Part three of:
A Description
of Art
as Manifestation
of the Truths
of the Articles
of the Existence
of Everything.
So having disposed of relativism on both counts - in regards to truth and in regards to art - we revist our two sets of data.
We look again at the set of truths first. What do they have in common? Well, most are what we might call "objective facts." That is to say, they deal with objects in space. 2+2=4 is saying, essentially, that two distinct objects in space, when grouped with two other distinct objects in space, well make a set of four distinct objects in space.
And we soon conclude that all "objective facts" are of the same nature. They all deal with the relationship of objects in space. There are many examples of apparent exceptions. Indulge me for a moment, please. I ask this because the theory I present here is a synergistic one. That is to say, it's truth is apparent once all the pieces are in place. It then displays an elegance an intuitive rightness that I suspect will be for many quite convincing.
To attempt to answer all challenges to every proposition is rather like an attempt to study a species' role in an ecosystem. Without studying the whole of the ecosystem, one's efforts are doomed to inadequacy. One might learn something from the attempt, but it will fundamentally fall short of the stated goal.
Regardless, this evaluation of "objective fact" suggested the notion that the truths of space are conveyed in math. But remember, our line of inquiry pursued not the relationship between truth and math, but rather the relationship between truth and art.
So we considered the notion that math was an art. Again, I'd like to withold an analysis of why. At this juncture, it is still merely a matter of semantics anyway. So. Math is the art that conveys the truths of space. Now the truths of space feel particularly, intuitively -object-ively - true to us. They do so because they deal in objects, which are physical things that we can touch.
And we certainly explored the some of the many avenues of inquiry prompted by that idea at length. But ultimately, we returned to the obvious elephant in the room. If space has an art, what about time? What about light?
Music is the art of time.
Sound is to time as object is to space. It is the physical manifestation of the "article." By this I mean that space can exist, in concept, without objects in it to define it's limits, but in practice, such a conception is meaningless. There can be no "empty space" without "not empty space." Similiarly, time can exist without sound - without rhythm - but there is no means to mark it's passing. It is meaningless.
Rhythm is ordered frequency. It is what makes all understanding of time possible. More than that, is allows time to exist, just as particles (objects) allow space to exist. This feels less intuitively true, (for neither article does the statement feel particularly intuitively true, really) but if you really think about it, you'll see what I mean.
Cohry wishes to elaborate on a couple of things here (it's a little dense, skip it if you find it dull):
This relationship between melody and time was intuited upon reflection of 2 essential qualities of melody. The first is tone which defines the pitch of a sound and the second is sequencing, which if we define melody as one or more notes played within a given period of time, defines the spacing and duration of tones within that period.
Pitch here is understood as the way in which an organism perceives it, which is necessarily a pick-up of vibrations of air within that organism's' environment. The specific vibrations which can be accepted as tonal vibrations assume a constancy for their definition. This is understood as a tone's frequency, or pitch, and is commonly measured in 'cycles per second' or 'hertz'.
For example, concert pitch is defined as 440Hz, which is to say that when the vibrations in the air achieve a constancy at 440 pulses each second, this is agreed to be the pitch 'A'.
Thanks Cohry. But why is music the art of time?
Well, why is math the art of space? Math is the art of space because it describes the truths of particles. It speaks the truths of their shapes and forms and of the distance between them. It speaks the truths of their distinctness from one another. Additionally, the truths that math manifests are immortal. Pi is and always has been pi. It is both immortal and true. The symbol we use to describe it is not - it is only a manifestation of the immortal truth into a mortal form. But because math is precisely that - a rendering of immortal truths into mortal form - math is an art. (Astute readers might cry "circular reasoning" here. I beg a bit more indulgence.)
Similarly, music is the art of time because it describes the truths of waves - of frequency. It describes the entities of time, just as math describes the entities of space. Now that great song on the radio is not an immortal truth, just as the symbol for Pi is not an immortal truth. The great song, provided it really is melodically true, is merely a faithful, but mortal manifestation of the immortal truth.
In math we can get our brains around this easily. We can pick up the rock that math describes. And if the math is bad, and the description of the rock is false, we can easily test that and see that the false math is a lie.
