These days, it's so easy to go on the Internet and check out the KCRW website to see the artwork that I am talking about, but years ago when I started, that was definitely not the case. That's why I developed a policy where, instead of trying to describe an artwork, I would rather share with the listeners my thoughts and feelings about what I've seen. In an ideal world, I would like to take all of you with me to artists' studios to experience their works firsthand - to see, to touch, and even to smell their art.
The Subjectivity of Experience Every input to our senses is a stimulus, available for us to interpret as information and from which we can derive further information. Our physical sensory receptors--our ears, eyes, etc. Scientists and philosophers have advanced many conceptual models of what the brain does with these nerve impulses to derive knowledge and meaning.
Dobrian, Chris, " Music and Artificial Intelligence ", regarding models of music cognition. Regardless of the mechanism by which our brain accomplishes it, it is clear that we generate interpret, deduce, recall, or create information ourselves, stimulated by external information.
For example, when we hear a lion's roar, our ear drum simply receives continuous changes in air pressure. The cochlea, so we are taught, responds to the frequencies and amplitudes of those changes and conveys those responses to the brain.
Our brain, by means largely unknown to us past experience, instinct, deduction, instruction in roar analysis? Our brain then derives further information about the actual source of the sound and its meaning. A person in one time or place might interpret the sound to mean "My life is in danger.
I must run away from the sound source immediately as fast and as far as I can.
A person who had never learned to associate that sound with any particular source--e. When we hear a strange sound--thinking "What was that? Occasionally we pay attention to the sound itself. Then it is more than a cue, and we are listening in another mode, music mode, regardless of the source of the sound.
We may quite easily say, "That sound symbolizes a lion," but would we so easily say, "That sound symbolizes a tape recorder"? Are we talking about the sound or about our own personal referents derived from the sound? There is no objective experience.
All experience is subjective Our brains make the images that we think we "perceive" When somebody steps on my toe, what I experience is not his stepping on my toe, but my image of his stepping on my toe reconstructed from neural reports reaching my brain somewhat after his foot has landed on mine.
Experience of the exterior is always mediated by particular sense organs and neural pathways. To that extent, objects are my creation, and my experience of them is subjective, not objective.
It is, however, not a trivial assertion to note that very few persons, at least in occidental culture, doubt the objectivity of such sense data as pain or their visual images of the external world.
Our civilization is deeply based on this illusion. If information has a certain significance to me, how do I determine whether that significance is personal to me or whether it is actually "contained" in the external information and thus available to others who receive the same information?
After all, people all look different, are shaped differently, act differently, talk differently; is there any reason to believe that we all hear the same?
How do we communicate those aspects of our knowledge which are personal? The way that we probe for an answer to these questions is to rely upon a system of symbols and meanings that we feel relatively confident are shared by others.
Our most developed and established system of communicative symbols is, of course, language.
Of course, this trust is belied by everyday misunderstandings, and is actually as much of an illusion as the illusion of objective experience commented upon above see also my summary of Benjamin Hrushovski's analysis of " The Structure of Semiotic Objects "but it is true that our spoken language is our most fully shared basis for communication.
Aspects of the Music-Language Relationship Music and language are related in so many ways that it is necessary to categorize some of those relationships. I will then address each category in turn.Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. Laurie Anderson, Steve Martin, Frank Zappa, Martin Mull, Elvis Costello, Thelonius Monk, Clara Schumann, Miles Davis, George Carlin and several other people have been credited with concocting this extraordinarily popular and enigmatic simile.
I "sampled" priceless details like this in my novel. However, writing about music remains, well, hard. The bespectacled legend Elvis Costello said, "Writing about music is like dancing about.
Art is symbolic representation of ideas and thoughts. It has the power to move us. Different art forms work are an expression of the feelings, imagination and creativity of an individual.
Art knows no boundaries and the different art forms are always of help whenever we feel the need to . If you have ever analyzed a poem or developed an understanding of a historical period, you are prepared to think and write like an art historian. You must still make an argument about something, but in this case you will use art (instead of, say, dialogue from a play) to build and defend your argument.
Sep 17, · Talking about Art is like Dancing about Architecture 09/17/ pm ET Updated Dec 06, Renowned performance artist, Laurie Anderson, famously said that talking about music is like .
About: Architecture quotes. Add to Chapter “ All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts, or stimulates the persons in that space.