Month: January 2018

Posted on

Small – Musicking

While reading Christopher Small’s book Musicking, I was struck with a similar concept that is woven through Parker Palmer’s book The Courage to Teach. Palmer, in describing various teaching styles, compares “The Objectivist Myth of Knowing” where knowledge flows down from an Object, through an Expert (the teacher) who has spent time studying the object and through that study has become the gatekeeper of knowledge for the students, and “The Community of Truth” where a Subject is placed at the center of attention with Knowers (teachers and students) working together to find a better understand. (See this link for a visual representation – https://www.txprofdev.org/apps/ct/assets/text/images/ParkerDiscussion.jpg) Palmer argues against the top-down approach of “The Objectivist Myth of Knowing” in a similar way that Small argues against the music model of a composer creating a work, having a performer attempt to realize that work, and then having a listener experience the work. Small suggests that we instead examine all the different relationships that are built while musicking. Niether Palmer or Small’s remarks are necessarily brand new but they both offer teachers and musicians new ways to think about music making and music teaching.

If we follow Small and believe that musicking is about these different relationships being formed around music, how can that change what we’re teaching and how we go about explaining it’s values?

I say this as I’m still uneasy about how to best go about music advocacy considering what we read in Music Matters. Small’s book might hold the key to some of those answers. If music teachers are designing curriculums that aren’t focused solely on performance (and especially competition) then we might be able to better understand what hesitations administration/society/parents have with the study of classical music and through these relationships, start the process of changing their stance.

Posted on

Freeland – But Is It Art

With any subject or genre, I think people tend to look to certain “experts” to help them discern between what is good and what is bad. Film, music, literature are all areas where the opinion of a well thought of critic or organization can sway public opinion. The same is true in the art world, for both older and new works. (How many people discovered the works of da Vinci on their own, without any direction from outside forces?) While this is an effective time saving measure, that can help us focus our attention on the greatest works; relying solely on the opinions of critics can leave you with a warped view of what speaks most to you. As Freeland points out, “…the critics of modern art are nostalgic for beautiful and uplifting art like the Sistine Chapel,” and there’s a good chance that any prejudices they have are being projected into the critic’s words and therefore being absorbed by you. Therefore, we must have the courage to ignore what the public is saying and thinking about a work long enough to form our own opinion. Consider what about the piece pleases you and what doesn’t. Then take the next step to consider why you’re having these feelings.

Another important thought Freeland left me with was the importance of looking beyond the technique, especially the “I could do that mentality” to try and understand what the artist/piece is trying to express. A layman may look at a piece of art and only see technique, the wonderment of what humans were able to create hundreds of years ago under what was likely much harsher conditions than we experience today. There’s a romantic quality to the artwork of the great masters that can be harder to feel with modern art. Some artists have replaced oils and canvas with fluids and prints but it’s important to remember that the mastery of the materials does not make the art. The lasting value is what those materials come to represent through the mind and technique of the artist. Modern artists are still striving to represent ideas through visual space, they’ve just moved on to different mediums.

Along the same line, I think there are times when it’s appropriate to ignore the title of a work. The title is important and can help us understand what the artist is trying to express but it can also lead to an immediate rejection of something before we have the chance to try and understand it. Serrano’s Piss Christ is a perfect example of this. Hearing the title and then looking at the work caused me to immediately question even considering the piece as art. If instead, I had seen the work without the title and had a chance to consider its wonderful color, lighting, and beauty, I might have been able to approach the work with a more open mind. Again, the medium of the art is just the vehicle. We as the audience needs to see beyond that to what the artist wants to say.