The reading from the book, Themes in the Philosophy of Music, mentions the use of music as a tool in order to obtain pleasure. The reading also goes on to mention that this cannot be true for if music were only a tool then it could be replaced with some other tool. All of this got me to thinking about how gluttonous the country really is when it comes to tools for obtaining pleasure.
One of the main addictions in this country, in my opinion, is food. This is one of the fattest nations in the world with a large portion of the population being obese or at times even morbidly obese. Things such as portion sizes have gotten out of control due to our desire to obtain pleasure from the foods that we eat. What once used to be a normal sized drink for an adult is now referred to as child sized. With new 32oz drinks and bigger portions of almost every food we eat, it is not hard to see why our waistlines are expanding.
We also want this food given pleasure at our convenience and portable. With water bottles, go-gurt, and other snack items meant to be on the go it is hard to figure out why people need to eat all the time, can we not wait until we get home for that yogurt, and do we really need to have water with us all the time, are we fearful of dehydration?
We are also over consumptive in other areas as well. We thirst for the newest technology and little gadget. A couple of years ago when the new iPhone came out, people were lined up for hours if not days to get the new device. Those people also spent dearly for those as well. There is a large portion of society that seek to obtain pleasure from purchasing material goods, and this can be seen in the enormous amount of credit card debt that is increasing in this country.
It is my belief that we have succumbed to the sin of gluttony in this country. We want things bigger, better, and we want them now regardless of the cost that we might end up paying or even the cost that the environment and planet might pay as well. Cars are a great example; we wanted high performance cars, ones that could go from 0 to 60 in some ridiculously short time that the average person will never utilize. We wanted things to be impressive and grandiose and had little to no regard of the consequences. So while I think that there are completely valid and non destructive ways of obtaining pleasure, such as from music, I think that a large portion of our population is getting out of hand in their attempt to gain pleasure.
Question: Do you think that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing?
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Martial Artistry
This is in response to Amy’s question, Should martial arts and other self-defense forms be considered art?
This question intrigued me to the point that I was actually trying to find a way in which things such as martial arts were not a form of art and I found that I was unable to form such an argument. When you break down the aspects of these physical attributes, it is not hard to define them as artistic.
One reason that I felt helped define martial arts as art is how similar it can be to dance, which is considered an art form. Dancers all around the world are revered for their artistic ability, which is mostly to do with the immense amount of control and power they hold over their own body, this control that many people would also like to have as well, so they admire and respect those that put the time and effort into fine tuning their own instrument (body). Those who practice martial arts and other forms of self defense have just as much if not more control over their body as those who practice dance.
The time and hard work that martial artists put into perfecting their instrument can be likened to an artist who might be learning how to play an instrument or a painter learning about techniques. The only difference is that in the case of a martial artist, the artist and the art are one in the same.
There are also forms of martial arts in which the artist hold positions for lengths of time, both as a form of meditation as well as strength endurance. Looking at them as an audience member might make them look as if they are a temporary statue, but instead of being made out of marble or some other form of material they are a living being. AS far as I know a work of art does not have to be something that is permanent in order for it to be considered art. If permanency were a necessary condition for artwork then nearly all forms of artwork that we look at as art would not meet that standard since canvas can be burned or torn and sculptures can be demolished.
Another reason that I believe that martial arts is art is the fact that it can elicit emotional from audience members or those who view it. A demonstration can create feelings of peace and serenity or of anxiety or anger. They are well choreographed and practiced which, like I said earlier, is similar to dance art. So it is my belief that martial arts and self defense should be considered as art.
Question: What conditions do you think are necessary to define something a as art?
This question intrigued me to the point that I was actually trying to find a way in which things such as martial arts were not a form of art and I found that I was unable to form such an argument. When you break down the aspects of these physical attributes, it is not hard to define them as artistic.
