3 ms·

I don't think I follow. Is your perspective that the extent to which it's possible to experience fun and/or enjoyment of art is not - at all - constrained by h

I don't think I follow. Is your perspective that the extent to which it's possible to experience fun and/or enjoyment of art is not - at all - constrained by having to politely sit still?

coldtea 8y ago
Yes, my perspective is people can sit still and still (sic) enjoy art. Sitting still and enjoying art is orthogonal. Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto -- just for them.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto I read this claim as physical expression of emotion is entirely voluntary and consciously constraining physical response does not change the experience. And for the people who it does, it's a matter of socialization not human nature. This type of perspective - even if true (I disagree but will not discuss here any further) - is why classical music is up-tight.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Tons of non-classical folk musics, people have listened to for millennia in total observance (from ragas to folk chinese music, all the way to ancient greek lute and flute scores), are not tied to "physical expression of emotion", and plain folk people listened (and listen) to them just fine. The idea that one must jump, dance, and prance around as of paramount importance is more tied with teenagers setting the agenda of "popular music" since the 50s or so, than some inherent human need.
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
I might even go further: not only is it not constrained, there are certain kinds of fun that one can only have while politely sitting still. Of course, I'm biased, because I'm one of those people who likes attending classical performances. But its for the same reason that I don't want 3 televisions blaring while I'm eating a fancy meal. At a certain level, distractions take away from the enjoyment of the thing you're concentrating or enjoying. I don't think there's anything uptight in this: I could say the same thing about people turning on the stadium lights during a mosh-pit/rave. Its as simple as some human experiential dimensions exclude other human dimensions: we can't, biologically for the most part, experience or investigate the full extent of all our senses at the same time.

I don't think I follow. Is your perspective that the extent to which it's possible to experience fun and/or enjoyment of art is not - at all - constrained by having to politely sit still?

coldtea 8y ago

Yes, my perspective is people can sit still and still (sic) enjoy art. Sitting still and enjoying art is orthogonal. Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto -- just for them.

forgottenpass 8y ago
>Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto I read this claim as physical expression of emotion is entirely voluntary and consciously constraining physical response does not change the experience. And for the people who it does, it's a matter of socialization not human nature. This type of perspective - even if true (I disagree but will not discuss here any further) - is why classical music is up-tight.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Tons of non-classical folk musics, people have listened to for millennia in total observance (from ragas to folk chinese music, all the way to ancient greek lute and flute scores), are not tied to "physical expression of emotion", and plain folk people listened (and listen) to them just fine. The idea that one must jump, dance, and prance around as of paramount importance is more tied with teenagers setting the agenda of "popular music" since the 50s or so, than some inherent human need.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

I might even go further: not only is it not constrained, there are certain kinds of fun that one can only have while politely sitting still. Of course, I'm biased, because I'm one of those people who likes attending classical performances. But its for the same reason that I don't want 3 televisions blaring while I'm eating a fancy meal. At a certain level, distractions take away from the enjoyment of the thing you're concentrating or enjoying. I don't think there's anything uptight in this: I could say the same thing about people turning on the stadium lights during a mosh-pit/rave. Its as simple as some human experiential dimensions exclude other human dimensions: we can't, biologically for the most part, experience or investigate the full extent of all our senses at the same time.