Music as analogy for LF photography

[Alan Klein]

Heroique,

I agree with everything you say. My only point, and the only substantial difference between a viewer scanning through a photograph in time and a listener experiencing a piece of music in time, is that in the latter, the temporal organization, i.e., the order and speed of presentation, is determined by the composer/performers and the listener experiences the piece in that way only. When scanning a photograph or painting, etc., the viewer decides the order, the speed, if something gets left out, revisited, etc. In this latter case, scanning with one's eye, the brain is really working to get an impression of the object as it exists as a whole; it's instinctive and basic to visual perception. When listening to music, the brain has to be trained to recognize form, repetitions, variations, etc. as they are presented in time, using tools are aren't simply instinctive, but which require a higher order of processing; something learned.

The difference is not huge, but important. However, so are the similarities you point out, which lead to the myriad comparisons of two-dimensional, plastic and architectural art to music. Again, I'll posit that these comparisons are by way of analogy - i.e., extended meaning of those musical terms used for comparison, and are not really equivalent. They are nevertheless similar enough to make the analogy valid.

Sure, the artist often has tools to direct the viewer's attention in a certain order, but I really think that the experience of a static work of art is fundamentally different from that of one dependent on temporal organization.

I've got Oliver Sacks' book on the way. We can discuss that when I've read it (and digested it ).

Best,

Doremus

Just like we don't have to take courses on English and grammar to speak and appreciate a good speaker, we don't have to understand music as a musician might have to. The brain has a natural affinity to appreciate music without knowing how to read a note. The same with photos and art in general. The ability of people to have art inspire feelings within them is in-born.

[Vaughn]

...

Sure, the artist often has tools to direct the viewer's attention in a certain order, but I really think that the experience of a static work of art is fundamentally different from that of one dependent on temporal organization.
...

Doremus

Some work survives as individual stand-alone photographs, but most artists tend to work in groups of photographs that are linked together by a common theme, look, and feel. Yes, we can separate a piece out of the show and enjoy it on its own, just like we can listen to and enjoy just one movement of a Bach piece...but we can also experience the show (or book) as an experience through time in an expressed order determined by the artist/curator...and as I mentioned before, with visual rests, crescendos, and other music-like characteristics.

My point being that in photography, the single image is not necessarily the measure. It is more often the collection of work, presented with a specific timing and pattern...just like classical music...that we appreciate and is the measure of an artist.

Just like we don't have to take courses on English and grammar to speak and appreciate a good speaker, we don't have to understand music as a musician might have to. The brain has a natural affinity to appreciate music without knowing how to read a note. The same with photos and art in general. The ability of people to have art inspire feelings within them is in-born.

That is not how it works. A society trains its members in the appreciation of its art. How we see and how we hear has been trained into us since birth. One measure of an artist is how far they can break away from that training and still reach their audience. And one measure of a person experiencing a work of art is their use of their knowledge and experience to pull everything out of the work that the artist put into it.

PS -- I love the meme that says "Everything I know about classical music I learned watching Bugs Bunny."

[Doremus Scudder]

Some work survives as individual stand-alone photographs, but most artists tend to work in groups of photographs that are linked together by a common theme, look, and feel. Yes, we can separate a piece out of the show and enjoy it on its own, just like we can listen to and enjoy just one movement of a Bach piece...but we can also experience the show (or book) as an experience through time in an expressed order determined by the artist/curator...and as I mentioned before, with visual rests, crescendos, and other music-like characteristics.

My point being that in photography, the single image is not necessarily the measure. It is more often the collection of work, presented with a specific timing and pattern...just like classical music...that we appreciate and is the measure of an artist.

That is not how it works. A society trains its members in the appreciation of its art. How we see and how we hear has been trained into us since birth. One measure of an artist is how far they can break away from that training and still reach their audience. And one measure of a person experiencing an work of art is their use of their knowledge and experience to pull everything out of the work that the artist put into it.

The narrative sequence again. Although I really think the viewer determines the timing. Still, the order is decided by the artist/curator and thus there is a temporal element. Get the number of images up to 24 per second, and you've got a film

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

Just like we don't have to take courses on English and grammar to speak and appreciate a good speaker, we don't have to understand music as a musician might have to. The brain has a natural affinity to appreciate music without knowing how to read a note. The same with photos and art in general. The ability of people to have art inspire feelings within them is in-born.

I don't know Alan... I regularly decry the lack of literacy, both in the written word and in the appreciation of art and music. What you get out of a work of art, piece of music, novel, play, dance performance, etc. is completely dependent on what you bring to it.

How do we expect people who can't conjugate verbs, use the subjunctive mood correctly and only have a rudimentary vocabulary of mostly slang to get anything out of King Lear? These people have learned to speak, and likely to read, but not at a high enough level to understand Shakespeare's expression.

Similarly, those that only know music as four-beats-per-measure, three-chord harmony, diatonic melodies that span no more than an octave and simple three-minute AABA song forms will never get a handle on Strauß' "Der Rosenkavalier," not to mention Berg's "Wozzeck" or even Thelonius Monk, unless their understanding is expanded somehow. I don't think that comes automatically.

There is an analogous visual and spatial vocabulary that needs to be learned and then brought to visual art and dance (add knowledge of gesture and conventional mimicry to this latter). All that talk of golden mean, leading lines, proportion, figure-ground relationships, tonality, graphic organization, iconography, symbolism, allusion, etc., etc. isn't for nothing. They are parts the basic lexicon needed to understand the art works.

We may have a "natural affinity" for many things, but that is only potential. Without it being developed, we really end up without the basic tools and vocabulary to appreciate greatness.

