Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The ending of "Being There"
So...apparently in the book there is no funeral scene and Chance does not walk on water. What were the advantages or disadvantages of putting that spin on the film? Did it further the seriousness and profundity of the film or do the complete opposite?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Ferrara, Chapter 4 - "Heidegger's Hermeneutic Phenomenology"
Ferrara, Chapter 4 – “Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology”
Summary - Ferrara, Chapter 4 – “Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology”
At the heart of this chapter is Being and Phenomenology. Heidegger claims that the question of Being (“what Being is”), arguably the greatest question in Western Philosophy, has been forgotten. Ferrara continues to elaborate on this topic, stating that in this case, “being” should have a verbal syntactical role as well as a noun use, as in the German language (ex. “One is” vs. “One bees”).
Next, Ferrara talks about Heidegger’s views on Phenomenology. The word originally comes from two Greek words: phainomenon and logos. The first word signifies “to show itself”, or, “that which is manifest in the light of day.” The second refers to the “ability in man to communicate through discourse.” To Heidegger, logos “allows phenomena to appear simply as they are.” He believes that man originally used logos to communicate things exactly as they were with no presupposed notions, and eventually drifted towards conceptual thinking, which ultimately “removed the immediacy” from the connection between phenomena and man.
Ferrara uses Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” to put Heidegger’s views into perspective for readers. According to Heidegger, the things outside passing by the cave opening are not actual things; they are simply the “forms” or ideas of things. An example: “If one wants to judge what kind of father a particular man is, he does not go directly to that father (as the early Greeks might do) and let him show himself as he is.” There is apparently a preconceived perfect form of a father, and it is based on this notion that the actual instance is measured. Ferrara writes, “This early stage of a correspondence theory of truth…sets Western man forth, according to Heidegger, on his journey away from the openness and immediacy of things toward logical thinking.” To use one final quote to summarize the chapter, “One no longer engages things directly and in their immediacy. In this newer form…the actual thing is “re-presented”…first by use of a logical, concept or in the form of a proposition.
Response - Ferrara, Chapter 4 – “Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology”
One again we find ourselves right back at one idea – “bias.” The overall message here is that bias has crept into all of our minds and ruined the purity and naturalness of “being” and simply noting what “is.” As I read Ferrara’s summary of “The Allegory of the Cave”, I really saw how Plato foreshadowed (perhaps unintentionally) how cynical society would become. It is very hard to just see things “the way they are” today; we always expect some kind of catch or hidden trick, probably because we have a hard time giving with no expectation of receiving. Similarly, there is a longstanding argument regarding how science has tainted religion, or vice versa. It is difficult for some to have faith in things that haven’t been proven to exist or actually be possible, and others feel there should be no inquiry into these arguably mythical ideas.
Whatever the case may be, attribute it to the innate, inevitable curiosity of mankind. Heidegger may have been upset that conceptual thinking replaced man’s ability to comment on things “as they are”, but the truth is civilization has shifted from “What is (blank)?” questions to “Why is/are (blank) questions?” in an attempt to satisfy curiosity.
Summary - Ferrara, Chapter 4 – “Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology”
At the heart of this chapter is Being and Phenomenology. Heidegger claims that the question of Being (“what Being is”), arguably the greatest question in Western Philosophy, has been forgotten. Ferrara continues to elaborate on this topic, stating that in this case, “being” should have a verbal syntactical role as well as a noun use, as in the German language (ex. “One is” vs. “One bees”).
Next, Ferrara talks about Heidegger’s views on Phenomenology. The word originally comes from two Greek words: phainomenon and logos. The first word signifies “to show itself”, or, “that which is manifest in the light of day.” The second refers to the “ability in man to communicate through discourse.” To Heidegger, logos “allows phenomena to appear simply as they are.” He believes that man originally used logos to communicate things exactly as they were with no presupposed notions, and eventually drifted towards conceptual thinking, which ultimately “removed the immediacy” from the connection between phenomena and man.
