Creative genius and science.

[mckitterick]

Fascinating. This is the oldest piece of music known to humankind, originally engraved in cuneiform on a tablet from 1400 BCE, excavated in the early 1950s in the ancient Syrian city of Ugarit. It is a hymn to the moon god's wife, Nikal. The tablets also contain detailed performance instructions for a singer accompanied by a harpist (this recording

Comments

[miischelle]

Something about this post bothers me a lot, and once I figure out what it is, I'll be back for conversation.

[clevermanka]

Maybe it's the same thing that made me side-eye it:

mastery of anything was a form of magic

IT STILL IS.

[mckitterick]

Well, sure; I wasn't trying to say it's not! My point is that, now that we understand the scientific method and can consciously analyze things for how they work, anyone with sufficient motivation and passion to learn something can learn what appears to be magic to those who don't take the time.

We can still call it "magic," of course - that's what magic is, right? Something sufficiently outside our POV and understanding of how the universe works that we cannot explain it. But to the practitioner, it's a discipline.

[miischelle]

I'm really not sure how much the scientific method applies to the creation of master works of art...

[clevermanka]

Agreed. All the practice in the world isn't going to give you genius for something, no matter how much you want it. Practice gives one competence, not inspiration.

[mckitterick]

Inspiration + education + perspiration = potential to do great work.

If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a teacher!

[mckitterick]

I believe you can teach the arts.

We teach them using a lot of methods; good ones include:

* Show great examples, then analyze why they work.
* Practice the techniques employed by masters of the art.
* Use peer review and expert review of works to point out what techniques work and which don't work so well.
* Keep a critical eye open to what makes great art.
* Practice, practice, practice.
* Repeat.

This is the scientific method applied to learning the arts. This is why we have workshops in the arts, courses, entire university programs. We wouldn't invest so much into educating people to become "masters" (or "doctors") of the arts unless we believed such things can be taught.

Now, can we teach genius? I don't know, but I doubt it. It would be AWESOME if we could figure out how. Anyhow, I do believe we can (especially those educated in an art-form) identify genius, and those best-educated can even explain why something is genius

[clevermanka]

Okay, well that makes a lot more sense. The way you phrased it, above, it sounded like "Anyone can be an amazing artist! Anyone can create beautiful, original music! You just need to study!"

[miischelle]

this.

[clevermanka]

anyone with sufficient motivation and passion to learn something can learn what appears to be magic to those who don't take the time

Check your privilege, hon. This simply is not true worldwide. I think it's likely that, percentage-wise, there are not more humans able to devote the time, energy, and money to mastering a skill than there were when this music was written. Mastery of a skill (other than the skill that puts food on your table and a roof over your head) is, I would bet, something that is still mostly limited to those with time and means.

When you're a single mom, already making less than your male peers, raising two kids, etc. etc., you probably don't have a lot of time to devote to learning how to play the harp--no matter how much you may love it and want to pursue that knowledge.

[mckitterick]

I'm not talking about everyone, everywhere. I'm talking about the modern, Western educational system, which is firmly rooted in the scientific method. See my response to miischelle elsewhere in this thread.

[heron61]

I think it's likely that, percentage-wise, there are not more humans able to devote the time, energy, and money to mastering a skill than there were when this music was written. Mastery of a skill (other than the skill that puts food on your table and a roof over your head) is, I would bet, something that is still mostly limited to those with time and means.At the time the music was written, 90% of the population in the best off regions needed to spend their time farming. Most of the remaining people still didn't have all that much free time to master a non-survival skill. Being (really) generous, maybe 3% of the population had sufficient free time. Today, lots of people have serious hobbies and time to spend on them. Depending upon what figures you look at, between half and 12% of the worlds population are now in the middle class, with the free time and disposable income that entails. The first figure seems to high, but the second is going by the exceedingly strict definition of people who make US median income or above. So,

[clevermanka]

Interesting statistics! Thank you for sharing them. I stand by my original stance, though--the one against everyone having the opportunity to master a non-vital skill. Like you say, we need to do a lot better.

[miischelle]

...and on the same level, it never was magic.

I mean - there's technical skill. Hand eye coordination. But being able to render something perfectly doesn't make it good. Like that Billy Pappas Marilyn Monroe pencil piece...

[clevermanka]

it never was magic

I think mckitterick and I are using the term "magic" to mean something mysterious and possibly unknowable to the untrained/uneducated person.

For instance, he thinks it's magic how I can turn a piece of cloth into a shirt. I think it's magic how he puts up with me.

[saffronhare]

I wish there were a LIKE button for this comment right here. :)