Is Music The Lowest Art Form?

[Mat Rhodes]

Deleted

[David L. Donald]

At the elevated level that mathamatics
has risen to these days,it is no wonder
that simple artists, have no clue of it's nature...

It is so much more complicated than most can comprehend;
it becomes like being a master amoung great violinists.
After 30 years study you can now be a beginner.

Or in your post grad studies you have the
brilliant shinning epiphany,
and spend 45 years trying to either
add another or justify the 1st...

Thing is; a great violinist can be reknowned
for 2-5 pieces or comcentrating on playing
a composer like Mozart as a speciality.

A great mathmatician will be reknowned
for ONE great idea in his lifetime, if that.

Pythagoras
Hippocrates of Chios
Srinivāsa Aiyangār Rāmānujan
Fermat

[chas smith R.I.P.]

It is so much more complicated than most can comprehend;

I don't know much about it, but it looks like they're using exotic math to generate (prove) conceptual ideas. That sure looks like art to me.

[Dave Mudgett]

Yes, Chas - that was my earlier point. Sometimes mathematics is used to describe already observed phenomena. But sometimes it's used to probe what is possible conceptually. There are times when mathematics uncovers things that are possible, which are only observed physically or used for some other practical purpose later on. I've seen this several times in my own work and the work of others - at times, I have had a physical problem that a mathematician already solved completely in the abstract. They absolutely had no physical problem in mind when they did the original work. But sometimes, mathematical ideas just stand on their own for a long time as conceptual ideas that have no physical analog - at least yet.

To me, this kind of probing, inductive use of mathematics requires an immense amount of creativity - and is very much like an art form, to me. One really doesn't have anything physical to go on - just pure mathematical visualization and reasoning.

One thing mathematicians I know have very little tolerance for is the misuse of mathematics. Mathematics is a very precisely laid out set of ideas that makes it possible to communicate complex ideas clearly and completely. One of my pet bugaboos is drenching gobbldygook in a mathematical-sounding shroud to make it appear "objective" or "mathematically sound". IMO, ranking systems are very frequently suspect. Unless someone clearly defines how one maps ranked objects to their rank and why, I will cry foul every time. If one wants to say "OK - this is my personal preference ranking." or "OK - this is a popular vote ranking.", fine. Otherwise, I think one needs to clearly lay out the criteria, defend the choice, and then be ready for rebuttal.

[David L. Donald]

Mathamatics can be seen as pure logic.

And pure logic CAN have a definite beauty to it.

Most any artistic shape can me defined in a geometric mathematical context.
No matter how complex or abstract.

Some really cool art is directly resulting from math.
Most all of the 3D animation we see is COMPLETELY
based on mathamatical concepts. Being fine tuned to
imitate life in ways that can NOT be created IN life.

Mathamatics used to create artistic life in ways
that is SAFER than doing it in the real world.

Kids don't try this at home.

[Mat Rhodes]

I'm venturing into "ignorance" territory, but do these models, theorems, revelations, etc. ever connect with mathematicians with the same level of emotional profundity as some of the other mediums? Or is it more of an intellectual resonance? (or can you differentiate at that point?)

I only bring it up because Randy Phelps mentioned the "irresistable reaction" phenomenon.

The other mediums seem to allow an immediate value judgment: "I like it" or "I don't like it". Math requires more investigation and observation. It would appear that your intellect has more potential to interfere with the connection to the heart.

Dave, are there any "Rachmaninovs" of the math world?

[David L. Donald]

Just like in advanced jazz it takes some
learning and ear training to understand it,
and some NEVER do attain that level of understand,
so too is higher mathamatics.

It's beauty may, or is likely,
to be lost on the average observer.
But to the adept it will have a true
and fundamental beauty.

So we use the applied math,
while others APPLY the math.

OK we can most all enjoy Shreck,
Toy Story and Monsters Inc.
the hair on Aki Ross, etc.

Yet the mathimatical beauty behind the visuals
is no less stunning to the math minds behind it.
Maybe more so.

Now imagine a major musical piece like Bartoks Concerto for Orchestra.
130 players each with between 25-50 years of study
to be able to pull off their 'PART' of this mammoth work.
Or an average 3900 cumulative YEARS of study!

Each needing to be at the top of his game at the same time.
There is nothing so lowly about this endevour.

Many of the best math minds are discretely
working in computing and code making/breaking.

A short list of Rachmaninof's and Bartok's
of the math world.

Ok try this guy.
Grigory "Grisha" Perelman

Henri Poincaré

Pierre_de_Fermat

Diophantus Of Alexandria

Or look here.
The Hundred Greatest Theorems
A pretty good list of the greats over time.

