1
00:00:00,330 --> 00:00:07,710
So the topic today is musical expression. And as with last week,

2
00:00:07,710 --> 00:00:13,410
this raises a number of questions in that category of questions I mentioned

3
00:00:13,410 --> 00:00:18,270
at the beginning as being one of the main types of questions and aesthetics,

4
00:00:18,270 --> 00:00:26,040
namely questions pertaining to the understanding and the appreciation of works of art.

5
00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:34,980
Expression has been fairly important category in aesthetics for at least the past hundred years or so,

6
00:00:34,980 --> 00:00:41,880
and it's been standard to contrast expression since that time with representation.

7
00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:49,110
So pictures on this view of things are representations of what they depict.

8
00:00:49,110 --> 00:00:57,600
Likewise, the sculptures are representations of what they're sculptures of literary works.

9
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:04,110
I think it's standard to say as well are representational.

10
00:01:04,110 --> 00:01:10,380
But there is another way in which Artworks can relates to things that aren't artworks.

11
00:01:10,380 --> 00:01:17,340
And that is by expressing them, by expressing those things.

12
00:01:17,340 --> 00:01:27,990
And in particular, this has been seen as a particularly important concept for our understanding of music.

13
00:01:27,990 --> 00:01:35,250
Claim is not that representational works of art can't also express things, but that non-representational works of art.

14
00:01:35,250 --> 00:01:46,950
Like many pieces of music, I stand in a different relation to reality than the relation of representing it.

15
00:01:46,950 --> 00:01:51,630
Now it's an interesting question to what extent works of music can be representational?

16
00:01:51,630 --> 00:01:56,610
So you think about certain works of music like the Flood of the Bumblebee, for example.

17
00:01:56,610 --> 00:02:03,840
You might be inclined to say that those works of instrumental music can be representational.

18
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:12,810
But for the most part, I think a lot of works of music, it's standard to say at least do not represent things.

19
00:02:12,810 --> 00:02:23,130
Rather, the main way in which they relate to reality, other things is by expressing things.

20
00:02:23,130 --> 00:02:34,560
And so I'd like to begin with a few distinctions that are important to orienting yourself into the debate about musical expression.

21
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:40,410
One distinction is regarding the scope of what can be expressed.

22
00:02:40,410 --> 00:02:45,090
So we might talk about not just expressing emotions but expressing, say,

23
00:02:45,090 --> 00:02:56,350
the spirit of the age or as well or as a number of writers have suggested, some works of music can express qualities like silkiness.

24
00:02:56,350 --> 00:03:05,070
You can get this in. Nelson Goodman, for example, talks about works of art, expressing heat fragility, things like this.

25
00:03:05,070 --> 00:03:09,780
I'm going to be focussing on the expression of emotion,

26
00:03:09,780 --> 00:03:17,460
mainly because that has been the most central topic in discussions of expression and because it seems

27
00:03:17,460 --> 00:03:24,510
to be one of the least controversial examples of something that can be expressed by works of music.

28
00:03:24,510 --> 00:03:31,410
And the expression of emotion and emotion generally in connexion with music raises a great many difficult questions.

29
00:03:31,410 --> 00:03:38,610
So why we react so powerfully to instrumental works of music in particular,

30
00:03:38,610 --> 00:03:45,740
has puzzled a lot of people why the sound of stringed instruments can cause people to cry.

31
00:03:45,740 --> 00:03:54,180
It is a very standard philosophical puzzle in the philosophy of music.

32
00:03:54,180 --> 00:04:04,050
Likewise, how it's possible for non-representational sounds to relate to reality in this way that we call expressing emotion.

33
00:04:04,050 --> 00:04:14,100
How is it possible for the Ode to Joy to express joy and particularly and do so in such a particularly powerful way?

34
00:04:14,100 --> 00:04:16,350
And when we're talking about the expression of emotion?

35
00:04:16,350 --> 00:04:21,630
Another very important distinction to keep in mind is what I've described in the handout as the

36
00:04:21,630 --> 00:04:28,710
distinction between expressing a kind of emotion and expressing a particular occurrence of that emotion.

37
00:04:28,710 --> 00:04:39,690
So you might want to distinguish between work that expresses sadness and something that expresses my current sadness.

38
00:04:39,690 --> 00:04:51,560
Some people draw this distinction by saying that there's a difference between being expressive of sadness and expressing sadness.

39
00:04:51,560 --> 00:05:00,170
So being expressive of sadness is what I just described as expressing a kind of emotion and expressing sadness in this.

40
00:05:00,170 --> 00:05:13,520
Way of describing it is what I just called expressing a particular occurrence of sadness, such as the sadness somebody is currently feeling.

41
00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:16,610
Now, that's going to be important because as we'll see,

42
00:05:16,610 --> 00:05:26,360
there is a deep question about the relation between expressing kinds of emotions and expressing particular occurrences of them,

43
00:05:26,360 --> 00:05:35,090
whether one should be explained in terms of the other. And the last distinction I'd like to draw is the distinction between theories

44
00:05:35,090 --> 00:05:41,360
of expression and what has come to be known as the expression theory of art.

45
00:05:41,360 --> 00:05:49,100
So early in the 20th century, philosophers and writers such as Benedetto Crochet,

46
00:05:49,100 --> 00:06:02,330
Robin Collingwood and the novelist Tolstoy presented views on arts according to which art is to be defined as expression.

47
00:06:02,330 --> 00:06:09,920
That's not going to be our focus today. Next week, we're going to be discussing definitions of art.

48
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:20,520
Rather, what I'd like to focus on today is theories of expression, theories of expression.

49
00:06:20,520 --> 00:06:27,270
Tend to attempts to answer either one or both of the following questions.

50
00:06:27,270 --> 00:06:33,360
So first, what is it for an artwork to express an emotion?

51
00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:50,340
What is it for music to be sad? For example, and the other question is, what is it for us to experience a work of art as expressive of emotion?

52
00:06:50,340 --> 00:06:59,380
What is it for us to experience a piece of music that said.

53
00:06:59,380 --> 00:07:03,970
Now, obviously, these are very closely related questions,

54
00:07:03,970 --> 00:07:09,930
but I think it's important to keep this distinction straight in your mind and when you're reading the material on expression,

55
00:07:09,930 --> 00:07:17,590
the philosophical literature on this, to remind yourself of whether the writer at any given point is trying to answer the first

56
00:07:17,590 --> 00:07:22,960
question about what it is for something for a piece of music to be said or the second question,

57
00:07:22,960 --> 00:07:28,090
what it is for us to experience it. As I said, as I mentioned, not all theory is attempt to answer both.

58
00:07:28,090 --> 00:07:34,650
Some focus on one. Some focus on the other. And some do give answers to both.

59
00:07:34,650 --> 00:07:53,660
OK. Now. Now, it's important to stress there's a really enormous range of theories of expression and aesthetics, particularly at the moment.

60
00:07:53,660 --> 00:08:02,120
And so I've selected a few of the most prominent ones next term in my lectures on metaphore.

61
00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:08,060
I'm going to be discussing some other ones that I won't be discussing today on the back of your handout.

62
00:08:08,060 --> 00:08:12,230
I've given some references to readings that you can take a look at.

63
00:08:12,230 --> 00:08:22,160
And the last two groups of readings are really relevant to theories that I won't be discussing today.

64
00:08:22,160 --> 00:08:27,470
This is this is an area that is very messy. And it's interesting if you talk to people working in this area,

65
00:08:27,470 --> 00:08:31,790
it's one of those unusual areas of philosophy where they're sort of willing to admit that they

66
00:08:31,790 --> 00:08:36,980
really don't know whether any progress has made and how any progress is going to be made.

67
00:08:36,980 --> 00:08:44,840
Some are willing to admit that or to say that. So if you're confused, you're not alone.

68
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:53,540
So it's worth, I think, beginning with what I've called the clarification theory of expression on the handout.

69
00:08:53,540 --> 00:09:01,940
So this view of expression was presented by Robin Collingwood early in the 20th century.

70
00:09:01,940 --> 00:09:11,810
And Collingwood claims that to express an emotion is to make clear what emotion one is feeling.

71
00:09:11,810 --> 00:09:23,240
So Collingwood observes that we are often burdened by emotions whose nature is unclear to us.

72
00:09:23,240 --> 00:09:32,120
And clarifying what we are feeling removes this sense of burden or this oppressive sense to the emotion.

73
00:09:32,120 --> 00:09:39,450
And that's what Collingwood thinks artists do when they express emotions.

74
00:09:39,450 --> 00:09:45,360
But a further point is that when an artist so in composing something, sculpting something,

75
00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:55,920
painting something, when an artist clarifies their emotion by expressing it, the emotion is transformed.

76
00:09:55,920 --> 00:10:07,170
So it's not a matter, in his view of of the artist finding a medium to fit a pre-existing inchoate emotion.

77
00:10:07,170 --> 00:10:12,210
But in trying to clarify one's inchoate in definite emotions.

78
00:10:12,210 --> 00:10:25,440
One transforms the emotion along the way. And this is an important claim for him because he thinks from this it follows that the

79
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:38,440
emotion expressed cannot be specified independently of the medium in which it is expressed.

80
00:10:38,440 --> 00:10:43,840
So you can't say what emotion has been expressed without reference to the particular

81
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:50,590
medium in which it is expressed a particular form that the expression of its took.

82
00:10:50,590 --> 00:11:01,910
And that's because that process of clarifying it transformed it into a distinct emotion.

83
00:11:01,910 --> 00:11:13,010
This is supposed to be a virtue of Collingwood's theory because this is supposed to explain the sense in which form and content are inseparable.

84
00:11:13,010 --> 00:11:21,860
It's often claimed about works of art, that form in which the ideas are presented or the emotions express is not

85
00:11:21,860 --> 00:11:26,810
simply a vehicle that could be easily discarded in favour of some other form,

86
00:11:26,810 --> 00:11:32,210
but that form and content in some sense or other are inseparable united.

87
00:11:32,210 --> 00:11:39,080
And in Collingwood's view, this explains one way in which that is so.

88
00:11:39,080 --> 00:11:52,080
A further implication he draws from this is that unlike the description of emotion, expression makes it clear how the art emotion differs from others.

89
00:11:52,080 --> 00:12:02,550
So, as Collingwood puts it, description generalises. So if you categorise your emotion as sadness, you indicate how it's similar to other emotions.

90
00:12:02,550 --> 00:12:10,770
Put it in the same category as other emotions. Whereas expression individualise is particularise is it?

91
00:12:10,770 --> 00:12:19,680
And that's because of this tie between the emotion expressed and the particular medium in which it is expressed.

92
00:12:19,680 --> 00:12:30,790
The form of expression. And he thinks another thing, that this aspect of history.

93
00:12:30,790 --> 00:12:36,610
One thing, this aspect of this theory explains is why.

94
00:12:36,610 --> 00:12:40,680
Just describing your emotions makes, for example, for bad poetry.

95
00:12:40,680 --> 00:12:45,730
You're saying I am sad today or literal statements of emotion like that.

96
00:12:45,730 --> 00:12:51,220
Collingwood thinks it's pretty theoretically obvious that that's not very satisfactory.

97
00:12:51,220 --> 00:12:55,720
And this explains why that's merely describing rather than expressing.

98
00:12:55,720 --> 00:13:04,800
That's categorising and generalising rather than individualising and particular rousing.

99
00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:09,780
Now, there's a lot of controversy.

100
00:13:09,780 --> 00:13:15,450
Well, love objections, I should say, about Collingwood's views.

101
00:13:15,450 --> 00:13:25,920
One question obviously that immediately arises about this is in what sense is the artist discovering the nature of the original indefinite emotion?

102
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:34,940
If that emotion is actually transformed into something different in the course of it's being expressed?

103
00:13:34,940 --> 00:13:38,930
It seems like if we're clear about anything, we're clear about the new emotion,

104
00:13:38,930 --> 00:13:47,100
that the indefinite emotion has been transformed into rather than the original one.

105
00:13:47,100 --> 00:13:56,520
But another concern is that it would seem to follow from Collingwood's view that, for example,

106
00:13:56,520 --> 00:14:07,570
music could not be sad unless it was produced by somebody clarifying a sadness that they were feeling.

107
00:14:07,570 --> 00:14:14,830
And that just seems wrong. We wouldn't say, OK, well, that piece of music is not sad if we were to discover that it was not produced by

108
00:14:14,830 --> 00:14:21,700
somebody clarifying an indefinite feeling of sadness that they'd been feeling.

109
00:14:21,700 --> 00:14:25,810
Now, of course, one way in which you might try and repair this is to say, well,

110
00:14:25,810 --> 00:14:35,740
calling was just presenting a theory of what it is to express particular occurrences of emotions rather than kinds of emotion.

111
00:14:35,740 --> 00:14:41,830
But it's not clear for me, to me, at least from reading Collingwood's text, whether that's consistent with what he says.

112
00:14:41,830 --> 00:14:51,190
He says he's setting out to explain what people are talking about when they talk about arts being associated with expression.

113
00:14:51,190 --> 00:15:00,920
So he pitches it in certain ways that I don't think leave this way of getting off the hook available to him.

114
00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:09,310
OK. Now, I think another natural view, if you ask somebody what it is for a piece of music to be sad.

115
00:15:09,310 --> 00:15:17,500
One answer I think you're likely to get is that what it is for a piece of music to be sad is for it's to make people sad,

116
00:15:17,500 --> 00:15:26,770
to be such as to make people cry or otherwise feel something related to sadness.

117
00:15:26,770 --> 00:15:32,590
And variations on this view are what are known as arousal, theories of expression.

118
00:15:32,590 --> 00:15:38,200
And these are often just mentioned just to be knocked down again.

119
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:50,580
So the kind of crudest version of it, the emotion expressed by a piece of music is just the emotion that it arouses in its listeners.

120
00:15:50,580 --> 00:15:58,500
And sort of textbook objection to this is, well, you can get something that expresses grief but doesn't cause us to feel grief.

121
00:15:58,500 --> 00:16:12,470
It might cause us to feel tender hearted or sympathetic in response to it rather than actually feeling grief.

122
00:16:12,470 --> 00:16:20,390
A recent defence of the arousal theory tries to get around these problems that's offered by Derek Travers,

123
00:16:20,390 --> 00:16:24,730
and I've given the reference to his book on the back of the hand out there.

124
00:16:24,730 --> 00:16:31,570
And I'll just describe his theory in brief before moving on to the next part.

125
00:16:31,570 --> 00:16:43,690
So according to the Travaris, a more plausible version of the arousal theory is to say not that the emotion expressed is the emotion that it arouses,

126
00:16:43,690 --> 00:16:51,610
but rather that we ought to distinguish, as is standard in the philosophy of emotion between emotions and feelings.

127
00:16:51,610 --> 00:17:02,140
So feelings are just one component of emotions. Another component is a representational component, such as a thought or belief.

128
00:17:02,140 --> 00:17:07,070
So fear, for example, is an emotion involving a representation of danger.

129
00:17:07,070 --> 00:17:17,350
So maybe the belief that you're in danger and a feeling in response to that represents a danger.

130
00:17:17,350 --> 00:17:30,640
And so in my travels, this view, a work of art, expresses an emotion e if it arouses a feeling in a qualified listener under normal conditions,

131
00:17:30,640 --> 00:17:40,500
and that feeling is an aspect of an appropriate reaction to a person expressing E!

132
00:17:40,500 --> 00:17:49,210
So in the case of the grief example that I mentioned just now.

133
00:17:49,210 --> 00:17:56,050
Part of what makes it the case on the Travaris is a view that a work of art expresses grief is that its such as to arouse

134
00:17:56,050 --> 00:18:07,900
in a qualified listener a feeling that would be part of an appropriate reaction to real expression of grief in a person.

135
00:18:07,900 --> 00:18:20,560
So tender heartedness might be an example that you point to the feelings of the listener, namely the qualified listener, rather than their emotions.

136
00:18:20,560 --> 00:18:30,250
And you ask, are those feelings part of what would be an appropriate reaction to a Real-Life expression of that emotion?

137
00:18:30,250 --> 00:18:40,870
And on this version of the arousal theory that gets around. According to the Travaris, many of the standard objections to it.

138
00:18:40,870 --> 00:18:47,890
However, I think it's fair to say at the moment,

139
00:18:47,890 --> 00:18:57,160
one of the largest families of theories of expression are what we might describe as resemblance, theories of expression.

140
00:18:57,160 --> 00:19:02,380
There's a number of forms. This can take, as I indicated there, on the handout.

141
00:19:02,380 --> 00:19:15,340
According to one of them, for work to express that emotion is for it to resemble that emotion itself in various respects.

142
00:19:15,340 --> 00:19:30,510
So in Carol Pratts well known slogan, music sounds as emotions feel.

143
00:19:30,510 --> 00:19:43,030
And Malcolm Budd has recently defended a version of this view in his book, Values of Art, and on Bud's version of this view.

144
00:19:43,030 --> 00:19:47,410
I should say he describes this as the basic and minimal concept of expression.

145
00:19:47,410 --> 00:19:54,550
He doesn't think that we should regard expression as an entirely unitary phenomenon.

146
00:19:54,550 --> 00:19:59,950
But he thinks this is one of the most basic aspects of this phenomenon.

147
00:19:59,950 --> 00:20:10,960
This resemblance to emotion. And specifically, he argues that for a piece of music to be expressive of an emotion is for its to be correct to hear it

148
00:20:10,960 --> 00:20:20,110
as sounding like the way that emotion feels or as experienced or for a full appreciation of the music.

149
00:20:20,110 --> 00:20:36,170
To require this. And so naturally, natural question is, well, how is it possible for a piece of music to resemble a feeling,

150
00:20:36,170 --> 00:20:48,970
to resemble an emotion in respect of the feeling? Well, Bud begins by indicating a number of the kinds of feelings that can be components of emotions.

151
00:20:48,970 --> 00:20:54,010
So a number of the examples he gives are felt to desire and aversion.

152
00:20:54,010 --> 00:21:01,330
This is a feeling that is a component of such emotions as envy, disgust, shame.

153
00:21:01,330 --> 00:21:13,060
So, too, a feeling of distress in an emotion like fear or grief, feeling of pleasure and emotions like joy, amusement or pride.

154
00:21:13,060 --> 00:21:22,600
And, of course, displeasure as well, especially the frustration of desire in emotions such as anger.

155
00:21:22,600 --> 00:21:27,250
So bearing in mind the kinds of feelings that are components of emotions,

156
00:21:27,250 --> 00:21:38,320
but says there's a natural correspondence between certain aspects of music and the feeling component of emotions.

157
00:21:38,320 --> 00:21:41,170
For example, often in a piece of music,

158
00:21:41,170 --> 00:21:51,190
there'll be a transition from sounds that require a kind of resolution to sounds that don't require a kind of resolution.

159
00:21:51,190 --> 00:22:04,090
This, but says is resemblance resembles the way in which there are in our mental life transitions from states of desire to states of satisfaction,

160
00:22:04,090 --> 00:22:14,530
or again, from states of tension to states of release and emotions that are characterised by feelings like this or emotional experiences that

161
00:22:14,530 --> 00:22:24,400
are characterised by transitions of such feelings can be expressed by pieces of music that have these sound properties of this kind.

162
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:34,120
Another example he gives in filling out theory is two points to pitch rises in pitch.

163
00:22:34,120 --> 00:22:37,780
Falling melodies. This sort of thing.

164
00:22:37,780 --> 00:22:51,320
And he, like a number of authors on this topic, has argued that the dimension of pitch is like the vertical dimension of space.

165
00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:58,130
And therefore, there is a resemblance between successions of notes, of different pitch,

166
00:22:58,130 --> 00:23:09,410
duration and emphasis and upwards and downwards movements of various magnitudes or speeds.

167
00:23:09,410 --> 00:23:21,710
And what this makes possible is a resemblance between changes of pitch and feelings of movement that are intrinsic to certain emotions,

168
00:23:21,710 --> 00:23:29,380
such as acute anxiety, the feeling of the body trembling. For example.

169
00:23:29,380 --> 00:23:40,150
So changes the pitch. Another way in which sounds can resemble emotions in respect of the feeling, component of the emotion.

170
00:23:40,150 --> 00:23:46,600
So to strength of musical pulse or a degree of musical movement,

171
00:23:46,600 --> 00:24:00,780
on the one hand betokens a certain level of energy and therefore can resemble the felt energy in certain kinds of emotion.

172
00:24:00,780 --> 00:24:06,990
This is the sort of picture he has in mind to make this resemblance theory plausible.

173
00:24:06,990 --> 00:24:13,050
But apart from the examples he gives and the filling out of the picture,

174
00:24:13,050 --> 00:24:21,150
one thing a number of things he thinks count in favour of it are what it explains various mysterious aspects of our experience of music.

175
00:24:21,150 --> 00:24:23,100
He takes to be explained by this view.

176
00:24:23,100 --> 00:24:32,610
So one thing is that explains how it's possible to hear music as expressive of different emotions at one and the same time.

177
00:24:32,610 --> 00:24:44,180
Explain this, because it's possible for the same piece of music to resemble different emotions at one in the same time in respect of their feeling.

178
00:24:44,180 --> 00:24:52,820
And likewise, it explains what's true and the thought that in music we directly perceive the inner life of an emotion.

179
00:24:52,820 --> 00:24:57,210
So it's not a sort of inferential thing in our experience of music.

180
00:24:57,210 --> 00:25:05,820
We're tempted at least to say that we directly experience on emotion.

181
00:25:05,820 --> 00:25:07,950
And this is explained by the fact that, well,

182
00:25:07,950 --> 00:25:17,810
expressiveness is a function of resemblance to a feeling rather than to a manifestation of a feeling in, say, behaviour or facial expression.

183
00:25:17,810 --> 00:25:22,080
It accounts for this directness component.

184
00:25:22,080 --> 00:25:31,680
And likewise, he thinks it explains why there are great limitations actually on music's capacity to express emotions.

185
00:25:31,680 --> 00:25:40,680
So we tend to use actually rather general terms when we describe the kinds of emotions that a passage expresses.

186
00:25:40,680 --> 00:25:49,760
So joy, melancholy grief, things like this.

187
00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:58,730
It's an interesting question, how specific an emotion or an experience could a piece of music express something like disappointment?

188
00:25:58,730 --> 00:26:07,840
For example, doesn't immediately spring to mind how a piece of music might express that.

189
00:26:07,840 --> 00:26:09,770
But regardless of where we draw the line,

190
00:26:09,770 --> 00:26:20,840
there does seem to be a certain limitation on the extent to which music can express the full specificity, the rich variety of emotions.

191
00:26:20,840 --> 00:26:29,420
And Bud thinks that his view helps to explain that, because in his view, it's a resemblance to the feeling component of the emotion,

192
00:26:29,420 --> 00:26:41,150
not a resemblance to, say, the content of the belief or thought associated with the emotion constitutive of the emotion or the content of the desire.

193
00:26:41,150 --> 00:26:50,540
If a desire is a constituent of the emotion, it can only resemble it in certain respects, in the respect of its feeling.

194
00:26:50,540 --> 00:27:00,680
And that explains why its capacity to express is limited in the ways that have been observed.

195
00:27:00,680 --> 00:27:05,410
OK. So now a number of objections have been raised. Bud's view as well.

196
00:27:05,410 --> 00:27:20,280
Of course, Roger Scruton adapting an objection that Nelson Goodman originally made to resemblance theories of pictorial representation.

197
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:28,960
Says while music resembles a great many other things more than it resembles emotions.

198
00:27:28,960 --> 00:27:37,660
And the implication seems to be, as it is in Goodmans analagous objection, why then doesn't express those?

199
00:27:37,660 --> 00:27:44,740
Why then doesn't it express those other things?

200
00:27:44,740 --> 00:27:57,340
Now, I think Bud has an answer to this, although it might well need to be filled out, so it just raises another question, namely that on his view,

201
00:27:57,340 --> 00:28:09,430
the view is not just that it expresses something in virtue of resembling a feeling, but because it's correct to hear it as resembling a feeling.

202
00:28:09,430 --> 00:28:13,810
So I think he can give that as an answer to this objection.

203
00:28:13,810 --> 00:28:23,510
But of course, that then does raise the question what makes it correct to hear it as resembling a feeling?

204
00:28:23,510 --> 00:28:32,510
So you might want further clarification of that, Scruton also raises another point,

205
00:28:32,510 --> 00:28:47,630
and that is that expression is a kind of success in art, successful expression, something that makes artworks aesthetically valuable.

206
00:28:47,630 --> 00:28:56,690
And so preceding it is to become, as he puts it, aesthetically affected by the work of art.

207
00:28:56,690 --> 00:29:05,750
And this doesn't seem to be the case for perceiving resemblances between sounds and feelings.

208
00:29:05,750 --> 00:29:17,380
You could observe that. I guess there is a resemblance point of likeness between this piece of music and some feeling, but not care.

209
00:29:17,380 --> 00:29:24,310
It might not be interesting. You might not be affected or be involved with it.

210
00:29:24,310 --> 00:29:30,230
That, Scruton thinks, is a big problem for any such theory of expression.

211
00:29:30,230 --> 00:29:38,390
If it's possible to perceive the property they've identified with expressiveness without feeling aesthetically involved with it,

212
00:29:38,390 --> 00:29:49,060
then that counts against the claim very strongly that they've identified a property that's identical with expressiveness.

213
00:29:49,060 --> 00:30:00,880
OK. Well, one transition or one variation on these resemblance there is is to say was not a resemblance to the emotion itself,

214
00:30:00,880 --> 00:30:13,150
but to other kinds of manifestation of this emotion, in particular vocal or behavioural manifestations or expressions of this emotion in people.

215
00:30:13,150 --> 00:30:25,180
There's something attractive about the idea that we should tie what it is for music to be expressive, to what it is for behaviour to express emotions.

216
00:30:25,180 --> 00:30:35,080
And that is a theory of that kind is part of Peter Kibbitz theory of musical expression.

217
00:30:35,080 --> 00:30:39,790
And so, in Kinney's view, at least in many cases,

218
00:30:39,790 --> 00:30:48,780
for music to be expressive of sadness is for the music to resemble behavioural expressions of sadness.

219
00:30:48,780 --> 00:30:59,220
And and this is an important qualification for us to be strongly inclined to hear the music as a kind of behaviour.

220
00:30:59,220 --> 00:31:06,270
And I'll explain why he adds that qualification. In a moment.

221
00:31:06,270 --> 00:31:13,330
But first of all. OK, well, we want to know what kinds of resemblance can there be between music on the one

222
00:31:13,330 --> 00:31:20,500
hand and behavioural or vocal expressions of emotion in human beings on the other?

223
00:31:20,500 --> 00:31:27,070
Well, you points, amongst other things, to the example of rhythm. So rhythm on Kibbie gives.

224
00:31:27,070 --> 00:31:36,130
You can enable music to be expressive of emotions by resembling the speed of movements that express those emotions.

225
00:31:36,130 --> 00:31:44,050
So fast moving rhythm can express excitement, excited emotions.

226
00:31:44,050 --> 00:31:56,770
And that's in virtue of a resemblance between the speed of the rhythm and the speed of certain kinds of behavioural expressions of excitement,

227
00:31:56,770 --> 00:32:04,500
movements in particular. Rhythm seems to be one example on give his view.

228
00:32:04,500 --> 00:32:11,460
Another example is, again, the rising and falling of pitch.

229
00:32:11,460 --> 00:32:14,040
So as we saw with Bud,

230
00:32:14,040 --> 00:32:26,160
Kivi also appeals to the notion that increases in pitch and decrease and falling of pitch betoken an increase or decrease in energy.

231
00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:33,780
And this makes them like movements in which energy is required to raise your limbs.

232
00:32:33,780 --> 00:32:38,820
Or conversely, if you have droopy shoulders, posture,

233
00:32:38,820 --> 00:32:51,180
hanging your head low in an expression of sadness that involves less energy, letting the gravity sort of work on you.

234
00:32:51,180 --> 00:33:02,150
And that's why these sort of falling melodies can be expressive of sadness on Kevin's view, in many cases at least.

235
00:33:02,150 --> 00:33:08,790
So apart from these examples, what does Kivi offer in support of this claim?

236
00:33:08,790 --> 00:33:20,520
Well, he thinks that it provides a more unified account of expressive phenomena in general, not just in the arts, but in other areas.

237
00:33:20,520 --> 00:33:30,480
So the first point he makes is that sad music is in the way he puts it, expressive of sadness, but does not necessarily express sadness.

238
00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:40,170
So that, again, that distinction between what I put by saying sad music can express a kind of

239
00:33:40,170 --> 00:33:45,870
emotion without necessarily expressing a particular occurrence of that emotion.

240
00:33:45,870 --> 00:33:55,850
Cavey puts it by saying sad music is expressive of sadness without necessarily expressing sadness.

241
00:33:55,850 --> 00:34:06,200
And he says, well, what happens in other cases where we have this, where we have something that is expressive of sadness but doesn't express sadness?

242
00:34:06,200 --> 00:34:15,920
Kivi gives the example of St. Bernard's sad looking face dog's face, as big as we've put it, hangdog expression on it.

243
00:34:15,920 --> 00:34:25,790
And he looks sad. He says it's quite obvious why the St. Bernard's face is expressive of sadness.

244
00:34:25,790 --> 00:34:38,550
Namely, it resembles certain things that express sadness, namely human faces that express sadness.

245
00:34:38,550 --> 00:34:51,280
So St. Bernard. Not necessarily sad and probably not expressing it by his expression ever, but nevertheless it's expressive of sadness.

246
00:34:51,280 --> 00:34:59,550
And that's because of a resemblance to genuine expressions of sadness.

247
00:34:59,550 --> 00:35:09,300
So if music is like that, then we have more unified account of expressive phenomena in general.

248
00:35:09,300 --> 00:35:21,450
However, and this was the important qualification, resemblance to sad gestures, behaviour, so forth,

249
00:35:21,450 --> 00:35:31,440
can't be enough because of the points that I mentioned with reference to Scruton derived from Goodman,

250
00:35:31,440 --> 00:35:39,740
namely, music resembles loads of things that it does not express.

251
00:35:39,740 --> 00:35:52,780
So he says what else is needed is that we're strongly inclined to hear it as a kind of behaviour or as an utterance or as a gesture.

252
00:35:52,780 --> 00:36:05,030
So Kivi says it's a well-established fact that we have a natural tendency to animate things that we see or perceive.

253
00:36:05,030 --> 00:36:09,120
St. Bernard's faith is a good example. Suppose it's already animate.

254
00:36:09,120 --> 00:36:22,460
We're humanising it there. The Kivi gives other examples in which, for example, we might see a spoon as a person or a stick as a snake.

255
00:36:22,460 --> 00:36:29,470
And he says not only is it obvious that we do this, they're quite good, obvious evolutionary advantages to doing this.

256
00:36:29,470 --> 00:36:33,310
If you're just generally inclined to see things as animate,

257
00:36:33,310 --> 00:36:41,040
then that gives you a better chance of getting away from dangerous things that are animate.

258
00:36:41,040 --> 00:36:46,800
In the struggle for survival. So we have this general tendency anyway.

259
00:36:46,800 --> 00:36:52,530
And he thinks there's independent evidence that we also animate our perceptions of music.

260
00:36:52,530 --> 00:37:03,780
So, for example, we describe parts in polyphony as voices or polyphonic compositions as voices.

261
00:37:03,780 --> 00:37:13,740
Themes in music are often called gestures. Fugues are called statements that are answered cetra.

262
00:37:13,740 --> 00:37:20,580
So he thinks his account of expressiveness is of a piece with what we're obviously doing anyway in cases of music,

263
00:37:20,580 --> 00:37:29,310
that we're if we're hearing it as behaviour and it resembles a certain kind of behaviour that expresses an emotion,

264
00:37:29,310 --> 00:37:39,880
then that's what enables it to be expressive of that emotion.

265
00:37:39,880 --> 00:37:47,440
Now, Scruton, again has various objections to theories of this kind and to Kivi in particular,

266
00:37:47,440 --> 00:37:54,220
he attacked some of Kev's examples, such as the stock of movement.

267
00:37:54,220 --> 00:38:01,180
I'm not sure if this is quite a fair criticism of what Kivi says, but scrutinise stresses that you have.

268
00:38:01,180 --> 00:38:12,890
You can't talk about music literally moving. There's no literal resemblance between musical movement and bodily movement.

269
00:38:12,890 --> 00:38:16,720
And part of the reason I don't think that's quite fair is that Kivi stresses the point of

270
00:38:16,720 --> 00:38:24,160
resemblance is the amount of energy manifested in musical movement and in bodily movement.

271
00:38:24,160 --> 00:38:31,850
Point of resemblance is not the movement. That's the energy involved.

272
00:38:31,850 --> 00:38:41,030
But it's worth reading Scruton discussion in his book, The Aesthetics of Music. So on the back of your hand.

273
00:38:41,030 --> 00:38:49,580
OK. So that's Kev's version of Resemblance Theory. Now, he doesn't think this is can explain all expressiveness in music.

274
00:38:49,580 --> 00:38:54,020
He thinks we also have to appeal to conventional associations with emotions.

275
00:38:54,020 --> 00:39:00,890
So he thinks the minor key. For example, it tends to express sad emotions.

276
00:39:00,890 --> 00:39:05,470
And likewise, the major key to express cheerful, positive emotions.

277
00:39:05,470 --> 00:39:12,230
And he doesn't think this can be explained by a resemblance between the minor key and behavioural expressions of emotions.

278
00:39:12,230 --> 00:39:17,330
He thinks here we simply have to appeal to a conventional association that we have

279
00:39:17,330 --> 00:39:24,140
established between certain features of music like the minor key and certain emotions.

280
00:39:24,140 --> 00:39:35,920
And he has an account of how these conventional aspects and these resemblance aspects interact in a piece of music to create expressiveness.

281
00:39:35,920 --> 00:39:42,110
But that's all I'll say about the convention. Theories of expressiveness.

282
00:39:42,110 --> 00:39:47,480
The last one that I'd like to take a look at is Gerald Levinson's view.

283
00:39:47,480 --> 00:39:56,990
Levinson essentially says in response to Kivi, you don't need resemblance to account for expressiveness.

284
00:39:56,990 --> 00:40:12,640
All you need is that second part of Carvey's resemblance theory, namely that you can hear it as a piece of behaviour that expresses an emotion.

285
00:40:12,640 --> 00:40:19,210
And more specifically, his in its most recent version.

286
00:40:19,210 --> 00:40:25,840
His view is for a passage of music to be expressive of an emotion is for it's to be readily heard

287
00:40:25,840 --> 00:40:34,000
in its proper context by listener experienced in the genre as an expression of that emotion.

288
00:40:34,000 --> 00:40:40,510
So a bit similar to Hume's account of true critics.

289
00:40:40,510 --> 00:40:51,580
It's done with reference to experienced listeners. Someone who knows about the genre and has a certain level of musical understanding and competence.

290
00:40:51,580 --> 00:40:59,500
It's readily heard by such a person in its proper context as a behavioural expression, a gesture, for example.

291
00:40:59,500 --> 00:41:07,420
Then that's what it is for. It's to be expressive of that kind of emotion.

292
00:41:07,420 --> 00:41:15,580
So he and he has a certain story of what it is to hear something as a gesture, as an expression of an emotion.

293
00:41:15,580 --> 00:41:26,560
He thinks that we have to hear music as gestures and in particular, we have to hear or imagine in the music a persona.

294
00:41:26,560 --> 00:41:32,260
And he says this on the grounds that you can't have expression without an express her.

295
00:41:32,260 --> 00:41:43,420
So if you're going to hear music as expression, you have to imagine at least a very indefinite persona within the music.

296
00:41:43,420 --> 00:41:48,550
And so to the point of saying that you have to hear a gesture in the music is on

297
00:41:48,550 --> 00:41:55,300
the grounds that the primary vehicle of expression is gesture broadly understood.

298
00:41:55,300 --> 00:42:03,700
And so he thinks this view commits us to saying that we're hearing these things in the music or imagining them in the music.

299
00:42:03,700 --> 00:42:06,430
Now, Levinson's argument for this view is rather long,

300
00:42:06,430 --> 00:42:17,050
and it's partly based on an elimination of other theories and on account of the desirable features that theory of expressiveness should have.

301
00:42:17,050 --> 00:42:27,640
And if you're interested in looking at this, the place to look to begin with is his paper musical expressiveness on the back of the hand out there.

302
00:42:27,640 --> 00:42:34,930
One controversial feature of this view, of course, is whether it really gets the experience right.

303
00:42:34,930 --> 00:42:47,410
So the objection is that competent listeners don't seem to at least always be imagining a persona in the music or a gesture in the music.

304
00:42:47,410 --> 00:43:00,730
Seems like Levinson were right. The experience of hearing sadness and music would be a lot different than it is to involve imagining these personas.

305
00:43:00,730 --> 00:43:06,390
Levinson's reply to that.

306
00:43:06,390 --> 00:43:19,320
I'm not sure I entirely follow this, but his replies that one may not always notice or acknowledge what is presupposed by one's hearing or imagining.

307
00:43:19,320 --> 00:43:26,970
So you hear the expression and the music that presupposes a persona.

308
00:43:26,970 --> 00:43:35,280
Since an expression requires and express her. But of course, what's presupposed by what you imagine may not itself be noticed or acknowledge.

309
00:43:35,280 --> 00:43:46,680
So Levinson says, I'd have to think about it a little bit more, but I'm not really sure that works or much more to the point.

310
00:43:46,680 --> 00:43:51,390
I'm not really sure I understand it entirely.

311
00:43:51,390 --> 00:44:04,920
OK, so these this is, I hope, sufficient to give you a flavour of this debate and quite how various are the theories that have been offered.

312
00:44:04,920 --> 00:44:09,720
And as I say, I certainly have not presented an exhaustive account of them.

313
00:44:09,720 --> 00:44:18,750
Other theories worth just mentioning are include Richard Vole Hymes theory of perception as as of expressiveness,

314
00:44:18,750 --> 00:44:28,680
the perception of what he calls correspondences. And I've given references to you there and Goodmans theory and the family of theories that draw on

315
00:44:28,680 --> 00:44:34,520
considerations about the nature of metaphore in order to clarify the nature of expressiveness.

316
00:44:34,520 --> 00:44:39,060
So a claim often made is that when we say the music is sad, we're using a metaphor,

317
00:44:39,060 --> 00:44:46,920
and that if we get clear on what metaphor is involved, then we can get clear on what musical expression involves.

318
00:44:46,920 --> 00:44:51,060
As I say, I'm going to discuss those next term in my lectures on metaphor.

319
00:44:51,060 --> 00:44:59,630
I'm not going to do that here, but I'd like to conclude by discussing a little bit about the value of expression.

320
00:44:59,630 --> 00:45:09,360
So remember, perhaps in the first lecture on Plato, when you're talking about what it is that makes the arts valuable?

321
00:45:09,360 --> 00:45:17,400
One of the alternatives that was mentioned was the possibility that it's the fact that they can express things

322
00:45:17,400 --> 00:45:25,290
that other things can't or can express things in a particularly clear or vivid way that other things cannot.

323
00:45:25,290 --> 00:45:36,720
And this is certainly one thing that has been offered to explain why music is so valuable is to appeal to its expressive power.

324
00:45:36,720 --> 00:45:46,290
Now, Tolstoy, for example, held that music can infect us with the emotion.

325
00:45:46,290 --> 00:46:00,330
I think that's the term he uses. It can cause us to feel the emotion that it expresses and by expressing feelings that are worth having.

326
00:46:00,330 --> 00:46:04,440
And to the extent that they're worth having, then the expressiveness is valuable.

327
00:46:04,440 --> 00:46:19,330
So that's why expressive music can be valuable music. It's because it can cause us to have experiences that are valuable experiences to have.

328
00:46:19,330 --> 00:46:29,670
Now, Bud, who has a particularly subtle discussion of the value of expressiveness in values of art.

329
00:46:29,670 --> 00:46:37,710
It says that, well, at least on Tolstoy's view, it seems like it's possible to get the valuable feeling without the work of art.

330
00:46:37,710 --> 00:46:46,170
Because on Tolstoy's view, the artist felt at first created a medium in which to transmit it.

331
00:46:46,170 --> 00:46:51,120
And then ideally, the audience then felt it.

332
00:46:51,120 --> 00:47:00,210
But if it's possible to have the valuable feeling without the work of art, then explaining art's value in these terms implies that,

333
00:47:00,210 --> 00:47:05,880
at least in principle, if not in practise, the work of art is dispensable.

334
00:47:05,880 --> 00:47:12,210
The work of art is just an instrument to producing this feeling.

335
00:47:12,210 --> 00:47:24,780
But moreover. In principle instrument because you could get the valuable feeling without the work of art and on Budd's view,

336
00:47:24,780 --> 00:47:36,150
any adequate account of the value of works of art like pieces of music ought not to imply that if we could get that experience in some other way,

337
00:47:36,150 --> 00:47:45,870
then we could get rid of the work of art and get it in the other way that we'd have no special reason to experience that work of art.

338
00:47:45,870 --> 00:47:52,380
And it does seem that Tolstoy's version of the expression theory has that implication.

339
00:47:52,380 --> 00:47:58,980
Another possibility is the specificity with which works of art can express emotions.

340
00:47:58,980 --> 00:48:06,720
So sometimes in the literature on this, there's a passage from a letter by the composer Felix Mendelssohn,

341
00:48:06,720 --> 00:48:18,930
in which he talks about pieces of music expressing feelings that are too definite for other things to express.

342
00:48:18,930 --> 00:48:23,970
Music can express feelings of highly specific kinds.

343
00:48:23,970 --> 00:48:31,380
And part of the motivation for this is just the thought that, well, there is a sense in which two works of art can express the same feeling.

344
00:48:31,380 --> 00:48:40,650
Namely, they can both express sadness or melancholy. But these are, as I mentioned earlier, very, very general kinds.

345
00:48:40,650 --> 00:48:50,080
It's not possible for two works to express the very same specific kind of sadness that the other does.

346
00:48:50,080 --> 00:49:02,670
It would be very implausible to think so. The argument goes that the very same specific kind of sadness in one work could be expressed in another.

347
00:49:02,670 --> 00:49:13,010
And some people add, furthermore, works of music can express things that language cannot, at least non poetic language cannot.

348
00:49:13,010 --> 00:49:18,990
Now, Budd's comment on this is that at least if you,

349
00:49:18,990 --> 00:49:24,000
by his account of resemblance at as the basis of expressiveness and resemblance

350
00:49:24,000 --> 00:49:29,460
in particular to feeling abundant of emotion as the basis of his expressiveness,

351
00:49:29,460 --> 00:49:38,880
then it doesn't seem to follow that two works of art, or even to be plausible, the two works of art can't express the same specific kind of emotions.

352
00:49:38,880 --> 00:49:50,160
So not all aspects of a work of art are relevant to its resembling or cause it to resemble a on emotion or the emotion that it expresses.

353
00:49:50,160 --> 00:49:55,890
So you might play a different work with a different instrument,

354
00:49:55,890 --> 00:50:02,160
but you might have the kinds of resemblances that Budd's points out, even with, say, a different instrument, a different vehicle.

355
00:50:02,160 --> 00:50:09,090
Otherwise, the falling and rising of pitch, for example, Bud's own view.

356
00:50:09,090 --> 00:50:18,420
This is the third one on the handout. Is that part of the reason why expressiveness is valuable when it's valuable?

357
00:50:18,420 --> 00:50:28,530
Is that music of that kind can enable us to experience either imaginatively or really the emotional states that it expresses in a peculiarly vivid,

358
00:50:28,530 --> 00:50:32,400
satisfying and poignant form.

359
00:50:32,400 --> 00:50:44,840
And what and what he means by that is in first place, we can use the music to imagine emotions much more vividly than we would be able to unaided.

360
00:50:44,840 --> 00:50:49,290
So if we let our imaginings of the emotion be guided by the music, for example,

361
00:50:49,290 --> 00:50:58,680
if we imagine the music itself as an emotion developing in various ways, then our imaginings can be much more vivid than they otherwise could be.

362
00:50:58,680 --> 00:51:06,450
And so to music can present satisfying resolutions of emotional transitions.

363
00:51:06,450 --> 00:51:13,770
Things like this can create a kind of intelligible drama as it develops.

364
00:51:13,770 --> 00:51:22,980
And this can be very satisfying to have these aspects resolved in a satisfying way.

365
00:51:22,980 --> 00:51:30,450
And interestingly, he also mentions that he also argues that we can explain the value of expressiveness,

366
00:51:30,450 --> 00:51:43,800
in part by reference to the value of community. So the listener is realisation that the music experienced, that the emotion experienced, rather,

367
00:51:43,800 --> 00:51:52,350
is not his alone, but is open to others, and indeed that this emotion has been made available by someone else.

368
00:51:52,350 --> 00:52:03,720
Namely, the composer encourages a sense of community that our own private imaginings would lack.

369
00:52:03,720 --> 00:52:09,830
And this is one main reason on his view. Why expression is valuable.

370
00:52:09,830 --> 00:52:16,000
Thank you so much.