Theoretical notes
I've been doing some thinking about theory and music. We typically see artists, in the fields of written, visual, and cinematic art, espousing certain theoretical viewpoints to justify their projects, and we have no problem with this. The scholarly volumes dedicated to literary theory, art criticism, film studies etc are innumerable.
But what about music? I see two interrelated, reciprocal problems: 1) theorists and academics are much more content with listening to popular or mainstream forms of music, and therefore 2) they are much less likely to write about avant-garde music (or any music at all, for that matter) and so perpetuate (1). I see it in our own budding academic lifestyles: we gobble up literary and art theory but still get our kicks from three minute pop songs.
(Digression: the three minute song is a seriously unchallenged form. Despite the fact that this is a format created by record executives to sell easily digestible material to attention-deprived listeners, free-thinking musicians have done little to change it--on the contrary, they often glorify it: "the perfect three minute pop song," "catchy and hook-laden," etc. I'm not saying one shouldn't write some songs in this vein, but this is practically the only acceptable discourse when talking about the merits of a band or song. Also, listening to more "indie" bands does little to help the matter: they're all pretty much speaking the same language. "Your Bloc Party album won't get you into heaven anymore," to paraphrase a John Prine song.)
I am simply trying to point out the odd double standard of admiring Basquiat or David Foster Wallace but finding most experimental music "abrasive" or "boring." And don't think I'm pardoning myself in this matter: I too gravitate towards traditional pop forms and I think noise rock and much of avant-electronica is unlistenable crap. But I still think the willingness to talk about music in theoretical terms is slow going. There are a few "mainstream" musicians who dabble in theory: Frank Zappa, Brian Eno, and Sonic Youth come to mind, not to mention "classical" avant-gardists like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, John Zorn, and Iannis Xenakis. So what gives? This is not intended as a "j'accuse," but a discussion, so I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.
But what about music? I see two interrelated, reciprocal problems: 1) theorists and academics are much more content with listening to popular or mainstream forms of music, and therefore 2) they are much less likely to write about avant-garde music (or any music at all, for that matter) and so perpetuate (1). I see it in our own budding academic lifestyles: we gobble up literary and art theory but still get our kicks from three minute pop songs.
(Digression: the three minute song is a seriously unchallenged form. Despite the fact that this is a format created by record executives to sell easily digestible material to attention-deprived listeners, free-thinking musicians have done little to change it--on the contrary, they often glorify it: "the perfect three minute pop song," "catchy and hook-laden," etc. I'm not saying one shouldn't write some songs in this vein, but this is practically the only acceptable discourse when talking about the merits of a band or song. Also, listening to more "indie" bands does little to help the matter: they're all pretty much speaking the same language. "Your Bloc Party album won't get you into heaven anymore," to paraphrase a John Prine song.)
I am simply trying to point out the odd double standard of admiring Basquiat or David Foster Wallace but finding most experimental music "abrasive" or "boring." And don't think I'm pardoning myself in this matter: I too gravitate towards traditional pop forms and I think noise rock and much of avant-electronica is unlistenable crap. But I still think the willingness to talk about music in theoretical terms is slow going. There are a few "mainstream" musicians who dabble in theory: Frank Zappa, Brian Eno, and Sonic Youth come to mind, not to mention "classical" avant-gardists like Steve Reich, Philip Glass, John Zorn, and Iannis Xenakis. So what gives? This is not intended as a "j'accuse," but a discussion, so I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.
posted by to scranton at 8:48 PM
10 Comments:
"I am simply trying to point out the odd double standard of admiring Basquiat or David Foster Wallace but finding most experimental music 'abrasive' or 'boring'"--
Isn't all of this a bunch of bullshit thought? If you truly admire Basquiat or David Foster Wallace, it means that you find their work aesthetically pleasing. It is not an obligation. That's why I don't claim to admire these people, or worry about them at all. If you like them, that's fine, go for it. Same with avant-garde music: I listen to Phillip Glass(yes, that's right Josh), but not because I'm supposed to, but because I want to.
If anyone is doing otherwise they are no longer looking at these ostensibly aesthetic things for their aesthetic value, but out of some sort of professional or political duty. Which, for an amature, is dumb.
As austin, d'mardree, and myself can attest, truly good music theory is difficult stuff. It involves numbers, which art and literature usually do not. For this reason, I think most people are content on staying away from it (especially the complexities of the avant-guarde/experimental). That's my take, anyway.