On this list the most recent problems are from
Paul Erdös

NYTimes "founded the field of discrete mathematics, which is the foundation of computer science. He was also one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, with more than 1,500 papers to his name. And, his friends say, he was also one of the most unusual."

Lets not forget Fibonacci.

Science Digest likes math a lot too

[Dave Mudgett]

Dave, are there any "Rachmaninovs" of the math world?

Which aspect(s) of Rachmaninoff do you ask about? If you want to talk about sheer natural brilliance and strong emotional connection to what they did, the names Euler, Gauss, Einstein, Ramanujan, and Feynmann come to mind, as well as many others. Yeah, Einstein and Feynmann were physicists, but their contributions to mathematical physics were huge. Wikipedia gives a basic accounting of all of these and many more. Erdős is certainly another. It is often stated that Euler is the most prolific mathematician of all time - I think that goes to Erdős, even to the point where mathematicians and scientists speak about their "Erdős number", the graph-theoretic distance between themselves and Erdős on graph of paper collaborations.

On the point about "like" vs. "not like", yes there is a strong aesthetic aspect to mathematics and science. Ockham's razor, or the law of parsimony, is often invoked - the idea is that the simplest explanatory theory is often the best and most aesthetic choice - simple elegance. I tend to this approach myself.

The idea that mathematicians and scientists are pure logical animals with icewater running through their veins is absurd. The brain is not naturally logical, IMO. Instead, logical thinking must be forced, but with the purpose of trying to extract the "truth", whatever that is. There is strong emotional gratification in truly uncovering any truth of nature. To me, art is just another method to make connection to the nature of the world. To me, there is no conflict between art and science.

I also agree with David D. that art is not always understood by most people, in a manner similar to mathematics not being generally understood. This does not diminish its beauty to someone who makes the effort to understand it. But this can lead to problems. It can be frustrating to work for years to learn to understand, appreciate, and do difficult things, and then find that few care, even to the point where it can be difficult to make a living at it. This is often a reality in the arts and sciences. But IMO, this is a deal-breaker only if one is motivated primarily by the promise of external rewards. To me, such advanced knowledge and performance ability doesn't necessarily entitle one to escape the drudgery of daily work. What is work? In my opinion, doing a service for someone else. This means that one must find something that can connect. It's possible to do this, and still reserve time for more abstract work - in fact, the discipline of doing related work for someone else can help this along. Remember that Einstein did much of his best work while working as an assistant patent examiner in the Swiss federal patent office, not as a distinguished professor of physics. Status has nothing to do with great work. Other examples abound.

These are all my opinions, of course.

[David L. Donald]

Richard Feynman I was thinking of him, and blanking on the name.
He was a musician also.

How many math and physics wiz's get their own
coloring book page right there with
Ben Franklin and Al Einstein!

http://www.physicscentral.com/coloringbook/

http://www.physicscentral.com/coloringbook/feynman.pdf

[Earnest Bovine]

Richard Feynman I was thinking of him, and blanking on the name.
He was a musician also.

Feynman was not a musician; he was a drummer. He did not respond to melodic and harmonic aspects of music and could not why anyone would. (e.g. Einstein, Teller, etc.)

[David L. Donald]

He was someone who hung out with musicians. OK.

[Dave Mudgett]

Feynman was not a musician; he was a drummer.

Most of the drummers I work with would give you a rim shot for that. Of course, they might do it in the middle of a quiet solo passage.

[Duane Reese]

Lowest form of art I know of is this famous $11,655,500 DROP CLOTH! (edited to show exact price)



Wait, wait - let's give it a chance. Here's a description from Christie's auction to help us block-headed steel players understand...

"A myriad of interlaced swirls and streaks of vibrant color weaving a complex, constantly moving, almost evolving, pattern of painterly form and energy held into a tense febrile unity, it describes a seemingly self-contained world. Its 'abstract' forms relay an 'expression' of interior life through the subtlety and intricacy of their inter-relationship generating an effect that is at once both intimate and personal as well as expansive and open."

Well, ain't that special? I'll bet artist Jackson Pollock would be flattered by such words. Well, he ought to be, considering it's a STINKIN' DROP CLOTH!

[Archie Nicol R.I.P.]

I'm with you on that, Duane.
Art? My rear!

Arch.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

What would you prefer? And out of curiosity, why is it bad?

[Duane Reese]

I would prefer a picture of something. I especially like really nice looking pictures. Norman Rockwell, for example, produced many nice looking paintings.

