Spectra of Emotion and Kivy

Kivy attempts to use something he calls Contour theory to explain the way that music can have emotional representation. He claims that music can contour to the listener and allow the listener to perceive an emotion that was intended to embodied and conveyed in that piece of music. 

Two obvious concerns strike me from the outset. First, this seems to work easily with emotions like happy or sad. However, how can a musician convey guilt? Or contentment? Secondly, his theory relies  on the listener being a part of the same or similar social traditions that connect an emotion like sadness with slow tempo and minor chords. I suspect that these kinds of musical associations are not universal among differing social systems. This becomes even more problematic when you pair it with my first concern. Contour theory would imply then, that there is some universally accepted association that could be drawn musically between complex emotions and musical themes. This seems an untenable claim.

Do musical-emotional associations vary across cultures?

Initial Objections to Hanslick

Hanslick makes the claim that music has no content. I must first admit that I have an irrational bias to disagree with him (he describes quite well the kind of defensive reaction that this thesis often receives, and I had that very reaction). Hanslick claims that music has no content and by this he is not referring to notes or the form, but the kind of content a painting has, being a painting of something. He argues that the listener simply imports his or her own content when listening to the music, and that it contains none of its own. He answers my first objection somewhat inadequately.

My initial reaction was to claim that all art is absent of referent without the observer's imports. Hanslick claims that while we import referents like the recognition of nouns like "Orestes" pursued by the fairies in a painting we do not import the deeper levels. (http://blog.thevolts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/bouguereau-orestes-furies-painting-volts1.jpg). He claims that the viewer may not know that it is Orestes or the fairies, but that viewer will be able to perceive that he is being tormented. This does not seem to answer my objection at all. The viewer must also need to import 'tormented' into the work, for a viewer without that concept would be unable to get that from the work if he or she had no knowledge of what torment was.

My question is simply: Do you agree with my criticism?

Previous Experience and Bias

In class on Wednesday Professor Johnson made the distinction between previous experience and bias, or, at least made the point that we oughtn't conflate the two. I think delving into this distinction could prove interesting in our discussion of bias in art criticism.

Professor Johnson seems correct in saying that conflating previous experience with bias is not appropriate. If we conflate previous experience with bias then removing bias from art viewing becomes problematic if not impossible. The simple fact that we problematize art criticism by conflating the two is not enough for us to prove that they oughtn't be conflated. We do, I think, have better reason to separate the two than that. In viewing art one must comprehend not only the form, but also the content. (I recognize this is a contentious claim, but it seems to me to be the case), and one cannot possibly understand that content if one were to divorce oneself from their experience entirely. One could not be expected to appraise the content of the Odyssey, without a sense of what "home" means. We can notice and overcome biases that we have towards art. For example, Person X prefers sad music. This person listens to an album that is largely upbeat. In order to fairly appraise the album, this person must realize and separate themselves from their preference for sad music, and focus on the music without that bias.

Thus, to appreciate art without bias would involved cognitively overcoming their predispositions to appreciate quality A over  quality B in a given art object, and would not include divorcing themselves from previous experience, as these experiences are necessary to the criticism and appreciation of the art object.

Ought we to take the content into account when appraising art, as I contend here?

Bias and Appreciation

Jacob posed the question about whether or not a human being can experience even moments where he or she is unbiased.This is an interesting thought exercise. Trying to imagine something that an individual can view without any bias seems initial absurd. One would have to be able to bracket away everything one knows about the object, a task that seems herculean. I suspect it is impossible to to do so.

However, this could lead to an interesting train of thought. Might there be some value lost in complete objectivity? To be biased, we must divorce our personal passions and previous experiences associated with the piece of art. Perhaps I'm incorrect in that assumption, but it seems to be without bias would be to exclude such things. Might that lessen the value of art? To observe that which is intended to move and evoke while trying to not be moved or to not experience biasing emotions seems silly, and less pleasurable. Maybe we must sacrifice pleasure for a better understanding of art. Though, I'd imagine that retaining the pleasure in Art is important as it is not simply hedonistic pleasure, but something deeper than that.

My question is: Is subjectivity in art appreciation a factor in it's enjoyment?

Plato and Truth

Jacob posed a question about Plato's view about art and truth. The question outlined whether or not art can show truth, while being fictitious.

 A possible reading of Plato could lead one to believe that since art is mimetic, it must also be false, or untrue. Art certainly deals with content that is often not true. (Fictions such as plays and poems, for example). However, this does not mean that art cannot explore and explain truths about the human condition. What moves us in Art reveals truths about ourselves. There is a pejorative connotation to art as mimetic that seems unfounded. So, art holds a mirror to humanity, fine. Is there nothing of value to be learned when looking at oneself in the mirror? The mirror of art allows us to see not just our physical characteristics, but the deeper aspects of our personality and self. Art reveals truths that are of the utmost importance.