Taruskin and modernism/postmodernism
Tom Moore
Taruskin's criticism, some of which I agree with, has to do,
in part, with the performers' overly precious attitude towards 'the
work' as a musical object, divorced from a context (like a religious
service, or a living culture) and their resulting sin -in his view-
of not excising or modifying an anti-semitic bit of the text.
Modernist aesthetics -which we all grew up with to some
degree- tends to regard works of art as objects with formal
properties, light, texture, form, proportion, etc. and disregards, or
'underprivileges' (heh heh) contextual considerations which can give
a work multi-levelled MEANING. Thus we can, for example, view an
African ceremonial mask, appreciating its formal properties alone,
without knowing anything of the people who made it or why they made
it. Anti-formalists, or contextualists would say to view the mask
that way is to view almost nothing, or at least, to grossly
misunderstand it.
Well, these days formalists and modernists are 'on the run'
and many musicologists join the mob attempting to chase the last of
them, like Milton Babbitt -a favorite whipping boy for decades- out
of town.
There is however, in my view (and not only my view),
something more pernicious going on. The ascent of literary criticism
in Universities over the last 15 years (which Taruskin is certainly
part of) has seen 'the work' devalued in relation to its
interpretation. (There are positive aspects to this turn of events).
It can be argued that a work cannot be evaluated (or experienced?)
outside of a context, in fact, it may not exist at all outside of a
context. As a friend of mine said, when we were discussing
Schindler's list -a very disturbing, and even bad movie in my view-
"the discouse surrounding the movie is more important than the film
itself." In other words, the effect it has on society, its cultural
impact and what people say about it, is really what matters. Do you
see where this is leading?
The next step is to devalue the artists, the creators, the
authors, composers, painters, poets, and performers. The important
people are the critics now, the interpreters, the ones who generate
discourses around works of art. This is the arrogance of the academy
today. The professors no longer need revere or worship the works they
teach about. What they are doing is, after all, bigger than art. In
political terms, the academics have managed to raise themselves above
the objects of their study.
Thus we return to the middle ages where (as I have read), in
music, those who played music were the lowest, those who wrote music
next, but ah, the real musicians, those who really knew music, were
those who thought about music and wrote about it, rarely deigning to
touch an instrument, sing a note, or compose a melody.
Thus Taruskin can, without fear or humility, freely critcise
Busnoys, and Pomerium for he, Taruskin the musicologist, is the real
musician. And like Yertle the Turtle (From Dr, Seuss) he is literally
-pun intended- the king of all he surveys.
-D. Claman
Tom Moore, Music Listening Library, Princeton University
STM...@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
609-258-4250
Roger Lustig
>I am forwarding the following from David Claman (da...@silvertone.Princeton.EDU)
>Taruskin's criticism, some of which I agree with, has to do,
>in part, with the performers' overly precious attitude towards 'the
>work' as a musical object, divorced from a context (like a religious
>service, or a living culture) and their resulting sin -in his view-
>of not excising or modifying an anti-semitic bit of the text.
I don't think he calls it (or considers it) a sin. What he objects
to is the equivocation *in this case*, and the general attitude that
allows one to make excuses for works of music. (See tomorrow's NYT
for another broadside by RT; it's on _Prince Igor_. )
> Modernist aesthetics -which we all grew up with to some
>degree- tends to regard works of art as objects with formal
>properties, light, texture, form, proportion, etc. and disregards, or
>'underprivileges' (heh heh) contextual considerations which can give
>a work multi-levelled MEANING. Thus we can, for example, view an
>African ceremonial mask, appreciating its formal properties alone,
>without knowing anything of the people who made it or why they made
>it. Anti-formalists, or contextualists would say to view the mask
>that way is to view almost nothing, or at least, to grossly
>misunderstand it.
> Well, these days formalists and modernists are 'on the run'
>and many musicologists join the mob attempting to chase the last of
>them, like Milton Babbitt -a favorite whipping boy for decades- out
>of town.
Could you name some names? I don't think Taruskin does this at all.
If you read his article in Kenyon's anthology, you find a deep
appreciation for modernism, and a deep awareness of it. Taruskin
isn't trying to chase away any view; he's trying to explore the
consequences of some of these views.
Besides, formalism and modernism aren't the same by any means. \
Modernism can take an anti-contextual attitude, or a recontexualizing
one, but a good deal of it is firmly based in context.
> There is however, in my view (and not only my view),
>something more pernicious going on. The ascent of literary criticism
>in Universities over the last 15 years (which Taruskin is certainly
>part of) has seen 'the work' devalued in relation to its
>interpretation. (There are positive aspects to this turn of events).
15 years???? New Criticism didn't do this?
>It can be argued that a work cannot be evaluated (or experienced?)
>outside of a context, in fact, it may not exist at all outside of a
>context. As a friend of mine said, when we were discussing
>Schindler's list -a very disturbing, and even bad movie in my view-
>"the discouse surrounding the movie is more important than the film
>itself." In other words, the effect it has on society, its cultural
>impact and what people say about it, is really what matters. Do you
>see where this is leading?
Yes, alas. Which works have we *ever* considered great that didn't
have some such effect or significance or position? Surely those
things have always been a part of the definition of the canonic "work."
> The next step is to devalue the artists, the creators, the
>authors, composers, painters, poets, and performers. The important
No. Where do you get this from? Also, what kind of "valuation"
was there in the first place?
>people are the critics now, the interpreters, the ones who generate
>discourses around works of art. This is the arrogance of the academy
>today. The professors no longer need revere or worship the works they
>teach about.
Is this a bad thing? I've never found reverence or worship to be
aids to teaching, clarity, investigative zeal.
>What they are doing is, after all, bigger than art. In
Now you're just sneering. This is quite simply at variance with
most of what goes on even in the litsy-critsiest of establishments.
>political terms, the academics have managed to raise themselves above
>the objects of their study.
You're a composer, aren't you?
> Thus we return to the middle ages where (as I have read), in
>music, those who played music were the lowest, those who wrote music
>next, but ah, the real musicians, those who really knew music, were
>those who thought about music and wrote about it, rarely deigning to
>touch an instrument, sing a note, or compose a melody.
Where have you read this? You may be confusing definitions of
musicians with definitions of *music*, which included the highest
level: the music of the spheres.
> Thus Taruskin can, without fear or humility, freely critcise
>Busnoys, and Pomerium for he, Taruskin the musicologist, is the real
>musician.
That he's a rather accomplished instrumental performer and conductor
doesn't put a crimp in your theory, does it?
>And like Yertle the Turtle (From Dr, Seuss) he is literally
>-pun intended- the king of all he surveys.
Sure would be nice if you could substantiate your claims. I don't see
anything Taruskin has written (or said--did you attend his four lectures
here last fall?) being the basis for your derogation.
How do you get from Taruskin *daring* to raise issues of context and
the performing environment to the rest of your screed? How does
Taruskin's being "a part" of this horrible movement of the last 15
years (like, how did things change in 1979?) make him responsible
for things he's never said, done, or advocated? For that matter,
what *is* Taruskin's role in the advances of criticism?
Roger Lustig