|
n
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Not sure if I entirely understand your point, but while I agree that exposure is important it's of course not the whole story.
Take a typical ghetto wanna-be gangster who listens to Soulja Boy. Now you can expose him to, say, Techno all you want, he'll never like it. That's because it totally contradicts the image he has of himself and what he connects with Techno. But if you give the same guy a well paid job in a bank where he has to wear a suit every day and can't uselessly hang out with his wanna-be gangster friends for hours, then I think there's a good chance his taste will change. Soulja Boy won't be that cool anymore and the guy might start liking, I don't know, Kings of Leon or something like that. He might even try and read a book for once. |
This.
Remember Music is nothing but vibrations. What if you couldn't perceive these vibrations and assimilate such as 'sound', then that 'sound' becomes something else. Perhaps looking into this would be of great interest to do research on. The synaptic connections and the interpretation of noise and sound into music, etc. What if these vibrations could be seen instead of heard, or even both...
it makes you wonder about people's perceptions of what is considered intellectual and what isn't. for example, consider an individual who graduated top of his class as an English Major. He's certainly well read; he's also efficient and adaptable to the system. But while individual A contemplated the material he was fed by the institution, another "unconditioned" young man is already writing a novel which will change the way society views the world. the ingenious kid who never went to school was able to learn on his own without being a product of a system. in many ways, humans can be simplified to lab rats. point being, taste is conditioned.
___________________
"I think the scientific and the artistic spirit have something in common. The scientist wants not only to learn the facts, but to understand how they cohere, fit together and make a whole. He even uses criteria such as beauty and symmetry to help decide which theory he wants.
The scientist cannot capture the whole cosmos in thought. In his mind he makes a kind of microcosm, which we see as an analogue of the cosmos. In this way we try to get a feeling for the whole. The artist, I suppose, gets a feeling for the whole some other way.”
David Bohm in “Art, Dialogue and the Implicate Order”, published in On Creativity RC (Routledge Classics)
Last edited by winston on Nov-15-2009 at 20:07
|
