Victor Zuckerkandl: Space (Part 4 of 4)
Summarizing concisely the fourth and final section of Zuckerkandl’s Sound and Symbol on aural space is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, many threads branch off the main line of discourse, not all of which seem very pertinent to the matter at hand. Second, at times I simply do not know what Zuckerkandl means. He is concerned throughout the book, and in the fourth section in particular, with redefining terms that challenge our various preconceived suppositions. In this final section, for example, he calls into question our basic notion of space.
The subject is spatiality in music, or aural space, and the crux of the matter is stated in the form of a “problem” at the section’s beginning: “On the one hand music appears as the art that—in Schopenhauer’s words—‘is perceived solely in and through time, to the complete exclusion of space’; on the other hand, it is full of phenomena that seem to presuppose a spatial order and that in any case are wholly incomprehensible if space is ‘completely excluded’.” (270) Music’s ability to transcend above and transport beyond the physical world is considered to be one of its greatest powers. Yet, it is difficult to reconcile this idea with the fact that we can hardly talk about music without using spatial concepts and terminology.
According to those who like Schopenhauer consider music to be “otherworldly,” when spatial terminology is used to describe music it is used entirely metaphorically. VZ takes a completely different tack. For VZ, music is very worldly, not otherworldly, and when we use spatial terminology, we are not invoking metaphors at all. Rather, we are describing reality. He attempts to reconcile the paradox, then, by challenging our basic notion of space: “Tones are not transcendent in respect to space as such but to the space in which bodies or objects have locations. Since space is commonly equated with this space—the space of bodies, the totality of all places—the spatiality of music must be denied. But then a full understanding of music as well as a full understanding of space have been precluded.” (270)
VZ proceeds to differentiate aural space from the “space of bodies” by first returning to basic concepts of tone. We must remember that tone is an entity, not a property. In other words, tones, unlike colors, detach themselves from their sources. “Tone is the only sensation that encounters us not as a property of a particular bodily-spatial thing.” (272-73) Yet tone, being sensed “from without” (that is, it encounters us via sound waves), is “not a wholly nonspatial experience. The listener becomes aware of space.” (274)
VZ makes four statements that characterize and distinguish aural space. Aural space is…
1) …an undivided whole, having no parts or subdivisions. (275) In other words, tone is everywhere within its space, whereas things in physical space have specific location.
2) …a flowing space—a concept meaningless to our preconceived notion of bodily space. (278) In the world of sound, space itself is in motion.
3) …not measurable, not expressed in figures. (285)
4) …a placeless depth surrounding the hearer. (290) In the “space of bodies,” depth is measured by the proximity of objects away from the observer. In the aural world, however, the listener is allowed to participate in the depth of space that is revealed by musical tone.
VZ summarizes this train of thought in this way: “Music makes us understand that we do not learn all that is to be said about space from eye and hand, from geometry, geography, astronomy, physics. The full concept of space must include the experience of the ear, the testimony of music.” (292)
But this only leads to another problem: the problem of order. There certainly appears to be order in aural space, yet how can this be? In bodily-space, order is juxtapositional or locational—that is, bodily-spatial order is “the relation of spatial parts to one another and to a spatial whole.” (295) But it has already been established that aural space is not one of location; it is a space with no distinction of parts, a space that is simply an “undivided whole.” VZ reconciles the paradox by stating that order in aural space is not of a juxtapositional kind, but rather an interpenetrating kind. He uses the basic musical chord as the simplest illustration. The discrete tones that make up a chord do not cease to exist when combined to occupy the same aural space, whereas colors, when applied to the same space, run together into a new mixed color. This is what VZ means by an interpenetrating order. The tones of a chord sound through one another. (299) Therefore, in the chord, aural space opens up before the listener. In sum, “tones have taught us that a phenomenon which does not belong to the space of places, to visible space, to corporeal space, which is transcendent in respect to that space, can still be spatial in the full sense.” (309)
The most complete illustration of interpenetrating order in aural space is polyphony. Through the combination of multiple voices our experience of aural spatiality is intensified. For example, the operatic ensemble, which VZ calls one of the “most remarkable examples of musical… and artistic form,” is only possible in music. Four people speaking at once would in normal situations result in utter nonsense, but with music, we experience not the destruction of meaning, but “a supermeaning” as each voice combines to create a perfectly coherent and wonderful musical whole. (331-33)
While we learn nothing new from music about the world, nothing that we cannot learn from other sources, through music we experience our world more directly. Music’s great appeal does not lie in its ability to access otherwise inaccessible insights. However, music brings to us patently those insights that are elsewhere accessible “only by laborious speculation, and then only uncertainly and insecurely.” (348) Music then, contrary Schopenhauer, must be worldly. For if music “becomes the voice of the other-world,” then it has nothing to bring to our experience of the world in which we live. For VZ, the audible and the visible belong to the same world, the same reality, the same space, however much the audible challenges our notions of that world, reality, and space.
