Archive for Big Readers A place for discussing books and all things bookish.
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       Big Readers Forum Index -> Things that don't fit anywhere else
Caro

Emotional responses to artistic works

Yesterday I was at the movie Still Mine (Canadian one about a man in his late 80s building a suitable house for him and his wife with some dementia, and coming against bureaucratic restrictions - brilliant acting).  At one stage I was wiping away tears and thought about this.  I didn't think I was thinking particularly sad thoughts, though the film was sad in parts, but I was still crying.  And I wondered a little what brings those emotional responses, sometimes against our will.  And why some don't.  Music doesn't move me the way it does some people, except for the odd sentimental song.  I can be buoyed by songs in a foot-tapping way, and of course television and movies use creepy music when a body is about to be discovered and I respond to that in the way they wish.  But even then I don't really know why.

A review of The Sopranos in the NZ Listener ended:  "It [the bell] also tolled for us, as we grappled with our queasy sympathy for a charming, cold-eyed monster. Being a fan of The Sopranos, a commentator once said, amounts to Stockholm syndrome. [I don't believe in the concept of the Stockholm syndrome, which seems to me a natural response to getting to know someone more deeply. Not to feel this would be the syndrome in my opinion.]   But then, great art makes you feel what you never imagined you could."

Do you think you need to understand great art before this can happen, perhaps.  I don't really know how to appreciate, say, opera.  And while I am happy to accept the opinions and judgement of people who know and while I love looking at artworks, I don't really know myself how to judge them, apart from by their appeal to my visual senses.  The feelings I get from art are rather hard to pinpoint - they do include shock sometimes, often pleasure especially because I love colour, often bewilderment (but that is through lack of understanding, I think), puzzlement at what a picture means or if it has meaning, the emotions gained from humour, sadness. But I am not sure that any of it makes me feel, for example, exalted or taken out of myself.

Reading involves words, which I understand and respond to more.  But even then I have noticed some of us say they are terrified by works which don't scare others at all, or enjoy the sentimentality of works when others hate it, or find some phrases really moving when others just read over them.  One of our book club members can't recall Corman McCarthy's The Road without horror and distress, even years later, since she took so to heart the scene with the children's bodies.  I skim those sort of things that are too hard to absorb.  I am reading a book now which had some scenes of people lost in an underground maze and I stopped reading that too thoroughly after a little while, as I hate imagining being stuck without means of egress.  That is more fear than any other emotion though.  

I get most emotionally involved when some form of (often quite trivial) unfairness is involved, especially with children or teenagers. (People accused of things wrongly, for example, or being misunderstood.) I have to assume this goes back to my own feelings in such situations.  But why don't much worse situations of abuse or cruelty move me more in literature? They would if someone was telling me about their own experiences.  

How do you respond emotionally to literature and art and music?  Even architecture or engineering?  And what do you think is involved in this response?
TheRejectAmidHair

Hello Caro, these are ll interesting and important questions: thank you for bringing these up.

We tend to associate "emotional involvement" chiefly with the emotion of pathos - did it move us? Did it make us cry? - but there are all sorts of other emotions also. Laughter is as much an indicator of emotions as tears, and yet people don't speak of being "emotionally involved" with the stories of Wodehouse, say. Curiosity too is an emotion, so the curiosity of wondering "what happens next?" is an emotional involvement. But once again, we tend not to think of it in such terms. We reserve the expression "emotional involvement" almost exclusively for emotions of sadness and grief, and this in itself is interesting: why do we appear to ring-fence, as it were, these particular emotions?

Lts to think about, but I'm off to catch a commuter train now. Catch up with you later.
Green Jay

I think of curiousity as being intellectual rather than emotional. I can be caught up by the what happens? next of a crime novel, - or who did it? and why? - but not be emotionally engaged at all.  

I do have some quibbles over why we read so much about horrid things... not very admirable, they are a sort of comfort read, pushing the actions into the realms in unreality (for us, at least).
TheRejectAmidHair

As with so many things, it's a question of definition, and perhaps te boundary between "emotional" and "intellectual" is not as fixed as we may sometimes think. I counted "curiosity" as an emotion, because curiosity is best defined as "desire to know" - and desire is surely an emotion.

