The 64 Million Dollar Question

It is much easier to understand the evolution (if one can call it that) of artistic movements in retrospect. Evolution is perhaps not the right noun as it implies that to evolve means to develop and to get better. To claim that one artistic movement is better than another is not only unfair, it is just plain nonsensical (although naturally, we can be drawn to one over another). I find it particularly successful to examine this as it relates to visual art. From experimentation of perspective, to the discovery of orthogonal lines, foreshortening, trompe l'oeil, realism, baroque, impressionism, cubism, fauvism, suprematism, abstraction, etc. I have left quite a few out in the interest of simplicity, but one can certainly deduce that in visual art, the general movement has been from figurative to abstract.

The definition of what is art becomes more difficult today. In an age where everything goes, how does one distinguish between art, things that have artistic merit or artifacts, or things that appeal to our aesthetic judgement? It is easier to ask this question having a little background of where we have been, where we are, and indulging in the temptation to hypothesize where we are going.

I recently read in another blog the notion that opera Da Capo arias (basically, musical form where the first part is a complete musical form, the second contrasting, followed by a repeat of the first) are somewhat not received well due to their redundant nature as they do not further the plot. They just repeat and depend on the agility and artistic ingenuity of the performer to embellish the repeated first section. Audiences would have been able to identify the improvisational quality and be satisfied with the ingenuity and novelty. Today, the style may seem antiquated, as the novelty does not have the same impact. We are exposed to more and unless performed with the highest artistic merit, it does little for us. We are desensitized.

Look at the content of popular programming. It follows the same pattern. Novelty lessens the efficacy of older programs. The amount and degree of profanity, violence, indecency increases, allowing these to become less shocking and acceptable in our modern vernacular.

In general, audiences have trouble with contemporary music questioning what makes it music, more so, what makes it art music. But I'd argue that although earlier music styles like classical, baroque, and romantic periods are easily identified as art music, most will have difficulty explaining why and appreciate and understand its context.

In a Musiqa (Houston based non-profit committed to presenting contemporary art music) performance tonight, I appreciated the composers vulnerability to explain their works and allow for a Q and A post performance. I asked what composer Anthony Brandt labelled as the 64 Million dollar question: where are we in art today and is it fair to ask to forsee the future of classical music?

I received one of the best answers. Unlike technology where progress is somewhat predictable (although the effect may not be), if one can think of it today, it can be done today. If I can predict what can be done tomorrow, there is no reason why it cannot or would not be done today. Meaning, predicting the direction of art movements is an impossibility.

Art movements have always carried some sort of tradition from the past while at the same time rejecting another. In a time of extreme artistic clutter, confusion, and overwhelming variety, would it be fair to predict a rejection to a neo-simplistic period of easily identifiable styles in easily recognizable formats? Has the pendulum swung so far one way and it is inevitable to swing back the other?