Re: [microsound] pop vs art music

[tad <tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/17/02 at 10:30 AM, The pHarmanaut <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> All in all, I'm with you, David: the pop=action and art=thought
> seems an overly simplistic binary. If art tends so much toward
> thought, then how does any of it ever get made?

I thought i might stay out of this conversation, but it seems I can't
control myself...

Let's distinguish between the reception of art and the creation of art.
The categories "pop" and "art" are categories of reception, not
creation.

Further, categories of reception, are largely constructs of taste which
become irrelevant beyond the personal. Or putting it another way, taste
is the means of creating cultural cohesion around societal classes.
Taste enforces membership in a class.

Americans are pretty naive about the class constitution of their
society. We think we live in a classless society, but it's far from
that. It's just that the old stereotypes of "captains of industry" and
"union worker" aren't very relevant in this day and age.

Manuel Castells, in his book _The Informational City_, does a brilliant
job of laying out the "classes" in our contemporary world.

He pretty clearly describes the contours of the 2 major "working
classes": those people that are knowledge workers, and those that
essentially do data entry into our vast computation complex.

In the old days, knowledge workers used to be a smaller group: lawyers,
doctors, etc., but with the ability, by means of computation and
communication, to control industrial processes on a global scale, many
more knowledge workers have come to the fore: designers of brand
experience, network technical experts, etc. These are the folks that
"command" production.

The other major class of workers are those that do "data entry". One
thinks immediately of the people working the phone banks that handle
your billing questions, but also extends to bank employees that may
offer you advice on investments and other fairly sophisticated and
personal interactions. But in the end, all they're doing is punching
some numbers into the database.

Castells points out that membership in these classes is stratified. You
don't move from one to the other. This brings up the question of
"meritocracy", which is the belief that people in America can "climb the
ladder" and better their lot.

This is posssible, but it is dependent on getting education. No longer
can one work your way up from "stock boy" to c.e.o. WITHIN the company.
You have to get education outside the context of your employment for
this to happen.

Selling CDs at the local bank in no way improves your chances of
becoming a securities analyst. You'd have to retrain to do that.

Castells also mentions a few other classes: those of the service
economy, informal economy, criminal economy, excess labor and, of
course, the owners. I won't dwell on these much except to point out that
the US continues to organize the poorer classes around racial
distinctions.

The "major" and "minor" knowledge working classes work for the owners of
the economy, who are a pretty anonymous bunch vis-a-vis past history.
Roland Marchand did a fabulous job in his book _Advertising the American
Dream_ of chronicling the transferrence of the celebrity status of the
rich onto the movie star during the 20's and 30's. Well worth the read.

The critical distinction to be made between knowledge workers and owners
in contemporary society is in their ability to appropriate culture.
Pierre Bourdieu, in his book _Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgement of Taste_ distinguishes between "physical" appropriation of
culture (which is the province of the rich) and "symbolic" appropriation
(which is the province of the educated).

The example of the visual arts makes this distinction plain: people of
education can converse in great detail about the signifigance of a
particular work by Picasso. The wealthy can simply buy the work. They
are radically different means of appreciation. Think about it...

(The performing arts are perhaps different from the visual in some ways:
It doesn't seem as current these days to privately commission and
perform musical work. But the performing arts are subject to the
mechanisms of discourse that have grown up around other cultural modes.
Hence this discussion about "pop" music".)

So distinctions in culture for knowledge workers tend to center around
issues of intellect for two reasons: symbolic compensation for the
inability to physically appropriate culture the way their bosses do, and
confirmation of the distinctions that make them knowledge workers in the
first place. Within the cultural sphere.

This can manifest itself in the fine points of Xenakis and Stockhausen
vs. electronic club music, but also in more mundane forms of
conniseurship, like the appreciation of "fine wine", cigars or obscure
musical recordings. ("I got that rare-as-shit Conrad Schnitzler LP!)

These cultural conversations create distinctions and maintain the
stratification of these class groupings in contemporary society. For a
wry look at this phenomenon, please see _Bohos in Paradise_. Sorry I
don't have my copy with me or I'd include the author.

Cultural markers created by the upper classes do filter down. This was
quite convincingly dealt with by Russell Lynes in his book _The
Tastemakers_. As the "lower" classes symbolically appropriated the modes
of the rich by reading the "society columns" in the 20's & 30's, they
now look to media celebrities for their fashion cues.

Celebrity is part of the cultural engine plugged into the media
conglomeration. (And created by knowledge workers) For certain sectors
of culture, "popularity", or the manifestation of their class markers on
Hollywoodians, is the signal to create a new style. As well they should,
their points of distinction are losing their value.

Knowledge workers do go slumming and incorporate aspects of low culture
into their high art, but the reasons for this are complicated and beyond
the scope of this already rather lengthy email.

Hope this was of interest to some of you. I probably won't have the
energy to debate any of this with you, especially the ones' that would
need a lot of convincing.

I'd read the books. All of them are fascinating and rewarding.

-Tad


<tad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>