I had meant to return to this topic, but it had sadly slipped my mind. I find this topic particularly interesting, as the works of art I value most are those that make an impact on my emotions.
MikeAlx

The emotion/intellect boundary is an interesting one. The most basic emotions are found widely in animals (historically contentious, but with MRI imaging and careful behavioural analysis there are now few remaining doubters). Intellect (abstract reasoning) is not known to exist in animals.

The category of emotions as understood by science encompasses some very basic motivators, such as hunger, pain, fear, anger - and, as Himadri says, curiosity. Interestingly, there is experimental evidence that curiosity is the default state for mammals, once their basic needs and security have been met. Mammals just seem to enjoy exploring for its own sake. However, more sophisticated emotions - jealousy, guilt, contrition, love etc. - are only found in higher social mammals. I think it's reasonable to argue that, whilst primates can experience surprise, only humans have a sense of humour; so there seem to be emotions that are uniquely human too.

The evolution of the mammal brain included both a huge expansion of the limbic system (mainly emotional and memory-related) and the addition of the neo-mammalian cortex (higher executive function). The neo-cortex interacts with the limbic system, allowing us to modify instinctive behaviour – it’s what allows us to devise and execute logical plans to achieve some goal, inhibiting impulsive behaviour and enabling such things as deferred gratification.

The lines between intellectual and emotional thinking are blurred. As countless psychology experiments have demonstrated, we make far more decisions than we care to admit based on emotions rather than reason, and will often rationalise them after the event. It is thought this evolved because for most of our history it’s been safer to make a fast, emotional decision on limited information rather than to fact-find and reason our way to a reliable answer (by which time our predators would have already been chewing on our legs!).

Back to the topic, literature (and its ancestor, oral storytelling) has historically aimed to engage both the emotions and the intellect. It seems reasonable to argue that it evolved to enable the efficient transmission of experiential wisdom, bypassing the time and risk involved in everyone learning everything first hand. But learning is not a purely intellectual process; it is intimately entwined with emotions – and, in particular, the reward system. Hormones, which are controlled largely by emotional responses, are a key component in forming memories and, by extension, learning. This is one reason why most of us find it easier to remember an exciting (or funny, or terrifying) story, as opposed to a list of dry facts.

The key phenomenon that makes reading (or hearing) a story an emotional experience is empathy – that is, our natural tendency to imagine ourselves in the position of the characters in the story, and experience, in somewhat muted form, how they would feel given their situation. Though partly subconscious and emotional, this is also partly an intellectual process, because we have to know what they know and realise the implications of their situation; indeed, in the case of dramatic irony we may even know more than they do! As well as sharing their emotions, we may find ourselves planning on their behalf – “what would I do?”

Green Jay raises the interesting question of the whodunit – which many people seem to read with little real empathy, but rather approach as a purely intellectual puzzle to be solved. I think Himadri is right that the emotion at play is the curiosity to know – and also the competitive need to prove oneself as an armchair detective. These are the emotional motivators behind turning the pages. But not all crime fiction works like this; in some crime fiction the interest is far more in character or social insight than in puzzle-solving (and in fact I tend to prefer that type of crime fiction).

In lieu of a proper conclusion to this long and rambling post, I will try and come back to Caro’s initial question: “How do you respond emotionally to literature and art and music?” I think I respond differently to each.

Literature for me is primarily about narrative (admittedly, I don’t read much poetry), which is to stay stories about people. My primary emotional response is to the characters and their situations via empathy and sympathy; then there is the secondary emotional response to how the implied thematic arguments might challenge or reinforce my view of the world – which may also spill into an intellectual response.

With visual art I tend to be far more emotional and less intellectual. On the whole, I don’t really care about narrative or symbolism in visual art. I tend to be very much a sensualist – I like colour, composition, mood and texture. I broadly agree with Susan Sontag, who argued in “Against Interpretation” that interpreting a painting tends to displace the actual object itself, replacing a rich physical artefact with a sort of shorthand note – i.e. we end up seeing the description rather than the thing itself. As a sensualist, I am just as likely to a strong emotional response to something abstract and intense like a Rothko or Howard Hodgkin as to a depiction of a Biblical scene, for example.