One reason that I felt helped define martial arts as art is how similar it can be to dance, which is considered an art form. Dancers all around the world are revered for their artistic ability, which is mostly to do with the immense amount of control and power they hold over their own body, this control that many people would also like to have as well, so they admire and respect those that put the time and effort into fine tuning their own instrument (body). Those who practice martial arts and other forms of self defense have just as much if not more control over their body as those who practice dance.
The time and hard work that martial artists put into perfecting their instrument can be likened to an artist who might be learning how to play an instrument or a painter learning about techniques. The only difference is that in the case of a martial artist, the artist and the art are one in the same.
There are also forms of martial arts in which the artist hold positions for lengths of time, both as a form of meditation as well as strength endurance. Looking at them as an audience member might make them look as if they are a temporary statue, but instead of being made out of marble or some other form of material they are a living being. AS far as I know a work of art does not have to be something that is permanent in order for it to be considered art. If permanency were a necessary condition for artwork then nearly all forms of artwork that we look at as art would not meet that standard since canvas can be burned or torn and sculptures can be demolished.
Another reason that I believe that martial arts is art is the fact that it can elicit emotional from audience members or those who view it. A demonstration can create feelings of peace and serenity or of anxiety or anger. They are well choreographed and practiced which, like I said earlier, is similar to dance art. So it is my belief that martial arts and self defense should be considered as art.
Question: What conditions do you think are necessary to define something a as art?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Of Bad Words and Binks
This is in response to Amy’s question, “Is it the parents fault if a child starts using curse words? Or is it the media’s fault? Or is it both?
Parent’s responsibility for their children’s action is oddly enough a very heated debate. There are, in general, two camps that one could subscribe to. One of the camps feels that parents are responsible for all the actions of their children and the other feels that the media is so pervasive that parents cannot keep their children from it. Then you have those who feel that the answer is somewhere in the middle.
There are those who feel that parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children. It is true that parents are the first to help socialize young children. When a child misbehaves people will usually speculate about what the parent is doing wrong in the rearing of said child and this includes when a child uses profanity after all, they had to learn it somewhere. While parents cannot predetermine what or who their children will grow up to be, they do lay the ground work for future habits both good and bad. For this reason parents should take the responsibility of raising their children seriously.
On the other end of the spectrum you have those who feel that the media is so out of control and ingrained into every aspect of our life that children and merely lambs being lead to the slaughter. Music has profanity, TV shows are full of stereotypes and sexual content and even Hannah Montana’s concerts are a bit risqué for the younger audience members. Children also pick up violent tendencies from TV as well, doubters merely play with a four year old boy who watches power rangers and see him try to punch the bad guy and you will know what I mean. I don’t completely agree with this point even though I do agree that the media has become an even larger opponent for parents than in past generations.
People who believe that either the parents are 100% responsible or that the media is 100% responsible for children’s behavior and use of foul language are missing a key point. The fact is that both, in some ways are responsible. Yes parents should monitor what they do and do not listen to or watch, if they think that it’s inappropriate then turn it off. However parents are not with their children 24 hours a day and they will interact with other people and children. So it is my belief that the blame should be spread between the two for the majority of cases, even though there are instances in which parents swear and curse in front of their children I do not believe that this is the norm.
Question: At what age do you think children should be made aware of what curse words mean?
Parent’s responsibility for their children’s action is oddly enough a very heated debate. There are, in general, two camps that one could subscribe to. One of the camps feels that parents are responsible for all the actions of their children and the other feels that the media is so pervasive that parents cannot keep their children from it. Then you have those who feel that the answer is somewhere in the middle.
There are those who feel that parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children. It is true that parents are the first to help socialize young children. When a child misbehaves people will usually speculate about what the parent is doing wrong in the rearing of said child and this includes when a child uses profanity after all, they had to learn it somewhere. While parents cannot predetermine what or who their children will grow up to be, they do lay the ground work for future habits both good and bad. For this reason parents should take the responsibility of raising their children seriously.
