On BBC Radio 3, Sunday 23rd November 2008, 10.55 am, Mary King was Šinterviewing George Benjamin, who asked for the finale of Beethoven's 8th ŠSymphony to be played. What he said about this piece is perhaps the best Šexpression of the meaning of the aesthetic aspect I have ever heard: Šbeautiful and dynamic. Hear his sheer delight (itself an aestethic Šresponse) at the virtuosity of the piece of music, at the many things going Šon which create the whole, at the beauty, surprise, joy, enjoyment, fun, Šhumour. George Benjamin is so excited about the piece that he keeps on Šinterrupting his own sentences to insert something (indicated by the dashes Šbelow), sometimes coming back to complete it, but often not. His Šexcitement repeated words or bits of words (not shown here), and you could Šfeel him on edge. Apparently, when the music played, he was 'air Šconducting' it; his whole body was involved. Here is his introduction to Šthe piece, starting in the middle of a preceding sentence.
Best: read it out loud to yourself, stressing the words preceded by *.
George Benjamin:
...I think it's too simple,
I think Beethoven, I imagine, took - despite the fact he found it very hard Š- took enormous joy in writing his music.
And to come up with a work like this symphony! -
Can you imagine the thrill of writing that, putting the final bar to that, Š"I wrote this",
You know, that must have been amazing!
And, I've asked that you play the finale of this work because it's one of Šmy favourite movements in all Beethoven, and I listened to it last night Šand I just can't - apart from the wonderful humour of it, and the fantastic Šspeed of thought - I just cannot get over the virtuosity of his use of the Šorchestra.
The way he -
if you could watch a Beethoven symphony from above, directly above a Šsymphony orchestra, you would be amazed at the angles and the shapes of Šenergy whizzing apast the orchestra in ever different forms, the way the Šmaterial
goes to the bass,
goes to the flute,
shrinks in size,
expands,
moves Šaround,
Š then the whole orchestra's playing it,
- it's incredibly dynamic in form.
It's also wonderfully full of humour.
The structure is so alive, so unpredictable, one single note, C-sharp Šthrusts the piece into, in Beethoven's terms, into chaos, when an F major Šmovement suddenly lurches into F-sharp minor for about twenty bars, when Šyou're least expecting it, near where you think the movement's going to Šend.
It's also got one of my -
I mean, people underestimate the wonder of Beethoven's sound, the Špianissimo moments in this movement when the whole orchestra's playing - Š
which the the the arrangements of the instruments, and the background Šmaterial, foreground material, is so *gorgeously ordered -
it makes the most *beautiful sound.
And then it turns a corner and it's wild and energetic.
And there's one particular - and it's really *hilarious sound - that's Š*completely his own invention. Composers until this period had always Štuned the tympani to dominant and tonic, and I think this is the first - Š
yes he did it in the 9th symphony, and he did it for the first time here in Šthe 8th -
he tunes them to an octave, F - low F and high F - and at two points in Šthis finale the whole orchestra stops and the octave is left bare - bo bo Šbo bo - repeated with the *inspired doubling of bassoon and tympani.
And it's one of the most comic, and most fantastic, tiny little inventions Šin orchestral output.
Mary King: Fantastic, let's hear it...
(Thanks to my son, Stuart, for transcribing this text directly from Šthe loudspeaker.)
Now, to the usual structured analysis! ...
rather than, and richer than, the following impoverished versions of the Šabove:
The following have strong aesthetic component, but are also of other Šaspects:
C.S. Lewis said once, "The principle of art has Šbeen defined by someone as 'the same in the other'." This Šseems to sum it up nicely. 'The same' speaks of harmony, while 'the other' Šspeaks of something worth harmonizing; unity in diversity.
But how do the various components above - harmony, coherence, nuance, Šcontrast, humour, enjoyment and leisure - relate? This is discussed below.
Note: SInce this aspect is post-social, the full Šdevelopment of these themes and kernel issues involves society. There is a Špersonal element (such as the harmony in a piece of music composed by an Šindividual), but (if we are interpreting Dooyeweerd's notion of inter-aspect dependency validly here) much of Šthis aspect can only be understood in terms of society.
