Mary_Couse.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA (10/16/85)
From: Couse.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA (Just before leaving town for a week, I sent this response to a comment made by Steve Brust. Having looked through the digests that came while I was away, I've discovered that it never made it. Much as it may seem like adding fuel to a fire that has almost burned out, I hate to just toss it away.) Steve Brust writes: >You mention the classics: can you name one art form >(painting, music, etc) in which those works which are now regarded >as the classics were not, at the time, entertainment for the masses? Well, actually, yes I can. But first, let me say that "entertainment for the masses" is a tricky way of putting things. There's a world of difference between a folk tune and a symphony. The "masses" don't always attend the symphony - at least they haven't historically - and symphonies are seldom performed on the streetcorner. So the question is, which masses? Much of what we now consider classical music was written on commission for royalty or wealthy patrons - i.e. for the elite. Mass media did not exist, so the educated and the wealthy were the target audience - not the masses. Nevertheless, let us take classical music as an example and see how some of the more recent classics - ones that weren't commissioned by royalty - were received by audiences of the time. The audience at the premiere performance of Igor Stravinsky's work "Le sacre du printemps" (The Rites of Spring - 1913) showed their disfavor by virtually rioting. Stravinsky had made such a radical departure from the expected musical means that the audience wouldn't accept the work. Camille Saint-Saens' "Danse Macabre, Op 40" was met at it's premiere by boos and catcalls of such intensity that the composer's mother fainted. We're not talking about waiting for the critics to decide here - we're talking immediate and vociferous rejection by the public. These works are now considered classics. The fact that the public rejected them initially is some indication that art is not always immediately obvious or entertaining to the masses...or even to the elite, for that matter. Radical departures from our "comfort zone" in any area, including music, art and literature, often need the passage of time to become palatable. Appreciation comes even later. What we who make up the general public are willing to acknowlege as art is often safely removed from the cutting edge. Art is constantly pushing on the boundaries of the comfort zone. Moving to the visual arts, we again find this "entertainment for the masses" to be a tricky proviso. Again, as with music, much of classic art was NOT created for the masses but rather was done on commission for those with the money to indulge themselves. Commissioned work needs to satisfy only the person who's paying the bill - it does not have to satisfy the masses. (The starving artist creating his work for the public at large is a recent phenomena.) The first example that comes to mind of a generally acknowledged classic work that was created recently enough to have the masses as its audience - and be rejected by them at the time - is Picasso's "Young Ladies of Avignon" (1907). This work is now considered to be a pivotal work in modern art - however it was not well received in 1907. (Of course many people have trouble with modern art. Those who demand that paintings be lifelike still consider Picasso inaccessible.) So what does this all mean? Perhaps just that a culture's perception of art changes over time, just as an individual's taste changes (hopefully maturing). As an ending thought, I give you a definition of art that came from a graduate student working on his MFA: "Art is whatever you can get away with." Go into almost any museum of art in the country that has contemporary works on exhibit and I think you'll agree. Then let's all meet in fifty years and see what's survived and what we think then. Have we beaten poor old Art to death yet? :-}
datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay) (10/18/85)
> From: Couse.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA > > Steve Brust writes: > >You mention the classics: can you name one art form > >(painting, music, etc) in which those works which are now regarded > >as the classics were not, at the time, entertainment for the masses? > > Well, actually, yes I can. But first, let me say that "entertainment > for the masses" is a tricky way of putting things. There's a world of > difference between a folk tune and a symphony. The "masses" don't > always attend the symphony - at least they haven't historically - and > symphonies are seldom performed on the streetcorner. So the question > is, which masses? Much of what we now consider classical music was > written on commission for royalty or wealthy patrons - i.e. for the > elite. Mass media did not exist, so the educated and the wealthy were > the target audience - not the masses. Nevertheless, let us take > classical music as an example and see how some of the more recent > classics - ones that weren't commissioned by royalty - were received by > audiences of the time. > > The audience at the premiere performance of Igor Stravinsky's work "Le > sacre du printemps" (The Rites of Spring - 1913) showed their disfavor > by virtually rioting. Stravinsky had made such a radical departure from > the expected musical means that the audience wouldn't accept the work. > > Camille Saint-Saens' "Danse Macabre, Op 40" was met at it's premiere by > boos and catcalls of such intensity that the composer's mother fainted. > > We're not talking about waiting for the critics to decide here - we're > talking immediate and vociferous rejection by the public. > > These works are now considered classics. The fact that the public > rejected them initially is some indication that art is not always > immediately obvious or entertaining to the masses...or even to the > elite, for that matter. Radical departures from our "comfort zone" in > any area, including music, art and literature, often need the passage of > time to become palatable. Appreciation comes even later. What we who > make up the general public are willing to acknowlege as art is often > safely removed from the cutting edge. Art is constantly pushing on the > boundaries of the comfort zone. > > Moving to the visual arts, we again find this "entertainment for the > masses" to be a tricky proviso. Again, as with music, much of classic > art was NOT created for the masses but rather was done on commission for > those with the money to indulge themselves. Commissioned work needs to > satisfy only the person who's paying the bill - it does not have to > satisfy the masses. (The starving artist creating his work for the > public at large is a recent phenomena.) The first example that comes to > mind of a generally acknowledged classic work that was created recently > enough to have the masses as its audience - and be rejected by them at > the time - is Picasso's "Young Ladies of Avignon" (1907). This work is > now considered to be a pivotal work in modern art - however it was not > well received in 1907. (Of course many people have trouble with modern > art. Those who demand that paintings be lifelike still consider Picasso > inaccessible.) > > So what does this all mean? Perhaps just that a culture's perception of > art changes over time, just as an individual's taste changes (hopefully > maturing). > > As an ending thought, I give you a definition of art that came from a > graduate student working on his MFA: "Art is whatever you can get away > with." Go into almost any museum of art in the country that has > contemporary works on exhibit and I think you'll agree. Then let's all > meet in fifty years and see what's survived and what we think then. I would question whether any art is ever accepted by the masses (of course, we haven't defined what 'masses' are). I doubt that classical music, even today, appeals to a large percentage of the population (same for any other kind of music). An awful lot of people still don't like Picasso, so can you really say that he has been accepted by the masses? The point here is that you say that in old times this stuff (the classical example here) was only for a select group, but I say the same is true now (after a fashion). Maybe it is now a somewhat broader select group, but a lot of people would still object to you 'symphony on a corner' (in general: rock bands might play on the street in some large downtown cores, but they wouldn't be accepted in the suburbs). I don't think I said this very well... > > Have we beaten poor old Art to death yet? :-} > Of course not! Are not these articles themselves a form of Art? :-) Dave Tanguay, Waterloo Ont.