Today we talked about the idea that art is "mimsis." (something that mimics nature). We worked with the definition that art is "a man-made representation of nature that emphasizes certain features."
At the end of class, we discussed whether or not music could be described as art according the the "mimesis" theory.
Make an argument that music either is or is not a representation of music. (Remember that for now we are concerned with the "most basic" forms of art, or therefore music... think about Bach cello suites or Goldberg variations.)
12 comments:
Music is art because it is a representation of mimesis. Music is man-made,of course, since a composer is a person that creates/writes the music. Music represents nature because in songs like Bach cello suites or Goldberg variations the sounds of the instruments are supposed to relate to sounds of nature. However, the songs dont have every sound of nature, they focus on emphasizing a certain feature/sound. By doing this we can consider music as art due to the mimesis definition.
Music is not a representation of nature, but it is art. So thinking that all art forms are representations of nature is wrong because music does not represent nature, unless all symphonies actually mimic nature, however since it doesn't, it cannot be called a mimesis. The Bach cello suites do not consist of things like bird calls or elephant sounds (though it would be fun to hear) but of sounds of the cello and all that other good stuff that's pleasing to the ears =). Therefore, the definition for the basic forms of art is not a mimesis, for that'd be an instance.
Music could be a representaion of music. It represents the ways of nature. WHen wind blows through leaves, it makes a sounds. When water splashes, it makes a sound. The many ways sound is made strung together makes up what music is. Since music is basically a alot of sounds strung together to make a melody
Music actually isn't a representation of nature. In nature, there are many sounds and songs but music doesn't really relate directly to them. For example, music we listen today include classical music, rock music, country music, etc. However, we don't actually hear these types of sounds in the natural world. In the natural world, we may hear the sound of thunder, the songs of birds and wolfs, but we don't hear sounds similar to rock and/or classical music. But, music is still art since it is man made, it expresses emotions, and it has many other properties of art.
According to this definition, music is not art. Music, though is art. It has the same results that any other art form has. The only difference is that music isn't mimicing nature. Music is one of the basic essentials of art. Music does not mimic anything in nature. Songs may be influenced by nature, but they aren't exact copies of what's found in nature. If music is not included in the definition, the definition has to be wrong.
Music does not have to be a representation of nature, they might be similar to some sounds, but it's not really the representation of them, therefore according to the "art as Mimesis" definition, Music wouldn't be art. But Music is one of the things that we can say it is art for sure, so the definition must be wrong.
-Candy Lin
We can start by saying that we know that music is an art form because it is one of the main 'known' art forms. But saying that it is the mimesis of art wouldn't be correct. Though music may sound like some parts of nature, it is in most cases coincidental. When music is written it isn't meant to be interpreted for its likeness to nature, but for its beauty or (vocal) meaning. The definition must be wrong because it contradicts music as an art form.
Music is not a representation of nature, but yet we consider it an art. So instead of "biting the bullet" i propose that a new definition of art is needed.
We consider music art because it bears many resemblances with the basic forms of art that we know like, art, dance, etc. It's comparison with art is, but not limited to, the style it has (in general), they are not just random components put together. And it bears resemblance to dance because the way they both flow and provoke interest.
I also noticed that some people said that music does resemble nature. I agree with them only to the point saying that only SOME music would represent and emphasize nature while most others do not.
An example of music representing music is a pan flute, where the pan flute can represent the wind and emphasize it to make it sweeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZScqh7VYE
A counter-example is house music, where the beats and rythyms are computerized and bear little or no resemblance to natue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcGjBJpUXKc
Though music is man-made, as well as being art, it is not mimesis. To be mimesis, a work must be imitating nature; though elements of nature can be found in most art, they cannot be in all music. Music is solely made by man, with sounds created by them, and not necessarily mimicking or referring to anything else (such as nature). They may emphasize certain parts of the music, but again, the parts emphasized do not always have to do with nature. This shows that the definition of art being mimesis is too broad, and that another definition must be found.
Mimesis is a great explanation of art. Many forms of art mimic nature, so the mimesis definition is seemingly ideal. However the narrowness of this definition is apparent when we look at art forms such as music. Music does not mimic nature in any shape or form. Music falls into the more recent definitions of art, such as the aesthetic or institutional. These other definitions include music but are disclosed to other forms of art, and have many flaws and ambiguities in them. In conclusion, music is definitely an art form, the issue arises when we try to define what art is. Every set of criteria we have set for art has been debunked. I believe it is safe to say that art is too wide of a field to define, with such narrow criteria. Art is an abstract idea, even though man can create and manifest art, the only thing that makes this manifestation "art", is the human mind.
Music is definitly art, however it is not a representation of nature. Although there are coincidental sounds in music forms that sound like those in nature, they are simply that, coincidental. I have yet to hear a song that represents nature. This simply proves that the defition of art as being mimesis does not work. If one example can prove it wrong, it is not a true definition.
-Santiljan Vukaj
Music is an artifact. It is created by humans and it cannot represent nature. However as much as I believe and want to believe in this, I am questioning my beliefs. I feel pretty sure that a musician can take different sounds of nature such as: thunder, rain, waves, cicada bugs, etc and make a musical work out of it. However I am not sure whether this would represent nature at all. Is using the sounds of nature representing nature?
Post a Comment