On excellence. Why is it that we have different types of glasses for wine, Šwhisky, brandy, port, etc.? Because each type of glass brings out the best Šof the drink. Similarly for how various foods go together with each other Šand with sauces etc. This is motivated by an idea of excellence: the less- Šthan-excellent will not do, and one enjoys the excellent. Now, ask Šyourself: in which aspect is such excellence meaningful or important? Not Šthe sensitive, because there every taste or smell is valid. Not the Šformative, because the excellent, though it can be a goal, is for enjoyment Šnot work. Excellence is aesthetic. If that is so, then anything that Šincludes a notion of excellence - such as league tables, the Football World ŠCup, etc. - has at least an element of the aesthetic aspect.
In a later paper, <õa href= "#seerveld2001"õ>Seerveld [2001] gives a Šuseful table of what is good and bad in the aesthetic aspect, which shows Šits constellation of meaning.
| anti-normative aberrations which kill joy | normative functional analogues affording joy |
|---|---|
| pretentious, show-off | festive, aw[e]ful, wonderful, amazing, marvelous |
| repulsive, horrific | ugly, grotesque, monstrous, elegant, pathetic |
| terrifying, tasteless, flagrant, insipid | tragic, ironic, fearsome |
| extravagant, uninteresting | novel, odd, rare, interesting, fantastic |
| boring, tiresome, tedious | entertaining |
| inane, undistinguished, blatant | puzzling, caricaturing |
| verbose, clichégenic | expressive |
|
IMAGINATIVITY ALLUSIVITY |
LUCIDITY (INVENTIO) |
| hacmneyed, true, monotonous | comical |
| unpleasant | fanciful, picturesque, charming |
| stillborn, vapid, jejeune | funny, vivacious, humourous |
| forced | spontaneous |
| dull | inscape, splendour |
| amorphous | concinnity |
| at random | beautiful harmony |
While we might debate details, this is very useful to show the Šconstellation of meaning and normativity in this aspect. This actually Šintegrates with Dooyeweerd's notion of beautiful harmony as the kernel Šmeaning, if we see the rest as building up to that; Dooyeweerd tried, I Šthink, to characterize the full, richest functioning in each aspect.
Aesthetic aspect.
Aspect of harmony, integration, holism,
Aspect of surprise, joke and humour,
Aspect of fun, leisure and play.
Part of God's beautiful plan
where each and every aspect means
that we can live full lives,
diverse and coherent,
to his glory and delight
to form Christ's inheriting
to the world's wide blessing
to our own deep fulfilment.
Aesthetic aspect.
Part of the team.
Aspect of the creatively unrequired.
Aesthetic aspect.
Antidote to analytic -
but a special kind of antidote.
Instead of breaking down,
we keep together;
we don't just keep together:
we harmonize.
Not the harmony of the tree.
Leaves necessary for life
Twigs necessary to bear leaves
Boughs necessary to bear twigs
Trunk necessary to bear boughs
Roots necessary to get water
Flowers necessary to reproduce.
But the harmony
that brings together
creatively and unrequired.
Aesthetic aspect.
Aspect of the creatively unrequired.
Aesthetic aspect.
Antidote to formative
and its power, goals and work.
Instead of forming with power
putting together for a purpose,
driven by a necessity,
We harmonize.
Instead of work,
We play.
Not the putting together of a car,
Wheels needed for traction
Shafts needed to turn them
Engine needed for power
Chassis needed for construction
Driver needed to control it,
All formed out of necessity.
Aesthetic aspect.
Aspect of the creatively unrequired.
Aspect of going 'beyond'.
Like the ethical aspect,
the antidote to juridical.
Not just giving each its due
according to its inner essence and need,
but going way beyond,
to the giving of the self.
Aesthetic aspect.
Aspect of the creatively unrequired.
Aspect of going 'beyond'.
Juridical enables us to give each their due.
Aesthetic enables us to go beyond, to the creatively unrequired.
Ethical enables us to go beyond to
the agape love
that takes no account of the inner value of the thing
but gives it value within the fields of God.