The entities of time are melodies. And just as there is a single true mathematical description of two rocks, and myriad false descripitions of two rocks, so too is there a single true rendering of each distinct melody and myriad false ones. The true rendering gets the rhythm and pitch sequence of the immortal melody exactly right. And it approximates tone as best it can.
The important thing to see here is that the entities are immortal and specific. Just as Pi is and always has been Pi, so too for a true melody.
Now we didn't always know about Pi. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just needed to be discovered.
And we didn't always know about the melody to "white christmas." That doesn't mean it didn't exist. It just needed to be discovered.
Of course music has its 2+2=5's as well. In fact, music is comprised almost exclusively of 2+2=5's. The reason for this is rooted in the impermanance of time. Time, necessarily, is like a river. The water won't stay still. It's never now, and it always is, but regardless, you can't hear a song in stasis. You can look at the wavform. That's very useful, and is a testimony to or ingenuity. But it is not the same as the holding a rock. Space is about touching things. And it is about stasis. So it's easy to "grasp." Just like a rock is easy to "grasp." It deals in particles.
Time deals in waves. You see? And waves are about frequency. As soon as you pin down a peak, the wave is no longer a wave. Because it is defined by series of peaks, not by any individual one distinct from the others. It, unlike space, is not fundamentally about "distinction."
But it nevertheless has distinct entities within it's dominion. And those distinct entities are called "melodies." Most every melody that you hear is a 2+2=5. Because people don't understand what they are doing when they "make" music. People believe that they "create" music. Usually they are right. The problem is when people create music, they create bad, untrue music. Just as it is much easier for me to create math than it is for me to discover it, so too with music.
2+4-3+8-7 x 6 x 4-8+0+10/3 = 12
There. That was easy. Much easier than discovering Pi. And it's just as true, right?
Of course not.
(I haven't actually crunched those numebrs. Watch it turn out to actually equal 12, ha ha.)
Same thing with music. I can "make up a melody" just like I "made up" that equation. And it will be an example of false art, just as is the equation.
True melodies are discovered. They come to you all at once, or sometimes in pieces. You have to learn to recognize them and embrace them when they arrive. How can you tell? True melodies sound familiar. They feel intuitively right. Just as 2+2=4 just feels right. They are the ones you find yourself humming after a listen or two.
But don't take this to mean that you should rely on memory to hold them!!! Absolutely do not do that. Even the slightest inaccuracy in rhythm - a subtly different cadence - or a single wrong pitch, will pervert the truth of the melody. And I know from personal experience the pain of losing a great melody. You should always carry around a tape recorder with you. Record all ideas. Evaluate them later. After a couple of years of this, you will be able to tell the true ones apart from the false ones with realtive ease.
Don't expect this task to be easy right away. And don't expect to do it alone. Find another artist or two who will provide objective feeback. Non-artists, provided they tell you the truth - good or bad - are usfeful for feedback too. But here's the tricky thing. You have to be able to stick with an idea even if all the feedback says it's a bad one. Because sometimes everyone else, given that your pool of everyone else is small, is wrong.
If you find someone who is an accomplished artist who is willing to give you honest feedback, and who proves himself right consistently, milk that person dry. Hit him up for feedback to the very maximum extent possible. Learn to like negative responses better than positive ones. There is no finish line. One's truth compass, when it comes to music, never reaches maximum accuracy.
Now most folks are so afraid of plagarism, or even the suggestion of it, that they will almost surely kill any great immortal melody they are fortunate enough to receive. They change it or throw it away.
Can you imagine the guy who discovered Pi saying, "Nah, this seems too true. I'm gonna change it to something else. Maybe 4.0 That's a nice round number."
Don't kill the melodies that come to you from nowhere. Don't kill them because they sound too familiar. Don't kill them because they're "goofy" sounding, or because they're "too catchy." Don't kill them because they aren't "hard" enough or because they aren't "your style." Don't kill them for any reason.
At the very least, capture them in their true form and set them aside for later. Let them live, even if you don't let them see the light of day for a couple of years.
As artists, we must learn to embrace truth. Embrace the true melodies that come to you. The "that sounds familiar but I can't place it exactly" melodies. They are the only ones worth keeping. They are a gift from the immortal, and you have a responsibility to manifest them into mortal form, so that they may bring joy to the people.
The theory: Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
No comments:
Post a Comment