Some of the issues involved in ‘Creative Practices in Transnational Urban Contexts’ can be distilled and delineated by looking at one of the 20th century’s most notorious pieces of music: Le sacre du printemps, or The Rite of Spring, by Igor Stravinsky. When premiered The Rite was controversial to say the least, as shown by the following rhyming review:
Who wrote this fiendish Rite of Spring
What right had he to write the thing,
Against our helpless ears to fling
Its crash, clash, cling, clang, bing, bang, bing?
And then to call it Rite of Spring,
The season when on joyous wing
The birds melodious carols sing
And harmony’s in everything!
He who could write the Rite of Spring,
If I be right, by right should swing!
The Rite is now accepted as part of the canon of classical masterpieces, even making its way into Disney’s Fantasia:
At the time of The Rite’s premiere Stravinsky was a Russian émigré living in Paris. Consequently, Le sacre interestingly illustrates the tension of identity involved in transnational music. The Rite is saturated with the Russian folk-tunes Stravinsky absorbed on summer trips to his uncle’s estate in rural Ustyluch, and from his music tutor, the composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. When writing Le sacre Stravinsky steeped himself in Russian material. The piece is a ballet, and Stravinsky took most of the story for The Rite from old Russian pagan rituals. Stravinsky’s paganism was in part a reaction to his upbringing in the Russian Orthodox Church, to which he returned in 1926. However, The Rite was written in Switzerland and premiered in Paris; Stravinsky later became an American citizen, and in 1913 was already a cosmopolitan par excellence. As Alex Ross writes in The Rest is Noise, ‘In later years, Stravinsky […] went to some lengths to conceal his early folkish enthusiasms’ (TRIN 87). Stravinsky didn’t want to be seen as a Russian artist, and only revisited his homeland in 1962, on his 80th birthday. Is The Rite of Spring a Russian or a European work, or both? Was Stravinsky a Russian, a European or an American, or all three? What does this say about national identity in general? My opinion is that nations and national identity are human constructs, and that consequently blurring and fluidity in national identity is natural.
Another issue illustrated by Le sacre is the urban tension between the organic and the synthetic. The Rite is a pagan hymn to spring, full of roars and squelches and bellows, but ‘the urban noises in Stravinsky’s score – sounds like pistons pumping, whistles screeching, crowds stamping – [also] suggest a sophisticated city’ (TRIN 93). Most of us are city-dwellers to some extent, and all of us live in a world profoundly different from that in which the human race originally evolved. The synthetic is a fact of life now; how we negotiate it as individuals is up to us.
The Rite’s disturbing climax, in a production choreographed by Maurice Bejart:
The last issues to be dealt with in this article are political, aesthetical and ethical, and tie in with the socialist flavour of some of the Creative Practices course material. The Rite of Spring would initially only have been heard by the relatively well-off in society, and Stravinsky was himself from an upper-class background. His Russian folk material, however, came from the peasants. What are we to think of inequality like this? It seems to me that it is a political wrong which needs to be righted. This political tension is closely linked to an aesthetical tension: which creative practice shall we value more, Stravinsky’s mind-searing ballet, or the folk-music it was partly derived from? High art or folk art? I believe this question is most satisfactorily answered by subsuming aesthetics into ethics. In her article on this wordpress site, Laura Penny writes: ‘music can help so many different people around the world if only we focus on what is important and forget the rest.’ I say we take up this attitude – let’s base our value judgements only on what is really important and forget the rest. But what is ‘really important’? Helping others and ourselves get by in life, i.e. reducing suffering and increasing happiness. Instead of judging music on aesthetic grounds, we should judge it ethically according to how much it helps. So what of Le sacre and its folksy sources? Because The Rite of Spring is really rather brutal and pitiless I don’t think it ‘helps’ much. If a folk creative practice is more useful to people, then it’s more valuable than Stravinsky’s masterpiece. In other words, the Creative Practices course is right in opposing ‘ivory-tower’ conceptions of art (an opposition helpfully pointed out by Phil Hale in his article ‘Art and Youtube’.)
In conclusion, Le sacre du printemps illustrates the tension between national identities in transnational music, and the tension between the natural and the synthetic in urban culture. It exemplifies the political tension between different sections of society, and the tension between aesthetical and ethical ways of valuing art. ’Focus on what is important and forget the rest’ – words to carry close-pressed to one’s heart.
Bibliography
Ross, Alex, The Rest is Noise (New York: Fourth Estate, 2008)
Dan Absolon.
globalpractice
Phil Hale
Dominic O'Donnell
munchkin1991
kothyxaan
Laura Penny
drewcrow
miasqc
lexkellas
Matt Fullerton
souljacker88
zvezdoliki
bcw37
jamiemattick
ziedauja11
Great article
Yeah wow, interesting to say we should both see art ‘as it is’ and also value that which helps politically; normally those two perspectives are at odds with each other.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I think we need to be careful in any mission to abolish the ‘ivory-tour conceptions of art’. Music, poetry, novels, storytelling…these all mean more to me than ‘getting by’.
Yes, we can still retain the value and dignity of a creative practice without limiting it’s accessibility.
