Dissonance, Formalism, Representationalism

Probably the best textual evidence for the classification of Kant's Aesthetic Theory as 'Formalistic' is #14 of the Critique of Judgment, in which he seems to suggest that the evaluation of an Artwork as 'beautiful' is its "shape or play".  However, that interpretation does not explain the essentiality, according to him, of another factor in such judgments--the Purposiveness of the object, in which the shape or play is posited as a product of design.  In other words, the basis of such judgments is more than the mere internal structure of the object, though Kant never seems to explicitly explain what the additional factor is.  Most likely, it is a dimension of Art that he seems to take for granted--the representation of a supersensible object by the presented object, in a relation that entails design, and, hence, a designer.  Thus, the significance of shape or play in this theory is not of them per se, but qua functioning as analogous to something not immediately present, e. g. as a metaphor, and is evaluated on that basis, e. g. on that of the fecundity of the analogy.  But, if, so, then the proper classification of his theory is 'Representationalist', to which any 'Formalism' is ancillary.  In contrast, the concept of Dissonance that has been presented here is Formalistic, i. e. because the object of enjoyment is the internal structure per se of an Artwork.

Dissonance and Representationalism

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche each conceive Music as a representation--of Will and of the Dionysian, respectively.  Accordingly, Nietzsche's appreciation of Dissonance is as symbolic--of the Tragic human condition.  In contrast, the concept of Dissonance that has been proposed here is non-Representational, i. e. the Aesthetic experience of it has been adequately defined in terms of the inner structure of an Artwork.  Thus, that concept has more in common with the pioneering non-Representationalism of Picasso than with the post-Wagnerian Atonalism, which remains within the Representationalist tradition.

Dissonance, Excitation, Mimesis

The concept of Dissonance as constituted by a balance of Attraction and Repulsion seems to conflict with the proposal that it 'excites' an observer, since that balance seems to result in a neutralization of any motion.  However, though that zero-sum calculation applies to mechanical interactions, the two forces are dynamically compresent in a human process--Mimesis, which combines an assimilation to an object, while distinction from it is maintained.  In other words, in Mimesis, the combination of Attraction and Repulsion does not  necessarily result in immobility, as illustrated by the notable counter-example of the "pantomime" occasioned by Dionysian music, examined by Nietzsche in Birth of Tragedy #2.  Likewise, Excitation-Mimesis causality does not reduce to a Stimulus-Response Behaviorist paradigm, which is essentially a mechanical connection.

Dissonance and Excitation

'Enjoyment' is commonly equated with 'Pleasure' and 'Satisfaction', and, hence, with 'Satiety'.  Now, as has been proposed here, Dissonance is constituted by a certain balance between Attraction and Repulsion.  So, because Satiety precludes Repulsion, the enjoyment of Dissonance is often reduced to a combination of Pleasure and Pain.  Thus, the common characterization of Dissonance as, at least in part, 'painful', reflects terminological inadequacy more than analytical acuity.  Instead, a more accurate characterization of the enjoyment of Dissonance is 'Excitation', a nuance that is consistent with Spinoza's definition of 'Pleasure' as an increase in strength, and with Kant's concept of it as a stimulant to both imagination and communication.

Dissonance, Discord, Sublimation

Dissonance, as constituted by a certain balance between Repulsion and Attraction, is not to be confused with Discord, in which Repulsion predominates over Attraction.  So, Repression, as a reaction to Discord, can be analyzed as a predominance of Attraction over Repulsion.  An alternative reaction is one that achieves the compresence of antagonistic components, and this is what Wagner accomplishes with his expansion of the traditional sonic palette.  But Dissonance is a compresence of antagonistic components.  Hence, Wagner's innovation can be conceived as illustrating that Dissonance is the sublimation of Discord.

Dissonance, Sublime, Sublimation

Despite the etymological kinship of the terms 'sublime' and 'sublimation', Nietzsche's influential introduction of the latter has apparently never been connected with the former, even in his own oeuvre.  But, they plainly intersect in his concept of Dissonance, as articulated in Birth of Tragedy.  For, his concept of Sublime there, inherited from Schopenhauer, is constituted by the joyous overcoming of suffering.  Furthermore, he conceives the production of Dissonance as itself the overcoming of that suffering, i. e. it neither merely represents nor expresses the latter.  In other words, on this account, Dissonance is both the Sublime and a sublimation of the suffering of the Artist.  So, his treatment of it in Birth of Tragedy is more significant as a prelude to his seminal naturalization of Psychology, crystallized in the Will to Power principle, than as a contribution to Aesthetic Theory.

Dissonance and Prejudice

Since the definition of Dissonance that has been proposed here entails that it is constituted by a contrast, it always involves at least two components.  Instances of common usages of the term that seem to denote simple phenomena, i. e. in which Dissonance is a one-place property, are no exceptions--they are all elliptical characterizations, in which a second component is implicitly involved.  In some of those usages, 'X is dissonant' actually means 'X is more dissonant than some Y'.  But, in other cases, the more significant ones, the second component is a pre-given term that is so pervasive that it eludes recognition.  Thus, as an analogous example, '12-tone' is often classified as 'atonal', simply because 'tonal' is prevalently accepted as equivalent to '7-tone'.  Such instances often express a cultural prejudice, in which a contingent norm is taken as an absolute principle.  Likewise, 'X is dissonant' often means 'In the context, X is unfamiliar', a characterization that abstracts from the internal structure of X, supplants a symmetrical relation, i. e. Difference, with an asymmetrical one, i. e. Familiarity, and then equates one of the terms of the latter with a presumed one-place property, 'dissonance'.