With instrumental music I’m not convinced you can have an intellectual response, other than in actually analysing the form (which you are only likely to do if you’ve had an academic musical training and know about things like Sonata Form etc.). Instrumental music is the most inherently abstract of the arts – and personally I don’t like it when it does try to depict other things (e.g. “programme music”). Why music stimulates any emotions at all is an interesting question, but it's beyond question that it is a powerful stimulant for most people.
Apple

I react profoundly in an emotional way to what I read, and thats how I measure how much I have enjoyed a book or not by the reaction I have had to it.

I get involved with the characters and if I can't empathise with them or have some sort of emotional reaction to what happens to them I don't really feel I have enjoyed the book.  The term getting lost in a book refers to me completely books I have loved the most are ones where I have been transported into those pages and been there every step of the way.  Some make me angry and I emote feelings of pure hatred sometimes towards some characters, others and their circumstances reduce me to tears, others have made me think deeply about the subject which is being written about - for example Germinal I was there with those miners and their plight, and all the social issues and questions which surfaced in my mind from it.  One of the biggest and deepest reactions I had was with Wuthering Heights and I am not going to rehash everything I felt when reading this book as I have said it all before.

Even characters which I have despised and books which I haven't enjoyed, Nana springs to mind here, have produced a strong emotional reaction. I didn't like her and her shallowness and the way she used men produced strong emotions in me and that is why even though I didn't like that book, I respected the writing enough because it was able  to  provoke such a strong reaction in me.  

Laughter is another emotion but rare for me when reading there are some books I have read which have made me smile and some which I have had a quiet chuckle to but I have to say there are very few to which I have had laugh out loud moments, that could be down to my choice of reading material, as I don't generally go for comedies.

Whether or not emotion and intellect are linked I cannot answer, I react emotionally and I am definitely not an intellectual so I would say not.
Green Jay

I think Apple has decribed my own responses to books I've enjoyed, or valued, or got involved in, pretty accurately. But with books where I fail to engage, usually because they're what I term not well-written - I know this is a whole other topic we've talked about before -  I don't feel these sorts of reactions. I need convincing characters; they don't have to be likeable but to get involved I need not to be picking fault with how consistently or convincingly they behave and feel and think; and convincing plot.

I take the points about basic emotions and higher ones and empathy, but if we did not feel curiosity no one would ever open a book at all, so I can't see that as an emotional engagement in my terms. Many readers who claim to "just want a page-turner" e.g. Dan Brown books, don't seem much worried about empathising. In fact, they almost want to "switch off" and relax. Curiosity certainly seems to drive animals (my cat!!) but does not have to involve empathy. (My cat never reads a book but often sits on an open one, and when a kitten used to chew the edges of any book I tried to read to get my attention. Basically anti-book, I think.  Wink )

I think experiencing empathy with, and some sort of understanding of, people and situations far removed from one's own is one of the most valuable things about literature. Some readers don't care for fiction - it's all made up so why bother?! They only read factual books. I wonder if these are people who are not so good at empathising - and therefore not so interested in it or see why it is desirable and useful? And if they are not good at empathising, then dipping into someone else's world will naturally not be so interesting as it is to someone like me. I will read some non-fiction, but then have to go back to fiction, where it is much more easy and enjoyable for me to "get lost in a book", as Apple says.  I love going into other people's worlds and factual books, however dramatic and personal the material,  don't tend to transport me in the same way.
Apple

I used to prefer factual books and at one time they outnumbered the fiction I read by a considerable amount, I wouldn't say I lacked empathy for other people, It wasn't because it was just made up, I just preferred reading about factual subjects which interested me.

I also liked easy reads, the classic page turner where I didn't have to think too deeply and just wander through the books.  Now though I like books I can get my teeth into and get something from and books which make me have some kind of reaction to them whether it be positive or negative.  

A page turner still has a place though and is not a separate type of book and has an important part to play because if you are not particularly bothered about what is going to happen next then there is no point in reading it surely? I think if you get a book which engages you and makes you have a emotional reaction to it, its natural that in some respect it is also a page turner because you have become invested in the characters and their story and you want to find out what happens next.  Or am I just over simplifying?

