August 2009 ---[ an excerpt from a letter to Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Pomona College, author of The Anxiety of Obsolescence ]
As a composer of obsolete forms of music, I have some thoughts on why we bother. Whether we are thinking about novels or symphonies, there are several main causes for anxiety.
1.) Oh my God! The art form I love is so far out of fashion no one will read (or listen to) what I create! 2.) I am wasting my time creating art no one will pay me a dime for. 3.) There is no social, political, or cultural benefit to me or anyone-else from my art, and the time I invest in my art is wasted.
The anxieties come from half-truths, and misperceptions of value. No war was ever started or stopped because of a great novel or a great symphony. To believe our art can influence to course of political events, or should even aspire to do so, is to dilute the function of art---to make art hopelessly Socialist (the only art which Stalin loved and understood )
To believe art can change society or effect cultural norms is slippery. Huck Finn may have helped to change people’s ideas about Black Folk---but the value of the novel goes beyond that influence. The value of the novel is contained in the way it suggests we (all humans) can create our own self-definition, regardless of the place and time. That suggested message is long-reaching beyond any influence on racism. Likewise, the novels of Thomas Hardy and Dickens are tributes to self-definition. If an artist aspires to influence society or politics, music is particularly problematic because it contains no political or moral content, unless it is attached to words. (Not even Sousa marches are inherently political!)
From my own experience I can say: the value of my own works is personal. The value is in the joy of creation, and the joy of listening. The works do not exist to be part of any artistic movement, post- or pre- , neo- or retro- Such definitions might only have value to a critic or listener when comparing my work to other composers. The artistic value of my music is found only in the listening---not in any words used to describe the music. The same is probably true for novels. The reader perceives value in a novel regardless of what any critic has said, regardless of the stylistic movement which may have influenced the creation of the novel.
The value of art is in the perception of the art, not the commentary about the art, or the possible social influence of the art. As a creator of art and as a consumer of art, the value is in the influence the art exerts on my own self-definition. Nothing more or less than that. Much of the influence has to do with intellectual or sensual pleasure---the joy generated by the art. I welcome all conversation on this subject (even if you completely disagree with me.) I welcome an open dialogue.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alan Milner
Ted Zeppelin
sagemerlin
Robert Brenner
Adam Sifre
Drew-Silla
Salon.com
Comments
"Well, the "value" of art is that it pleases us/me/you/a large or small number of people, or that art expresses something/shows us something which we know -somehow, somewhere - is true. Therefore, art speaks to us. If art does not do this, then we do not have access to it.
Art is two things: the creator's experience in making and editing and re-fining his/her work and, secondly, our response to that experience.
Much of what goes today under the heading of "art" is not worth the looking/listening/reading. And that, Chuck, concludes my wisdom.
H.
Thanks for reaching out to me. I enjoy your blog.
Yes. With my 1st cup of coffee. And yes to a New Arts Movement. What you have written in your blog resonates inside me like a cello or a big brass WAKE UP gong.
“Art is the emotional and intellectual expression, and subsequent personal revelation, of individual experience. The focus has moved from developing depth and honesty in individual expression, to celebrating innovations in material and technique that seek simply to shock, disturb or confound the viewers without taking them further into themselves or their world.”
“It is time for a new arts movement; time for artists to collectively define the direction we take in the 21st century. It is time to focus on those works which embody authenticity of expression over material manipulation, depth over observation, beauty (which does not mean pretty) over disturbing, clarity and insight over shock and confusion”
How do art movements begin? With people like us talking to each other. An honest recognition of our dissatisfaction with contemporary trends. What would we call the new movement? Maybe: "21st Century Ars Nova” Our art representing the sea- change between monophonic chant and polyphonic music, the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. What I hope for is a Renaissance, a return to humanism over the stylistic absurdities of the 20th century. Freedom from the perpetual self-deception of the term “avant-garde” ( the forward guard always becomes the rear guard---sometimes in less than 20 years.)
Help me think up a name for our art movement. --Chuck