First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Music: Is it a science or an art?
5984 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
Without science, music instrument can't be created.
1902 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / most likely in bed.
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
It is both science and art.
1274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / ...somewhere lyin...
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
i have to say its both because music to sound good with its composing is like science but when it comes to the lyrics is just like art
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/28/07

qweruiop wrote:

Wow you studied audio electronics? Is that like recording arts?


I'm an electrical engineering technology major so I study all sorts of things that relate to electronics. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the recording arts, but I have dealt with the whole converting sound to analog and digital electronic forms, as well as routing it through wires and components, and just what happens to it when one does so. Here in a couple weeks I'll have finished my first hardcore analog class, next semester things will get very interesting (more complex) on the audio side of things. But I have dealt with some of the basic fundamentals at this point.


On the other hand, I believe that art is just a label we use for that which we fail to classify with our limited reasoning. Art, I believe, evokes that which cannot be expressed by words or reasoning. It is, according to me, solid proof of our divine God. Art is not just the work of the artist, but also the perspectives of the audience. Although I am trying to 'scientifically' describe art, I know that my mind is limited and therefore I cannot express that which cannot be understood.


Hmm I'd define art as anything created with the intent of or presented in such a fashion as to elicit an emotional response.

I think art can very easily be expressed in terms that we can understand - isn't poetry a form art? Literature? Even language and writing can be artful as well.

I don't think art can be appreciated by everyone, or rather I would say that not everyone appreciates art the same way. I do think there are such things as good and bad taste, though art is inherently subjective.
3336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 11/28/07

azrael910 wrote:


qweruiop wrote:

On the other hand, I believe that art is just a label we use for that which we fail to classify with our limited reasoning. Art, I believe, evokes that which cannot be expressed by words or reasoning. It is, according to me, solid proof of our divine God. Art is not just the work of the artist, but also the perspectives of the audience. Although I am trying to 'scientifically' describe art, I know that my mind is limited and therefore I cannot express that which cannot be understood.


Hmm I'd define art as anything created with the intent of or presented in such a fashion as to elicit an emotional response.

I think art can very easily be expressed in terms that we can understand - isn't poetry a form art? Literature? Even language and writing can be artful as well.

I don't think art can be appreciated by everyone, or rather I would say that not everyone appreciates art the same way. I do think there are such things as good and bad taste, though art is inherently subjective.


Yes poetry is an art. Yes literature is an art. However, it is not the writing itself that is art, but instead I believe that it is the interpretation of the text. The audience/reader has a lot to do with art. For instance, if you give the most beautiful poem to someone who cannot read, that poem has failed to be art. Art is the inexpressible and intangible things that can only be experienced, not classified or limited. It is something that moves someone.

Right? What do you think?
1926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
artist how dare ppl question musics field of study j/t...i don't really see it as a science
27419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Hayward, CA - OR...
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
I would say it's both. Famous composers of old spent years experimenting with sounds so that they could create the perfect piece of music in their opinion.

When I think about this, I also think about the Japanese Katana, it is obviously an instrument of war, but it is also an art. Meticulous(sp?) designs sometimes are put on the handle, hilt, and blade, very beautiful indeed, yet also used to kill someone, music can fall under two catagories just as the katana does. ^^
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/28/07

qweruiop wrote:

Yes poetry is an art. Yes literature is an art. However, it is not the writing itself that is art, but instead I believe that it is the interpretation of the text. The audience/reader has a lot to do with art. For instance, if you give the most beautiful poem to someone who cannot read, that poem has failed to be art. Art is the inexpressible and intangible things that can only be experienced, not classified or limited. It is something that moves someone.

Right? What do you think?


Well, I think literacy is just part of the capacity to appreciate art in it's medium. Giving a book to an illiterate is the same as taking a deaf man to a symphony or a blind man to an art gallery. Even if the individual in question can't appreciate it, that doesn't diminish the artistic value of the work in question.

I think writing itself can certainly be art (i.e calligraphy), but saying that the interpretation of the subject is the art itself doesn't seem to jive. There is the subject that is the art, the individual evaluating it, and the appreciation is the link between the two, as well as hopefully the intended emotional response.

I think art fails to be art when it doesn't elicit an emotional response from someone with the capacity to appreciate it. Not that any nay-sayer necessarily disqualifies it as art. I could drag a redneck to the Louvre, show him the Mona Lisa, and hear him say "I don't get it." I don't think it's the Mona Lisa that has failed, it is the individual in his appreciation (which is why I maintain there is such thing as good and bad taste). But then it could be said it is his capacity for appreciation that failed, not the art itself.
Posted 11/28/07
ART. Music is something that comes to be a art of passion or likeness.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
I don't realize those quotes as directly contradictory. Of course, music and math are related in that music can be expressed mathematically. For instance the relationships between the notes played, their frequency, etc.

The problem here is imprecision of the terms...science, music, and art. You talk about music itself, as if there were such a thing. One can give a definition, but there is no fact of the matter to be had here.

But it seems you wanted more than that. Even if we gave a definition of music itself what would it be like? You seem to want some kind of form-al answer. Music is of such and such a form, or has what kind of character. A more scientific character or a more artistic character?

Surely making it less abstract can help to draw distinctions (if thats what you are after).

For instance, is the performance of a piece of music more art of science? I think most will agree art. Is the understanding of music theory, the operation of music, more art or science? I think most will agree science.