Going back to factual books  Green Jay wrote:
Quote:
I love going into other people's worlds and factual books, however dramatic and personal the material,  don't tend to transport me in the same way.
I would agree with that to a point, because with fiction you don't know what twist is going to happen next, whereas factual stories, no matter how dramatic their story gets you know it all turns out reasonably ok as they have written their account of the story which you are reading, plus if you have some knowledge of the subject they are talking about you can think well this this and this could be done here or well I know how that turned out and she/he got over it so there isn't that deep feeling of almost suspense at what is happening - do you get what I mean? For example I read the true story of some WW2 prisoners of war, now how harrowing their stories were you knew they survived as they were telling their story and you knew that in the end we won and they were liberated so although i was interested in reading their stories and enjoyed it I wasn't so deeply involved in the story because I knew the eventual outcome was positive.
TheRejectAmidHair

Hello Caro, I had meant to reply to your original post, but good intentions were waylaid by other matters...

I still find it fascinating that when we speak of "emotional response", we almost invariably think in terms of the emotions of sadness, or grief, of fear & terror, but rarely, if ever, of mirth. We don't speak of responding emotionally to a book because it made us laugh. I wonder why this is. Is it a sort of tacit acknowledgement that grief for us is a greater emotion than mirth? I don't know that i'd acceptthat.

Another emotion response that is very difficult to put one's finger on is the aesthetic response. Most people acknowledge, for instance, that the Taj Mahal is beautiful. But what emotions do we access when we respond to the beauty of the Taj Mahal? It' not grief, it's not sadness, it's not mirth or joy, it's not terror ... What exactly is it?

I feel the same way about many works of literature: there is some emotion that I cannot specify that is touched by the perfect, flawless shape of a structure; or by the way the most perfectly chosen words fall in place in so perfect a manner in some pieces of poetry. It is an aesthetic response, and, as such, an emotional response, but one that I have always struggled to express. I was helping our daughter with some of the passages of Middlemarch she was finding difficult, and I was struck by teh sheer beauty of construction of some of these sentences. Even before I go on to what these sentences express, there is an emotional response.

You ask whether we need an intellectual appreciation before we can arrive at an emotional one. In some cases, yes. In literature especially, I think, Music can bypass the intellect with its abstract sounds (which is not to say there isn't an intellectual dimension there, but rather that I do not need to be able to follow all the intricacies of counterpoint of a Bach fugue to be affected by it); and visual arts too can bypass the intellect: one may be moved by the colours and textures and by the composition without necessarily having an intellectual grasp of them. But literature is made up of words, and it has to be filtered through the intellect before we can understand it.  In some instances, the intellectual effort required before the emotions are touched is considerable.

This happens also in areas one wouldn't normally associate with emotions. I have known mathematicians who have found genuinely deep aesthetic satisfaction in a mathematical proof. I remember Jim al-Khalili speaking of Dirac's formula, and saying that to physicists, this is the equivalent of Shakespeare's King Lear: a profound statement about the universe, and one that is beautiful. The apprehension of beauty is a mysterious faculty we posses that seems to defy explanation or analysis, but yes, sometimes one does need to pass through an intellectual exercise before one can access it. But then, there are other cases - such as the Taj Mahal, where one does not have to understand anything of the composition or of the proportions: the beauty of it bypasses the intellect completely.
TheRejectAmidHair

MikeAlx wrote:
With instrumental music I’m not convinced you can have an intellectual response, other than in actually analysing the form (which you are only likely to do if you’ve had an academic musical training and know about things like Sonata Form etc.).


This is an interesting one. The dodecaphonic music of the Second Viennese School, for instance, still raises accusations of being "too intellectual". And the charge is frequently made that music that needs to be filtered through the intellect to such an extent cannot have the spontaneous emotional impact that music ideally should. And what is more, people who claim to find emotional content in this music are just liars. And so on. It usually doesn't take too long for the insults to start flying.

In the first place, intellectual grasp can aid rather than hinder emotional response: this is certainly true in other art forms, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be true for music also. And in the second place, unless we are speaking merely of the visceral impact of a loud beat, the seemingly spontaneous response to a lot of music is only possible because we have trained our brains to recognise certain musical patterns. Once our brains are familiar with certain patterns, we enjoy, seemingly "spontaneously",  the music that displays those patterns. With certain types of music, the patterns are fairly simple, and not too hard to assimilate; but there are other types of music where the patterns are complex - whether it's Schoenberg's dodecaphonic piano pieces or classical Indian ragas. But once we have familiarised our brains to these patterns (surely an intellectual exercise), then it is entirely possible, I'd have thought, to have a spontaneous reaction - indeed, an emotional reaction -  to intellectually complex music.
Green Jay

Apple wrote:
I used to prefer factual books and at one time they outnumbered the fiction I read by a considerable amount, I wouldn't say I lacked empathy for other people, It wasn't because it was just made up, I just preferred reading about factual subjects which interested me.