On the other end of the spectrum you have those who feel that the media is so out of control and ingrained into every aspect of our life that children and merely lambs being lead to the slaughter. Music has profanity, TV shows are full of stereotypes and sexual content and even Hannah Montana’s concerts are a bit risqué for the younger audience members. Children also pick up violent tendencies from TV as well, doubters merely play with a four year old boy who watches power rangers and see him try to punch the bad guy and you will know what I mean. I don’t completely agree with this point even though I do agree that the media has become an even larger opponent for parents than in past generations.
People who believe that either the parents are 100% responsible or that the media is 100% responsible for children’s behavior and use of foul language are missing a key point. The fact is that both, in some ways are responsible. Yes parents should monitor what they do and do not listen to or watch, if they think that it’s inappropriate then turn it off. However parents are not with their children 24 hours a day and they will interact with other people and children. So it is my belief that the blame should be spread between the two for the majority of cases, even though there are instances in which parents swear and curse in front of their children I do not believe that this is the norm.
Question: At what age do you think children should be made aware of what curse words mean?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Response to Amy
This is in response to Amy’s question, “is it natural for animals to be able to respond to the human language?”
Animals responding to the human language, to me, seem to be very logical. I also believe that all types of animals, whether it is a feral or a domesticated creature, should and do respond to various noises, one of which being human voice.
When a wild animal, let’s say a rabbit, hears a human voice, it will undoubtedly become alert. This is the survival instinct that is kicking in for the animal. It hears something that is outside of the norm and it will respond, typically in a fight or flight manner. If you stumble upon a rabbit, it will instinctually run off in a flight manner, now if you were to encounter a mother bear with her cubs, the bear might react in a fight manner in response to your human voice. This is natural and it is how animals survive. They need to be able to adequately respond to things that have the potential to cause them harm.
As far as domesticated animals go, I think that they to respond to the human voice as a means of survival, however, I think that the fight or flight element that was present with the feral animal is absent in this aspect. Pets learn how to act in ways that will please the pet owner (this is if the owner knows how to properly train a pet however). The pet knows that if they act in a way that is appropriate, they will get rewarded in some way either by a treat or even just attention and praise. These animals also know that if they misbehave that they will receive a negative consequence.
It is my belief that animals, especially pets, learn to respond to human voices in ways that are similar to children. If you want to know if it is natural for an animal to respond to the human language then say something like want to go for a ride to a dog that loves going on them. I know my dog will hop up at the mention of a ride and get very excited, he has learned what that word means and wants in on the action. An animal, with enough training and exposure to the human language can learn to adequately respond to it in turn.
Question: Do you think that animals can only respond to simple human language or do you think that with enough time, practice, and exposure that they could learn more complex language?
Animals responding to the human language, to me, seem to be very logical. I also believe that all types of animals, whether it is a feral or a domesticated creature, should and do respond to various noises, one of which being human voice.
When a wild animal, let’s say a rabbit, hears a human voice, it will undoubtedly become alert. This is the survival instinct that is kicking in for the animal. It hears something that is outside of the norm and it will respond, typically in a fight or flight manner. If you stumble upon a rabbit, it will instinctually run off in a flight manner, now if you were to encounter a mother bear with her cubs, the bear might react in a fight manner in response to your human voice. This is natural and it is how animals survive. They need to be able to adequately respond to things that have the potential to cause them harm.
As far as domesticated animals go, I think that they to respond to the human voice as a means of survival, however, I think that the fight or flight element that was present with the feral animal is absent in this aspect. Pets learn how to act in ways that will please the pet owner (this is if the owner knows how to properly train a pet however). The pet knows that if they act in a way that is appropriate, they will get rewarded in some way either by a treat or even just attention and praise. These animals also know that if they misbehave that they will receive a negative consequence.
