Having worked in this world of the arts on many levels, I hold the ideal of artistic collaboration to be quite difficult yet essential to the totality of the arts. The life of a musician and the life of an artist is one of singularity over solidarity, lending itself to a contained world of insular self-expression. The glorious opportunity to be in a room making music for an audience of one is a necessary part of the process of artistic growth. Individual development is a lifelong endeavor and the life of an artist requires constant improvement to the chosen craft. Like a great athlete or scientist or mathematician, an artist works relentlessly, and usually alone, to attain excellence.
This truth, however, augers against the need for the arts to make a bold and collective impact on the world through communication and public performance. Although somehow satisfying to make art or music in a room without public scrutiny, it also makes little sense other than meeting some kind of personal need. Perhaps this meets an emotional niche for the individual but there certainly is no impact on society or culture through this approach. Contrary to Milton Babbit's philosophy of the lack of a need for an audience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Cares_if_You_Listen), the arts are not sustainable without the public eye or ear.
But aside from those who produce great art in a vacuum apart from other people, there is much to gain through collaboration. This is not to take away from great pianists, guitarists, solo singers, painters, or sculptors, but it is to say that art makes room for the collective experience. Unfortunately, in the arts, mostly due to the singular focus and the sheer amount of time alone, artists struggle with collaboration. Sitting in a practice room making a multitude of musical decisions and suddenly being required to share in the decision making process is nearly antithetical to what it means to be personally expressive. Trained and talented musicians reach a point where they determine the musical goals that are within their preference zone, their experience, and their intuitive conditioning. Having to give up ownership of their expressive musical goals is akin to allowing others to drive your car or live in your home. It feels neither natural nor comfortable to do so. Most advanced artists prefer to be in charge, to retain ownership of the decisions, and to be the musical leader whether that is individually or collectively.
In spite of the repeated experiments in ensemble playing without a conductor, there seems to remain a need for a central leadership figure. This system works well (mostly, anyway) for large musical ensembles but is often not necessary for smaller groups. That said, many a rock band has experienced demise due to power struggles within the unit. As musical organizations grow, so does the need for strong musical leadership. Yet this very need begins to push against the need for collaboration, making such endeavors a mystery in the arts. Artists require a strong sense of individual expressiveness, yet many art forms, on a grand scale, require collaboration. This tension can only be healthy when all constituents recognize the ultimate goal of providing a positive artistic experience for the audience.
One of the great artistic genres that absolutely requires collaboration is in musical theatre and opera (terms that should not be used separately from my perspective). "No art form exists independently of the conditions in which it is enjoyed." (Tim Parks, http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/jun/10/reading-struggle/, accessed 6/13/2014) and such is true in musical theatre where the preparation involves large forces and the performance space determines much of the outcome. In musical theatre costumes, sets, acting, singing, orchestra, directors, lighting, sound, literature, and ultimately audiences come together for what is one of the great examples of artistic collaboration in today's culture. And musical theatre is enjoying a substantial market share and a growing audience base.
Not that shows are easy and the amount of collaboration required is tremendous, often with many strong-willed artists involved seeking to come to agreement and consensus on matters related to all facets of the show. Artistry goals aside, in the end the goal is to communicate to people, develop an audience, and, turn a profit. When the profit motive is active, it forces the collaborative process to succeed in the end. Yet when there is no profit motive, such as collaboration in an academic institution, the process has the real potential to be a power and/or artistic struggle between individuals or groups. Sadly, when the struggle digresses into a complete lack of mutual cooperation, the result is a poor performance or cancellation of intended event.
The driving force for successful collaboration does not appear to be artistic excellence despite what artists often claim. The impetus for collaborative success may not be as lofty as we would prefer but may, instead, be public support. A small but appreciative audience is always emotionally rewarding and should not be discredited, but, when the audience is substantial and revenues exceed expenses, everyone benefits. Such is the case in collective collaborative artistic experiences. These experiences are lined with purpose that overrides individual achievement. Yet without a solid, concrete purpose, artistic collaboration will remain a mystery that is mired in abstract and often self-serving emotional regions.
No comments:
Post a Comment