I am not ashamed to admit that I am completely obsessed with The Transparency of Evil. You know that feeling when you read something and it articulates so perfectly all that you think about a particular topic, or your own personal circumstances? It is officially joining the ranks of books-that-changed-my-life, right next to The History of Western Philosophy, Peace is Every Step (a lovely antidote to ToE, actually) The History of Sexuality, Aristotle's Poetics, Feminine Endings, Discipline and Punish, and Siddhartha (yes, yes, make your jokes if you must).
Baudrillard writes with impressive elan: passionate and sobering but always beautiful. To me, his book is incredibly inspiring. An expression of our deeply troubled historical moment, The Transparency of Evil embodies the arguably bifurcated post-modern spirit. Indeed, the intoxication of immediacy and virtual equality fosters both bacchanalian ecstasy and profound despair--the result, an orgy of aporetic emptiness. But despite such a distressing message, Baudrillard's text contains within its elegantly crafted words an intrinsically hopeful--if subtle--message. The experience of reading ToE is deeply satisfying, comforting, and for lack of a better word, beautiful. That this type of response is still possible in the epoch of Transaesthetics and the Telecomputer Man, speaks to human nature: our instinct for edification, survival and yes, beauty (what can I say, I'm an eternal optimist).
I bring it up again, because this (in response to this [in response to this]) came across my Google Reader recently. Both Bergman's and Kuchar's posts are diversions (George Crumb is a total hipster, by the way), however reading Davidson's review, I couldn't help but think about Baudrillard (because, as I just said, I am completely obsessed with the Transparency of Evil).
Admittedly, I am not so familiar with the so-called new New York School. I went through a "phase" some years back, but nothing that would really qualify me to make any sort of meaningful aesthetic value judgments. My personal taste notwithstanding, what interests me more is Davidson's critique in all its Baudrillardian overtones. I've excerpted the review below, with added emphasis for passages that I found particularly resonant in the context of ToE.
This cornucopia of new music seems perpetually promising. It bristles with allusions and brims with ambition—yet it somehow feels stifled by all that freedom.
[...]
Today’s styles need not be born of deep experience; they form out of collisions that bypass history and geography.
[...]
These well-crafted but oddly familiar works display the virtues of facility, versatility, and curiosity, but they also showcase a group that seems disoriented by its own open-mindedness. Composers who could do anything somehow don’t.
[...]
Despite their gifts and alertness to the moment, [the new New York] composers seem muffled, bereft of zeal. What they badly need is a machine to rage against and a set of bracing creative constraints.
Davidson seems to be articulating that orgy of aporetic emptiness: compositions teem with Schnabel-esque excess thus they result in something that registers as "tame" or lacking "angst." Judgments like good and bad are hollow; reductionist at best. However, whether or not these composers are aware of it, their music--according to Davidson--seems to be articulating Baudrillard's description of our historical moment: an epoch of saturation, immediacy, and apathy induced by hyper-stimulation.
As far as any musical criticisms are concerned, I'm going to do some listening and get back to you.
Showing posts with label the business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the business. Show all posts
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Saturday, September 4, 2010
eccomi! sono una brava studentessa, ma sempre occupata.
Che triste!
How time flies when you're in graduate school.
That which I spoke of earlier is well underway. Eccolo, a rough draft of our new mission statement:
The concepts of access, education and communication comprise the foundation upon which Chamber Music Midwest is built. The festival seeks to present high quality concerts at venues decidedly divorced from contemporary concert culture: correctional facilities, mental health clinics, elder care centers, churches. There are no stages and a dialogue between performers and audiences is not only encouraged, but is considered a facet of a successful concert. We seek to dismantle the physical and metaphorical barriers that prevent universal access to music and ideas. We seek to educate through means both conventional (program notes) and dynamic (a blog, Facebook, unorthodox programming). We seek to communicate with our audiences as equals, not--as the musical institution has advocated--within the mentality of binaries: artist versus dilettante, intellectual elite versus uneducated pleasure-seeker.
