[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] How essential is your music?
The Beethoven story, and the discussion at large, remind me of another
story that approaches these questions. (It's third hand, I probably got
lots of details wrong about this story, but what actually happened isn't
really important).
When Andrei Tarkovsky finished his film Mirror, one of his more challenging
and personal films (also possibly his best), he was presenting it to some
sort of Soviet film board for approval. This being the Soviet Union, they
were very concerned about the film being elitist in its inaccessibility,
not open to the common citizen (to the "public" that some others were
talking about in this thread). Throughout the screening of the film and the
discussion, a janitor was present in the room cleaning. Someone (Tarkovsky
or his opponents) called over this presumably undereducated and
archetypical member of the citizenry, and asked what they thought the film
was about. The janitor, surprisingly, replied that she wasn't sure but she
thought it could be about an old man looking back on events from his life,
wondering if he made the right decisions, etc, and that she found it very
beautiful. This is, of course, a very appropriate account of the film.
After the film was released, it received a good share of strikingly
positive responses from the "public", even while being roundly criticized
by Soviet institutions.
This is why I mention the story: clearly we can agree that the approach of
the Soviet authorities was wrong. While it's an extreme example (the Soviet
Union in the 70's), it represents the extension of a common way of thinking
about art (in relation to the public), one that we're all very familiar
with and probably employ from time to time.
And yet, it's also clear that the janitor's apprehension of the film is
something to cheer for, not just because it "scores points" in the game the
soviet authorities were playing, but because it scores other sorts of
points, ones that we're more interested in - it's an artistic victory. It
would be an /entirely/ different story if the janitor (and the rest of the
public) responded with "I don't know what the fuck that was, and I
certainly didn't get anything out of it".
When thinking about "public", I think we have to keep both of these things
in our head. There is no putting your foot down, no saying "this work is
intended for all humans", or conversely "this work is for you and you (or,
for no one)".
- Scott Carver
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:42:35 +0200, babilano <babilano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hallo groep,
> I said I would respond later this weekend and of course work, life,
> laziness and a problem with my new firewire audio interface prevented
> me from doing so.
> There's also this thing about stating the obvious or never quite
> being satisfied with how I formulate certain thoughts,
> No education makes one very insecure in the theoretical department.
>
> Enough excuses.
>
> To recap: Visit to the (disappointing) Van Abbe museum, discussion
> w/ American who tried to impress us intellectually and made the
> statement that "Art should be essential, not just interesting,
> entertaining or even educational".
> I didn't really see how that could be accomplished and his answer
> ("that's for each individual artist to decide") not very satisfying.
> He said artists should do more to make their work accessible and I
> agreed with that.
> The museum had a lot of works there without any explanation or clues
> as to how to interpret them.
> Only two people responded to the questions I sent to the group and I
> can understand why.
> The questions were not specific enough and I don't ever fill out
> questionnaires either.
>
> One question I asked was : " do you care if people understand what
> you are trying to do?"
> Paulo Mouat : No. Define "understand"... It's a lost battle if you
> expect a
> thorough understanding, it's pointless (and prone to subjective
> misconceptions) if you settle for anything less than that.
>
> Yes of course, I think you're right but many artists just put stuff
> out there and don't give any explanation about the work when some
> information would be helpful to get a sense of the meaning of a work.
> (define "meaning":)
> For a musical work this is far less important, I think.
> The Beethoven story was surprising to me because an emotional
> reaction would seem a great compliment for any musician.
>
> Laura Mello wrote:
> How essential is your music?
> It comes from/is my essence.
>
> To me that is about as essential as you can get but still hard to
> attain, it's what makes great art, especially in music.
>
>> Do you make an effort to get your music heard beyond the small crowd
>> of illuminati?
>>
> Laura again:
> Actually, no. I would like it to be heard beyond this small crowd, but I
> also don´t like the idea to commercialize it in the sense that I should
> come to the public and tell them "listen to me". I think people
> should also
> be used to want to look for something new and not always wait for the
> "new"
> to come to their computer monitors. But that´s a very personal opinion.
> Maybe a balance between both (being accessible to the public, but not
> being
> imperative) would be the best.
>
> Yeah, I remember the obligatory visits with my class to museums with
> disgust.
> I suspect people are less interested when something becomes more
> easily availlable.
>
>
> Unsatisfactory as always,
> babilano
>
> ps: I'm still curious to hear from others how they feel about
> bringing their work to the public.
> Is it pearls before swine ?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org