Think about a case where one is being creative to make a piece of music. Now think about a case where one is following a formula to make music. Here, I think it is also clear in which case we would say one is being more artistic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
*cleans thread.

Stop posting one word posts
3336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 11/28/07

azrael910 wrote:


qweruiop wrote:

Yes poetry is an art. Yes literature is an art. However, it is not the writing itself that is art, but instead I believe that it is the interpretation of the text. The audience/reader has a lot to do with art. For instance, if you give the most beautiful poem to someone who cannot read, that poem has failed to be art. Art is the inexpressible and intangible things that can only be experienced, not classified or limited. It is something that moves someone.

Right? What do you think?


Well, I think literacy is just part of the capacity to appreciate art in it's medium. Giving a book to an illiterate is the same as taking a deaf man to a symphony or a blind man to an art gallery. Even if the individual in question can't appreciate it, that doesn't diminish the artistic value of the work in question.

I think writing itself can certainly be art (i.e calligraphy), but saying that the interpretation of the subject is the art itself doesn't seem to jive. There is the subject that is the art, the individual evaluating it, and the appreciation is the link between the two, as well as hopefully the intended emotional response.

I think art fails to be art when it doesn't elicit an emotional response from someone with the capacity to appreciate it. Not that any nay-sayer necessarily disqualifies it as art. I could drag a redneck to the Louvre, show him the Mona Lisa, and hear him say "I don't get it." I don't think it's the Mona Lisa that has failed, it is the individual in his appreciation (which is why I maintain there is such thing as good and bad taste). But then it could be said it is his capacity for appreciation that failed, not the art itself.


Oh, now I see what you're getting at. In the example of the Mona Lisa, you view the Mona Lisa itself as art, but I think it is not the piece itself, but the experience that is gained from the piece, that is art. The Mona Lisa was still the Mona Lisa, so in a sense it is not the Mona Lisa that failed, but it is the the art that failed to exist. I believe art is that inexpressible feeling you get after viewing something. I don't think it is that something itself. I hope I am being clear enough.

So here is another example to clarify my point: A poem is art to a viewer if it awakens feelings in that viewer that cannot be expressed. Great art is decided by how many people it moves. This is my vain attempt to capture and classify something as vast and infinite as art. Is this flawed thinking?

Your opinion?
7763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Davao City, Phili...
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
Well im sure theres too many opinions for this topic but i say its both.

Music is an art because there are artist that became famous because of it. So far i would say the philippines Jed Madela has to be the greatest vocalist i have ever heard. The reason i stated that is because if you hear his voice, most will say that the notes he can do are impossible, that he is truly an artist.

Music is a science because there are researches about music and im shocked to say that the results are amazing. I read this research that music calms the mind because the frequency of the music will influence the frequency of the mind thus if the music is peaceful, the mind will follow suite. I even saw a research that a music was used to force mice out of the house. They used a very high frequency version of one of mozarts song, cant recall the title, that we cant hear but the mice cant. The mice didnt like the noise and was forced to run away from it.

Music has too many applications in the world of art and in the world of music so i say its both
6858 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Pluto
Offline
Posted 11/28/07
Why can't it be both? A melding of art and science for function. This is the case in many things I believe. Sound is science. Melody is art.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/28/07

qweruiop wrote:

Oh, now I see what you're getting at. In the example of the Mona Lisa, you view the Mona Lisa itself as art, but I think it is not the piece itself, but the experience that is gained from the piece, that is art. The Mona Lisa was still the Mona Lisa, so in a sense it is not the Mona Lisa that failed, but it is the the art that failed to exist. I believe art is that inexpressible feeling you get after viewing something. I don't think it is that something itself. I hope I am being clear enough.

So here is another example to clarify my point: A poem is art to a viewer if it awakens feelings in that viewer that cannot be expressed. Great art is decided by how many people it moves. This is my vain attempt to capture and classify something as vast and infinite as art. Is this flawed thinking?

Your opinion?


Well, I don't think of art as an experience, I think of it as a subject (in general). The experience would be the related emotion in my opinion. The art is the car, the artist the driver, the individual the passenger, the individual's appreciation is the gas, and the emotion is the destination.

I think your underestimating the human capacity for emotion and experience. Feelings and emotions can be articulated, though some are more complicated than others. Some people can't express the most basic of their emotions verbally or otherwise. Where as others have no problem filling volumes describing in obscene detail whatever they happen to be feeling, regardless of how complex.

Art is merely another means of expressing emotion - which in turn the artist intends to elicit from the viewer. If art is the expression of inexpressible, that would mean it's being expressed and ergo not inexpressible.

I think you can argue that art may be a means for individual people to express themselves who may lack (or prefer to ignore) the ability to do so through more conventional means, but I think a blanket statement saying that certain emotions or feeling are inexpressible is inaccurate.

I'm not so sure I'd agree that great art is dictated by how many people it moves. I think you can find a great many people who are "moved" by a My Chemical Romance song (or whatever emo band is popular at the moment) - but that doesn't make it great art. Relevant pop culture sure, but not great art. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that the average person is willfully ignorant and stupid. It isn't difficult to appeal to their artistic aesthetics - any glance at a music bestseller list will confirm this. Great art, however, does stand the test of time and does appeal to people with taste - if given the proper exposure.

EDIT - thanks for cleaning up the garbage Mauz
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.