Ferrara uses Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” to put Heidegger’s views into perspective for readers. According to Heidegger, the things outside passing by the cave opening are not actual things; they are simply the “forms” or ideas of things. An example: “If one wants to judge what kind of father a particular man is, he does not go directly to that father (as the early Greeks might do) and let him show himself as he is.” There is apparently a preconceived perfect form of a father, and it is based on this notion that the actual instance is measured. Ferrara writes, “This early stage of a correspondence theory of truth…sets Western man forth, according to Heidegger, on his journey away from the openness and immediacy of things toward logical thinking.” To use one final quote to summarize the chapter, “One no longer engages things directly and in their immediacy. In this newer form…the actual thing is “re-presented”…first by use of a logical, concept or in the form of a proposition.
Response - Ferrara, Chapter 4 – “Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology”
One again we find ourselves right back at one idea – “bias.” The overall message here is that bias has crept into all of our minds and ruined the purity and naturalness of “being” and simply noting what “is.” As I read Ferrara’s summary of “The Allegory of the Cave”, I really saw how Plato foreshadowed (perhaps unintentionally) how cynical society would become. It is very hard to just see things “the way they are” today; we always expect some kind of catch or hidden trick, probably because we have a hard time giving with no expectation of receiving. Similarly, there is a longstanding argument regarding how science has tainted religion, or vice versa. It is difficult for some to have faith in things that haven’t been proven to exist or actually be possible, and others feel there should be no inquiry into these arguably mythical ideas.
Whatever the case may be, attribute it to the innate, inevitable curiosity of mankind. Heidegger may have been upset that conceptual thinking replaced man’s ability to comment on things “as they are”, but the truth is civilization has shifted from “What is (blank)?” questions to “Why is/are (blank) questions?” in an attempt to satisfy curiosity.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
Summary – Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
The second chapter of Ferrara’s book, titled “Should the method define the tasks?”, makes interesting points and comparisons. However, there are a bunch of instances of redundancy and unnecessary reiteration and clarification, which to a certain extent seems to be the status quo of the writing style. This assignment focuses mainly on the first half of the chapter.
The main point is as follows: any method of analysis aims to result in a specific answer or set of findings based on the topic. Unsurprisingly, the tasks required to complete the analysis are structured to facilitate getting that specific answer. Ferrara eludes to the fact that one who completes an analysis in this fashion does not engage in “pure listening”, and, depending on how you look at it, does or does not include “prejudice”, to use Hans-Georg Gadamer’s terms.
Next, Ferrara distinguishes between art objects and aesthetic objects. He creates a scenario of a millionaire who purchases a Rembrandt as a financial investment and has no real interest in the artistic value. He gets an expensive alarm system to protect the painting but aside from that it just sits in the room. In this case, it would simply be an art object because it is indeed that by classification. If a visitor were to come into the room and acknowledge the painting for its artistic qualities and artistic value (as opposed to monetary value), only then would it be considered an aesthetic object. Though the painting (as well as any other object in question) can be correctly identified as both, it is the viewer’s perception that determines the classification.
Lastly, there is “isness.” Ferrara uses the example of a modern-day person analyzing the music of Mozart; he would not be able to comment on the music from a Baroque/Renaissance perspective or from that of a man from the 23rd century because he is neither of those. Therefore, the analysis will inevitably will be subject to current historical context as opposed to the context of the period in which it was written. Though it is an interesting and elaborate point, it is merely a reiteration of the “prejudice” that is previously mentioned.
Reaction - Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
As I wrote the bit about “the viewer’s perception determining the classification of an art object vs. an aesthetic object”, the first thing that came to mind for my personal reaction was a quote from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I can’t apply the quote to its fullest extent (or else I could argue that nothing we say in class or nothing Dr. Ferrara argues is good or bad!) but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate – so what if the millionaire bought the Rembrandt because of the monetary value? In the overall scheme of things, didn’t he do a good thing by paying some person or institution millions of dollars for it? At least he is smart enough to recognize that the painting is worth that amount, regardless of whether or not he is able to (or cares to) notice the artistic qualities and value.