Austin- the truth is, many people admire Wallace and Basquiat because they understand the new, exciting, foundations-shaking approaches being taken by the artists, and the ways they diverge from their predecessors. These approaches usually feature some "theory" about the way art should be. Thus simply seeing Manet's "Olympia"
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/olympia/olympia.jpg
can be very aesthetically pleasing, but it can be even more pleasing if one knows the history of idealized female nudes that preceded it and the way Manet combines the sacred and the profane in gritty realism. See for example Titian's Venus of Urbino:
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/t/tiziano/mytholo1/u_venus.jpg
There is a "politics" here, to be sure, since Manet takes a stance on what art should attempt to convey (and he had his critics - many people *hated* the Olympia for its vulgarity). To say that you judge the art on these political grounds is not to say that you're following a duty, but that you are a politically interested and motivated subject, and there's nothing dumb about that.
Now, what I was saying (and I apologize if the message was jumbled) is that while we, as students, are beginning to enter into these kinds of "political" aesthetic debates about art and literature, progress in music is substantially behind. (Perhaps this is because audio art is less immediately political than the visual.) We are students of thought and intellectual history, but we remain rather conventional when it comes to our tunes. And there is a dearth of theoretical/political avant-gardists and music theory to begin with.
I would ask you to run a simple experiment on yourself with respect to Philip Glass. You like Glass - good. Now, *why* do you like it? Do you like the repeating figures and simple style? That's very different from the bombast of romantic classical music. Why shouldn't Glass try to emulate those artists more? (Some people definitely think he should do more of that and less of that minimalist stuff.) Now, what's wrong with trying to give an account of your taste? I know, I know, we can't possibly perform this sort of self-reflective critique about everything, and sometimes we just want some gentle noise in the background. But I think it's a cop-out to say "I like it because I like it." Because ultimately that means that everyone is born with a sort of "aesthetic taste-o-meter" that functions regardless of their upbringing, or that it's simply not important to think of the historical circumstances that inform your upbringing. And isn't that a form of the unexamined life? (Look at me, I'm a good classics major!)
I know, mountain out of a molehill and all that. It's just music. But I take issue with the emotivist stance that says "I know good art when I see it."
Perhaps I like Phillip Glass for the reasons you allege. And, if I had known about those reasons beforehand, that might have struck my curiosity, at which point I would listen to Glass and determine whether I enjoyed it or not. But to say that it is somehow a "double standard" not to enjoy avant-garde music when you like avant-garde literature is simply ridiculous.
There is no reason that the explanation of a certain piece's form or alleged meaning should not influence whether you like it or not. Nonetheless, the beauty of the aesthetic is that it is not pure reason. It can't be analyzed completely. Thus, whether or not I like the idea of screeching music symbolizing some event or whatever, if I don't like screeching music, it doesn't matter.
So what does this imply for the Socratic life of self-knowledge? The inability to completely analyze aesthetic pieces implies that we actually can't know ourselves completely. That's problematic for Socrates, sure. But if it's true, as I believe it is, then we need to get used to it.
Why do you assume there is a need for more aesthetic debate?
I didn't say that there needed to be more aesthetic debate *in general*, because there is plenty. My post was about music, and that there is a serious gap between our thinking critically about the other arts and thinking about music. The summation of my point was "I still think the willingness to talk about music in theoretical terms is slow going." I was merely pointing out a trend that I think could be shaken up a bit. Do you think this point is incorrect or misguided?
I completely agree that we can't achieve a totalizing account of our aesthetic taste. But when I hear that my position is "bullshit," "dumb," or "ridiculous" because "people either enjoy something or they don't, and that's the end of it" (in so many words), I worry that you're dismissing my claims offhand because you yourself have already formulated a totalizing account of aesthetic taste (viz., it's emotive).
Up next: how Ryan Adams represents the cultural ideology of late capitalism!
Rather than pick up Austin's "we don't need any more aesthetics" glove, I would invite everyone over to my apartment this Friday night to listen to some early Steve Reich. Frankly, if you want an indictment of the three minute pop tune, Steve's "It's Gonna Rain" is your song. And perhaps also this will secure my position as poster child of the anti-pop.
Also, I should point out that Basquiat is more often discussed among art theoreticians as being complicit with pop and the art market, rather than as a foundation-shaker of any sort.