I didn't mean you, Apple, as you obviously have great deal of empathy. I was referring to people at the further end of the spectrum of readers who can be quite dismissive - contemptuous ? - of fiction, as if it "doesn't count" because it's made up, and wondering about what underlies this response.

I agree there is a place for all sorts of books, and I would rather people read books than didn't. You've also made that journey that I hope any sort of reading can take people on, from page-turners and quite superficial relaxing reads to more demanding and thought-provoking books. But not everyone takes that route, and that's ok too. I also think at different stages of our lives we need and want different types of books. My mum used to be quite a medium-brow reader but now just reads what I think of as lightweight fluff. But that's all she can cope with, so no problem. I just hope I will always want more challenging reading material, but there are plenty of times (This year for example!!) when I just fall back on a lot of easy-ish reading.

But I think that empathising with real life situations in factual books is different from empathising with fictional characters, because (part of) the role of an author in fiction is to give access to inner lives, emotions, motives, qualms, contradictions, chacracter development etc. In non-fiction this can only be constructed or inferred in retrospect and sometimes authors get critiscised for giving real people thoughts etc they are not entitled to ascribe to them. Not the same in autobiography, I know. But that can onlygive one person's viewpoint. Something diffrent  in fiction that I'm having trouble - in this heat! - in articulating...
TheRejectAmidHair

Green Jay wrote:
Apple wrote:
I used to prefer factual books and at one time they outnumbered the fiction I read by a considerable amount, I wouldn't say I lacked empathy for other people, It wasn't because it was just made up, I just preferred reading about factual subjects which interested me.



I didn't mean you, Apple, as you obviously have great deal of empathy. I was referring to people at the further end of the spectrum of readers who can be quite dismissive - contemptuous ? - of fiction, as if it "doesn't count" because it's made up, and wondering about what underlies this response.


Lack of understanding of what literature is.

Similarly with those who are tone deaf and can't see the point of music.
Caro

It's more than a lack of understanding, though.  There are certain people - generally boys and men - who are not interested in fiction though they are good readers and like factual material.  One of my sons is like this - he is very knowledgable, good with scientific things, remembers everything, but he doesn't read fiction.  And like Green Joy, I think this does lead to a lack of empathy with people's feelings.  He has fairly set ideas and doesn't have any real desire to understand others' feelings, I think.  I remember he read John Marsden's teenage fiction when he was about 13 and loved it, so I suggested other similar books he might like and he said, "I don't want to like them."

He's quite a sentimentalist himself so it's not that he doesn't feel things - it's always him (even as an adult) crying when the plane leaves, and I love the way he reacts to and enjoys his baby son.  Perhaps that has something to do with it, in fact.  He may already feel enough emotional repsonse with reality not to want to add to it with fiction.  I don't really know.

I personally am aware I am reading or watching fiction, and though I can feel emotionally involved at the time of reading, I don't generally dwell on these fictional people much.  Recently I read about a real young American teenager who made a sarcastic comment online saying "Oh yeah, of course I'm going to go out and bomb someone."  It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously, but despite nothing being found in his house or computer, he has been imprisonned and may be there for a long time.  That real situation haunts me quite a bit. I wish I hadn't read about it, but if it were fictional I would feel sad for the character as I read it, but not later.  I keep thinking of this teenager locked up for a comment that anyone can tell was sarcasm - bewildered, confused and probably never able to trust authority again.
Apple

Green Jay wrote:
Quote:
I didn't mean you, Apple,
No, I know you didn't, I never thought that  Very Happy

I was just thinking from my point of view why I personally used to prefer factual books to fiction, to try and offer a kind of side view.  Since broadening my reading material though, as I said before I have learnt to appreciate different novels even if I don't like them - because they have managed to provoke an emotional response of some description.

Also...

Himadri wrote:
Quote:
Another emotion response that is very difficult to put one's finger on is the aesthetic response. Most people acknowledge, for instance, that the Taj Mahal is beautiful. But what emotions do we access when we respond to the beauty of the Taj Mahal? It' not grief, it's not sadness, it's not mirth or joy, it's not terror ... What exactly is it?

