Grandpa Harley Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 There is quite a lot that is rational or predictable about aesthetics... the Greek's golden ratio is encoded in nearly all architectural forms across the planet, even in the ancient world. It's because it looks 'nice' Leonardo spent a lot of time studying what made a work of art actually work (in a Classical sense) that informed artistic styles until the impressionists, who were influenced by the Bohemian and Decadent movements(and drugs... lots of drugs... and syphilis...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 There is quite a lot that is rational or predictable about aesthetics... the Greek's golden ratio is encoded in nearly all architectural forms across the planet, even in the ancient world. It's because it looks 'nice' Leonardo spent a lot of time studying what made a work of art actually work (in a Classical sense) that informed artistic styles until the impressionists, who were influenced by the Bohemian and Decadent movements(and drugs... lots of drugs... and syphilis...) Yes, this is true. I guess what I was getting at when I said science doesn't look into this very much was the thought of, not so much how humans respond to art forms, but how those forms are potentially part of the fabric of the universe itself; that beauty is a possibly inherent aspect of nature and not simply a human biological response. Consider the forms of spirals, from macro to micro, the spiral galaxies, to the sea shell, to even smaller; to the symmetry of shapes of the twig, to the branch, to the trunk; etc. Is there some "nature" to beauty that exists outside human perception? Is the universe a song? Should the pursuit of a new generation be the pursuit of that song? An interesting way to look at the good old universe we’re coming to understand rationally. Maybe we need to pursue the aesthetic of it with equal zeal? Just some thoughts on a week’s break from the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 "Is the universe a song?" Based on measurements of waves in stellar gas clouds, Stars explode in E-flat. If you're interested, a book (more a tome) I enjoyed - The Crystal Sun by Robert Temple Covers a lot of stuff that your touching on here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 and I'm sure you're aware of the etymology of universe... Good pun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 "Is the universe a song?" Based on measurements of waves in stellar gas clouds, Stars explode in E-flat. If you're interested, a book (more a tome) I enjoyed - The Crystal Sun by Robert Temple Covers a lot of stuff that your touching on here... Admittedly I'm always skittish about anything that sounds, "New Agey", even though I recognize some of what I touch on in thought may be considered that on a surface glance on occasion. I can only assure I rue pseudo-science. And there is a difference between pseudo-science and art. I speak much more from the aesthetic perspective in these sorts of questions. I'm curious how his ideas of ancient "lenses" ties into the universe having "beauty" as an inherent feature of its nature? My choice in using the word "song" for the universe has to do with its structure, as music has. I choose music because that is what I am particularly drawn to. Do we respond to it because it is part of the universe as are we? I'm fairly certain of this. Why is that? Is there nothing there? Then why respond? Why create it? I write music, I envision and embrace an ideal; a vision of beauty. I attempt to communicate that which I feel into the language of musical structure and melody. Is this a thing that exists disparate from nature, or is it something inherent? Are we the creators of something outside nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Seculi Terminus Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Well, this is pure speculation on my part, but it seems like a lot of it might be evolutionary in origin: they say that all instruments aspire to the human voice, and obviously there would be a good reason for humans to respond to the voices of others. Rolling hills and tall trees would help us spot and escape from predators and other humans, and obviously our obsession with the human form would follow from this. The question, I think, is to ask why don't we like some things? Why, when we look at a landscape of, say, a dark cavern are we not filled with the same emotions? Or a burning fireball? Or unusual and abstract shapes like trapezoids? Why prefer the curve? Again, this is pure speculation, but it seems like a lot of music is basically just taking a basic emotional expression someone might make, like "Ah!" or "Ooo!". Underneath almost every song, you can hear a heartbeat - and when that beat gets quick, so do ours. When we hear loud music, especially something like heavy metal that has a lot of shouting in it, it sounds angry or extremely energetic - you get the idea. All of it would seem to mimic sounds we would hear outside of music's more formal context. Music then highlights or exaggerates some parts, plays down others, and repeats those parts which get a good response - needless to say, it could get very complicated very quickly, but it seems like an explanation. You might ask why Beethoven's 9th sounds so good, but then again, you also have to ask why a million other songs sound so bad - especially when, if some sort of computer analyzed it, it would come up with many of the same kinds of patterns and repetitions. It can sound