Here is just one of many possible jute weaving patterns, the "plain weave." The question I'd like to ask is: How much of this image would you have to see before you "understood" that the strands of jute formed a plain weave pattern?
First, suppose you were given the following images that were cut out from the larger, original image (and magnified):
Based on these, you would be unable to understand much about the original image as a whole. In fact, even if you were given hundreds of images like these, you would face the same difficulty.
Now, suppose you were given the following images:
Seeking a parsimonious explanation, you might indeed be inclined to suspect a plain weave pattern based on this pair of images. Furthermore, the more images like these you saw, your confidence in your plain weave guess would increase.
Now, suppose you were given the following image:
At this point, it is undeniable that at least part of the image exhibits a plain weave pattern. You might even say it is likely that the plain weave pattern continues for some distance beyond the borders of this image.
Finally, if you were able to see the entire image (the image located at the top of this post), then of course there would be no question that the image contains a plain weave pattern (assuming you trust your senses).
Listening to classical music can be like trying to surmise a jute weaving pattern given sets of increasingly informative images representing but pieces of the entire pattern. The first time you listen to a work, even if you pay close attention, your brain might only reward you with a bunch of small images like the ones included in the first pair above. Upon subsequent listens, your brain might start giving you a few images like the ones in the second pair. Eventually, you arrive finally at an understanding of the work as a whole. This can require great effort, particularly if your brain is not as yet trained to start feeding you broader images of the work during the first one or two listens. However, having put in the effort, the reward at the end is a deep understanding of the work's form. Having gained this understanding, you also will have experienced the work's meaning and the emotions that come along with that meaning, just as you can look on at the plain weave pattern and marvel at its more subjective qualities, which include its beautiful simplicity and its technological practicality.
In general, the forms and associated meanings to be discovered in works of classical music are relatively intricate and complex and therefore can be difficult to uncover. However, because complex forms are often useful in communicating important, sophisticated, and sometimes subtle ideas, classical music occupies an important place in the music world. Fortunately, the journey toward uncovering a work's form and meaning can be a rewarding one, similar to how some of the smaller images extracted from the larger image of the plain weave pattern can themselves be interesting to observe.
Here is just one of many possible jute weaving patterns, the "plain weave." The question I'd like to ask is: How much of this image would you have to see before you "understood" that the strands of jute formed a plain weave pattern?
Based on these, you would be unable to understand much about the original image as a whole. In fact, even if you were given hundreds of images like these, you would face the same difficulty.
Seeking a parsimonious explanation, you might indeed be inclined to suspect a plain weave pattern based on this pair of images. Furthermore, the more images like these you saw, your confidence in your plain weave guess would increase.
At this point, it is undeniable that at least part of the image exhibits a plain weave pattern. You might even say it is likely that the plain weave pattern continues for some distance beyond the borders of this image.
