Thursday Thoughts: “Popular” and “Serious” Art, or What’s the Purpose of Making Art That Only Other Artists Will Understand

Who Cares if You Listen, an essay by Milton Babbitt, might have been written 57 years ago about music, but it is just as applicable today to any form of art making. He is not the best writer and many of his sentences are unnecessarily dense, but his ideas and observations are spot on and with a little bit of creative thinking this essay can be applied to any of the fine arts. I highly encourage reading the entire essay, but here are some of the highlights.

Babbitt discusses the divide between contemporary “popular” music and the unintelligible-to-the-layman experiments of “serious” composers. He explores the place of music that the average man has, at best, little to no interest in, and, at worse, outright loathing towards. He says music has long since evolved past the days where there was one mode of making that everyone understood and appreciated. Now there are a myriad of ways to compose and express concepts through tone and many composes experimenting with those possibilities.

Although in many fundamental respects this music is “new,” it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics, derived from a considered and extensive knowledge of their dynamic principles. For, concomitant with the “revolution in music,” perhaps even an integral aspect thereof, has been the development of analytical theory, concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask comparable knowledge and experience from the listener. Like all communication, this music presupposes a suitably equipped receptor.

Deviation from tradition is bound to dismiss the contemporary music of which I have been talking into “isolation.” Nor do I see how or why the situation should be otherwise. Why should the layman be other than bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anything else? It is only the translation of this boredom and puzzlement into resentment and denunciation that seems to me indefensible. After all, the public does have its own music, its ubiquitous music: music to eat by, to read by, to dance by, and to be impressed by. Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields. But to this, a double standard is invoked, with the words music is music,” implying also that “music is just music.” Why not, then, equate the activities of the radio repairman with those of the theoretical physicist, on the basis of the dictum that “physics is physics.” It is not difficult to find statements like the following, from the New York Times of September 8, 1 957: “The scientific level of the conference is so high… that there are in the world only 120 mathematicians specializing in the field who could contribute.” Specialized music on the other hand, far from signifying “height” of musical level, has been charged with “decadence,” even as evidence of an insidious “conspiracy.”

For some reason man feels superior to the arts in a way that he does not towards a field like science. When faced with an unintelligible equation on a blackboard the average person would assume the solution is beyond him with little to no feelings of animosity towards the man who wrote it. However, when faced with a difficult work of art or music that he can’t understand he immediately dismisses it as invalid (“That’s not art!”) and is angered at the “declining” standards in the art world. Babbitt observes the same thing and says,

It often has been remarked that only in politics and the “arts” does the layman regard himself as an expert, with the right to have his opinion heard. In the realm of politics he knows that this right, in the form of a vote, is guaranteed by fiat. Comparably, in the realm of public music, the concertgoer is secure in the knowledge that the amenities of concert going protect his firmly stated “I didn’t like it” from further scrutiny.

He argues that this separation from the general public is not only not a bad thing, but that it should be encouraged just as we encourage theoretical research in other fields. He observes,

I say all this not to present a picture of a virtuous music in a sinful world, but to point up the problems of a special music in an alien and inapposite world. And so, I dare suggest that the composer would do himself and his music an immediate and eventual service by total, resolute, and voluntary withdrawal from this public world to one of private performance and electronic media, with its very real possibility of complete elimination of the public and social aspects of musical composition. By so doing, the separation between the domains would be defined beyond any possibility of confusion of categories, and the composer would be free to pursue a private life of professional achievement, as opposed to a public life of unprofessional compromise and exhibitionism

Babbitt ends with,

I doubt that scientific research is any more secure against predictions of ultimate significance than is musical composition. Finally, if it be contended that research, even in its least “practical” phases, contributes to the sum of knowledge in the particular realm, what possibly can contribute more to our knowledge of music than a genuinely original composition?

Granting to music the position accorded other arts and sciences promises the sole substantial means of survival for the music I have been describing. Admittedly, if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert- going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed. But music will cease to evolve, and, in that important sense, will cease to live.