I feel the same way about many works of literature: there is some emotion that I cannot specify that is touched by the perfect, flawless shape of a structure; or by the way the most perfectly chosen words fall in place in so perfect a manner in some pieces of poetry. It is an aesthetic response, and, as such, an emotional response, but one that I have always struggled to express. I was helping our daughter with some of the passages of Middlemarch she was finding difficult, and I was struck by teh sheer beauty of construction of some of these sentences. Even before I go on to what these sentences express, there is an emotional response.


I find what you have said very interesting. I think I read somewhere that Ancient Greek philosophers thought that aesthetically appealing objects were beautiful in and of themselves.

Plato believed that for us to have a perception of beauty there must be almost  superior  supreme  beauty in which beautiful objects have which causes them to be beautiful.

Also I read somewhere, I forget where an example of ancient aesthetics in Greece through poetry is Plato's quote: "For the authors of those great poems which we admire, do not attain to excellence through the rules of any art but they utter their beautiful melodies of verse in a state of inspiration, and as it were, possessed by a spirit not their own”.

I think with the example of the Taj Mahal which you gave the emotion I get when I see it is awe that someone loved his wife so much that they built that for them. When you look at it and see it ticks all the boxes to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye (according to the Greeks) Aristotle thought that the universal elements of beauty were order, symmetry, and definiteness, and Plato thought that beautiful objects incorporated proportion, harmony, and unity among their parts, which I suppose on some subconscious level  triggers the emotional responses in your brain, (I think it also links in in a way - kind of, with your point about mathematics) but going back to its function, its a mausoleum so initially your thoughts are going to be solemn and respectful, but as I said earlier, awe is the main one and a sort of warm feeling that someone was loved so much that magnificent building was built and still survives to this day in honour of them.

I remember the first time I went to the ruins of Coventry cathedral, and saw the charred cross which stands at the far end made from the ruins of the church I was overwhelmed with emotion and tears started to pour down my cheeks, I have read numerous books and watched documentaries about the Coventry blitz but coming face to face with it in the shape of that charred wood seemed to trigger something inside and produce a really tremendous response.

I would say going back to literature a book which provokes an emotional response of some description is one speaks to us on an unconscious level which triggers a reaction deep within our subconscious and as we continue to read these emotions are built on as the characters develop and the story continues to its conclusion. That is I think what separates great fiction from a good book and the ability of the reader to distinguish between the two, and book which has spoken to us on another level compared to one which we have read and superficially enjoyed.
Green Jay

Caro wrote:
It's more than a lack of understanding, though.  There are certain people - generally boys and men - who are not interested in fiction though they are good readers and like factual material.  One of my sons is like this - he is very knowledgable, good with scientific things, remembers everything, but he doesn't read fiction.  And like Green Joy, I think this does lead to a lack of empathy with people's feelings.  He has fairly set ideas and doesn't have any real desire to understand others' feelings, I think.  



I don't think it 'leads to' lack of empathy, rather the other way round. I was trying to articulate (and empathise with!) the situation where if you don't find empathy a ready, easy emotion to tap into, especially with people who are not closely linked to you  - and how far away can "made-up" people get  from the real you!??  Smile - then you are not as a reader going to be drawn to books that rely on their readership doing a lot of this in order to get pleasure and interest from the work. Sorry, long convoluted sentence not helped by me changing it halfway through.

Evaluating the content, rather than empathising with it, might weigh more in reading non-fiction - evaluating whether you think it's a good clear account, interesting, reliable, balanced, enough information etc.  This is quite a detached intellectual response, and lots of people - though I have to say more in my experience, males, - like this approach to books. (Not that you can't evaluate those things while also empathising with the people/characters involved.)
TheRejectAmidHair

I'm afraid I'm going through a busy time right now, and I won't have time - not for the next few days at least - to respond to all the points that have been raised. But if I can make a couple of quick points before I go to bed and fall asleep as soon as I hit the pillow...(I really am knackered!) ...

Caro, I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that people who don't see the point of fiction don't see the point of literature. Indeed, since so much of the very greatest of literature is fiction (whether in form of prose, verse or drama), it's almost a tautology.

Also, I remain very dubious about the degree of empathy with fictional characters either as a measure of a work's literary worth, or, more relevantly to ths thread, as a prerequisite to emotional involvement.