Recently, my research has taken a decidedly Marxist direction: I've got critical theory coming out of my ears. The basic question of course is how do we go about freeing the intellectually oppressed. For me the answer was access and thus, CMM's new mission statement was born. I'd love to hear what anyone out there has to say about this draft. As you can see, I want more than anything to address the problem of class as it relates to the experience of classical music...
Update: "uneducated pleasure-seeker" seems harsh, right? I want to make obvious the subtle power plays of the institution. I certainly don't feel this way, but I want to make it clear that this sort of attitude is prevalent (maybe "rampant" is an even better word) in the musical, intellectual and certainly academic communities. I'm talking about not only performers, but also arts administration. What is worse is that often, arts organizations trick themselves into believing that they participate in outreach, that they are making themselves accessible to the "masses" when in fact, they only perpetuate the us and them mentality. Free concerts are often held outside the concert hall, thus codifying the aforesaid ideas of class separatism. Furthermore, the repertoire chosen for these concerts often represents only the canonical standards (ie, that which is known to sell tickets): by limiting the public's exposure to new works, the musical establishment only promotes its intellectual supremacy.
When I began writing this update, I did not expect that by the end of the first paragraph I would be so securely perched upon my soap-box. Obviously, this is merely an introduction, but you get the point. I'll conclude by saying that CMM is different from the situation above because we do not (and I hope never will) perform in a traditional concert hall. Additionally, I try always to include a work on each program that would be challenging to the musician and the non-musician alike. The result has been illuminating, in fact. Often, it is the untrained ear that enjoys Berg more than Mozart.
Rant. over.
How time flies when you're in graduate school.
That which I spoke of earlier is well underway. Eccolo, a rough draft of our new mission statement:
The concepts of access, education and communication comprise the foundation upon which Chamber Music Midwest is built. The festival seeks to present high quality concerts at venues decidedly divorced from contemporary concert culture: correctional facilities, mental health clinics, elder care centers, churches. There are no stages and a dialogue between performers and audiences is not only encouraged, but is considered a facet of a successful concert. We seek to dismantle the physical and metaphorical barriers that prevent universal access to music and ideas. We seek to educate through means both conventional (program notes) and dynamic (a blog, Facebook, unorthodox programming). We seek to communicate with our audiences as equals, not--as the musical institution has advocated--within the mentality of binaries: artist versus dilettante, intellectual elite versus uneducated pleasure-seeker.
Recently, my research has taken a decidedly Marxist direction: I've got critical theory coming out of my ears. The basic question of course is how do we go about freeing the intellectually oppressed. For me the answer was access and thus, CMM's new mission statement was born. I'd love to hear what anyone out there has to say about this draft. As you can see, I want more than anything to address the problem of class as it relates to the experience of classical music...
Update: "uneducated pleasure-seeker" seems harsh, right? I want to make obvious the subtle power plays of the institution. I certainly don't feel this way, but I want to make it clear that this sort of attitude is prevalent (maybe "rampant" is an even better word) in the musical, intellectual and certainly academic communities. I'm talking about not only performers, but also arts administration. What is worse is that often, arts organizations trick themselves into believing that they participate in outreach, that they are making themselves accessible to the "masses" when in fact, they only perpetuate the us and them mentality. Free concerts are often held outside the concert hall, thus codifying the aforesaid ideas of class separatism. Furthermore, the repertoire chosen for these concerts often represents only the canonical standards (ie, that which is known to sell tickets): by limiting the public's exposure to new works, the musical establishment only promotes its intellectual supremacy.
When I began writing this update, I did not expect that by the end of the first paragraph I would be so securely perched upon my soap-box. Obviously, this is merely an introduction, but you get the point. I'll conclude by saying that CMM is different from the situation above because we do not (and I hope never will) perform in a traditional concert hall. Additionally, I try always to include a work on each program that would be challenging to the musician and the non-musician alike. The result has been illuminating, in fact. Often, it is the untrained ear that enjoys Berg more than Mozart.
Rant. over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)