I just read a short piece discussing what makes a book or an author a classic. In the article, the author wryly mentions that denouncing particular classics has become a past time for professors and journalists to receive attention or at least a publication (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/canon-fodder-denouncing-the-classics.html). As I was reading through this, I began to think in terms of music and composers. In academia we have settled on the "canon" of music literature and are comfortable with those nebulous decisions passed down through generations. We erroneously call this music "classical" in that the music has become classic over a period of time. Unfortunately there is a confusion with the term classical due to its usage in art, literature, architecture and music as a time period or, in some cases, a style. Nevertheless, for this discussion, the term "classical" will be used synonymously with the term "canon" as referencing acceptable music for academic study.
To be fair, the greatest test of worth in art is the test of time. When a composition or a composer "makes it," we discuss and listen to that person or the piece of music regardless of how long ago it was created. Shakespeare is great today just as it was during his time. Beethoven is still worth studying and performing in spite of not having any new works since his death in 1827. Many composers have withstood the test of time and are performed today on a regular basis, with audiences finding meaning in their music and willing to support the music not due to its reputation but rather to its actual quality. This makes absolute sense and is to be valued beyond its commercial value and into its internal accomplishments.
But the canon of literature is changing, as it should, with an unusual form of crowdsourcing that is difficult to understand and codify. The people are redesigning what it means to be classical. At one time people simply accepted the decision of the "experts" that a specific work of art is great or that a particular artist is deemed the finest in the field. When it comes to evaluating art, the combined opinions of experts, educated people, time, and an awareness of concepts and interests working together form artistic worth. In a way we trust the art expert who claims Rodin to be a great sculptor, but in other ways it is easy to agree upon studying a Rodin sculpture and seeing its precision and feeling the power in the piece.
But what happens if people become uninterested in the music of Beethoven or Mozart, Bach or Brahms? What happens if large amounts of people no longer trust the "experts" in the field and instead decide they prefer a different type of art? What will we do as academic musicians if the music of Mozart no longer has substantial meaning in the world to most people? How do we deal with our conviction that Mozart is essential listening and worthy of study if most people feel rather ho-hum about Mozart's music? In a way, this is catastrophic. If we have spent our lives regaling the plays of Shakespeare as vital literature for everyone and suddenly "everyone" or at least a majority disagrees, then we run the risk of acknowledging we were wrong and will face the real fear that Shakespeare will disappear. Unacceptable in either case.
"Classical" is not determined historically by scholars or experts, it is determined by you and me and by the 6 billion people who inhabit the earth. How many times have I told people about a great work of art or play or piece of music or movie and expressed my unbridled enthusiasm with joyful zeal only to realize that I was somewhat singular in my view? While there is no problem with my preference, I also must accept, at least to an extent, that my views are my own and while sometimes broadly embraced, also sometimes only minimally loved. In the end, the canon we scholars so love is decided by the people. This is as it should be. I may often disagree with people's love of certain art or literature but I cannot denounce the popularity of the work itself.
For example, I have no particular love nor respect for the Canon in D by Pachelbel. I find it to be excessively dull and repetitive, totally lacking in creativity and expression. If I never hear the piece again, I will be very happy. Yet, obviously, my views are my own and I must live in my own strange bubble of what I deem as worthy art since the Canon in D is so popular. It is heard in weddings ad nauseum and seems to be loved by all--much to my confusion and disdain. Oh well, I lose on this one!
My point is not to disparage the tastes of the masses, but instead to reflect on how the masses determine the worth over time, for better or worse. If music by Joseph Haydn does eventually fall into the black hole of extinction, which will not surprise me, then scholars will need to accept it. If the hymn And Can It Be becomes a never performed hymn in church, which may already be true to an extent, then hymn lovers, of which I am, will need to accept it. If art and literature of the past become museum pieces without great merit in today's world, then so be it. I may not like it and I may continue to fight to keep it, but in the end worthy art is determined over time by virtue of its broad acceptance.
"Classical" is made by you and me.
No comments:
Post a Comment