What I personally find "bad" about that is that it's not a picture of anything. It's a bunch of splattered paint. I wouldn't pay $10.60 for that thing, let alone $11.6 million. I think it's a shame that someone would.

If I saw that picture and didn't know anything about it, who painted it, when, why, ect., I wouldn't even think it was a painting. I'd think it was a drop cloth. My conclusion is that it's artistic value is imaginary.

[David L. Donald]

I think it looks cool.

It price is over inflated quantumly,
and it's description is bollocks,
but it looks cool.

Why must art depict something existing?

Why must the painters vision be something he has actually seen?

Why must I only play what I learn from TAB
or the CD's of others?

I like grand realism that ALSO is a morality lesson
and tells a story. But that shouldn't be the ONLY thing
that I can like.

From my screen saver collection. ;

This is a self portrait of Elizabth Vigee LeBrun
The 1st women inducted into the French Royal Acadamy of Art

She was a daughter of a member, a contemporary and portraitist
of Marie Antionette. Elizabeth did avoid the block.
She had a long career.

She specialised in the alegorical painting style
once thought to be only possibly done properly by male painters.
She proved that wrong and has several works in the Louvre and other major gallerys.

This is in the national Gallery in London.

Subtitled "The Artist Painting Art".
It is a self portrait and an alegory of the
process of creating art. Ultra realism telling a story.

I saw this across 2 gallery spaces and walked up to it directly till my knees hit the rope barrier.
An amazing piece from all distances.

The day before I saw several impressionists in the Tate Gallery.

If DeMuth doesn't copy Rembrant, is he less of an artist.



Me thinks not.
or maybe Gustav Klimt isn't being real enough...


What's wrong with capturing and image that ONLY exists..
in your head?

Or playing a piece of music unlike anything you have heard before?

As I saw printed somewhere recently that made me think of this thread.

"Art is NOT for EVERYBODY"

[Archie Nicol R.I.P.]

It's a con. A child of three, if given a painting set, could come up with that. It's the `Emperor's new clothes` all over.

Arch.

[Richard Sevigny]

While the "dropcloth" doesn't do anything for me personally, I'm not sure if you can actually define "art".

Functionally, art is supposed to evoke a reaction from the viewer/listener. That doesn't mean the reaction is necessarily going to be a "pleasant" or "soothing" one. Good art can be unsettling or disturbing. It can sometimes force you to think.

Examples:



Is this art?



Would you call this art?

What about the play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? That has to be one of the most disturbing things I've ever read.

What about this guy?



Artist or Sensationalist?

I think it's pretty subjective.

[Mat Rhodes]

Richard, your avatar evokes a mildly unsettling feeling in me. Therefore, it must be art! If I were chemically enhanced, though, I'd have to sue you for misuse of it.

[Dave Mudgett]

There is a school of thought that argues that quality of art - in any form - has to do with the complexity and intellectuality of the process of making it. If that is what is needed to reach them, then I guess that's art for them.

My problem is when someone insists that their definition of art is the only legitimate one.

Myself, while I think intellectual content and complexity have a place in art, it is not the only thing that reaches me. To me, there is no fundamental artistic distinction between Vivaldi, Parker, Hank, and Otis Rush - different musical forms that make me stand up, take notice, and react emotionally. The fact that their artistic methods, process, and result don't necessarily have much set-theoretic intersection is irrelevant.

Even if I had billions, I probably wouldn't pay $11.6 mill for the so-called "dropcloth" either. But I don't even think it's possible to judge it from the little computerized graphic shown. A lot of art is 3-dimensional, and its impact may be affected by seeing it in person. I also don't think that "realism" is, per se, better art than something abstract. Nothing against Norman Rockwell, but it's not my thing. I'm less often moved by "nice pictures", even though I fully acknowledge the artistic talent in making them. I generally prefer more impressionistic or abstract visual art - it usually evokes much stronger emotions. YMMV, and that's cool.

[Duane Reese]

See, all of those paintings looks like good, quality work to me. The one by Gustav Klimt is a little on this simplistic side, a little abstract, but it's still kind of interesting in it's own way.

All of those paintings are similar in that they all look like art, and all show skill and talent, to varying degrees. You don't have to know anything about the backgrounds of the artists or paintings to see that there's something worth-while there. To me, good art has to be able to stand alone and be what it is.

That one by Jackson Pollock doesn't even look like art. It looks like a drop cloth. I could take many colors of paint and go *slop-slop-slop-smear-smear-slop* and come up with something just as ridiculous, and it wouldn't go for $11.6 million. The only reason his did is because the buyers know that it was done by "innovator" Jackson Pollock, famous for having produced other works of high-dollar rubbish.

