Diminished Masterpieces
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brustein, Munson, Rothstein, Simon, Nichols, Kimball, and Pinsker 59 He has also been making Brooklyn the home to an increasing number of blockbusters. His "Sensation" exhibit, which incensed the mayor of New York, set out to provoke controversy by displaying, among other things, a portrait of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung and a sliced-up cow suspended in formaldehyde. A solicitation enticed patrons with a warning that the show might evoke "shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria and anxiety." An- nouncements ignored the relatively staid abstract painters and sculptors in the show to feature only the most shock-inducing artists. By blurring the lines between museums, avant-garde galleries, and amuse- ment parks, Lehman and other leaders today are bringing the museum full- circle back to its American origin as a circus-like storehouse of curiosities. I'll leave you with that image. Notes 1. Kent Whitaker, letter to the editor, Wall Street Journal (25 July 1995), A13. 2. Lawrence W~ Levine, Highbrow~Lowbrow (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 147. 3. Bryant quoted in Levine, 201. 4. Neil Harris, "Polling for Opinions," Museum News (September/October 1990), 52-53. 5. Moxey quoted in Scott Heller, "Visual Images Replace Text as Focal Point for Many Scholars," Chronicle ofHigherF,ducation (19July 1996), A8. 6. Benjamin H.D. Buchloh, "The Whole Earth Show: An Interview with Jean-Hubert Martin by Benjamin H.D. Buchloh," Art in America (May 1989), 158. 7. Neil Harris, "Museums: The Hidden Agenda," in CulturaIExcursions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 140. 8. Neil Harris, "Polling for Opinions," Museum News (September/October 1990), 52-53. 9. Allan Wallach, "Revisionism Has Transformed Art History, but Not Museums," Chronicle of Higher IMucation, 22 January 1992, B2. 10. Carol Duncan, "Art Museums and the Ritual of Citizenship" in Exhibiting Cultures, Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian, 1991), 100-101. 11. Roger Kimball, "Elitist Anti-Elitism: Robert Venturi Does Seattle," New C~terion (April 1992), 7. 12. Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue (New York: Knopf, 1994), 47. 13. Patterson Sims, "Metamorphosing Art/Mixing the Museum" in The Museum: Mixed Metaphors, bred Wilson (Seattle, WA: Seattle Art Museum, 1993), 5, 9. Diminished Masterpieces Edward Rothstein: cultural critic at large, New York Times, from which Academic Questions reprints portions of the below text with permission, copyright 1999 by the New York Times Co. Mr. Rothstein is the author of Emblems of Mind: The Inner Life of Music and Mathematics (Avon Books, 1996). When the American Musicological Society held its annual meeting in Bos- ton in 1998, most of the papers reflected business as usual. There were papers on historical styles ("Verse Meter, Word Accent, and Rhythm in the Polyphonic 60 Academic Questions / Winter 1999-2000 Hymn of the Fifteenth Century"), analysis of sketches and manuscripts ("The Compositional Genesis of the Scherzo of Mahler's Second Symphony"), and music history ("Chopin and Meyerbeer's 'Robert le diable'"). But there were also subjects that would have seemed alien a decade ago. The society's meeting included these papers: "Carlos Chavez and the USA: The Construction of a Strategic Otherness," "Voice Over/Voice Under, or, The Not-So-Silent Star of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard," "Women Take the Bow: Gendered Cello Music in the 19th Century," and "Strictly Ballroom? The Use of Rumba, Bolero, and Cha Cha Cha in Rock 'n' Roll to 1963." Now, alongside traditional analysis, a commentary about Beethoven or Elgar or Verdi might be about "phallocentric archetypes," the interests of the bourgeoisie, the "emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped" musical images of non-Europeans, the "normatively masculine subject," and "homo- eroticism." At another musicological conference I attended a few years ago Arnold Schoenberg's "Erwartung" received a feminist reading, Ravel's private life was explored to suggest his possible homosexuality, and the invocations of black musical idioms in twentieth-century concert halls were seen as "projections of complex social relationships of domination and desire." These signs of a gradual transformation of the discipline of musicology are probably no surprise to readers of this journal. For the "new musicology"--as it is called even by its practioners--takes its inspiration not from the genera- tions of earlier scholars who devoted themselves to the restoration of texts, the establishment of performance practice, or the analysis of musical language. It turns instead to the movements that dominate literary studies, including varieties of deconstruction, Marxism, gender