•
Rating: We are midweek, and the nice weather is about to kick in, so rather than starting to think about vacation destinations, I'm about to propose a theme that's TEDIOUS for some and VERY INTERESTING for others, yet fundamental for our little universe. It concerns the reception and enjoyment of the work of art, yes indeed, quite a dull subject. But I believe it's useful to take stock of the matter, or at least to produce a point of view from which to draw inspiration for a bit of constructive symposium. I'll just preface by saying I use Benjamin's text as a starting point because it seems enlightening for the definition of many aspects, which are taken for granted by us but are, in fact, the very things we should reflect on more. For example, it's taken as a given for everyone to talk, but you understand we're quite strange beings, we talk! Not everyone in the universe does. The same goes for the way we treat art, or what we believe is art. Another preface: the whole discussion is obviously reflected onto music. We leave the other "sisters" to others, equally important but less "mystical" and "engaging" in my opinion.
So, Benjamin said -in extremely brief, even a tad simplified- that: the work of art has always been reproducible BUT NOT technically as it is today; compared to the past, therefore, the hic et nunc is missing, that is, one used to have to seek out artistic creation, which had a presence at a specific place and time for everyone, and was not always and everywhere available for anyone as it is today. Consequently, the work of art also loses its mystical, ritual charm, its uniqueness and sacredness that it had in the past, and thanks to these characteristics, it could even give a social, religious, and traditional imprint to the peoples who could enjoy it.
At this point -bearing in mind he wrote in the '30s- he makes a comparison between old arts (literature, music etc.) on one side, with cinema and photography on the other. Cinema and photography were born in the era of technical reproducibility, so according to Benjamin, the question of the authenticity of these arts shouldn't even arise since a photo or music is infinitely reproducible through printing or film reproduction. And they don't even have a social function, they identify nothing but mass consumption. And then there starts a rant about how art in general is now subjugated to market laws, it's treated as merchandise; it's no longer creation but an object of consumption created to please various trends, etc etc. Cinema in particular can move the masses because it strikes the viewer on such a deep level, immersing them in events, influencing their behavior. There are then a thousand other interesting insights, but I'll stop lest I risk being banned for outrage against your free time!
But there are already many issues at the table, even just bringing it all back to music.
Music is an old art and has only entered the realm of reproduction for about a century. Do you think a song effectively loses authenticity if it can be heard anywhere and by any means and with any level of quality? Or is it up to each of us how/where/when to enjoy the work? And what about commercial songs bombarding our brains, and we can do nothing about it?
Can the issue of hic et nunc be preserved in music? After all, every concert is different from another, one must go to the concert, there's a ritual, not sacred but at least mystical yes, because certain dynamics are followed, certain things are done, almost always the same ones, so it maintains authenticity, right? The artist performs, brings to life a unique and unrepeatable show, right? What then about digital reproductions? The fact that I, born in 1991, virtually attended Woodstock and a thousand other concerts, by their very nature "unrepeatable," doesn't it disturb the issue of authenticity and beauty? Does music not lose a great deal of its charge compared to its technical reproducibility? In the end, crap and chocolate get mixed up in a chaotic and indefinite universe. After all, a video of Woodstock is identical to a video of Fedez, if anything, the Fedez video is better made, and a kid, I'm not sure what they would prefer, I mean perhaps I do. Unfortunately.
What social function does music have today? Even the music of previous decades of the twentieth century is involved, let's say from the Beatles onwards. Blues and jazz have supported enormous social movements, the Beatles have exploded a certain type of consumption that brings along fashion, individual attitudes, attitudes towards institutions, towards the other generations, etc... But are blues and Beatles comparable? I mean, is their social impact equally authentic, or was the first a necessity of a people, and the second just consumerism for the masses fooled by the new product placed on the market? Perhaps the way of understanding music from the Beatles onward is our downfall. I don't believe so, but it's a defensible position, indeed!
Last question, which goes slightly off the musical theme but is also a provocation: so... photography and cinema are not art? Being born in the context of consumer society, are they just merchandise? AH AH AH, well yeah... And yet, if we wanted to be strict, that's the way it is. Never in the history of man has a people venerated a film; instead, many, many books and paintings have been venerated. Even animals have been venerated as deities, but never a film. However, photos are, sainthood cards are still venerated today by millions of believers! There's something bizarre in all this. And music? Thorny question!
In short: are we just poor consumers fooled by anyone, or are we fine connoisseurs of a sublime art like music? When we say we know this or that band, are drawn to this or that artist, love a musician and share their expressions, etc., etc., are we "drawing a line in the sand, Dude!" or are we possessed by the demon of advertising and the aesthetics of the product created by the latest producer? The more we have, the more we add!
Loading comments slowly