To me, that's not what art should be about. If anyone is worried that music is the lowest form of art for some reason, all they need to do is look at the drop cloth.

[Randy Phelps]

I'm venturing into "ignorance" territory, but do these models, theorems, revelations, etc. ever connect with mathematicians with the same level of emotional profundity as some of the other mediums? Or is it more of an intellectual resonance? (or can you differentiate at that point?)

I only bring it up because Randy Phelps mentioned the "irresistable reaction" phenomenon.

The other mediums seem to allow an immediate value judgment: "I like it" or "I don't like it". Math requires more investigation and observation. It would appear that your intellect has more potential to interfere with the connection to the heart.

I read this last night and saw something later that made me want to find this thread... I thought about it quite a bit (lots of driving to a festival today to play)

First, the answer is yes. I have physicist friends, metallurgist friends and some friends who work at NASA and at MIT and Stanford who work on everything from the shuttle to new battery technology to try and save the planet... with each of them I can recall a conversation where they talked about the beauty, the art of their field. Among my favorites is a story from a physicist friend who said that he spent 3 days thinking of what he'd ask God if he met him... and he said, "Einstein said it best. Why turbulence?"

which hit me in the head like a lightning bolt when I got home from a winery gig (two in one weekend is like a record for me in the past 5 or 6 years)... I flipped on the tube and the movie "American Beauty" was on... there is a scene in the movie where the boy has filmed a plastic bag swirling in the wind... and it is beautiful, and about turbulence and about how there are forces at play in our lives which are out of our control and out of our band of understanding. Amazing stuff!

Sometimes art will hit you the way a great song does... you'll just know it. But just as often it requires context and fore knowledge to grasp what the attempt was. I have learned NOT to dismiss something out of hand as crap anymore. I need to know a lot more about it before I dismiss it...

there are many thoughtless things in the world... but that does not mean that all things deserve enough attention to try and understand and to know that my ability to understand something is just as critical as the thing itself. If I am ignorant of why something is beautiful it will be harder to hear the beauty.

think of the poor people who think steel sounds too twangy? Think of the people who dismiss country as music for rubes! I do not wish to emulate that kind of behavior because it stings when it is aimed at me.

I'd like to watch somebody like Dr. Dre work or learn what his ideas are before I dismiss it. It is harder to do things that way... but if you want to appreciate art, that doesn't mean like it, it means understand what the attempt is...

The Emmons joke I've read here a few times alludes to that.... something like a guy walks off stage and Emmons says, "I really appreciate what you were trying to do up there." It is funny, but telling too... the great master would understand what someone was trying to accomplish because he knows the tool and the genre... it is funny because he is quasi graciously letting the artist know it didn't work.

In the sciences, the tools are known by the great ones and they can appreciate the nuances, the bends, the glisses, in mathematics there are absolutely stylists and people who have a way of going about problems that is their craft of which they build equations that have an artistic quality for people who truly understand the language.

Computer programming... same thing. The Buddy Emmons of programming for me is Bill Atkinson.. he is Emmons and Tiger Woods and PIcasso all in one... I guarantee you that for guys that read code and know software design... looking at his code takes coding to the level of the artistic.

sorry for the long post.

oh yeah. and Dave Mudgett's post +1!

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Back up with the painting of the "5". What I find interesting about that kind if thing is, you can paint an image of your mother or girlfriend or paint an image of your car or some flowers, but you can't paint an image of the number 5 because it is the number 5.

Even if I had billions, I probably wouldn't pay $11.6 mill for the so-called "dropcloth"

You would because now it's no longer just a painting, it's an investment.

A child of three, if given a painting set, could come up with that.

Probably not, but think of all the money you could have saved on lottery tickets.

[Dave Mudgett]

You would because now it's no longer just a painting, it's an investment.

Well, maybe for someone, but probably not me. I'd be too busy buying up land, pre-war D-45s, D-28s, and flathead banjos, and old Strombergs, D'Angelicos, Telecasters, Strats, Les Pauls, Bigsbys, Sho-Buds, Emmons, and muscle cars. Probably a good thing I don't have billions, this kind of stuff can get to be a disease. Anyway, I said "probably".

Like Randy, I am very reluctant to write anything off as cr@p. I have to admit that has come back and bit me in the @ss more than once when I have had ephiphanies about the brilliance of something I previously written off, but on further study and reflection, the meaning suddenly became clear. It is sometimes a serious mistake to think that just because one doesn't understand the meaning of something that there isn't any. IMHO, of course.