A brief overview: Before we begin our exploration of the aesthetics of music, it is important to understand the distinction that Kant draws between agreeable art and fine art. Agreeable art is something man-(formed)created that produces pleasure in an individual through the apprehension of sensations. Agreeable art can be beautiful, tasteful, and even, purposeful (Kant gives the example of preparing a dinner banquet as an agreeable art, for, Kant observes, it is arranged purposefully to affect the guests with the delight of the arrangement, the delight of the music, the conversation, laughter, etc., and all of which, are the play of a confluence of pleasurable sensations). Fine art, on the other hand, can have all of the qualities of agreeable art, but has the crucial distinction of producing an idea for reflection and ultimately leading toward an understanding of that particular idea/concept. In the category of fine art, Kant points our attention toward poetry, which, through its play, or manipulation, of pleasurable or displeasruable sensations (imagery), poetry elevates our awareness toward a concept/idea–hence, toward the category of the Understanding in Kant’s paradigm of human consciousness; whereas, agreeable art, only penetrates the imagination and body in the Kantian paradigm.
With that distinction in mind, let us begin to explore music. Abstract music that is, without lyrics; for lyrics, according to Kant, would be a confluence of music and poetry.
“Music,” writes Kant in the Critique of Judgement sec., 53., “advances from sensations to indefinite ideas […]”, which in Kant’s “Comparative Estimate of The Aesthetic Worth of The Fine Arts,” (emphasis mine), is placed below the catagorically different fine arts such as poetry and painting. (Music for Kant is an agreeable art.) What I want to consider, is Kant’s claim that music leads toward indefinite ideas. Music, is certainly a formative art, driven by ideas, Kant asserts so himself, but, it does not lead the individual listening to music toward a definitive, universal idea. Or does it? Can it?
Can, for instance, a title of a piece of music in conjunction with the actual music, lead toward a definitive concept? I understand that we are probably violating Kant’s distinction between music and poetry in the combination of a linguistic object with the sensual perceptions of sound, but, I wonder, if perhaps complete linguistic restriction during interpretation is going too far? A title, after all, sets up the context; further, a title, is certainly not ignored when interpreting a painting–(I am not sure what Kant’s position would be on a painting’s title)–unless preforming a phenomenological reduction (but, to simplify, I am going to leave out the phenomenologists from this discussion–although anyone should feel free to employ phenomenological methods if they believe they can demonstrate an apodictic result).
Let’s recap. A musical title, such as for example “Central Park in the Dark,” by Ives, with the conjunction of the actual piece of music, can, I ask, lead toward an elucidation of a universal idea or concept (not–this is critical–feeling or emotion)? Perhaps, my question fundamentally is about the epistemology of musical theory. Is musical theory possible? Has it been done–that is, an interpretive, critical analysis of ideas embodied in music–and if it hasn’t, can it be done? Or is it, as Kant claims, simply the play of sensations (playing within the body and the imagination, never generating anything in the Understanding? Can an example against Kant be provided? A theory postulated?
I should add that the same questions, as some of you may have picked up on, can also be directed toward abstract art.
(Note: I am unfamiliar with musical theory, so I hope to see someone who is, provide some input, as well as, any musicians, composers, or, yes, oy, err, philosophers.)
Looking forward to your responses,
Andre