Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
Any art which fails to engage viewers and audiences is a failed art.
|
I am relieved to see someone saying this. I believe that the expressive burden is incumbent on the artist, not the audience. There was actually a long period in modern musical history (1940-1970, approx) during which "audience alienation" was almost a badge of pride. Works from this period are so cerebral that any artistic value that may be present can only be decoded by study and LOOKING at a score. This has bothered me because I feel that in music, if you can't hear it, it isn't there. Anyway, we are still recovering from the damage (or maybe we are still dying slowly) caused by this period of arrogance on the part of composers (and performers who didn't stand up for audiences). I do believe that art can exist for art's sake, but the consequences can be severe if the artist isn't willing to meet the audience at least halfway. One result in modern art and modern music is that the non-expert viewer/audience always has a sneaking suspicion that they are being "put on" by the artist and there is nothing there, in fact, to be seen. This is indicative of a breach of trust that may not be able to be healed.
I have brought this up to illustrate a little artistic context - the visual and performing arts often mirror each other in stylistic approaches and challenges. I am wondering if the art world is seeing the sort of fallout that musicians are.