The point is this: Theory of the aesthetic is subservient to the aesthetic itself. That is not a totalizing account of the aesthetic, it is putting theory in its place. Nor is it identical to saying "People either enjoy something or they don't". It means that no matter how much theory you apply to your work, it is only valuable qua art if it is aesthetically pleasing.
This is not an emotive view of the aesthetic. If your intellect plays a role, that is fine. But your intellect(rationality) cannot play the primary role in determining whether music, literature, etc. is beautiful. If it is, I think you are ignoring what beauty really is: it’s a release from the intellect, an acknowledgement of the power of the non-, pre-, or irrational.
Do we need more aesthetics? No. Do we want more aesthetics? Possibly. The aesthetic cannot be something we need. Unless you mean need in the sense that I "need" happiness, or love, etc, which is just a different way of saying that I want it.
Could more aesthetic debate provide a more satisfying life? Maybe. But I think that this is the sort of thing that can only be done because you feel the desire to do it, not because you feel that there is some inadequacy in your range of taste.
What I'm worried about is the desire to progress in aesthetics. What is the nature of this desire? I'm nervous that it is just another way to accumulate things to say about music, art, etc. This turns the experiencing of those things into a competition, where I believe that competition is only appropriate in their composition.
Neither theory nor rationality can tell me I “ought” to enjoy some kind of music. “Ought” implies “can”: Thus if I cannot enjoy a certain piece of music, there is no way to get me to do it—it’s impossible. Theory/rationality can point the way to other stuff that I might like. So if your claim is that we might want to look at avant-garde music because we might like it, then fine. Otherwise, I’m just not sure where you’re coming from. Let me know.
Carpenter:
I just downloaded “It’s Gonna Rain”. I didn’t enjoy the song, but the imagined scene of sitting in a room with you while we both listened to it is extremely captivating… Perhaps your invitation was really an artistic endeavor?
Perhaps it was.
In leiu of doing my reading, allow me to point out some gaps in the Austinian argument on the aesthetic.
First of all, I would back away from the idea that aesthetics is in some way a philosophy of what is and is not worth looking at, reading, listening to, etc. Certainly a number of theorists of the aesthetic have attempted to make such judgements, but it is at those points where their arguments shift from philosophy to the realm of criticism: witness Neitzsche's move from discussion of tragedy and the Appoline/Dionysiac to his praise of Richard Wagner. A categorical shift.
But one cannot make such a statement as "you are ignoring what beauty really is: it’s a release from the intellect, an acknowledgement of the power of the non-, pre-, or irrational" without subscribing to a theory of the aesthetic. Certainly one might advance a theory of the aesthetic as that which exceeds the intellect - this is, in a sense, Kant's argument regarding the beautiful (which is a category of aesthetic experience, but not the only one; even Kant makes room for experiences of the aesthetic which involve the interest of the intellect). But do not take for granted the stability of this category; the aesthetic itself is an invention of modern philosophy, and as we can all agree, ideas of what is and is not "art" - as if art were the sole purview of the aesthetic - have undergone major historical shifts. Rather than being "subservient to the aesthetic," theory has in fact created the aesthetic. Given your propensity to chastize those who fail to support their claims with actual arguments, I must express my dissatisfaction with the version of the aesthetic which you have offered us. What grounds the experience of the aesthetic, to the extent that such an experience is possible, such that it must categorically exceed the intellect?
Austin-
"What I'm worried about is the desire to progress in aesthetics. What is the nature of this desire? I'm nervous that it is just another way to accumulate things to say about music, art, etc. This turns the experiencing of those things into a competition, where I believe that competition is only appropriate in their composition."
Not a competition, but a dialogue. I see nothing wrong with wanting to accumulate more and more things to say about a topic if you enjoy it. Sometimes this is the only option we have, to say new and interesting things, although we wish we could either pin them down completely or be done with them.
I agree that it is lame to pursue an interest just because it is considered a mark of good taste. However, at some point you are going to want to investigate something, not from a spontaneous assertion of will, but because someone else's taste (or theory) influenced you.
Oh, and yeah, what you said is what I meant. My statement was: maybe we should listen to more experimental music because we might like it, and my question was: why don't we do this compared to the other arts?
I await anxiously the moment when Robot swoops in to say "You guys aren't actually disagreeing with each other."
Post a Comment
<< Home