Comments on: Towards a literary science http://www.perplexicon.net/2010/02/towards-a-literary-science/ Contrary to what you might think, a blog about what's contrary to what you might think. Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:53:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Michael http://www.perplexicon.net/2010/02/towards-a-literary-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2474 David Michael Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:00:28 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=323#comment-2474 I don't share your pessimism! Science may never fully figure out all the mysteries of art because the greatest of artists constantly push beyond whatever are perceived to be the "rules" of art. And besides, understanding what it is that causes a certain effect in the reader's brain is not the same thing as finding an original way to stimulate it. An artistic genius has an intuitive, unconscious grasp of the science behind what they do, and I believe that science has a long way to go before it catches up with the best of them. Having said that, digital composers like Emily Howell may ultimately be a good thing for art. If in the near future it will be possible for record companies to simply turn on their computers and press "compose", it may very well eradicate a vast chunk of the lesser musical talent out there, and force those considering a career in music to really ask themselves, "if I'm not good enough to outcompose a computer, should I really be in this business?" Also, there is a sense in which, when it comes to digital composition, the computer is not really the artist anyway. In the future, programmer/musicians like Cope will be competing to see who can come up with the better algorithms. While now it may be little more than a curiosity, in the future these people will be forced to approach their work as an art in itself. They will necessarily have to have musical talent, or else they will have to base their algorithms on great music of the past, leaving an opening for more forward-thinking, "real" musicians. I don’t share your pessimism! Science may never fully figure out all the mysteries of art because the greatest of artists constantly push beyond whatever are perceived to be the “rules” of art. And besides, understanding what it is that causes a certain effect in the reader’s brain is not the same thing as finding an original way to stimulate it. An artistic genius has an intuitive, unconscious grasp of the science behind what they do, and I believe that science has a long way to go before it catches up with the best of them.

Having said that, digital composers like Emily Howell may ultimately be a good thing for art. If in the near future it will be possible for record companies to simply turn on their computers and press “compose”, it may very well eradicate a vast chunk of the lesser musical talent out there, and force those considering a career in music to really ask themselves, “if I’m not good enough to outcompose a computer, should I really be in this business?”

Also, there is a sense in which, when it comes to digital composition, the computer is not really the artist anyway. In the future, programmer/musicians like Cope will be competing to see who can come up with the better algorithms. While now it may be little more than a curiosity, in the future these people will be forced to approach their work as an art in itself. They will necessarily have to have musical talent, or else they will have to base their algorithms on great music of the past, leaving an opening for more forward-thinking, “real” musicians.

]]> By: Perscors http://www.perplexicon.net/2010/02/towards-a-literary-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2464 Perscors Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:35:58 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=323#comment-2464 Interesting post. As a lover of literature and yes, even lit crit. I can't help but find a lot of this disheartening. The idea that science could eventually figure art out must be every artist and writers worst nightmare. Why go on if a machine could manufacture operas to rival Mozart or novels to rival Tolstoy? On the oppostite side of the spectrum there have been critics that have looked at how art can contribute to science. One critic I particularly admire, Angus Fletcher, has written several works concerned with the nature of thought, specifically imaginative thinking, and how it relates to scientific thought. (These include "Time, Space, and Motion in the Age of Shakespeare; Colors of the Mind; and his most recent book "A New Theory for American Poetry: Democracy, the Environment and the Future of the Imagination.) In all of his works he has held an interest in literatures' concern with horizons, liminal spaces, thresholds, and what Hamlet called "the interim." Science and Literature both use a language after all to communicate information although there is a kind of specificity to literary language that science lacks. After all, one can make a perfect translatation of scientific findings but there is always something lost in a translation of literature. Since Plato there has been a tension between poetry and science begining with his wishto banish the poets from his Republic. Philosophy is like a science in its aim at clarification while literature is often more concerned with mystification. (there is a youtube interview with the novelist/ philosopher Iris Murdoch where she makes this point.) Wallace Stevens makes the same point when he says "poetry makes the visible a little harder to see." But going back to Fletcher, art is concerned with finding limits, with testing horizons, and so if there ever was a system that attempted to explain away art I feel art would continue if only in attempting to refute that system. That said I'm still fairly pessimistic about the future of literature, in fact I'm morbid enough to keep a notebook full of various literary figures who've made predictions of its eventual end. One of bitterest remarks is perhaps from Philip Roth who said that the screen (tv, computer, what you will) has done to literature what Lady MacBeth proposed to do to her infant child, rip it from her breast and dash its head against the rocks. Here's to the future :) Interesting post. As a lover of literature and yes, even lit crit. I can’t help but find a lot of this disheartening. The idea that science could eventually figure art out must be every artist and writers worst nightmare. Why go on if a machine could manufacture operas to rival Mozart or novels to rival Tolstoy? On the oppostite side of the spectrum there have been critics that have looked at how art can contribute to science. One critic I particularly admire, Angus Fletcher, has written several works concerned with the nature of thought, specifically imaginative thinking, and how it relates to scientific thought. (These include “Time, Space, and Motion in the Age of Shakespeare; Colors of the Mind; and his most recent book “A New Theory for American Poetry: Democracy, the Environment and the Future of the Imagination.) In all of his works he has held an interest in literatures’ concern with horizons, liminal spaces, thresholds, and what Hamlet called “the interim.” Science and Literature both use a language after all to communicate information although there is a kind of specificity to literary language that science lacks. After all, one can make a perfect translatation of scientific findings but there is always something lost in a translation of literature.
Since Plato there has been a tension between poetry and science begining with his wishto banish the poets from his Republic. Philosophy is like a science in its aim at clarification while literature is often more concerned with mystification. (there is a youtube interview with the novelist/ philosopher Iris Murdoch where she makes this point.) Wallace Stevens makes the same point when he says “poetry makes the visible a little harder to see.” But going back to Fletcher, art is concerned with finding limits, with testing horizons, and so if there ever was a system that attempted to explain away art I feel art would continue if only in attempting to refute that system. That said I’m still fairly pessimistic about the future of literature, in fact I’m morbid enough to keep a notebook full of various literary figures who’ve made predictions of its eventual end. One of bitterest remarks is perhaps from Philip Roth who said that the screen (tv, computer, what you will) has done to literature what Lady MacBeth proposed to do to her infant child, rip it from her breast and dash its head against the rocks. Here’s to the future :)

]]>