NewMusicBox: The Emancipation of Judgment
Premise Checker
http://www.newmusicbox.org/chatter/chatter.nmbx?id=4324
5.8.2
By [1]Frank J. Oteri
Despite a series of extremely hot music stories that seemed ubiquitous
in the final heat-filled days of JulyMarin Alsop's contested
ascendancy to Baltimore Symphony Music Director, the million downloads
of Beethoven, the latest Payola bust (so much for public opinion ever
being on the side of the record industry), etc.the news item that
continues to capture my attention was actually about British art.
Several publications published accounts of how London's venerable Tate
Museum turned down a donation of a significant collection of paintings
by a group of artists collectively known as the Stuckists, many of
which were featured in an extremely popular exhibition mounted in
Liverpool last year. So, I did a little surfing and [2]visited the
Stuckist site to see the paintings myself. While I was not
particularly moved by any of them, I found the Stuckists' various
artistic statements rather appealing, especially the following credo
at the very end of [3]their original 1999 Manifesto:
Stuckism embraces all that it denounces. We only denounce that
which stops at the starting point Stuckism starts at the stopping
point!
These simpatico sentiments have been enough for me in good tasteless
fashion to actually question my initial dismissal of the paintings.
While subsequent viewings (albeit in the compromised digitally
pixilated format available on my computer from their website) have
still not won me over aesthetically, I am even more eager to see these
works in person and even more inclined to be favorably disposed to
their cause if not their content.
What clinched it for me is what I believed to be unforgiveable
arrogance emanating from Sir Nicholas Serota, the Tate's director, who
was quoted [4]in the London Times as saying:
We do not feel that the work is of sufficient quality in terms of
accomplishment, innovation or originality of thought to warrant
preservation in perpetuity in the national collection.
Now, imagine if someone said that about your music. Well, in fact
quite a few already have. Those who attempted to proscribe what music
should be either for political ends (the Nazi dismissal of "degenerate
art," Stalin's purge of "formalistic" tendencies, Mao's Cultural
Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Taliban, etc.), or for aesthetic
ones whether progressive or regressive (Boulez's infamous "Schoenberg
is Dead" essay which claimed any contemporary music that is not
12-tone is useless or many classical radio stations who, after
fetishizing market research, will not play any modernist-sounding
music).
I have long thought that the only way to be a receptive listener to
music in a world where the Schoenberg/Cage emancipation of dissonance
was a fait accompli is to engage in an emancipation of judgment. Such
a stance not only liberates dissonance but also re-embraces
consonance, any kind of timbre, rhythm or lack thereof, duration, you
name it. "But," you say, "there are only so many hours in the day. How
do we separate out the good from the bad? There's no time to waste on
bad music." However, once we set up paradigms of good and bad,
worthwhile and worthless, cool and uncool, we doom ourselves at best
to being tomorrow's Horatio Parker and, at worst, to being a mirror
image of the very thing we claim not to let into our aesthetic
purview. Perhaps that's why in the wake of all the modernism bashing
like Terry Teachout's [5]most recent paean to neo-romaticism in
Commentarymost eye-straining line: "the twelve-tone methodis no longer
practiced by any important composer anywhere in the world"I have found
myself compulsively drawn to composing serial music for the first time
in my life.
But, ever trying to refrain from closing the door of possibility by
rushing to judgment, maybe I'm over-reacting here by equating the
Tatea museum whose Turners and Rothkos floor mewith Heiner Goebbels or
WCRB-FM in Boston. At least it's been the source of some provocative
discussions here in the Box
From Randy:
I don't have any problem that the Tate decided not to accept the
Stuckists paintings. Housing and conserving artwork is an expensive
endeavor, and yes, sometimes museums just have to go with their gut
as to whether or not it's worth it. I still don't see the problem
with actually having tasteor the fact that curators and other
people in a position to make evaluative judgment calls about art
also have taste. In fact, they should develop their opinions and
learn to trust their instincts. It's their job. One doesn't just
stumble into these positions, they dedicate themselves
wholeheartedly. They spend time with artists, go into their
studios, travel to exhibitions...not to mention the years of
studying. Yeah, it's fine to take their choices with a grain of
salt, but maybe curators make a good filter for those of us who
don't have as strong of a commitment to the arts.
