"Let's arguments against Gould's music performed in public concerts.
He criticizes this method of execution overhead due to the particular aspect of performance. This occurs Indeed, under conditions that make exhibitionists and anecdotal, and this has resulted in a sacred as well as concert performer, sacralization of bad quality: a kind of idolatry, appears to favor a communion intrusive and alienating. The focal point of criticism is the criticism of histrionics. In this Gould joined the great texts of the theater that quarrel, the classical age, attacking the theater as art exhibition and diversion (Nicole and Bossuet and later Rousseau), and it is not unrelated to certain arguments advanced by Guy Debord in Society of the Spectacle. I drew readily Gould in the great tradition of the critique of spectacular. Lets see some details.
The public concert is what he calls "a human ideology" (it might be more accurate to speak of a humanitarian ideology) a kind of philosophy of proximity, heat the room. This means a kind of immediate adhesion to the public's point of vulgarity: the desire to commune with one another, to attend a ceremony and sacrificial fusion in which one is caught. This vulgar conviviality, violence is not excluded: the idolatry of the public's preference virtuoso performer who offers this merger is to correlate the adoration of failure. The audience alienated by the technical prowess, is eager for false notes: This concert is "the last bloody spot" where they still practice a form of killing. So we are dealing with a more mundane event and tribal aesthetic. It is the circus.
Instead, the recording is mounted to another state of affairs: it does not imply a ritual scene, but more of an indoor theater, not a Coliseum where everyone is invited outside itself, but a conscience. Indeed, editing is based on the recorded deferred, and deferred this introduces an element distance without which there is no work of art, because the work is not about the fact or event spectacular, it is of the order of coming. In the execution we find here the classic arguments, thinking of the listener is captured, anesthetized by the spectacular interpretive method - here we find the classic arguments of the narcotic, present in Bossuet and Nicole. Mounted in the recording, the thought is no longer captured by the interpreter, she passes on the side of the listener: it is returned. The aesthetic moment is not converted into "momentary secretion of adrenaline," but it is returned to the liberal element and contemplative: it is a construction. Gould believed that the assembly is registered in the state auditor to make this construction, while the concert, exhibitionist by nature, this locks productive dimension, this dimension of execution.
Thus the listener is not engaged in the same way to the concert and listening to a mounted disk-recorded. A pathological involvement of alienating close, we oppose the involvement of constructiveness which is rather a call. And similarly, we oppose a bad and good separation, bad and good distance : Concert, riveting me with an anecdotal event Tribal, keep away from the work, editing recorded by distancing myself from external data, makes me work closer. [...]
Gould said in its way as one of the functions of art is to separate us from the ordinary disposition, to introduce us to something truly liberal and contemplative, and should not confuse enchantment and bewitchment. One of the paradoxes of aesthetic experience, it is precisely unbewitch while enchanting. Beyond the question of the concert and that of the assembly, Gould raises the question if musical interpretation faces the spell. And his answer is clear: as long as it falls under the spell, she can not spell. What is the spell? This is a report to the externality. "
C. Kintzler, survalorisons Why do we interpret music? The model letter and the example of Glenn Gould , 2002, http://demeter .revue.univ-lille3.fr/interpretation/kintzler.pdf.
0 comments:
Post a Comment