|
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 Schönberg 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
|
|
|