Now that the RembRANT (get it? rant?) is over, I did want to acknowledge Ferrara’s main point. I realize the underlying theme. The typical method of analysis is geared towards a certain answer and the tasks are as well…so what does that mean? It means that there is a type of analysis that strives for findings based on various topics but not one specific or correct answer – the “Eclectic Analysis.”
The second chapter of Ferrara’s book, titled “Should the method define the tasks?”, makes interesting points and comparisons. However, there are a bunch of instances of redundancy and unnecessary reiteration and clarification, which to a certain extent seems to be the status quo of the writing style. This assignment focuses mainly on the first half of the chapter.
The main point is as follows: any method of analysis aims to result in a specific answer or set of findings based on the topic. Unsurprisingly, the tasks required to complete the analysis are structured to facilitate getting that specific answer. Ferrara eludes to the fact that one who completes an analysis in this fashion does not engage in “pure listening”, and, depending on how you look at it, does or does not include “prejudice”, to use Hans-Georg Gadamer’s terms.
Next, Ferrara distinguishes between art objects and aesthetic objects. He creates a scenario of a millionaire who purchases a Rembrandt as a financial investment and has no real interest in the artistic value. He gets an expensive alarm system to protect the painting but aside from that it just sits in the room. In this case, it would simply be an art object because it is indeed that by classification. If a visitor were to come into the room and acknowledge the painting for its artistic qualities and artistic value (as opposed to monetary value), only then would it be considered an aesthetic object. Though the painting (as well as any other object in question) can be correctly identified as both, it is the viewer’s perception that determines the classification.
Lastly, there is “isness.” Ferrara uses the example of a modern-day person analyzing the music of Mozart; he would not be able to comment on the music from a Baroque/Renaissance perspective or from that of a man from the 23rd century because he is neither of those. Therefore, the analysis will inevitably will be subject to current historical context as opposed to the context of the period in which it was written. Though it is an interesting and elaborate point, it is merely a reiteration of the “prejudice” that is previously mentioned.
Reaction - Ferrara, Chapter 2: "Should the method define the tasks?"
As I wrote the bit about “the viewer’s perception determining the classification of an art object vs. an aesthetic object”, the first thing that came to mind for my personal reaction was a quote from Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I can’t apply the quote to its fullest extent (or else I could argue that nothing we say in class or nothing Dr. Ferrara argues is good or bad!) but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate – so what if the millionaire bought the Rembrandt because of the monetary value? In the overall scheme of things, didn’t he do a good thing by paying some person or institution millions of dollars for it? At least he is smart enough to recognize that the painting is worth that amount, regardless of whether or not he is able to (or cares to) notice the artistic qualities and value.
Now that the RembRANT (get it? rant?) is over, I did want to acknowledge Ferrara’s main point. I realize the underlying theme. The typical method of analysis is geared towards a certain answer and the tasks are as well…so what does that mean? It means that there is a type of analysis that strives for findings based on various topics but not one specific or correct answer – the “Eclectic Analysis.”
Friday, January 23, 2009
Assignment #1 - Ferrara, "Introduction"
Summary – Ferrara, “Introduction”
Philosophy and the Analysis of Music by Lawrence Ferrara attempts to tackle and put into a formulaic method one of the most difficult subjects related to music and art in general – personal reactions and feelings based on what is given and what each individual interprets. Though it’s not written for the average Joe (Joe the Plumber?), Ferrara introduces readers to the system he has devised, as well as a long-standing argument between music analysts vs. music referentialists.
His “three broad classifications” for methods of musical analysis are as follows: 1)Phenomenological methods (used to describe sound-in-time), 2)Conventional methods that provide explanations of musical form (a.k.a. syntax), and 3)Hermeneutic methods (the interpretation of musical reference). These classifications will eventually be used with several others in a culminating method known as an “eclectic analysis.”
