RE: [microsound] high art / modernism

[David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	I read the original reference to the Terre Thaemlitz quote:

> >"The listener's act of consumption no longer emphasizes the traditionally
> 
> >Modernist fetishization of a producer's creative output. Rather, it 
> >reflects a tertiary commodification of the DJ's selection and performance
> 
> >of other producers' outputs as the ultimate in informed commodity 
> >fetishism."
> 
And the "traditionally Modernist fetishization" to me refers to the new (at
the time) notion of the artist as individual fountainhead of creative
output... and to some extent the first notions of "art star" emerged in the
early modernist period. Prior to this (and I am generalizing to some extent)
artists were much more relegated to the role of craftspeople, and/or worked
under the patronage of wealthy individuals or organizations (the church, the
nobility). And while I agree that much Modernist work revolved around the
concepts of chance and improvisation, I think the idea of "individual artist
as star" was more of a cornerstone in what differentiates the millieu of
early modernism (at least I think this is what Thaemlitz was attempting to
say)


> >I have a stupid question now.  Why is the emphasis on (or "fetishization 
> >of") an artist's creative output considered a "traditionally Modernist" 
> >phenomenon?  I would think it predates Modernism, and I think of
> Modernism 
> >as being a period filled with group work, chance, improvisation and 
> >conceptualizing.
> 
> it's not a stupid question because as with most/many spheres of critique, 
> the idea of what constitutes 'modernism' etc is both widely contested and 
> fluid (across different contexts).  i would say that such a focus did 
> indeed predate modernism, but was most deeply entwined within the
> tradition 
> because of its close affinities with both liberal humanism and 
> enlightenment.  that is, art in modernism is both a reflection of an inner
> 
> soul/essence, and a mirror of the progress/rationality of a society and 
> individual.  the modernist artistic tradition sees itself as progressive 
> (individualist in the sense of distinction from both mass audience and 
> artistic peers), refined, building on the ideas preceding, and as a
> pathway 
> to establishing The Artwork.
> 
> modernism as a period, which appears to be how you took the usage to be,
> is 
> indeed often thought of as filled with the things you mentioned (among 
> others).  however, group work was not mass work -- while the unit of 
> authorship/distinction is widened, it is not opened; it is still grounded 
> in its difference from tradition and period.  chance and improvisation can
> 
> be seen as tools to this end.  conceptual art in the modernist sense was 
> largely based on top-down ideas of communication - that is, the Artist 
> dictates a creative work's meaning, as the concept is a product of the 
> artist's imaginings/creativity/essence.  that is to say, under the
> critical 
> eye of modernism, one could still be accused of "not getting it" ("it" 
> being the "heart" of the work, invested by its creator) - where 
> postmodernism posits many "its".
> 
> i could be totally wrong, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dustvsstars/
> home.pacific.net.au/~transmit
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
>