Aesthetic Parameters of the Digital Generation

1. Aesthetic Parameters of
the Digital Generation:
Confirming the Perceptions of the
Connected Student
Tess Nielsen
CFA MU 735 Critique in Music Education
Boston University

2. Teaching the Connected Student
Postmodern viewpoints help
contextualize autonomy and
individualism in aesthetic responses
Students’ artistic and technological
experiences combine to create an
interrelated conceptual perception
The recent shift in aesthetics has
many wide-reaching and complex
sources

3. The 21st Century Music Classroom
Digital tools are part of the process of
making, listening to, and sharing music
Technoculture affects the perception of
all works of human expression
Digital delivery allows freedom in
individual music creation, preference,
and selection
Educators need to be cognizant of the
dissolution of outmoded metanarratives

4. Understanding The
Digital and Cultural Perception
What are the parameters of the
aesthetic when interacting with
digital multimedia?
In response to the digital aesthetic,
what are the implications for music
educators?
Is it possible for music educators to
account for consumerist musical
experiences? If so, how?

5. Philosophical Context
Commodification of arts and ideals of
academia are at a crossroads
The musical object has an inherent value;
listeners are emotionally affected by the
experience (Elliott)
Music education raises the level of selfawareness (Swanwick); ideas are applicable
to the digital multimedia experience.
Personalized listening and viewing habits of
today’s students illustrate the breakdown of
the “grand narrative” (Lyotard)
Autonomous interactions with multimedia
have aesthetic meaning for the individual

6. Philosophical Context
Artistic cognition in time and space help
explain the digital arts experience (Elliott)
Listening to music is a personal act;
interactions with multimedia require
multidimensional thinking
Individual listening with multimedia
exercises the senses in ways that are
different from group experiences
Technological advances have had an
impact on knowledge acquisition
Complex, non-linear exchanges are
indicative of the postmodern musical
experience (Lyotard)

7. Comparative Studies
Gouzouasis: “FATness—fluency within
art-technologies;” the interrelated
conceptual perceptions combined with
artistic and technological
understandings
Mansfield: “Dispersal of text, audio, and
visual has created a new cultural
environment”
Educators must stress the “aesthetic
qualities in the sounds of the natural and
technological environments”
A synthesis is observed between cultural
exchanges and innate musical qualities

8. Comparative Studies
Jones: “Personal music agency;”
supports a philosophical
understanding of the objectification
of music to characterize this state of
musical interaction
Cultures are moving away from
collective musical identities—
individuals use new technologies to
create customized identities
Dorfman “planes of technological
integration” in the classroom
Prensky: “Digitally enhanced person,”
depicting the mindset of person who
interacts with technology

9. Conclusions
For music educators, it is imperative to
keep current with emerging trends in
consumer technology
In popular culture there is evidence that
our society is swiftly moving past the
Digital Age into the “Conceptual Age”
Standards need to acknowledge the
students’ experiences as music
consumers and exposure to global
sharing
The structure of musical interchange is
undergoing fundamental reform via
technological communication
advances

10. Conclusions
Music educators can reform the
curriculum by incorporating a
philosophy of the digital aesthetic
The delivery method for music is
individualistic and no longer a part
of a communal identity
Aesthetic inquiry can be
incorporated into further studies
Transformation of aesthetics is an
increasingly complex issue, but
deserving of scholarly attention.

11. List of References
Bauer, William I., Sam Reese, and Peter A. McAllister. “Transforming
Music Teaching via Technology: The Role of Professional
Development,” Journal of Research in Music Education 51, no. 4
(Winter 2003): 290-301.
Cain, Tim. “Theory, Technology and the Music Curriculum.” British
Journal of Music Education 21, no. 2 (2004): 215-221.
Cailliau, Robert. “A little history of the World Wide Web.” The World
Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/History.html
(accessed February 25, 2009).
Cohen, Peter. “Apple on Monday announced that the 100 millionth
iPod has been sold,” Playlist Magazine, Apr 9, 2007.
http://www.macworld.com/article/
57233/2007/04/ipodmilestone.html (accessed February 25, 2009).
Cox, Gordon. “Transforming Research in Music Education History.” In
MENC Handbook of Research Methodologies, edited by Richard
Colwell, 73-94. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Crow, Bill. “Musical Creativity and Technology.” Music Education
Research 8, No. 1 (March 2006): 121-130.
Dell’Antonio, Andrew. “Untitled.” Review of Analyzing Musical
Multimedia by Nicholas Cook.” Notes, Second Series 56, no. 3
(March 2000): 676-680.
Dorfman, Jay. “Learning music with technology: The influence of
learning style, prior experiences, and two learning conditions on
success with a music technology task.” PhD dissertation,
Northwestern University, 2006.
Dwyer, David C., ed. Changing the Conversation About Teaching,
Learning, and Technology: A Report on Ten Years of ACOT
Research. Cupertino: Apple Computer, Inc., 1995.
Elliott, David J. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Flowers, Patricia J., Harold F. Abeles, Melissa Brotons, John M. Geringer,
Jere T. Humphreys, Roseanne Rosenthal, Wendy L. Sims, Jack A.
Taylor, and Joel Wapnick. “A Research Agenda for Music
Education.” Music Educators National Conference.
http://www.menc.org/information/research/agenda.html#supp
ort (accessed February 25, 2009).