From Ian:
I actually like the idea of having human arbiters to decide highly
subjective issues, if the arbitration process is taken extremely
seriously by all parties involved, including the people affected by
the arbitration. In my opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court, recent
developments notwithstanding, is one of the great examples of how
this kind of subjective assessment can work. The danger with arts
institutions and our world in general is when the people who are
charged with the responsibility of being "tastemakers" are (a)
allowed to act on their own, opening up the possibility of personal
eccentricities tainting the process, (b) not fully aware of the
true ramifications of the decisions that they make, and/or (c)
chosen haphazardly based on personal connections rather than an
open process which involves the artists whose work will be judged.
Personal bias may not be so harmful when we are talking about small
ensembles or local music series, but when one gets to national
institutions and budgets in the seven-figure range, it becomes ever
more important to keep the process as clean as possible. At these
levels, I feel that curating should be an honor of the highest
order, treated with all the seriousness of a judge taking an oath
of office. There should be procedures for censure in cases of
abuses of power, and the community should have an active role in
choosing the people who will decide the fate of their artistic
endeavors.
What do you think? Who and what factors should determine what gets
hung in a museum, what music gets funded and performed, what body of
creative work makes it into the greater public awareness and
ultimately into history?
Elitism is a good thing
By post_beat - [6]p...@squarerootmusic.com
The underlying topic of this article seems to be (just as you have
pointed out) that there is a disagreement between what constitutes
'good' and 'bad' art, so I'd like to comment on that a bit.
I for one hold the belief that there are completely subjective ways of
measuring a work of art's aesthetic value. There are certain aesthetic
qualities that cannot be objectively measured, (i.e. emotional,
cultural significance, etc.) but I think there are ways in which we
can gauge a work's purely 'musical' qualities. I largely agree with
Lucy Green as she categorizes two different types of meanings:
inherent and delineated. Delineated meanings are those containing the
social, cultural, and historical qualities of music. Inherent meanings
are those taken from the organization of the musical materials
themselves. Green herself explains inherent meanings like this:
"[they] are 'inherent' in the sense that they are contained within the
musical materials, and they are 'meanings,' in the sense that they are
perceived to have relationships." So if you apply a standard such as
that, music can be objectively compared and we can call one work
better than another. Of course you could continue to argue the
importance of certain inherent meanings over others, but that is par
for the course...
Furthermore, I think that it is essential for each person to have some
sort of concrete standard by which to compare works. As the title of
my comment suggests, I am an elitist and proud of it. I have high
standards for calling things 'creative' and 'experimental,' among
other things. I also avidly study music of all sorts, so my elitism is
a natural way of saving me from "wasting time" on "bad music." I'd
much rather study Beethoven than My Chemical Romance, because
Beethoven just has more musical value. I'm not saying that you should
disregard something after one hearing or forego hearing a performance
because you doubt it can top some of the music you have already heard,
but I do think everyone needs to critique their own experiences. At
the very least, such a consideration would make you treasure the great
works already created, and be astounded when something truly novel
comes along.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005, 10:46:41 PM
_________________________________________________________________
New Figurative Art Lives -- But This Is Not It.
By Garth Trinkl - [7]garth....@gmail.com
In my opinion, every single one of the Stuckist painting that you link
to are mediocre and derivative (I speak as a close student of the
visual arts and as a collector of contemporary art). I don't think
that a single one of these works warrants hanging on the same Tate
Walls that feature Blake and Turner, or Renoir, Monet, Pollack,
Hepworth, or Moore. Nor do any of these works have anything like the
artistic power of "degenerate" or "formalist" paintings by such master
artists as Picasso, Beckman, Malevich, Kandinsky, Gorky, or Rothko. I
understand the Tate director's position in declining this donation.
At the same time, the figurative tradition in post post modernist art
is alive and well; and many outstanding new figurative works are on
display at Museums from the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum to the
Metropolitan Museum in New York to the museums of Germany and Vienna;
or in the commercial galleries of many of these cities. Artistic taste
does exist -- even in parts of New York City.
[8]renaissance research blog
Wednesday, August 03, 2005, 9:43:23 AM
_________________________________________________________________
Acquisition This!
By randy - [9]ra...@amc.net
Perhaps the Stuckists need a new approach. Checkout Wired magazine's
feature on fellow British artist [10]Banksy. You might remember this
stealth trickster ruffled some feathers last fall when he hung his own
artwork, without permission, on the walls of the Met, MoMA, American
Museum of Natural History, and the Brooklyn Museum all in the same
day. When his work "Early Man Goes to Market" mysteriously appeared at
the British Museum in London, the museum decided to acquire the piece.
Way to go, dude.
