Thought

     In watching and reading this slideshow Dr. Johnson posted, I started thinking about how very affecting art is, and how it is the same for music specifically.  There were so many quotations in that slideshow that got me thinking, I cannot even choose just one to showcase here.  Creating is like an escape, and a great place to be, unlike any other.  Experiencing music and performance can be life-changing, and unlike any other experience.  It is so compelling, to create, to watch, to listen.  It is unfortunate when we are so busy that we are unable to give in to that compulsion, for we miss such wonderful opportunities in thought. 
     How creating music, or anything, stimulates and excites.... it is a passion, and like an illness, a force all its own.  Music can make you think about things in an entirely new way, or even just to think about something at all, that you may not have before.  Music does reflect our world, and how wonderful that it endures, and continues telling that story.  All that music takes in us to create, to experience; how it sustains us, and all that it gives us all, emotionally, intellectually, socially - how can it be anything but Art?

Q and A, 5

     The significance of Hamilton's desire to defend an aesthetic conception of music lies in its past and present views.  Music has historically been regarded as aesthetic, but only secondary to natural or mathematical or ethical.  These distinctions take away from the actual intention of music as a means to an aesthetic end, and Hamilton means to bring that intention to the forefront, and define music correctly.  Also, perhaps more importantly, music for aesthetic purposes has been viewed as natural, or godly, and thus outside the realm of human experience, whereas the human experience of creating music has been viewed not as an art, thus lowering its status and claiming it is not aesthetic in nature.  Hamilton means to prove that practices of craft are still aesthetic in nature, that art and aesthetics are not always synonymous.
     Yet Hamilton talks of music as being art with at least a lowercase 'a', which means to signify music's aesthetic intention.  It is important to defend this claim because music is indeed a human activity with aesthetics at its core.  As Hamilton says in his introduction, "...music is abstract in form, but humane in utterance - and utterance is essential."  However previously or contemporarily viewed, music is and always has been humane in utterance and experience, and that speaks directly to determining the aesthetics of music.
     And so, Hamilton's desire to articulate and defend an aesthetic conception of music is significant because this conception is actually the link between all the differing views of music, yet not always apparently, and it needs to be made apparent.





Is music merely craft?  What is the distinction between a craft or skill, and art?

re: Can an artwork really be considered art if it does not [meet our aesthetic expectations]?

     To answer Sean's question, I would say, first, that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, is not to another, and vice versa.  Aesthetics, while a philosophical discipline and field of study, is an emotional response, making it very subjective.
     Art is a creative expression, whatever form that may take, and all such expressions may not meet our aesthetic expectations.  However, because they are creatively expressed, I do not think they can be discounted, and therefore should be considered art.




With all the subjectivity and emotion of art, can there be a real objective truth in aesthetics, or a true beauty, or are the subjective truths all true?