In Music-Image-Text Roland Barthes discusses the limitations of language to really speak about music. Now, whether Barthes argument is valid, whether I buy the claims, and even whether it is an argument that needs to be included in this post all seem valid topics for discussion, and certainly what one might expect from such an opening statement. But I feel as though Barthes’s discussion of music in linguistic terms, his discussion over the denotative and connotative, over sign and signified have actually lead me to consider something very different. Barthes’s arguments all come back to text, to language—it is the lens through which he saw and analyzed the world. Understanding that and seeing that in Barthes has made me wonder about those who do not interpret the world in such a way.
Oh, yes, I know there are different perspectives. I’m even willing to use a word here that, usually, I hate seeing because it is so often used incorrectly and histrionically, but there exists an actual plethora (that’s right, plethora) of lenses through which to experience and interpret the world. Barthes’s lens is particular to himself, but it also falls under a general category one might identify and the linguistic lens. His examination of image and music in Music-Image-Text comes from that general lens. What strikes me interesting about Barthes’s interpretive lens is less on how he interprets and more on how that lens was formed. Now, I, and I would hope a general majority of academics and intellectuals, acknowledge that while Barthes might have been born with a natural inclination towards certain kinds of learning and thinking (abstract thinking verses spatial, for example), that he was certainly also influenced by the socio-cultural sphere of his particular time and place. What I want to consider is the biological lens—the lens constructed through chemicals and synapses and electronic impulses in brain and nerve centers. I want to talk about chromaesthesia. synesthesia.
Chromaesthesia is a particular form of synethesia, and to understand the former first requires a description of the latter. Synethesia is a condition in which one experiences the cognitive input of one sense automatically and involuntarily with another sense. In grapheme to color synethesia, for example, one would involuntarily associate certain colors with certain letters and numbers, thus “4” might be yellow, “Q” red, and “C” blue. In the lexical to gustatory form of synesthesia words (or for some phonemes) have corresponding taste sensations. This is not as simple as reading “apple” and simultaneously tasting an apple (that would be your taste-memory kicking in); it’s not even as simple as reading “pear” and tasting an apple (we might consider this a kind of cross-association where the taste of one fruit is remembered at the indication of another fruit). In lexical to gustatory synesthesia one might read “desk,” or even simply the indication for the phonetic /d/, and involuntarily the decoding of that sign through the brain’s pathways would trigger not only the cognitive meaning, but also the taste of an apple. Imagine that every time you read a word with an initial /d/ you tasted an apple, involuntarily and without prompting. To those of us without synthesia we might consider such an experience as odd, frightening even, but for those with synesthesia it is normalcy. “Desk,” “Dog,” “Deodorant”… all equal apple; well, of course they do. If you had lived your life this way, it would be normal. Perhaps a bit unpleasant if you happen to really hate apples, but normal. (For more information on synesthesia, you might want to watch this short documentary by Jonathan Fowler on BoingBoing http://www.youtube.com/user/boingboingvideo#p/search/0/a3DbScY8Ais)
Chromaesthesia is a particular kind of synesthesia in which one sees colors while listening to sound. Imagine that every time you listen to music creates an involuntary imagistic response. I can’t help but think back to Barthes whose examination of music (and the way we can experience and discuss music) seems completely changed by the notion of forced association. If sound—music—cannot be separated from specific visuals how does that affect not only what associations are brought to it, what associations are biologically codified, but also the means one might possess for interpreting and discussing it.
When I first heard of chromaesthesia, I thought of Disney’s film Fantasia (the original 1940 film) in which there is a segment called “Meet the Soundtrack” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTM48pwoXAo ). During this segment, the Soundtrack, a single vertical animated line, is encouraged to demonstrate different sounds and, as he does so, his figure transforms in color and shape. Now try to imagine that, instead of interpretation, as a biological response to sound.
For French composer Olivier Messiaen, that is exactly how he saw music. Usually, when asserting one “saw” music there are two interpretations—the literal reference actually refers to the seeing of symbols (e.g. notes) that represent what can be translated (if used properly) into music. The other reference is metaphoric—we say “saw” music, but we mean “understood” or “interpreted.” In Messiaen’s case, he actually saw music. He interpreted, learned, composed as much through color as through sound. Take this video in which he discusses French composer Claude Debussy to his students (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSWatsiBErU&feature=related). Messiaen not only understands music through color (for him, after all, they are irrevocably linked), but tries to express through sound a visual aesthetic. Because of his chromaesthesia, Messiaen didn’t try to create a piece that metaphorically called to the imagination the color blue or the color red as we tend to think of as the artistic process for one who attempts to represent the essence of one sense through the expression of another (take, for example, this attempt to visually represent chromaesthesia http://www.behance.net/gallery/CHROMAesthesiae/747516). For Messiaen, the synaesthesia normalizes particular color-sound combinations. For Messiaen, certain colors and shades were uniquely created through music—if I want to stick to metaphor, I’d say that Messiaen painted his compositions. Only, for Messiaen, this is not necessarily metaphor.
Unlike Barthes, whose developed lens of examination and interpretation prevented him from fully communicating and expressing his reactions to music, Messiaen’s lens joins two senses forever in interpretation, but he is the only one who could see music in his particular way. Even another chromaesthete, when listening to Messiaen’s music, is bound by the lens of his or her own biological uniqueness. (For example, see this video in which a chromasethete describes her experiences with synaethesia and listening to Messiaen’s music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM4WvF_PikI&feature=related).
No comments:
Post a Comment