tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post1464788706009250232..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: IDLE THOUGHTS ON A SLOW DAY IN AUGUSTRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-60050674070523174742010-08-28T22:21:19.199-04:002010-08-28T22:21:19.199-04:00Interesting that you mention sculpture in your rep...Interesting that you mention sculpture in your reply above, since painting and sculpture share the salient characteristic: the original <i>is</i> the creation (or work of art) in physical media, where the <i>idea</i> is the work of art in auditory media (print being simply a representation or symbol for the spoken word). Recall McLuhan: the medium is the message. In narrative forms (which are temporal, as both speech and music must be exposed to the listener/reader over time), the primitive medium is sound and the message is auditory (carried to a virtual form in print); in painting and sculpture the medium is static and <i>spatial</i> (not temporal): shapes, colors, brushstrokes etc are both the medium and the creation itself; if virtualized (a photo of a VanGogh or the Pieta, or indeed a copy forged) it doesn't bear the mark of the creator, whose physical effort <i>is</i> part of the object in a way that word/music doesn't demand. The difference is in the nature of the medium. To be analogous, we would want to hear how Mozart played his music and how Hemingway read For Whom the Bell Tolls aloud. "Genuine-ness" is medium-dependent.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-11089622166557159332010-08-28T07:49:54.248-04:002010-08-28T07:49:54.248-04:00English Jerk, indeed! You raise some fascinating ...English Jerk, indeed! You raise some fascinating questions. I feel quite comfortable saying that the number 7 exists, independently of whether there are any sentient beings to form a concept of it. But I think it is quite odd to say that every logically possible musical composition and literary work exists, in every possible language or musical scheme, regardless of whether any artist has created it. I am not sure it matters much [except to oddballs like philosophers], but it is curious. Great scultpers like Michelangelo apparently think of themselves as simply clearing away the extraneous rock and revealing the Pieta trapped inside. It makes one think.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-74450471703618394652010-08-27T20:32:19.420-04:002010-08-27T20:32:19.420-04:00Since I'm working on some related questions no...Since I'm working on some related questions non-pseudonymously (nymously?), I don't want to say too much. But I sympathize with your sense that the authenticity issue falls away in the case of music and literature, and that this is an asset of some kind. The question for me is: if <i>Hamlet</i> is just a determinate sequence of words, then what is its ontology? It seems irreducible to any individual physical copies (you can destroy any of them without destroying <i>Hamlet</i> itself), but it seems equally absurd to attribute to it the same ontology as the number seven. And if materiality and ideality both won't work, what will?English Jerkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960822939548263926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-78579065937530884882010-08-27T11:15:41.748-04:002010-08-27T11:15:41.748-04:00You might find this book of interest. Carey argues...You might find this book of interest. Carey argues for literature as the Queen of the arts. My review of the book is <a href="http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=5696&cn=394" rel="nofollow"> here.</a>Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06338078632530539703noreply@blogger.com