It is my belief that animals, especially pets, learn to respond to human voices in ways that are similar to children. If you want to know if it is natural for an animal to respond to the human language then say something like want to go for a ride to a dog that loves going on them. I know my dog will hop up at the mention of a ride and get very excited, he has learned what that word means and wants in on the action. An animal, with enough training and exposure to the human language can learn to adequately respond to it in turn.
Question: Do you think that animals can only respond to simple human language or do you think that with enough time, practice, and exposure that they could learn more complex language?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Urinals and Broken Guitars
This is in response to Michelle’s question, “can playing a burning piano or even a submerged one be looked at as art/music? Do people destroy instruments because they want to be unique in their art making?”
The short answer to this question for me is yes. Things such as demolishing a piano or even smashing a guitar have been looked at as art as well as music. Art, just like music, is something that is very hard to define and it is even more difficult if not impossible to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered art or music. Though this might be a stumbling block, there have been cases when things mentioned in the above question were considered to be art or a musical piece.
It is difficult to define art, but it anyone was to go into an art museum, they would find much more than the Mona Lisa, or other paintings. Art can be made out of twisted metal, garbage, and almost anything you can think of under the sun. Since these objects are located in what we call an art museum, I am acquiescing to the art curator and trust their judgment that what is in the confines of the buildings is truly art. Though I have never seen an art exhibit that contained a demolished piano, I am sure that there is one out there somewhere. People make things like a submerged piano to be looked at as art, they are not merely trying to be destructive, but they are trying to convey something artistic, for lack of a better word.
As far as things such as destroying instruments being considered music, I think that if you find the right group of people then yes it can be considered music. There are many bands that would destroy their instruments at the end of a performance, and many people considered the sounds that emanated from the battered instruments as musical. Some bands have even gone as far to put sounds such as feedback, or at times play with a damaged instrument to create a newer and different sound that is typically associated with that instrument.
Since it is so hard to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for art or music it is hard to either include or exclude certain things as artistic or musical. So some people might take a urinal, put it on display and declare it art, just like some guitar players might throw their guitar in the air let it crash to the ground and then proceed to play an impromptu and unique version of the star spangled banner (Kurt Cobain, Reading Festival 1992). To some people, these things are art and music.
Question: Do you think some declaring something a work of art is enough to make the object a work of art?
The short answer to this question for me is yes. Things such as demolishing a piano or even smashing a guitar have been looked at as art as well as music. Art, just like music, is something that is very hard to define and it is even more difficult if not impossible to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered art or music. Though this might be a stumbling block, there have been cases when things mentioned in the above question were considered to be art or a musical piece.
It is difficult to define art, but it anyone was to go into an art museum, they would find much more than the Mona Lisa, or other paintings. Art can be made out of twisted metal, garbage, and almost anything you can think of under the sun. Since these objects are located in what we call an art museum, I am acquiescing to the art curator and trust their judgment that what is in the confines of the buildings is truly art. Though I have never seen an art exhibit that contained a demolished piano, I am sure that there is one out there somewhere. People make things like a submerged piano to be looked at as art, they are not merely trying to be destructive, but they are trying to convey something artistic, for lack of a better word.
As far as things such as destroying instruments being considered music, I think that if you find the right group of people then yes it can be considered music. There are many bands that would destroy their instruments at the end of a performance, and many people considered the sounds that emanated from the battered instruments as musical. Some bands have even gone as far to put sounds such as feedback, or at times play with a damaged instrument to create a newer and different sound that is typically associated with that instrument.
Since it is so hard to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for art or music it is hard to either include or exclude certain things as artistic or musical. So some people might take a urinal, put it on display and declare it art, just like some guitar players might throw their guitar in the air let it crash to the ground and then proceed to play an impromptu and unique version of the star spangled banner (Kurt Cobain, Reading Festival 1992). To some people, these things are art and music.
Question: Do you think some declaring something a work of art is enough to make the object a work of art?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Enculturation of Music
This is in response to Christina’s question, Do you truly believe that music without words, without human voice, necessarily contains no drama or narration, and even so, do you truly believe purely instrumental music lacks expressiveness and therefore the audience feels no emotions from it?