While Seerveld held that nuance is allusion or similarity, Webster's Šdictionary defines it as slight variation or difference. By means of ŠâNuanceâ we are able to find some subtle and delicate variation in Šsomething that is meaningful as more than just a variation. This may be Šthe basis for the difference that we need for full harmony. Such nuance, Šcombined with suggestiveness, leads to âsurpriseâ. The essence of Šâhumourâ is surprise. All âjokesâ involve the sudden, aesthetic Šbreaking of expectations. At the same time, what we might call 'aesthetic Šliving' is full of fun, laughter, playfulness. âPlay or funâ involves Šthat which is not necessary in life, and both allusivity and nuance are Šrelationships of similarity of variation in the objects of our attention Šthat are not necessary nor in the nature of those objects, but are of the Šsubject.
Seerveld sees this aspect differently from Dooyeweerd, as explained and illustrated by Baus. But there are also Šarguments in favour of Dooyeweerd's Šview.
If we allow such a close connection then what we know of art can help us in Šunderstanding the kernel of the aesthetic aspect - as does Seerveld below - Šbut we must also allow for the possibility that there is aesthetic Šfunctioning that is not art, and that what we know of art is culturally Šconditioned and there may be whole vistas of art that humanity has yet to Šenter. Therefore we should be careful to be aware of the assumptions we Šmake.
A particularly subtle danger is to assume that fine art is what best Šdefines the aesthetic. Not so. Fine art is usually for display, is Šusually carried out by certain types of leisured people. And to make this Šassumptions downplays what ordinary people can do. Also, it would make it Šdifficult to include such things as the exquisite miniature rooms displayed Šin Chicago's Art Institute. Likewise, art, or aesthetics, should not be Šseen as merely professional art, or art for display, but can also include Šinformation art, everyday aesthetics, such as the way we stack the dishes.
"I agree with it [that nuance cannot encompass the whole of harmony]. My Šproblem with your wanting to split the aesthetic in two is that there is no Šdistinctive clarity in respect to the identification of the modal kernel of harmony. ... As I've indicated above musical nuances do not exist apart Šfrom their harmony (or disharmony)."
Play a wrong note, and all is not lost. The good improviser can turn it Šinto a 'passing note', letting it move the music via a little interesting Šside turning back into the mainstream via a suitably chosen chord. The Špossibility of doing this is written into the laws of harmony of this ŠAesthetic Aspect.
Improvisation does not just happen in music, however. We are walking up a Šmountain path, and suddenly see to the right a waterfall. We turn off the Šplanned path to see it. Improvisation. Then either back onto the planned Šroute, or climb above the waterfall and up onto the different heights Šabove. Improvisation can enrich the day.
"Seerveld has argued and Dengerink-Chaplin has demonstrated in her thesis on Suzanne K. Langer - that the aesthetic in D could be an unncessary modal cartegory overloaded onto an already fully explanatory set: economic, juridical, and ethical modalities in the theory. It was difficult for D to drop the schematic of Plato (D's pisteutic = Truth, ethic = Goodness, aesthetic = Beauty). Perhaps D's concept of "the aesthetic" is an advocacy of his own aesthetic ideology - de schone harmonie. That is, what to my mind is his mistake on the place, importance, and meaning of the aesthetic within his modal categories, can be accounted for in the very process of criticizing it. Most important, D desn't need it in the modal zone where he places it, quite high up on the ladder."
Seerveld suggests that nuance (and Š'suggesting'), not harmony, should be the kernel that defines an aspect and Šthat this is depended upon by the sensitive, Šso should be placed earlier. He criticises Dooyeweerd for taking too Šclassical a notion of aesthetics. Click here for discussion of this view. ŠHowever, whether or not there should be separate nuance aspect, there are Šreasons for holding that we still need an aspect centred on harmony.
One point is that we need more than nuance for a full aesthetic; we need Šalso what we called anti-nuance - surprise, difference, contrast.
But the following is perhaps a more fundamental point. Whatever we call Šit, we need an aspect whose kernel meaning is harmony (in its richest Šsense). Harmony is what keeps everything together, cohering, and also Šbringing beauty. Without it, everything fragments (analytic aspect) or merely relates (social aspect), but does not cohere. The whole notion Šthat the Creation is Good (Hebrew: 'working as it should') seems to have Švery strong overtones of coherence and harmony. But harmony cannot be Šderived from either relationship or nuance. It is something beyond these. ŠHarmony, at least of this kind, is not the classical type of harmony that ŠSeerveld criticises Dooyeweerd for holding, so maybe Dooyeweerd intuitively Špicked up something beyond the classsical?