“Tones hold up for our perception, as real, a dimension of the world that transcends all individual distinctions of things and therefore all verbal language.” (371-72)
The subject is spatiality in music, or aural space, and the crux of the matter is stated in the form of a “problem” at the section’s beginning: “On the one hand music appears as the art that—in Schopenhauer’s words—‘is perceived solely in and through time, to the complete exclusion of space’; on the other hand, it is full of phenomena that seem to presuppose a spatial order and that in any case are wholly incomprehensible if space is ‘completely excluded’.” (270) Music’s ability to transcend above and transport beyond the physical world is considered to be one of its greatest powers. Yet, it is difficult to reconcile this idea with the fact that we can hardly talk about music without using spatial concepts and terminology.
According to those who like Schopenhauer consider music to be “otherworldly,” when spatial terminology is used to describe music it is used entirely metaphorically. VZ takes a completely different tack. For VZ, music is very worldly, not otherworldly, and when we use spatial terminology, we are not invoking metaphors at all. Rather, we are describing reality. He attempts to reconcile the paradox, then, by challenging our basic notion of space: “Tones are not transcendent in respect to space as such but to the space in which bodies or objects have locations. Since space is commonly equated with this space—the space of bodies, the totality of all places—the spatiality of music must be denied. But then a full understanding of music as well as a full understanding of space have been precluded.” (270)
VZ proceeds to differentiate aural space from the “space of bodies” by first returning to basic concepts of tone. We must remember that tone is an entity, not a property. In other words, tones, unlike colors, detach themselves from their sources. “Tone is the only sensation that encounters us not as a property of a particular bodily-spatial thing.” (272-73) Yet tone, being sensed “from without” (that is, it encounters us via sound waves), is “not a wholly nonspatial experience. The listener becomes aware of space.” (274)
VZ makes four statements that characterize and distinguish aural space. Aural space is…
1) …an undivided whole, having no parts or subdivisions. (275) In other words, tone is everywhere within its space, whereas things in physical space have specific location.
2) …a flowing space—a concept meaningless to our preconceived notion of bodily space. (278) In the world of sound, space itself is in motion.
3) …not measurable, not expressed in figures. (285)
4) …a placeless depth surrounding the hearer. (290) In the “space of bodies,” depth is measured by the proximity of objects away from the observer. In the aural world, however, the listener is allowed to participate in the depth of space that is revealed by musical tone.
VZ summarizes this train of thought in this way: “Music makes us understand that we do not learn all that is to be said about space from eye and hand, from geometry, geography, astronomy, physics. The full concept of space must include the experience of the ear, the testimony of music.” (292)
But this only leads to another problem: the problem of order. There certainly appears to be order in aural space, yet how can this be? In bodily-space, order is juxtapositional or locational—that is, bodily-spatial order is “the relation of spatial parts to one another and to a spatial whole.” (295) But it has already been established that aural space is not one of location; it is a space with no distinction of parts, a space that is simply an “undivided whole.” VZ reconciles the paradox by stating that order in aural space is not of a juxtapositional kind, but rather an interpenetrating kind. He uses the basic musical chord as the simplest illustration. The discrete tones that make up a chord do not cease to exist when combined to occupy the same aural space, whereas colors, when applied to the same space, run together into a new mixed color. This is what VZ means by an interpenetrating order. The tones of a chord sound through one another. (299) Therefore, in the chord, aural space opens up before the listener. In sum, “tones have taught us that a phenomenon which does not belong to the space of places, to visible space, to corporeal space, which is transcendent in respect to that space, can still be spatial in the full sense.” (309)
The most complete illustration of interpenetrating order in aural space is polyphony. Through the combination of multiple voices our experience of aural spatiality is intensified. For example, the operatic ensemble, which VZ calls one of the “most remarkable examples of musical… and artistic form,” is only possible in music. Four people speaking at once would in normal situations result in utter nonsense, but with music, we experience not the destruction of meaning, but “a supermeaning” as each voice combines to create a perfectly coherent and wonderful musical whole. (331-33)
While we learn nothing new from music about the world, nothing that we cannot learn from other sources, through music we experience our world more directly. Music’s great appeal does not lie in its ability to access otherwise inaccessible insights. However, music brings to us patently those insights that are elsewhere accessible “only by laborious speculation, and then only uncertainly and insecurely.” (348) Music then, contrary Schopenhauer, must be worldly. For if music “becomes the voice of the other-world,” then it has nothing to bring to our experience of the world in which we live. For VZ, the audible and the visible belong to the same world, the same reality, the same space, however much the audible challenges our notions of that world, reality, and space.
“Tones hold up for our perception, as real, a dimension of the world that transcends all individual distinctions of things and therefore all verbal language.” (371-72)
posted by Luke Dahn at 10:15 PM
0 comments