Special thanks to my musician wife (who has recently started blogging here) for sharing this essay with me.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Jacob Rowan Studios, Music, Quotes, Thursday Thoughts

Thursday Thoughts: Drawing and Painting

Drawing is using existing tools to make marks. It has a simplicity and directness that comes from taking a tool, like a pencil, and applying it to paper with the technique lying in the sensitivity and variations of the artist’s hand. The artistry of painting lies in the artist’s ability to mix shades and hues of color. These unique variations of an existing medium add depth, complexity, and subtlety which transform the melody of drawing into the symphony of painting. 

What do you think? How would you define drawing and painting?

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Drawing, Jacob Rowan Studios, Painting, Thursday Thoughts

New Drawing: Study of the Desert

Study of the Desert. Ink on watercolor paper.

Study of the Desert. Ink on watercolor paper.

A drawing study to continue exploring the imagery of the desert and the Tower of Babel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Drawing, Illumination, Jacob Rowan Studios

Thursday Thoughts: Intentionality

Coffee. Coffee on watercolor paper. Jacob Rowan

Coffee. Coffee on watercolor paper. Jacob Rowan

In her book Contemporary Drawing, Margaret Davidson says the defining characteristic of today’s drawing is intentionality. All the rules and conventions for drawing have been broken which leaves any medium and surface free game for artists. This means that every decision the artist makes from the surface and tools he uses to the style and manner of drawing must be intentional. The way something is drawn can say just as much, if not more, than the subject matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Drawing, Jacob Rowan Studios, Thursday Thoughts

Thursday Thoughts: Beauty

Some thoughts on beauty:

  • Beauty is like a virus that spreads infinitely and can never be completely eradicated.
  • Beauty exists in tension with ugliness.
  • It takes more courage to paint beauty than ugliness.
  • Beauty and truth are intrinsically linked.
  • We don’t always know beauty when we see it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Jacob Rowan Studios, Thursday Thoughts

Thursday Thoughts: Artists and Tradition

Winter/Air/Old Age by Bruce Herman

Winter by Bruce Herman

Quote from Bruce Herman: “the artist stands in relation to her art much as a parent does to her child: ‘I have not created you; you came through me, not just from me.’ But for this to happen, the artist must stand in a tradition that lends meaning to her work. Hence, the very uniqueness of the art is a dependent thing—dependent upon a past, even as it moves us into a future…our debt to tradition (whether conscious or not) ought to make us humble enough to acknowledge our debt to one another, as well, in the making and “using” of works of art. We are, all of us, both transmitters and recipients of the tradition as it lives in us, offering us, as we embody it, something authentically new. ”

You can find the complete essay here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Artists, Jacob Rowan Studios, Quotes, Thursday Thoughts

The Critique Process

How to look at and evaluate a work of art:

I. Describe What You See: What are the elements of the image?

  • Start simple.
  • What are the building blocks that make up the image?
  • Take your time and absorb the experience of the work.

II. Analyze What You See: How do the various elements work together?

  • Speculate about why the artist made certain choices.
  • What are the areas of emphasis?
  • In what tradition is the artist working?
  • Is there an overall plan? What is the overall effect of the individual elements?

III. Interpret: What is the significance of what you see?

  • Examine and explain the cause of your response to the work.
  • Use adjectives and analogies to describe the sensory experience of the work.
  • Think of a theme that could explain the response prompted by the work.
  • The meaning of a work of art should be tied to elements previously analyzed.
  • Be imaginative, let your mind roam for possibilities beyond the obvious.

IV. Judge: Give thoughtful and fair judgment.

  • Start by defining the criteria/standards used in evaluating this particular work.
  • Do your normal criteria adequately match the style of the work before you?
  • Has the artist told the truth in the best way possible according to their worldview?
  • Have all the artist’s choices worked together to create a cohesive whole?

1 Comment

Filed under Art, Jacob Rowan Studios, Teaching Art