I’d like to see a return to a different sort of ethical system: whereby people can elevate themselves to be more important by virtue of their work. Much like in Things Fall Apart when Okonkwo ascends to a position of spiritual omnipotence, there are certain musicians, writers, directors who lift themselves up to be more than people – they become artists.
The important point is to separate the artist from the every-day person they become when putting down their instrument. Depending on you religious views, you can see the ascension as purely a product of practice and technical mastery, or an elevation to some more essential humanity we all share.
In other words, a modernization of the traditional Muse. Any person can beckon and entice their Muse through hard work and luck, and it’s this non-physical representation of those two factors which should be separated from the artist-person.
~
Long story short, I’m not happy to equate the everyday person with the artist and performer. One may become the other, but they are not the same. There’s an implicit importance in artistry which transcends notions of usefulness.
Perhaps I can only say that being comfortable and satiated. Heck I’m listening to ‘high-art’ near the top of a building – I suppose it’s natural for the ivory tower to resist it’s own fall.
Edit: My ideas about the Muse are taken from this fascinating TED talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA
These are really interesting ideas…
‘Music, poetry, novels, storytelling…these all mean more to me than ‘getting by’’ I think value is an incredibly complex issue. My roughly utilitarian system can appear kinda cold and flattening. There are times when it seems as if, in order to fully appreciate and respect X you need to find X precious and valuable in itself, aside from any kind of consequentialist utility. Family, romance, friendships, art, philosophy and the feeling of wonder are in this category for me. But my mind tells me that everything’s value is ultimately determined by consequences. The way I resolve the tension is by saying, there are some areas where it’s utilitarian-ly advisable to not apply utilitarian morality, or apply it to only a limited extent. So when I go walking in the mountains, I’m not thinking ‘This feeling of awe is good because it gives me joy and a sense of meaning’ – I’m just appreciating the wonder. Also, I think the whole of life has a kind of mystic significance which is not related to morality or utility. It’s like there are two weighing scales: one for goodness and one for significance. Goodness is determined by utility, significance is automatically set at infinity. (I can’t say much to back this up; it’s just how I feel.) So art is on the same level, in terms of significance, as gardening, studying, nappy-changing, partying, exercising, acting, eating, kissing, laughing –but all these other everyday activities are infinitely significant, so art isn’t done an injustice by being put alongside them.
‘[T]here are certain musicians, writers, directors who lift themselves up to be more than people – they become artists.’ I know how you feel, and I respect this viewpoint. I love how it seriously it takes the artistic endeavor; the respect it has for creativity. However, I also think there’s a danger that one can fall into a position that’s undemocratic here. I don’t think you’ve done that, but aye well, I’ll put the opinion out there anyway.
What do you reckon? I can see holes in my arguments, and I think I could fill them in, but other work beckons. Bye!
Yeah, other work like the essay which is due on Thursday….
~
This is all really well thought out. I think perhaps I don’t make the same distinction between goodness and significance, and that’s interesting.
I guess it just reflects the two ways of viewing the world; thinking and feeling. In reflecting on experience, thinking is the tool which can shape the sense-experience to recreate that feeling in the ‘audience’. So yes, I tend to see thinking (and the process of utility that it implies) as a filter – necessary for comprehension but unfortunately limited – for the raw feeling you get from moment to moment.
Thinking must be retrospective, whereas feeling is sensual, immediate.
~
You’re right to say it’s undemocratic – it is. I’m not trying to make society-wide statements though, just how I might best interpret and convey my own perceptions. And for me, an undemocratic system where some people ‘by the will of the gods’ and the fruits of hard labour might become ‘super-human’ just fits.
Part of me, for example, desires to be a professional musician. Yet through my own deficiencies and choices, upbringing and chance this will never happen. There’s nothing democratic about life at all – if there was we wouldn’t need to fight so damn hard for democracy in the first place.
And I think that’s what I’m getting at – in political discourse thinking about utility is useful and necessary, because politics is ‘getting things done’ and pragmatic. I think like you said, art tends not to be pragmatic in any direct sense of the word. Good works of art tend not to have specific political goals in mind (debatable…).
Utilitarianism simplifies, resolves conflict and gets stuff done. Enables us to make a decision. But, to borrow from the other comment thread, I’d sooner be true to the world and preach humility through Relativistic Rachel; always remember there is no objective truth.
In closing, I’m finding it hard to fault any of what you’ve said. This is a good thing, but I still sense there’s something wrong… I believe that anything can be worded to form logical cohesion, so it’s more important to side with what you feel is right.
As someone’s Dad on an internet forum supposedly said: “You can argue either side of an argument, the trick is to pick the right side”.
And there’s something wrong with utilitarianism that I can’t state rationally.
This is really, really fun. I think we should meet up and talk art some time. & yeah… The essay. Cor blimey. I don’t know how I’m going to finish that before the deadline… I haven’t even started yet.