But if we need an aspect centred on harmony, where should it be placed? ŠThat is answered if we can decide what it, full-blown harmony (including Šthe elements of surprise, balance, fun, etc.), depends on. Here is an Šargument that might support Dooyeweerd's placement:
It depends, at least on the sensitive, formative. Though an individual might function Šin harmony, this is only fully so when we take the social into account. ŠAlso, harmony, it seems requires the economic Šnotion of frugality (harmony seems destroyed by waste and wantonness) so it Šwould be later than it. But does it now also depend on the juridical notion of 'what is due'? Possibly not. And Šfull juridical functioning seems to require something of harmony and the Š'place' of things.
But of course, there are other arguments to be heard about this; send them Šin.
I believe that in some of these criticisms, Z misinterprets Dooyeweerd, but Ševen so, the above criticisms must be addressed. Z proposes a critical Šsocial ontology of the arts.
Seerveld, C. (unknown date). Rainbows for a Fallen World. IVP?.
Seerveld, C. (2001) Christian aesthetic bread for the world. ŠPhilosophia Reformata 66(2), 155-76.
Stafleu, M.D. (2003) On aesthetically qualified characters and their mutual Šinterlacements. Philosophia Reformata 68(2), 137-47.
Zuidervaart, L. (1995) Fantastic things: critical notes toward a social Šontology of the arts. Phil. Ref. 60(1), 37-54.
Copyright (c) 2004 Andrew Basden. But you may use this material subject to Šconditions.
Number of visitors to these pages: . Written on the Amiga with Protext.
Created: by 7 May 1998. Last updated: 30 August 1998 rearranged and tidied. 11 October 1998 added ŠImprovisation and something of Shalom of the aspect. 23 September 1999 added 'the same Šin the other'. 5 March 2000 more themes. 7 February 2001 mailto. 5 March Š2001 shalom and harm moved earlier and expanded a bit. 3 June 2001 added Šre. echoes. 14 March 2002 better kernel, removed %complete. 22 June 2002 Šexcellence, and enjoyment. 14 September 2002 Note after themes about being Špost-social. 25 November 2002 Section on whether there is an aesthetic Šaspect, Gedraitis' bit on Seerveld, and section on need for harmony-centred Šaspect. 27 November 2002 Aesthetic themes In Life. 19 December 2002 changed Šthe Themes and Kernel a bit, link to analytical sameness. 20 December 2002 ŠStarted an 'Inside the Aspect' section. 27 December 2002 more on 'inside'. Š12 January 2003 extravagence. 18 January 2003 about anti-nuance; wrote Šabout contrast, surprise; a bit more in defence of Dooyeweerd's notion. 29 ŠJanuary 2003 re informal everyday art. 4 March 2003 Needs section, .nav. 5 ŠJuly 2003 not dramaturgy. 21 July 2003 Gadamer and play as primordial. 17 ŠFebruary 2004 cultural aspect of nuance. 12 March 2004 competition as harm. Š7 April 2004 moved discussion of Seerveld's notion of nuance to new file Šideas/aesthetics.html; made up a paragraph suggesting how elements of Šaesthetics relate. 20 May 2004 Art section; removed duff link. 5 February Š2005 a few minors. 17 May 2005 added interestingness and made point it is Šactive attitude r.t. what happens to us. 24 August 2005 new .nav,.end. 13 ŠAugust 2007 mischief. 8 September 2008 poetic rendering. 2 December 2008 ŠGeorge Benjamin; moved poem later. 25 April 2009 link to structured anal. Š15 June 2009 aesthetic drive. 28 January 2010 last line of poem. 6 ŠSeptember 2010 amazement, incongruity. 22 September 2010 Dooyeweerd's and ŠBasden's rendering. 4 February 2011 refces, Seerveld's table. Zuid's Šcritique. 30 January 2012 harming various other aspects, incl. aristocracy.