[PD] Am I alone?

[Andy Farnell]

Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the 
bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more 
about the nature of the universe than we do now.


On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:34:15 +0100
Pierre Massat <pimassat at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh no, not again...




> 
> 2011/3/19 Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>
> 
> >
> > sorry, my following reply sat a long time in my email account.
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, ailo wrote:
> >
> >  I guess what I meant was, can we define music generally so that everyone
> >> can agree on what is the definition of music?
> >>
> >
> > Well, if «everyone» also includes those people who purposefully want you to
> > fail at coming up with a unanimous definition, you can't. There are also
> > those who just won't listen to you because they are busy preparing the
> > answer « it can't be defined. period. » without any explanation (they don't
> > enjoy explanations any more than definitions, anyway).
> >
> >  I know I can generalize for myself, but I think I can't do it for
> >> everyone else.
> >>
> >
> > There are also problems of common meaning of the words, whereby people will
> > accidentally agree or disagree because they have different impressions about
> > what you mean with the words that you used for writing the definition.
> >
> >  I suppose people like to avoid it mostly because it can discourage
> >> people to do their own thing.
> >>
> >
> > I would rather bet on this phenomenon :
> >  http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22art+can%27t+be+explained%22
> >
> > Which is more of the mystical mindframe of non-explanations and
> > epistemological hopelessness.
> >
> > By extension, the word « art » is often used to mean whatever skill is
> > considered unexplainable or mysterious.
> >
> >  If we need to do it for a specific practical purpose, then we have no
> >> choice.
> >>
> >
> > A definition of art needs not dictate a single purpose, and a single
> > purpose does not dictate a single approach, and a single approach does not
> > dictate a single outcome. When you acknowledge a definition of art that just
> > tries to be vaguely universal, you still have plenty of decisions to make.
> >
> > A definition of art needs not to be dumb like « music is whatever Beethoven
> > was doing and that can't be done anymore because he died » or « we play both
> > kinds of music : Country and Western ».
> >
> >  Words like beauty and ugliness are commonly used. When we say, I like ugly
> >> things, does that make these things wrong? [...]
> >>
> >
> > (I didn't know what to reply to the rest of your email.)
> >
> >  _______________________________________________________________________
> > | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- Villeray, Montréal, QC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> >
> >


-- 
Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>