I think I know what you mean about ‘raw feeling’. The sensuous is definitely incredibly important in life. However, it is my opinion that the division between the cognitive and the sensual is not as clear cut as you imply. When you’re listening to Baroque music (well played, btw – I am also a fan) you probably analyze some of the formal proprieties of the music immediately as you hear it, not retrospectively. When I find a philosophical argument that I’m particularly a fan of, the joy I feel is definitely a sense-experience of some kind, and one inextricably bound up with cognition. I’m no neurobiologist, but I have a hunch that the empiricist idea that thoughts are derived from sense-data is simplistic. I reckon the truth is a complex, organic, multi-directional process, without experience or thought being more primary or immediate. But I’m a bit of a fool, so there you go.
‘[A]n undemocratic system where some people ‘by the will of the gods’ and the fruits of hard labour might become ‘super-human’ just fits.’ – Fair enough! There are often times (e.g. above: ‘I can’t say much to back this up; it’s just how I feel’) when one can only say, it just fits. As for the ‘super-human’ idea in particular, there can definitely be something dignified and spiritual about dedicating one’s life to the pursuit of artistic perfection. However, the artist-God becomes an empty ideal to me when I think about the tortured, the imprisoned, the starving, the bereaved, the lonely, the despairing, the homeless, the orphaned, the ill, etc, etc, etc. I guess we should try and do something for them before we set off up the solitary path to artistic greatness. Check out Will:
‘Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.’ – King Lear
And that’s one of the things I like about util: it takes its cue from compassion & other-centered concern.
In relation to Relativistic Rachel… I agree that ultimately, there’s no objective truth. But I think balance is hyper-important in life. People say in karate: ‘Mind like water.’ The idea is that, as water responds to stimulus (e.g., a stone being dropped in it) only to the right extent and then falls back to peace again, we should react to life in a balanced and wise manner. Relativism may be true in some sense, but we need to act, to solve problems in life, and therefore need to assert our values and put our truth in the mix as one possibility among many. Balance dictates that we’re humble about our own opinions, but still hold them as opinions, as claims about the world. For me, quasi-realism best satisfies this need for relativistic humbleness and realistic conviction. As an aside: I think the ‘humbleness’ attitude is self-contradictory, as it is itself an assertion about value and the good life. But as I said before, I’m a bit of a fool.
I can relate to ‘someone’s Dad’. And fair enough, if find util iffy on unutterable grounds then it clearly won’t work for you!
On a completely different note, what’s your favorite Bach piece?
Sorry! I’ve done something dim: ‘I think the ‘humbleness’ attitude is self-contradictory, as it is itself an assertion about value and the good life.’ I didn’t mean that all relativistic humbleness is self-contradictory – just that the idea expressed in the phrase ‘I’d sooner be true to the world and preach humility through Relativistic Rachel’ is self-contradictory. I hope this doesn’t come across as arrogant.
I don’t think I’m some kind of clever-clogs who knows all the answers; it just seems to me that that view is contradictory.
Apologies,
Dan.
Thought I’d be more logical, reply point-by-point ^_^
[T]he division between the cognitive and the sensual is not as clear cut as you imply.
Ah yes, good point. It sometimes is quite divisive though, I definitely sense a choice between the two. Whether I choose to use the verb “think” or”feel” for example. Yes, maybe listening to music is rational even if the thought process is sub-conscious in some way.
I guess we should try and do something for them before we set off up the solitary path to artistic greatness
I must be a terrible person, because when I really look inside myself…I don’t feel that obligated. This could just be my current mind set, I mean young people aren’t known for their altruism…but yeah, I sorta just don’t care. Taboo as it is to say, I’m focussed on maintaining and developing a state of peace for myself. And I suppose as life goes on, for those around me who I’m directly responsible for.
[W]e need to act, to solve problems in life
Yeah, again. Maybe. I mean if you want to – thanks for not being a selfish bastard! Maybe it’s just that I feel like I have enough problems to work through without taking on other people’s.
Yeah I’d forgotten about that amazing bit in Lear.
Thing is, sure you can walk around the city and see all the suffering etc. Or you can see the occasional but significant act of kindness / politeness. Or the way certain things are framed as you encounter different streets and public spaces. It seems very much dependent on mood: I’m not falling for emotional pleas that the world is really a horrific place, with a beautiful veneer on top. We see what we believe.
On a completely different note, what’s your favorite Bach piece?
Favorite would have to be the musical offering – I recently bought Spotify Premium though and the HUGE amount of classical music that I can now access on my iPhone is starting to change everything!
[T]he phrase ‘I’d sooner be true to the world and preach humility through Relativistic Rachel’ is self-contradictory
I have two things to say regarding this. The first is that I don’t see much wrong with self-contradiction. Every day is rife with hypocrisy and absurd apparent-paradoxes. Secondly…
Maybe this is what quasi-realism is getting at, but it isn’t self-contradictory for me. I mean, I can live by a universal rule without expecting everyone else to. It’s not about “what is true for everyone” but “what is true for me, for you, for that person…”. Relativism is about everyone having their own, often overlapping, sets of beliefs and realities.
So yeah, in conclusion: I’m selfish, basically. This leads me to 1) see what I want to see in order for the world I perceive to be harmonious and faithful.
2) do whatever it takes to preserve my own sanity, comfort and health.
~
Not a particularly great philosophy or ethic, but whatever.