jtk Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 <p><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130154322">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130 154322</a></p> <p>Driving, I just happened to hear the broadcast linked above. It seems to me to relate to the "Against Interpretation" essay of Susan Sontag (earlier thread).</p> <p>Why do some of us "interpret" rather than "describe?" Click on that link and you'll see description (the music and audio will be available this evening).</p> <p>Why do some of us think it's impossible to find meaning in photos without interpretation, yet presumably find meaning in music?</p> <p>Some of us approach photos using the kind of terms that explain "programmatic music" (highbrow link below...there's also Wiki and Britannica) ....they want the photo to tell a story. For example, for them a photo involving a grave stone or shadow tells a story of death or passage of time (avoiding observations like "it's a nicely lit gravestone, but it's just another gravestone... why photograph it?")</p> <p><a href="http://www.classicalforums.com/articles/Rise_of_Programmatic_Music.html">http://www.cla ssicalforums.com/articles/Rise_of_Programmatic_Music.html</a></p> <p>I think it's interesting that some interpret photos, but may not interpret Bach or Mingus.</p> <p>If I identify music as "blues" or say it's "atonal" I've partially described it. I don't think I've "interpreted it."</p> <p>What's the difference, if there is one, between responding to music and to a photograph (other than foot-tapping)?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now