Years ago in San Francisco, one of my musical colleagues was angry
about the San Francisco Symphony's so-called "Maverick" series due to
its profound lack of innovation and experimentation. The idea of a
guerrilla action was kicked around inside the new music community. The
idea was to sneak in our instruments and disrupt the tame music, which
was being presented as something totally avant-garde and
forward-looking, and hit the crowd with some real scronk-n-noise. The
idea alone created a mini-rift within the community, and no action was
taken. Too bad, it would have been an interesting bit of theater.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005, 3:55:46 PM
_________________________________________________________________
Why worry at all?
By catisonh - [11]cati...@gmail.com
The underlying problem to this whole mess is how to remain critical of
art and yet give everyone an equal playing field. It's the fight
between elitism and elagilitarianism. I think we could all agree that
all art is not created equal, but at the same time, who are we to make
those judgements? And perhaps the biggest problem the
post-post-modernist generation is figuring out how to decide what is
good without resorting to the heavy handed generalizations that have
plauged all discussion of contemporary music for such a long time.
But what if you could just stop caring at all?
At the concert hall, at the museum, and just about anywhere else art
is being exhibited, you won't find so much an audience as a group of
amatuer critics, each trying to say what is good and bad and think
himself the better for it. Sometimes it just sickens me how unyielding
some audiences are to the likes of Tobias Picker or how some
promodernist audience members simply refuse to enjoy Mendelssohn's
Violin Concerto on a matter of principle.
And I used to be like that too. Until I realized that my job as part
of an audience is nothing other than to enjoy what art has to offer.
Its amazing the release you get when you don't care if the art is good
or bad, but can just perceive with an open mind.
Of course critics and curators don't have this luxury. But I think
they would best serve the public by allowing the widest array possible
to be available. So maybe a little bad art is displayed sometimes.
What could be the harm of it? Eventually, after we come to some sort
of agreement on those intangables inherent in art, we'll know the good
from the bad. But right now, who cares?
Wednesday, August 03, 2005, 11:05:44 PM
_________________________________________________________________
Open letter to the avant-garde
By Chris Becker - [12]becke...@yahoo.com
Randy, what is so forward and avant-garde about skronk and noise?
I'll second the sentiments expressed just above this post and add that
once composers let go of their preconceptions of just who should be
acknowleding and recognizing their work (i.e. large museums, big
orchestras, music publications...) and acknowledge and express thanks
to those who DO recognize their talents (i.e. collaborators, friends,
and family) - another sort of release can be experienced.
Look, I'm definitely a cranky composer - but at some point you gotta
let this debate go and just do your work and get it out to an audience
yourself. DIY instead of mulling over the decision making of boards,
curators, and critics. Otherwise, you'll drive yourself crazy...
With that in mind, maybe Randy and his buds should have gone ahead
with a counter protest concert in someone's living room or loft. Cook
some food, take some donations for the next show...or did I miss the
point?
Thursday, August 04, 2005, 12:13:39 PM
_________________________________________________________________
Sticky Stuff
By randy - [13]ra...@amc.net
Is scronk and noise forward or avant-garde? No. Not even when
interrupting (or, depending on how you look at it, ornamenting) the
music of Aaron Copland, Lou Harrison, Lukas Foss, David Del Tredici,
Elliott Carter, John Adams, and the many other composers represented
as revolutionaries and kooky radicals in SF Symphony's Maverick
series. My colleague's problem had more to do with marketing and
public perceptions rather than "Gee, why don't they play my music?"
I hear what you're saying Chris, and I agree. But I still don't have
any problems with making judgments about the arts, or surrendering to
the filters that museums set in motion. I also enjoy visiting artists'
studios, commercial galleries, and alternative spacesand the Stuckists
should be content to remain un-institutionalized. However, I also
can't deny my devilish impulses to make some waves...organizing a bake
sale doesn't really satisfy that streak in me.
Friday, August 05, 2005, 10:33:31 AM
References
2. http://www.stuckism.com/TateDonation.html
3. http://www.stuckism.com/stuckistmanifesto.html#manifest
4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1710820,00.html
5. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12001064_1
6. mailto:p...@squarerootmusic.com
7. mailto:garth....@gmail.com
8. http://renaissanceresearch.blogspot.com/
9. mailto:ra...@amc.net
10. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/bansky.html?tw=wn_tophead_5
11. mailto:cati...@gmail.com
12. mailto:becke...@yahoo.com
13. mailto:ra...@amc.net
14. http://www.newmusicbox.org/chatter/chatter_logon.nmbx?id=4324
Matthew Fields
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/