Kathleen O'Connell wrote:
>It doesn't matter that these beliefs were commonly held then, and that
>artists were propounding the received wisdom of their day - it is still
>painful and infuriating to encounter them, and, what's more, to encounter
>them expressed with all the power and persuasion that art can give. I wish
>there were an easy answer.
I'm a little surprised that Dave let this through as it has more to do with
attitudes than with music and is mostly in rebuttal to Mr. Norrman's point
of view about men's attitudes toward women (although certainly music hasn't
been immune to such attitudes in both past and present.) [Mats post slipped
through, so I allowed a rebuttal. -Dave]
Nevertheless, I think one should proceed cautiously when linking the "power
and persuasion" of art to everything that occurs in the text of an opera,
play or poem. If we are going to agree that all art is a product of its
time then we must agree that it's "HIP" to perform works as they were
originally conceived and produced, even though we may find the subject
matter offensive--what logic is there to the idea that we can use original
instruments and performance practice while at the same time reworking texts
to be more politically correct (which is impossible in many if not most
cases)?
The question is: Is the listener obliged to treat the text as an
invitation to agree with its point of view? Does some outmoded thinking on
the subjects of Jews, women, blacks or any other targeted group infuriate
some to the point that they cannot appreciate the aesthetic qualities of
the work?
The postmodernists are correct about one thing: Those in power tend to
call the shots in the short term. The Stalinists were able to control
Shostakovich (and others) for a while, at least outwardly. To the extent
that the intellectual spawn of Derrida, Foucault, et al are able to dictate
"acceptable" points of view by awarding grants or denying tenure in
academe, (as well as getting a few of their kind into important deanships)
their voices are guaranteed to prevail in the scholarly music journals as
much as in other such publications. This is the only way I can figure out
how Susan McClary's article on Beethoven's 9th could have been published.
And this sort of thing eventually filters down to the more proletarian
reading matter.
Forgive me for going on so long about this (or don't--it doesn't matter),
but I want to articulate one more point. The idea that the only thing we
can do with art today is to treat it as text to be dissected in the context
of competing and struggling power groups, hegemonies, and so on--this
idea completely removes any sort of aesthetic enjoyment. While it's
probably incorrect to argue that postmodern criticism (I'm sure there are
subcategories and fine distinctions of which I'm unaware) denies there is
such a thing as an aesthetic response, I'm reasonably certain that those so
disposed would argue that no aesthetic response is to be enjoyed for its
own sake, divorced from the political power matrix--i.e., in the abstract.
This is because the mere presence of a response is considererd a tacit
endorsement and a sign that one has bought in to the message. I think
this is what's behind your statement about power and persuasiveness of
art. To think in that way reduces art to being a tool of those in power, to
perpetuate that power. SOMEBODY is always in power, though. The struggle
is eternal. Right now postmodernists are in control in academe. (But they
can't have their cake and eat it too--they can't claim that what they say
is true and still claim that there isn't any truth, only text.) So when
postmodernists go to a concert and discuss their experiences at the party
afterward, what do they talk about? I'm not sure but I think I'd probably
be more interested in the brand of liquor being served.
Bottom line: Who talks more about (what's really important in) the MUSIC:
Charles Rosen or Susan McClary? I have my own answer. But then I'm a
musician. Maybe years of sniffing rosin dust did something to my brain.
Chris Bonds
|