It has ever been thus: the more culturally and artistically educated are able to understand more deeply and get more out of every aspect of art and culture. The fact that such education is now practically absent from our elementary schools only means that more people will be ill-equipped to benefit from the enjoyment of great works of art in any medium. I find that unfortunate.

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

The narrative sequence again. ...
Doremus

Non-narrative sequenceing also. Not every piece of music tells a story.

[Bernice Loui]

How does one begin to learn about music, by extension in this discussion learn about expressive images be they photographs or paintings or similar images?

Musicians often begin by learning the basics of playing scales and numerous other related exercises_studies on their chosen musical instrument or similar with Voice lessons. This must included knowledge and skills in music theory. Technical proficiency with the chosen musical instrument often comes with massive amounts of practice, dedication and passion for mastery of the chosen musical instrument. Yet, there comes a time when the musician moves on from sheer technical proficiency of their musical instrument and develop their personal interpretation of any given piece of music.

Going back to a time before the Musical Staff, music was often written in Tablature for lute or passed on in much the same way as stories being told-shared. Think John Dowland and others for songs and melodies. Eventually, songs and melodies evolved into groups of musicians playing together increasing the complexity of melodies, harmony, rhythms, dynamics, timbre, texture, tonality and form. With more passage of time music developed into works like the Concerto, symphony to solo pieces for Piano, Jazz, Blues, Rock and much more.

Similarities of these examples carried over to photography can be found in learning how to use a camera and the technical aspects of making a photographic image using these technology tools. Then comes the often neglected and more difficult part of understanding this means of creative artistic expression. IMO, this is one of the reasons why photographers can be divided into Gear Centric then those who are creative-artistic expressive centric. To excel as a photographer demands mastery of both in many ways no different than an accomplished musician with excellent technique/technical mastery of their musical instrument and ability to personalize a given piece of music.

In both examples of accomplished musician or photographer demands massive amounts of work, passion, study, commitment and more to accomplish these life goals.

As for Bugs Bunny and Looney Toons/Merrie Melodies, Carl Stalling gets the thanks for setting-arranging so many classical pieces of music to those cartoons.


Bernice

Some work survives as individual stand-alone photographs, but most artists tend to work in groups of photographs that are linked together by a common theme, look, and feel. Yes, we can separate a piece out of the show and enjoy it on its own, just like we can listen to and enjoy just one movement of a Bach piece...but we can also experience the show (or book) as an experience through time in an expressed order determined by the artist/curator...and as I mentioned before, with visual rests, crescendos, and other music-like characteristics.

My point being that in photography, the single image is not necessarily the measure. It is more often the collection of work, presented with a specific timing and pattern...just like classical music...that we appreciate and is the measure of an artist.



That is not how it works. A society trains its members in the appreciation of its art. How we see and how we hear has been trained into us since birth. One measure of an artist is how far they can break away from that training and still reach their audience. And one measure of a person experiencing a work of art is their use of their knowledge and experience to pull everything out of the work that the artist put into it.

PS -- I love the meme that says "Everything I know about classical music I learned watching Bugs Bunny."

[Michael R]

I don't know Alan... I regularly decry the lack of literacy, both in the written word and in the appreciation of art and music. What you get out of a work of art, piece of music, novel, play, dance performance, etc. is completely dependent on what you bring to it.

How do we expect people who can't conjugate verbs, use the subjunctive mood correctly and only have a rudimentary vocabulary of mostly slang to get anything out of King Lear? These people have learned to speak, and likely to read, but not at a high enough level to understand Shakespeare's expression.

Similarly, those that only know music as four-beats-per-measure, three-chord harmony, diatonic melodies that span no more than an octave and simple three-minute AABA song forms will never get a handle on Strauß' "Der Rosenkavalier," not to mention Berg's "Wozzeck" or even Thelonius Monk, unless their understanding is expanded somehow. I don't think that comes automatically.

There is an analogous visual and spatial vocabulary that needs to be learned and then brought to visual art and dance (add knowledge of gesture and conventional mimicry to this latter). All that talk of golden mean, leading lines, proportion, figure-ground relationships, tonality, graphic organization, iconography, symbolism, allusion, etc., etc. isn't for nothing. They are parts the basic lexicon needed to understand the art works.

We may have a "natural affinity" for many things, but that is only potential. Without it being developed, we really end up without the basic tools and vocabulary to appreciate greatness.

It has ever been thus: the more culturally and artistically educated are able to understand more deeply and get more out of every aspect of art and culture. The fact that such education is now practically absent from our elementary schools only means that more people will be ill-equipped to benefit from the enjoyment of great works of art in any medium. I find that unfortunate.

Best,

Doremus

Wow. I don't think much of this holds up at all under scrutiny, nor has it been my experience in a life of music and art. Seems extremely elitist, not to mention likely leading to little more than a fairly vacuous technical appreciation rather than anything genuine.

[Vaughn]

Wow. I don't think much of this holds up at all under scrutiny, nor has it been my experience in a life of music and art. Seems extremely elitist, not to mention likely leading to little more than a fairly vacuous technical appreciation rather than anything genuine.

To move this into sports, my experience with sport indicates that a sport is much more enjoyable to view and better understanding can be had of the activities being viewed if one has a decent understanding of the rules, strategies, and athletes of the sport. Or is Joe Blow at the end of the bar being an elitist for knowing the batting averages of the major players in the National League?

[Heroique]

Doremus’ post is magnificent and I’m sure he knows how potentially explosive it is.

He can count me among his generals.

Sadly, our hieratic armies will be no match for the demotic gangs on the way.

[Tin Can]

Vienna...?

I joined team Demon long ago, with all losers

I smell Dark Age....... again

maybe next life we all sing a happy song

after the feast