studies, poststructuralism, postcolonial studies, and various forms of identity studies. These movements, of course, share certain characteristics. They are not primarily interested in aesthetic issues. Instead they might focus on the per- ceived social implications of a work, or its strategies for deceiving the reader. They treat the reception of a work as more crucial than any assessments of its aesthetic value. They may be interested in how a work reveals the artist's posi- tion in society or argues for a particular view of sexuality and power. Such critical movements also generally have polemical intentions: to uncover po- litical motives supposedly latent in the texts, a project that has generally yielded peculiarly unvarying results. Importing literary techniques into musicology has had, as one might ex- pect, a profound impact. But the results are often quite different from those in the literary arena, because a change of some sort was actually to be wel- comed in musical studies. The problem is less that something changed than the almost obsessive uniformity of the results of that change. Unlike literary studies, which have long had a distinguished tradition of social and political and aesthetic analysis, for example, musicological studies Brustein, Munson, Rothstein, Simon, Nichols, Kimball, and Pinsker 61 have been dominated by an almost formalistic approach. For musicologists, the search for a composition's meaning has generally not extended past a systematic examination of its musical material. Musicology has also traditionally maintained a deliberately restricted his- torical vision, concentrating narrowly on the circumstances of composition and technical aspects of style. This work has been extraordinarily valuable, but only rarely have scholars speculated on connections between those tech- nical aspects and the surrounding culture. Apart from generalizations about style, there was very little work done in why works of music had the kind of importance they had in society and culture. In 1981, for example, the distin- guished musicologist Joseph Kerman wrote an influential evaluation of the field, noting that it was almost exclusively focused on compositional analysis, a practice that had "produced relatively little of intellectual interest." Similar discontents were voiced even earlier by Virgil Thomson, a master of music criticism. Toward the end of his career, Thomson complained about purely descriptive critiques of performances: "What music needs right now," he wrote in 1961, "is the sociological treatment, a documented study of its place in business, in policy and in culture." He has gotten his wish, but probably it is not quite the way he imagined. The new musicology has its origins in the writings of Theodor Adorno (1903- 1969), a German Marxist philosopher (and a composer who studied with Alban Berg). Adorno argued that musical styles could be analyzed to reveal political meanings. From familiar scores, Adomo teased out knotty allusions to society and the composer's relationship to it; he heard alienation, advocacy, and dissent where more innocent ears could identify only varieties of harmonic progressions. In the 1970s this wider historical perspective came into its own. Maynard Solomon, in his now-classic psycho-biography, Beethoven (1977), demonstrated that changes in the composer's musical style were connected to various crises in his life. (Mr. Solomon recently accomplished something similar in a biogra- phy of Mozart.) And Charles Rosen's book The Classical Style showed how the music of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn was part of a grand intellectual project, an exploration of thinking and feeling that has been of fundamental impor- tance. (His most recent book, The Romantic Generation, continues the chrono- logical tale.) There was, in this broadening, a great scholarly promise, showing that music was not purely an abstract system of sounds, but had compelling metaphorical power: a composition could be considered to be "about" society, sexuality, or philosophy. It reflects in its inner workings the composer's presuppositions about art and audience. Every composition involves a tension between system- atic law and improvisatory freedom, between implicit expectation and explicit surprise. The composer becomes a philosopher, a sociologist, a novelist, a propagandist. Every style is a language with which the composer makes an argument, tells a story, or reveals unspoken truths. 62 Academic Questions / Winter 1999-2000 Such a musicology might show how Beethoven's late string quartets em- body attitudes toward reason and faith, or why Chopin's preludes are deliber- ately odd in shape and style. It might demonstrate how Shostakovich's symphonies subvert political authority even as they seem to serve it. It might show how musical style turned from deductive