I'll try to return to these when I'mmore awake.
Caro

Not contentious, just not the whole story.
MikeAlx

TheRejectAmidHair wrote:


This is an interesting one. The dodecaphonic music of the Second Viennese School, for instance, still raises accusations of being "too intellectual". And the charge is frequently made that music that needs to be filtered through the intellect to such an extent cannot have the spontaneous emotional impact that music ideally should. And what is more, people who claim to find emotional content in this music are just liars. And so on. It usually doesn't take too long for the insults to start flying.

I think there are really two different arguments here - one is that the music is born of intellectual processes, rather than 'natural' or 'instinctive' ones. The other is that it can only be appreciated for its cleverness rather than its beauty.

The first argument has some merit, as presumably Schoenberg invented serial music in a very top-down, intellectual kind of way. On the other hand, the actual music produced is merely constrained rather than algorithmically-generated, so there is still an element of instinct at work.

The second argument I reject completely - if anything, it is intellectual conditioning that prevents people from connecting to serial music. The fact it doesn't follow expected patterns inhibits some people from enjoying its aesthetic qualities. This very much depends on context. People will reject music in the concert hall or on the radio that they will completely accept in a film score.
Quote:
In the first place, intellectual grasp can aid rather than hinder emotional response: this is certainly true in other art forms, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be true for music also.

Other art forms are generally symbolic and mimetic - this is not true of most music (or abstract painting). So, other than form and texture/timbre, I don't know what there really is to understand about music that would enhance one's experience of it. I suppose biographical and historical background might sometimes be relevant, but I think this is often overstated.

Quote:
...the seemingly spontaneous response to a lot of music is only possible because we have trained our brains to recognise certain musical patterns.

That is quite true, but I think on the whole we learn patterns unconsciously and I would not consider it an intellectual process ("intellectual" to me suggests conscious, logical, rational). It is serialism's break with established patterns that gives it its sense of strangeness and novelty. Whether one finds that pleasant or unpleasant very much depends on individual psychology and approach to aesthetic experience.
Caro

Well, I assume that if someone had taught me how to appreciate operatic music I might enjoy it more.  (And I did learn classical piano for ten years.) I like music I recognise.  I don't mind modern rap stuff, but I can't differentiate one song from another, because I don't know them.  

I always remember hearing what to me was a soprana squarking and thinking how awful the noise was, then the announcer came on and said, "Wasn't that sublime?"  Why? It was just a cacaphony to my ears; I don't understand what he could find sublime in it.  The male parts of opera I can probably enjoy a bit more, but not the high screeching sound of the sopranas reaching for top notes.  

I rather enjoyed the mathematical aspects of the theory of music, the chords etc. when I learnt them.  Most of it I have forgotten, though, at least beyond pretty basic stuff.  But it didn't seem to translate into knowing how it translated into specific musical pieces (even sometimes, just for fun, I would go through them and pinpoint where the key changed and to what, etc.)
MikeAlx

Green Jay wrote:

I don't think it 'leads to' lack of empathy, rather the other way round. I was trying to articulate (and empathise with!) the situation where if you don't find empathy a ready, easy emotion to tap into, especially with people who are not closely linked to you...

Evaluating the content, rather than empathising with it... This is quite a detached intellectual response, and lots of people - though I have to say more in my experience, males, - like this approach to books.

I tend to agree that it's more the person's nature that causes the rejection of fiction, rather than that the rejection of fiction causes the nature. On the other hand, I think fiction can help the more systematising person develop their empathising side. It is, after all, a much safer laboratory than the realm of actual social interaction!

The difference between fiction and factual writing - even biography - is broadly the difference in emphasis between showing and telling. The excessive systematiser, in addition to being less adept at learning by inference, may also dislike the perceived dishonesty of fiction - and I don't mean simply that they think it's "all lies", but rather that it's propaganda, a story designed to manipulate emotions in order to persuade. Such a person will prefer a set of facts and arguments, enabling them to corroborate the facts and check the logic of the arguments.