After reading the chapter and reading the question that Christina posed I began to think about whether or not instrumental music can express emotion and I came up with a few different reasons why I think that it is the person, receiver, and not the music itself that is generating the emotions that people feel when they listen to a particular piece.
First off in order for a musical piece to truly emanate an emotion purely of its own making, then the music itself should express that specific emotion universally to all that hear it. In our culture we typically think of songs played in mostly minor keys as being sad or mournful and songs in major keys as being happier and more upbeat. As we learned in class this is not something that is universally experienced around the world then it stands to reason that it is something that has evolved in our culture that experiences these minor pieces as sad. Since there is no universally sad or universally happy song or composition then how can it be that the music is generating the emotions?
As a species we learn through example and imitation. Even children from an early age learn by imitating the adults in the world around them. Things like laughing and smiling are done because the infant receives a positive reaction from the adult. When the child coos the adult smiles and gives it attention, so the child then does the same action hoping for more attention. This is also how children learn to walk and talk and how to interact with people in the outside world. This is also how children (future adults) learn what to expect from music. When we are having birthday party we listen to happy music and we associate that particular type of music with the feeling that we experienced when we first heard it. If they happened to play something similar to a funeral dirge from the beginning in place of the so called happier music then that would become the norm for the population. We as a society play certain types of music to go along with certain types of events and that is how we form associations with the so called emotions that are coming from the song. We create these connections from birth.
The last thought that I had about the subject is the fact that sometimes people find what we typically consider sad music to bring forth emotions of happiness. Now I know this particular song is lyrically based, but when I first met my Fiancée we were listening to a song that many would consider as sad and depressing, but since I now think of him when I hear that song, it makes me happy. It is because I created a pleasing memory with that song and it is that memory that creates the emotions, not the song. However, I do think that music is a powerful tool, one that can stir up emotions deep within us, though I do not think that the song itself is creating the emotions.
Questions: Do you think that our experiences from birth determine what music we find to be happy or sad?
After reading the chapter and reading the question that Christina posed I began to think about whether or not instrumental music can express emotion and I came up with a few different reasons why I think that it is the person, receiver, and not the music itself that is generating the emotions that people feel when they listen to a particular piece.
First off in order for a musical piece to truly emanate an emotion purely of its own making, then the music itself should express that specific emotion universally to all that hear it. In our culture we typically think of songs played in mostly minor keys as being sad or mournful and songs in major keys as being happier and more upbeat. As we learned in class this is not something that is universally experienced around the world then it stands to reason that it is something that has evolved in our culture that experiences these minor pieces as sad. Since there is no universally sad or universally happy song or composition then how can it be that the music is generating the emotions?
As a species we learn through example and imitation. Even children from an early age learn by imitating the adults in the world around them. Things like laughing and smiling are done because the infant receives a positive reaction from the adult. When the child coos the adult smiles and gives it attention, so the child then does the same action hoping for more attention. This is also how children learn to walk and talk and how to interact with people in the outside world. This is also how children (future adults) learn what to expect from music. When we are having birthday party we listen to happy music and we associate that particular type of music with the feeling that we experienced when we first heard it. If they happened to play something similar to a funeral dirge from the beginning in place of the so called happier music then that would become the norm for the population. We as a society play certain types of music to go along with certain types of events and that is how we form associations with the so called emotions that are coming from the song. We create these connections from birth.
The last thought that I had about the subject is the fact that sometimes people find what we typically consider sad music to bring forth emotions of happiness. Now I know this particular song is lyrically based, but when I first met my Fiancée we were listening to a song that many would consider as sad and depressing, but since I now think of him when I hear that song, it makes me happy. It is because I created a pleasing memory with that song and it is that memory that creates the emotions, not the song. However, I do think that music is a powerful tool, one that can stir up emotions deep within us, though I do not think that the song itself is creating the emotions.
