|
Is it possible that contemporary, atonal musical forms, and perhaps other art forms as well (e.g., painting, architecture), are difficult to appreciate since they do not conform to patterns of nervous activity? Is future art doomed to be talked about, analyzed, categorized but not simply enjoyed?
It is argued here that there is something inherently foreign to the nervous system in contemporary art forms. It is the idiosyncratic nature of the syntactic and semantic structures used, not the absence of tonality per se. It is further argued that the flexibility of our nervous system in adapting to new environments will extend also to entirely novel structures, provided that novel structures are sufficiently consistent among artists, so as to provide opportunity for the listening audience to develop familiarity and thereby perceive coherence in works of art. This process is analogous to that confronted by a neonate, in dealing with novel visual experiences, and for whom stability of form and meaning are achieved following repeated exposure and interaction and the discovery of regularities in its environment.
Starting about 150 years ago, composers have gradually departed from the major-minor system of the 17th to 19th centuries (the so-called system of "functional harmony" which assisted the listener in anticipating harmonic progressions. This system, shared as framework by audience and musicians in the Western hemisphere, provided composers the means for creating consonance and dissonance, suspense, conflicts, etc. The system of "functional harmony" provided vertical (or synchronic) coherence that was familiar to contemporary audiences. It provided also a framework for coherence over time (diachronic coherence), by providing expectancies of various harmonic progressions.
In fact, this system of "functional harmony" provided composers with material for the development of ideas over long stretches of time while maintaining diachronic coherence (e.g., maintaining close key relations among distant parts in a composition as means of achieving unity). Perhaps this is analogous to the fact that familiarity with words and syntax in a language allows for constructing long, meaningful sentences. But functional harmony also constrained composers wishing to explore new structural ideas, much in the way clear narrative constrained writers, and in the way realistic, figurative painting constrained painters. Breaking away from the familiar functional harmony (in itself still maintained today in "popular" music) resulted in the need to redefine acceptable synchronic coherence, since reliance on familiar forms was now abandoned. A similar process can be observed in other art forms, expressed as a move away from "realism" or other accepted forms and into abstract forms whose referents are not immediately obvious (e.g., accepted notions of structural forms in 19th century architecture become completely transformed into organic forms in the hands of Frank Gehry). It should be emphasized that this functional harmony is Western, and not shared by all cultures.
Diachronic coherence in music discussed above, is achieved for the listener in the process of retracing in memory, moment to moment, the recurrence of depth to surface of sounds. In other words, each synchronic moment is added to the context established by previous moments, modifying it slightly thus preparing the context for the next moment. Functional harmony assisted the process through familiarity, thus reducing diachronic uncertainty. This was done by established rules, known to both composers and audiences (to the former explicitly, and to those without musical education - intuitively through exposure), regarding what constituted appropriate sequences of harmonies. For example, once a tonal center has been established, the accepted system of composition constrained the range of available chords. In contemporary music such rules for synchronic and diachronic combination of sounds no longer apply. Rules, i.e., structures for organizing a composition are re-invented by every composer anew, with the consequence that such music demands far more effort on the part of the listener in establishing order, or context. The moment-to-moment changes for the uninitiated audience are too unpredictable to modify existing context, as such context is hardly established in the first place, due to its idiosyncratic character. With repeated, effortful exposure, new categories of establishing synchronic and diachronic coherence may be achieved with contemporary music if some measure of consistency is kept across a wide variety of compositions. Thus, to the trained and extensively exposed ear, the music of Alban Berg can sound today very lyrical and melodic, achieving a measure of both diachronic AND synchronic coherence. In fact, his music can be enjoyed both intellectually as well as in feeling. In contrast, the chamber music of Elliot Carter is still difficult, even for the trained listener, as its synchronic and diachronic coherence remains elusive.
The discussion above, centered on music, is by no means restricted to listening. The seeming stability of visual objects emerges from the same process, which through many repeated exposures is telescoped into very brief moments. Here again, the rapid saccadic movements as well as slower scanning of the eyes over visual objects, create in effect a stream of moment by moment "pictures." Each moment replaces the previous one and is immediately replaced by the next. Here too, moment to moment coherence is established by the memory, or the context created by "revival" or re-tracing previous moments, together forming an object scheme, the latter experienced as a stable object: the expression of the diachronic coherence over similar diachronic moments. Thus, although it seems that parts of objects in vision are available simultaneously (giving the impression of synchronic coherence), this experience is actually the emergent property of the established context through the rapidly and successively decaying moments.
With the proliferation of global music and technological possibilities for creating music, it seems unlikely that a single coherent system for structuring music will emerge, one that will be so universally accepted and adhered to as the functional harmony of the 18th - 19th centuries in the West. Thus, many influences of various cultures on music, the break from tonality and the rise of 12-tone music of Schoenberg and his school, the popularity of styles which return to tonality (e.g., minimalism), will resist any dominance of a single style. Consequently, the only system to retain such dominance will continue to be that of 19th century tonality. Other systems will be treated as idiosyncratic exercises, to be enjoyed intellectually by a small group of hard-core music lovers, with nothing better to do with their time than figure out the "meanings" of obscure art pieces.
On the other hand, Homo Sapiens has demonstrated great flexibility in adaptation over a wide range of environmental variations. Much like discovering foreign landscapes, modern art offers both a challenge and an opportunity for expansion. A survey of the other arts will inform us that radically new style (e.g., the stream of consciousness style of James Joyce; the transition from realistic depiction in painting to the Impressionist style) can achieve wide acceptance with time. When currently idiosyncratic styles congeal into a few, more often used schemes, familiarity will increase and with it the opportunity for perceived coherence. Such a process will enlarge the vocabulary of the audience, much as exploring the visual world expands the perceptual vocabulary of the young child. But to attain dominance this process will require a very long period of time, most likely well into the 22nd century.
Jason W. Brown & Avraham Schweiger
New York City
|
|
|