abstract, but that's only because you never hear the entire course of the kind of sounds the music was based on, just little pieces that are meant to mimic the originals, done in a more mathematical performance. I have no idea how you could prove something like this, although if it's correct, you would expect other animals to operate on the same kind of principle, only substituting the kinds of sounds that would be important for them to know with the ones that would be important for humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 "Is the universe a song?" Based on measurements of waves in stellar gas clouds, Stars explode in E-flat. If you're interested, a book (more a tome) I enjoyed - The Crystal Sun by Robert Temple Covers a lot of stuff that your touching on here... Admittedly I'm always skittish about anything that sounds, "New Agey", even though I recognize some of what I touch on in thought may be considered that on a surface glance on occasion. I can only assure I rue pseudo-science. And there is a difference between pseudo-science and art. I speak much more from the aesthetic perspective in these sorts of questions. I'm curious how his ideas of ancient "lenses" ties into the universe having "beauty" as an inherent feature of its nature? My choice in using the word "song" for the universe has to do with its structure, as music has. I choose music because that is what I am particularly drawn to. Do we respond to it because it is part of the universe as are we? I'm fairly certain of this. Why is that? Is there nothing there? Then why respond? Why create it? I write music, I envision and embrace an ideal; a vision of beauty. I attempt to communicate that which I feel into the language of musical structure and melody. Is this a thing that exists disparate from nature, or is it something inherent? Are we the creators of something outside nature? The book covers en passant Greek theories of harmonics, and their relation to the golden ratio. It's been a while since I read the book but it was a Greek philosopher who makes the link by observation of string vibration.... The book tends to meander a bit... I also learned about Stanley Kubrick's Porn addiction in it... Stars exploding in E-flat comes from the journal 'Astronomy' sometime about 1998 if memory serves. Interesting that you've dismissed the book as new agey when you've not read it. TBH the assertion that the classical civilisations didn't have lenses or realise optical properties means they had no observational ability when confronted with dew, or a transparent container of water. There are Egyptian busts that use plano-convex lenses to make the eyes of the bust seem real. To assume no one looked at something through them at some stage is to make our antecedents fools. Dismissal of that sort is cultural snobbery... and has little place in science, although science is replete with it. Any culture with a developed jewellery or glass artistry would have to be extremely unobservant to miss the fact that light is refracted or focused depending on shape. In fact the art of jewellery relies on just that physical property for aesthetics. To assume that the science of optics began with Gallileo is pretty much the incremental view of history, and very 19th century. The steam engine and hydraulics have been discovered at numerous points in mankind's history. Newcommen wasn't the first, and it's likely Hero of Alexandria wasn't either. It is, to me, not remarkable that the ancients had lenses, it would be incredible to say they did not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 "Is the universe a song?" Based on measurements of waves in stellar gas clouds, Stars explode in E-flat. If you're interested, a book (more a tome) I enjoyed - The Crystal Sun by Robert Temple Covers a lot of stuff that your touching on here... Admittedly I'm always skittish about anything that sounds, "New Agey", even though I recognize some of what I touch on in thought may be considered that on a surface glance on occasion. I can only assure I rue pseudo-science. And there is a difference between pseudo-science and art. I speak much more from the aesthetic perspective in these sorts of questions. I'm curious how his ideas of ancient "lenses" ties into the universe having "beauty" as an inherent feature of its nature? My choice in using the word "song" for the universe has to do with its structure, as music has. I choose music because that is what I am particularly drawn to. Do we respond to it because it is part of the universe as are we? I'm fairly certain of this. Why is that? Is there nothing there? Then why respond? Why create it? I write music, I envision and embrace an ideal; a vision of beauty. I attempt to communicate that which I feel into the language of musical structure and melody. Is this a thing that exists disparate from nature, or is it something inherent? Are we the creators of something outside nature? Naturalistic spirituality. I think scientific pantheists are pretty cool people . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Antlerman, do you ever read over your own words and think, "damn, I'm good!"? No never. I'm far too humble for that! Actually, I did like my thoughts on the EQ today. It answers a lot for me. I'm going to run with this for a long time now I suspect. Enjoyed this thread alot but just had to point out this one especially hahaha too funny you are good Antlerman, if I had that gift of gab like you I would write books sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts