I saw the noble laureate Roald Hoffman speak on a variety of topics from chemistry (his main field) to poetry (he's also published poet) to philosophy and psychology. One statement he made that didn't sit well with me was regarding the innate human desire for simplicity. He contended that humans aesthetically desire, seek out, and try to create simplicity in all things. That simplicity is an overarching principal of organization in our cognitive system, thus our perception. He used a simple melody or a simple molecule as examples of things that, he claims, resonate with all people favorably. That confused me, as I often look for complexity and challenges--particularly in artistic, aesthetic concerns. So my question to everyone is: Do some people actually buck this trend, which I do see in a great many people, or is there actually some underlying need for simplicity at work for those that seek complex or chaotic aesthetics. Zach
Maybe the implication is rather that a simple melody is something we can all understand and enjoy, while complex, challenging music is enjoyed by only some people (members of this list, and the like)... in other words simplicity is kind of the 'common denominator' between all (or most) people.
I saw the noble laureate Roald Hoffman speak on a variety of topics from chemistry (his main field) to poetry (he's also published poet) to philosophy and psychology. One statement he made that didn't sit well with me was regarding the innate human desire for simplicity. He contended that humans aesthetically desire, seek out, and try to create simplicity in all things. That simplicity is an overarching principal of organization in our cognitive system, thus our perception. He used a simple melody or a simple molecule as examples of things that, he claims, resonate with all people favorably. That confused me, as I often look for complexity and challenges--particularly in artistic, aesthetic concerns. So my question to everyone is: Do some people actually buck this trend, which I do see in a great many people, or is there actually some underlying need for simplicity at work for those that seek complex or chaotic aesthetics.
I saw the noble laureate Roald Hoffman speak on a variety of topics from chemistry (his main field) to poetry (he's also published poet) to philosophy and psychology. One statement he made that didn't sit well with me was regarding the innate human desire for simplicity.
This seems to be a basic assumption of theorists of the mind, that it is organized to process things efficiently (simply, recursively, etc.) Even when talking about the physiology of the mind, it doesn't seem like these theories are proven, exactly. People in the brain business then often make the mistake of importing their model of the mind too crudely onto the question of art. The worst is when people say "the brain wasn't built to do this (listen to music that is not in a key, for example), so you shouldn't try to make people do it, because you'll fail." The brain theorists have a hell of lot more work to do before they can explain conscious experience. Meanwhile, it's *your* brain. You should do what you want with it.
That some try to commit suicide is not a conflict with the theory, that species are driven by the force to live. I wasn't at the reading, so i don't really know what he was precisly talking about. Maximizing simplicity does not apply with the things one wishes to deal with, but with the understanding of the things one deals with. There are maybe two aspects to this: Scientists big dreams is to find a simple theory. Complex theories are just not beautiful. One can look at the movement of the moon taking the sun or the earth as a reference point. none of the perspectives is better or more true, but the second is much easier for imagination or calculation and is prefered when trying to understand the movement of the moon: a nice beautiful circle. I should not talk for you, I cannot look into your head, but in trying to comprehend none trival or complex music, I would also assume that I would try to map it down on things that I understand. In simplifying things, there is a loss of information, but it helps to see the main thing (what ever one chooses that to be). So with complex music, my attention is flying around, focusing on little details, than back again to the overal impression and I'll finde somehwere that little melodie or whatever. bytheway, there can also be much challange in simplicity. arthur Zach Steiner wrote:
I saw the noble laureate Roald Hoffman speak on a variety of topics from chemistry (his main field) to poetry (he's also published poet) to philosophy and psychology. One statement he made that didn't sit well with me was regarding the innate human desire for simplicity. He contended that humans aesthetically desire, seek out, and try to create simplicity in all things. That simplicity is an overarching principal of organization in our cognitive system, thus our perception. He used a simple melody or a simple molecule as examples of things that, he claims, resonate with all people favorably. That confused me, as I often look for complexity and challenges--particularly in artistic, aesthetic concerns. So my question to everyone is: Do some people actually buck this trend, which I do see in a great many people, or is there actually some underlying need for simplicity at work for those that seek complex or chaotic aesthetics.
Zach
I believe the great Mr. Monk once said "Simple ain't easy." Also, it is certainly the case that even the most complex systems of biology, music or anything are composed of different combinations of simpler units or elements. I'm sure our brains are capable of recognizing many of the simpler elements that go into a complex work of art or science on an unconcious level, especially once they are trained to recognize these patterns. So, there may be something to these theories. That's the beauty of the human brain - ridiculously complicated, infinitely varying, but most functioning is based on a simple framework buried somewhere down in there. whee, r -- "Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. And the United States of America has the best doctor-to-daredevil ratio in the world." -Capt. Lance Murdoch
You sound almost like you're about to explain why a modal approach to jazz became a part of the music's progress. I'm sure Miles and some other guys started thinking, "You know, all these chords passing in a complex way make it easy to sound good when you're soloing, as long as you obey the systematic rules. What if we didn't have so many chords? Then we'd have to WORK at sounding interesting. We'd have to come up with ideas that would be compelling even though the harmonic playing field itself is not compelling." Next thing you know -- boom! -- KIND OF BLUE, where most of the songs have less chords than anything this side of "Sing Sing Sing". But, in the hands of an imaginative improvisor, these simplistic structures become a new, unfettered open sky. skip h on 4/9/03 10:05 AM, Robert Pleshar at rpleshar@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
I believe the great Mr. Monk once said "Simple ain't easy."
Also, it is certainly the case that even the most complex systems of biology, music or anything are composed of different combinations of simpler units or elements.
On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 18:58:10 +0200 arthur wrote:
That some try to commit suicide is not a conflict with the theory, that species are driven by the force to live.
I wasn't at the reading, so i don't really know what he was precisly talking about.
Maximizing simplicity does not apply with the things one wishes to deal with, but with the understanding of the things one deals with.
There are maybe two aspects to this:
Scientists big dreams is to find a simple theory. Complex theories are just not beautiful.
If a phenomena can be explained with two theories one being simple, and the other complex, it goes without saying that the simple theory will be chosen. When not the case, it usually means that the complex theory is perceived as being capable of emcompassing more phenomenas, and hence should be prefered. Also, scientists dream of a final theory, not a simple one. If there was a simple theory around, it would have been found a long time ago (although the belief of a simple undiscovered theory never ceases to have an appeal outside the specialists). In fact, all the actual candidates (for a final theory) are quite complex, and involve mathematics of the most abstract nature (algebraic geometry).
One can look at the movement of the moon taking the sun or the earth as a reference point. none of the perspectives is better or more true, but the second is much easier for imagination or calculation and is prefered when trying to understand the movement of the moon: a nice beautiful circle.
What you say is just the obvious: if I play piano and the stool is too far from the piano, should I move the piano or the stool? Yes, there are many ways to skin a cat :-). Patrice.
participants (7)
-
arthur -
Dave Smey -
Julian -
Patrice L. Roussel -
Robert Pleshar -
skip Heller -
Zach Steiner