My definitions of music and art (at least for this week)
Last Sunday, I was waiting for our worship service to start and hanging out with all of the musicians who were playing and singing with me that day. We got into a very spirited conversation about the definition of music. Someone asked me what my definition of music is, and I didn’t have a good answer. But, I’ve been thinking about it and here’s what I’ve come up with:
“Music is a type of art that is primarily experienced through the sense of hearing.”
Essentially, I think that music is simply a subset of a larger category of “art.” The distinguishing characteristic of music is that it is aural in nature. This means that I believe it is possible for anything that is aural to be a part of music — instruments, spoken word, recordings of sounds from the physical world. Anything that you can hear can be music, but that doesn’t mean everything you hear is music. What makes the distinction? Well, it has to be art before it can be music.
Of course, this definition raises a deeper question — “what is art?” So, I had to think about that one for a while and here’s what I came up with:
“Art is any physical expression that is assigned meta-physical meaning by those who observe it.”
If you read the words of a legal contract, the meaning of that contract is likely confined to the meaning of the words themselves. However, if you read a poem, often you may find meaning in that poem that goes beyond the meaning of each individual word. That is meta-physical meaning — and I believe it is a requirement for a physical expression to be considered art.
However, I believe it is subjective. So, if I find meta-physical meaning in something, I can consider it art, even if no one else does. Well, then, isn’t the definition worthless? Not at all, because it is in the sharing of our interpretations with others that we, over time, come to concensus about what is generally considered to be art. There no absolutes of “this is art and this is absolutely not,” but there are general practices and standards which give us the ability to categorize, interpret and discuss art effectively.
That is what people mean when they say something is “more of an art than a science.” That is, they mean it’s not black and white, on or off — rather, there are many, many shades of gray.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I like your answer, Tim. I don’t have any deep, philosophical thoughts to share, but I do agree with your opinion that a metaphysical meaning is required for there to be music. I love music because it brings out my emotions, and those emotions are drawn out by the deeper meaning behind a rhythmic collection of notes.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Wow, what a deep blog posting. As I read your posting, I began to think about collegiate degree distinctions: Master of Arts (which often includes business, theology, and education degrees among other “non-artistic” degrees, and the Master of Fine Arts, which is restricted to visual art, theatre, music, dance, film, and perhaps graphic design.) So perhaps there is a a narrowing down of the definition of art as we thin of it in terms of “arts” and “fine arts.”
I think your definition of music is right on target. With your skill and talent for music theory, I trust your opinions on the matter.