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?
I think that by virtue of technicality, you are correct. This is not as pejorative as it sounds; technicality is something for which we ought to strive.
ReplyDeleteI think one may charitably interpret Hanslick's comments as an assessment of a continuum, which it, to my estimation must necessarily be. There are degrees of importation. Perhaps, the claim is that Music is the art form for which importing is the most necessary.
As a side note: I think that is a very good painting.
ReplyDelete