I think it's fair to say that men are on average more systematising than women; however it's worth remembering that there is a huge overlap, to the extent that one cannot reliably predict this on an individual basis based on gender.
TheRejectAmidHair

MikeAlx wrote:
TheRejectAmidHair wrote:


This is an interesting one. The dodecaphonic music of the Second Viennese School, for instance, still raises accusations of being "too intellectual". And the charge is frequently made that music that needs to be filtered through the intellect to such an extent cannot have the spontaneous emotional impact that music ideally should. And what is more, people who claim to find emotional content in this music are just liars. And so on. It usually doesn't take too long for the insults to start flying.

I think there are really two different arguments here - one is that the music is born of intellectual processes, rather than 'natural' or 'instinctive' ones. The other is that it can only be appreciated for its cleverness rather than its beauty.

The first argument has some merit, as presumably Schoenberg invented serial music in a very top-down, intellectual kind of way. On the other hand, the actual music produced is merely constrained rather than algorithmically-generated, so there is still an element of instinct at work.

The second argument I reject completely - if anything, it is intellectual conditioning that prevents people from connecting to serial music. The fact it doesn't follow expected patterns inhibits some people from enjoying its aesthetic qualities. This very much depends on context. People will reject music in the concert hall or on the radio that they will completely accept in a film score.


I certainly wouldn't argue (and I don't think I have) that "music can be appreciated for its cleverness rather than for its beauty".  But I would argue that it is possible for the mind to train itself, consciously or otherwise, to perceive beauty where it otherwise wouldn't have done.
TheRejectAmidHair

Caro wrote:
I always remember hearing what to me was a soprana squarking and thinking how awful the noise was, then the announcer came on and said, "Wasn't that sublime?"  Why? It was just a cacaphony to my ears; I don't understand what he could find sublime in it.  The male parts of opera I can probably enjoy a bit more, but not the high screeching sound of the sopranas reaching for top notes.  


If a soprano voice "screeches", I'd find that ugly as well. Generally, I find a well-trained, well-tuned soprano voice the most "beautiful" sound in the world.
TheRejectAmidHair

[quote="MikeAlx:33894"]
TheRejectAmidHair wrote:



Quote:
In the first place, intellectual grasp can aid rather than hinder emotional response: this is certainly true in other art forms, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be true for music also.

Other art forms are generally symbolic and mimetic - this is not true of most music (or abstract painting). So, other than form and texture/timbre, I don't know what there really is to understand about music that would enhance one's experience of it.


Recognition of, and increasing familiarity with, certain kinds of patterns.

Berg's Chamber Concerto, for instance, used to appear to me merely a sequence of random sounds. And it did not sound attractive at all. But now that I have trained my mind to distinguish certain patterns of sound, it strikes me as very beautiful indeed.
TheRejectAmidHair

[quote="TheRejectAmidHair:33900"]
Apple wrote:

Himadri wrote:
Quote:
Another emotion response that is very difficult to put one's finger on is the aesthetic response. Most people acknowledge, for instance, that the Taj Mahal is beautiful. But what emotions do we access when we respond to the beauty of the Taj Mahal? It' not grief, it's not sadness, it's not mirth or joy, it's not terror ... What exactly is it?

I feel the same way about many works of literature: there is some emotion that I cannot specify that is touched by the perfect, flawless shape of a structure; or by the way the most perfectly chosen words fall in place in so perfect a manner in some pieces of poetry. It is an aesthetic response, and, as such, an emotional response, but one that I have always struggled to express. I was helping our daughter with some of the passages of Middlemarch she was finding difficult, and I was struck by teh sheer beauty of construction of some of these sentences. Even before I go on to what these sentences express, there is an emotional response.


I find what you have said very interesting. I think I read somewhere that Ancient Greek philosophers thought that aesthetically appealing objects were beautiful in and of themselves.

Plato believed that for us to have a perception of beauty there must be almost  superior  supreme  beauty in which beautiful objects have which causes them to be beautiful.


I'm not well versed in philosophy, but I have read Plato's Republic in which he expounds his theory of forms, in which he argues that abstract qualities such as "goodness" or "beauty" may take different forms, but that the very fact that we may group together various diverse things and call then"beautiful" indicates that they must share some common feature or features; and he postulated that there exist ideal forms of these abstract qualities such as "goodness" or "beauty", and that all we think f as "good" or as "beautiful" strive to imitate them. He did not, at least in the Republic, attempt to define the quality of beauty. Aristotle did, but his definitions have, I believe, been subject to much debate and contention.

       Big Readers Forum Index -> Things that don't fit anywhere else
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum