Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Hofstadter on Computer Music
Message-ID: <320@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-May-85 13:27:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.320
Posted: Tue May 14 13:27:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 04:56:54 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 36

>Fractal geometry provides mathematical principles that describe 
>real-world scenery far better than the hands of most artists. And 
>it draws scenery with such precision that it makes human efforts 
>look "like the throw of the dice".

Statements like this illustrate the absurdity of this whole
discussion. Fractal geometry describes scenery "better" than most 
artists? Precision makes human efforts look random? If I were to
take an Instamatic outside and shoot a picture, I can easily obtain
more precision than any of the great master painters of history.
Does this make me better than they are?

If I write a program that generates music without ever violating
any of the rules of, say, the contrapuntal rules of Palestrina's
era, will the music therefore be "better" than his? Maybe so, if
you are looking for "mathematical principles" that formulate "good"
music or art. But as long as the evaluation of art is subjective,
(How can you like that music? It sounds like the wail of a dying
baboon...) there will never be one fixed best way to make art, nor
will there be a theory of art.

The idea that we will discover a theory of music which will allow us
to produce truly great (not derivative) works is ridiculous. If you 
think about it, you will realize that the great paintings, music, 
literature, and sculpture were produced by artists who used their
personal knowledge of themselves, and of the world, to express their
emotions, thoughts, and desires through an artistic medium. If an
artist is just deficient in understanding the human condition, it
doesn't matter how learned he is in the techniques of his art, he
won't produce anything great (see Salieri vs. Mozart).

The bottom line is that when we refer to art, we mean human art, i.e.,
art which appeals to people on a personal level. For a person to
create great human art, he must have a great human understanding.
There is no reason to expect this not to hold for any other type of
system, e.g., computers.