One of the more interesting points, to me at least, was the connection that theorists have made between referential meanings and psychological associations. Ferrara quotes, “if these musical references are psychological (…in the mind of the listener and not really in the music), then, they maintain, musical reference is irrelevant to the study of musical understanding.” A somewhat decent argument, but I disagree with it and will be discussing it in my reaction below. Ultimately Ferrara makes a point that is rarely heard in such a simple form: music, and art in general, is an experience that includes a variety of sources.
Reaction – Ferrara, “Introduction”
In response to the aforementioned quote comparing referential meanings and psychological associations, it is impossible to separate what is said from how it is said. In a way, I feel like I’m being stripped of my personal opinion if I can’t react to something that isn’t contextually existent (i.e., the notes on the score or the colors in the painting, etc.). Art is created for specific purposes and it has its meanings and references both on the surface and underneath it. John Philip Sousa wrote patriotic marches to invoke that emotion and spirit in people, not to show off his mastery of the duple meter. A random composer could write a twenty minute piece that consists solely of I-V7-I and that modulates through every key – it most likely wouldn’t be to demonstrate that his fundamentals in harmony and music theory are there. Perhaps prior to hearing that performance I had read an article about the ongoing wars and deaths of young soldiers in various parts of the world. After hearing this, I might feel like the composer wanted to bash me over the head and force me to believe that harmony (in every sense of the word) and purity still exists. Maybe I’d be 100% wrong for feeling that way or maybe the composer would completely agree with me. An artist will predominantly control how he says what he wants to say and will control what he is saying to a certain extent, but will likely leave the latter for the audience to grasp for themselves.
Philosophy and the Analysis of Music by Lawrence Ferrara attempts to tackle and put into a formulaic method one of the most difficult subjects related to music and art in general – personal reactions and feelings based on what is given and what each individual interprets. Though it’s not written for the average Joe (Joe the Plumber?), Ferrara introduces readers to the system he has devised, as well as a long-standing argument between music analysts vs. music referentialists.
His “three broad classifications” for methods of musical analysis are as follows: 1)Phenomenological methods (used to describe sound-in-time), 2)Conventional methods that provide explanations of musical form (a.k.a. syntax), and 3)Hermeneutic methods (the interpretation of musical reference). These classifications will eventually be used with several others in a culminating method known as an “eclectic analysis.”
One of the more interesting points, to me at least, was the connection that theorists have made between referential meanings and psychological associations. Ferrara quotes, “if these musical references are psychological (…in the mind of the listener and not really in the music), then, they maintain, musical reference is irrelevant to the study of musical understanding.” A somewhat decent argument, but I disagree with it and will be discussing it in my reaction below. Ultimately Ferrara makes a point that is rarely heard in such a simple form: music, and art in general, is an experience that includes a variety of sources.
Reaction – Ferrara, “Introduction”
In response to the aforementioned quote comparing referential meanings and psychological associations, it is impossible to separate what is said from how it is said. In a way, I feel like I’m being stripped of my personal opinion if I can’t react to something that isn’t contextually existent (i.e., the notes on the score or the colors in the painting, etc.). Art is created for specific purposes and it has its meanings and references both on the surface and underneath it. John Philip Sousa wrote patriotic marches to invoke that emotion and spirit in people, not to show off his mastery of the duple meter. A random composer could write a twenty minute piece that consists solely of I-V7-I and that modulates through every key – it most likely wouldn’t be to demonstrate that his fundamentals in harmony and music theory are there. Perhaps prior to hearing that performance I had read an article about the ongoing wars and deaths of young soldiers in various parts of the world. After hearing this, I might feel like the composer wanted to bash me over the head and force me to believe that harmony (in every sense of the word) and purity still exists. Maybe I’d be 100% wrong for feeling that way or maybe the composer would completely agree with me. An artist will predominantly control how he says what he wants to say and will control what he is saying to a certain extent, but will likely leave the latter for the audience to grasp for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)