I believe that some members of nonhuman species engage in artistic expression on a par with human artistry; and that some, at times, experience ecstatic states, or metaphysical awareness from their own creation, or the appreciation of an other's artistic works. I believe that some birds, elephants, cetaceans, primates, monkeys, and canines produce art (some aural, some visual, some architectural).
I enjoyed your examples of feline art - they are extremely visually orientated beings, however, your point is well taken in that we are unable to determine (human limitation) what their intentions are for producing this art.
My Question:
Do you think art is necessarily metaphysical, meta-hedonistic, and should produce distinguishable evolution through insight, epiphany, increased understanding or awareness of self, others, or one's world to be considered as art?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Scruton's Claim of the Superiority of Instrumental Music
Scruton's claim is based on his belief that music has been designed as an inherently moral and religious tool for the evolution of humankind as individuals into morally and aesthetically superior societies. He uses the musical forms of historic Western/European societies as the standard against which he judges current musical forms. He chose traditional formation dance as the instrument to illustrate his claims of a properly ordered (and sexually obsessed) community, and that modern dance represents a decline in morals as well as music (p. 119).
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
I disagree with Scruton’s claims for a number of reasons. First, he is applying an historical culture-specific standard to the tapestry of a globalized, modern, culturally integrated (or at least, exposed) expression of music and dance. His references are temporally and spatially inappropriate for such modern globalized societies. Second, formation dance is well practiced in country music, contra-dance, polkas, Celtic and other traditions. Third, his claims ignore the universal biological element of music’s affect on sentient organisms.
Music is an undeniable force of life; sentient beings are compelled to respond to it. The degrees of response experienced by a species and by an individual exist on a continuum. I agree with Plato, Aristotle, and Scruton's assessment that music has potential for offering a character forming nature for us; some of its affect - the biological and emotional responses it elicits from its audience can be aspirational.
The majority of these responses have their origins in biology. I believe these original and primarily functions were engineered to facilitate reproduction in sentient beings (maybe this is why Scruton can't disengage dance from sexual expression?). As a species or an individual evolve, the physiological functions formerly served by music (or any inessential for life function an organism has evolved beyond) can be replaced by aesthetic, hedonistic, or spiritual patterns. Music’s primary role can shift; it can become a tool for socio-political purposes, or artistic and/or spiritual evolution of individuals or societies. I think music has always served individuals in this way, although I think the degree to which that occurs has been undervalued. Today’s society is a diverse, multicultural aggregate of class, age, and spiritual beliefs; and music is clearly a reflection of the societies that consume it.
My Questions:
1. Is globalization a greater influence on modern music than melody, harmony, tonality, or musical style?
2. What impact (if any) has globalization had on religiousness as it relates to music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)