I am no longer a professional musician, nor am I working on creating music as a composer. But I am still someone deeply involved with music as a listener. So I find aesthetic disputes fascinating. I grew up with, on the one hand, the narrative of modernism and the music of Stravinsky and Schoenberg. On the other hand, I was completely captured by the music of J. S. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart and later on that of Monteverdi, Couperin, Rameau, Josquin and many others. Ok, so the great thread of Western music has been woven into Western culture for the last thousand years at least. That Stravinsky, Schoenberg and people like Messiaen, Shostakovich and even Steve Reich sound rather different does not mean that they are outside the great river of the art music of Western music. At least, that is how I feel.
But now we are in a kind of transitional time in which there is a movement that is looking at a lot of the current architecture and visual art and saying, sorry, this is simply crap and ideologically corrupt. Looking at some of the art one can see their point. Music that is simply silence or a construction of noises or that gives the impression of a brutal attack on ones senses seems perhaps like a mistake in the same way that displaying a urinal as a work of art or a white canvas or a goat with a spare tire around its abdomen or a skull covered with diamonds seems like, not a mistake, but some kind of aesthetic fraud.
Here are two conservative commentators taking that view (of course, Blogger refuses to embed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9dbnjHx67Q
While sympathetic to their view, I can't quite share it. For one thing, I struggle with the whole idea that Beauty comes from God. Though I certainly share the ancient Greek view of the transcendentals, Truth, Beauty and the Good. The skepticism about some modernist approaches is not a new thing, see the book on architecture by Thomas Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House.
But the situation, especially as regards music, is formidably complex. Why do I want to say the the music of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Shostakovich and others is still great music even though it is not always beautiful? I think that great art is always in some way an encounter with Reality and sometimes it can be a harsh encounter. Great art includes works like the symphonies of Shostakovich, Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, Ulysses by James Joyce, the black paintings by Goya, the tortured canvases by Van Gogh and lots of other examples.
Here is the thing, I'm not citing recent contemporary visual art and sculpture because I don't know it well enough. I am quite sure that, especially in recent decades, there has been a lot of fraudulent art created. Some of it is obvious, all the AI pop music, for example, but a lot will only be obvious after a hundred years. This is why it is perfectly easy to identify the great music from the first quarter century of the 20th century because it was a century ago. Stravinsky's the Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire are acknowledged as great works by everyone. They confront Reality.
All genuine artistic judgements have to be on a case by case basis as each work of art, great ones at least, is unique. This is why arguments in this area often tend to become sterile and pointless. You can't generalize. And, of course, this is always what ideologues do.
Comments?