Questions: Do you think that our experiences from birth determine what music we find to be happy or sad?
Friday, April 10, 2009
An Undefined Line
This is in response to Emily Burke’s response to my blog.
In my original blog entry I talked about the destruction of musical instruments at the end of a performance committed by bands such as Nirvana, who at time did it to ensure that their manager could not force them into encores. Emily responded to the question that I posted and in her response criticized the band for this behavior and referred to it as selfish. This got me thinking about how celebrity is dealt with in our society and some of the expectations that are forced upon those who reach a certain level of fame, like Nirvana.
We cannot deny that this society is addicted to entertainment and that we tend to follow the lives of celebrities to an unhealthy level. With things such as Entertainment weekly, or shows like entertainment tonight, or channels like E (entertainment) it is not hard to see how this cultural phenomenon has invaded our everyday lives. This fact has lead me to the conclusion that not only does entertainment take up way too much of our day to day lives, but it also makes us feel some sort of entitlement to things such as the time and life of these people that we idolize for one reason or another.
There is an entire occupation that is devoted to following celebrities around every day of their life. Paparazzi are notorious for going the extra mile to get a photo or sound bite from those who we deem as newsworthy. What many people fail to realize how intrusive this can be to someone. I know I get frustrated when I feel like people are getting to involved in my life and they have an entire country wanting to know every detail about them . I think that this can be very trying and test the patience of celebrities, and I also think that they deserve some privacy just as much as we do.
This brings me to my next point which is a concert. The main act of a show, the one that most people go to see, is usually on stage for an hour or more. Being on stage and singing (for those who don’t lip sync) and playing music for 90 minutes can be exhausting, and they do it almost every night. One has to ask themselves if it is right for a band to play their set, go off stage just to have a manager say you have to go back out because they are cheering loud enough. Are the bands and musicians really their merely to bend and twist to our every demand. The general population is not subject to those standards why should those who have a gift be held to a different standard? Is having a gift a life sentence into servitude to their fans?
Question: How much does musician owe their fans? At one point does it cross the line into absurdity?
In my original blog entry I talked about the destruction of musical instruments at the end of a performance committed by bands such as Nirvana, who at time did it to ensure that their manager could not force them into encores. Emily responded to the question that I posted and in her response criticized the band for this behavior and referred to it as selfish. This got me thinking about how celebrity is dealt with in our society and some of the expectations that are forced upon those who reach a certain level of fame, like Nirvana.
We cannot deny that this society is addicted to entertainment and that we tend to follow the lives of celebrities to an unhealthy level. With things such as Entertainment weekly, or shows like entertainment tonight, or channels like E (entertainment) it is not hard to see how this cultural phenomenon has invaded our everyday lives. This fact has lead me to the conclusion that not only does entertainment take up way too much of our day to day lives, but it also makes us feel some sort of entitlement to things such as the time and life of these people that we idolize for one reason or another.
There is an entire occupation that is devoted to following celebrities around every day of their life. Paparazzi are notorious for going the extra mile to get a photo or sound bite from those who we deem as newsworthy. What many people fail to realize how intrusive this can be to someone. I know I get frustrated when I feel like people are getting to involved in my life and they have an entire country wanting to know every detail about them . I think that this can be very trying and test the patience of celebrities, and I also think that they deserve some privacy just as much as we do.
This brings me to my next point which is a concert. The main act of a show, the one that most people go to see, is usually on stage for an hour or more. Being on stage and singing (for those who don’t lip sync) and playing music for 90 minutes can be exhausting, and they do it almost every night. One has to ask themselves if it is right for a band to play their set, go off stage just to have a manager say you have to go back out because they are cheering loud enough. Are the bands and musicians really their merely to bend and twist to our every demand. The general population is not subject to those standards why should those who have a gift be held to a different standard? Is having a gift a life sentence into servitude to their fans?
Question: How much does musician owe their fans? At one point does it cross the line into absurdity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)