks at artists as geniuses because they can take an idea, replicate it and turn it into something that connects humans together. Art, according to Schopenhauer has the ability to revive a man because it causes a person to take on another's feelings and become one with the art and the world instead of the only real thing on the planet.

Response for 9/21/11

Art is the condition and the reflection of the will. Music is the highest of arts because of the pleasure it gives aesthetics in the qualities of our character. So, art describes our will and condition we create because of the freedoms that we have. It is the most important, and this goes back to Pluto, because we are able to give "Plutonic" ideas, which gives us relief from the pressures of our will and representation. This is what makes art so special, Schopenhauer believes.

9/7 9/12 and 9/14

9/7/11 After reading Davies’ piece I came to the conclusion that he does not believe John Cage’s 4’33” to be music but rather an artful performance. Part of this, I believe, is because the piece calls for instruments but does not actually use them as Davies points out. While Davies looks at 4’33” from several angles, He does not in his own opinion seem to think it is a piece of Music.

Levitin, on the other hand seems to have a more classical, technical definition of music. He talks about aspects of music such as: pitch, harmony, timbre. Because of the way in which Levitin analyzes music I do not believe that he would consider 4’33” to be music. My reasoning for this is 4’33”, the way Cage “composed” it, does not have any pitch, tone, notes, or rhythm, neither does the piece emit sound unless preformed (in which cause the background noise would be considered music in Cage’s opinion). In my opinion it depends on what you believe music is and more so, what you consider 4’33” to be, the silence, or the ambient noise.

9/12/11 The most prominent basis on which Plato selects music for the “guardians-in-training” to be exposed to is based on emotion. Plato strongly believes that they must listen to “good” music, music which will affect the guardians-to-be in a positive way, such as marching music that is steady. For example, Plato would disprove of Jazz music which is very improvisational and irregular. Plato wants the guardians to be pure and therefore they must listen to only the good music. He relies strictly on the guidelines that “good” music will evoke only good emotions and “bad” or evil music will evoke only bad emotions. Plato is therefore assuming several things: 1. A single piece of music will evoke only one emotion 2.That piece of music will affect all humans in the same way 3.The emotion it evokes will be the same as that which is evoked from him.

9/14/11 The way in which Plato is looking at music in books VI and VII are very different. In books II and III the guardians-in-training are vulnerable to both negative and positive effects of music, but in books VI and VII the guardians are now mature and must study harmonics to achieve knowledge as it is the only way to reach the Form of the Good. In these books he reveals a mathematical approach to music (i.e. the ratios 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3). This piece of information is crucial as the Pythagoreans believed mathematics to be the basis of all things. The study of music in a mathematical way will not hinder the guardians but rather expand their knowledge. In fact, in Plato’s academic plan harmonics is the last step before understanding of the Forms and is preparing them for reality.