re: aesthetic value (was: Thanks!)

[j laari <jlaari@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings!

Anyone there at this time of year? Ralph?

This is an old thread by now. And I'm sort of sorry to send this post,
but then again - you have to answer to what are answers to your calls.
I simply didn't earlier had the hours to read carefully Ralph's post
and answer it.

There's especially one question that i find difficult and that's the
reason why I insist on this thread. Sorry for clumsy presentation.

I asked what makes jazz aesthetically valuable. Ralph answered:

> Suppose I asked you what makes European classical music aesthetically
> valuable?  What would your reaction be?  Are you a music educator, a
> professional musicologist?

I'd say that basically it's the classical european culture. And I
don't have to commit myself to this... It would be just an opening
act. Secondly: No, I'm not a musicologist. What does that question do
with original question? My point was: if someone claims that X is as
valuable as Y then he/she should give reasons for the claim. Whatever
reasons, "me feels" to "because of its complexity" to "because god
told so". I can't answer to my original question, but I'm willing to
listen or read other folks' views.

>>  is aesthetic
>> value reducible to ideological/discursive practices? (One
>> can interpret reception aesthetics to represent such a view.
>
> I probably don't understand your question, but I'd answer "no" anyway.  I
> can't imagine anything more revolting than reducing aesthetics to an
> ideological practice.  And, if we are talking about music, I don't know
> what you mean by discursive practice.

(By 'discoursive practice' I simply meant 'all that talk' concerning
some issue. For example, aesthetic doscourse, that seeks to clarify
what is 'beautiful', what is 'sublime' etc. According to my present
understanding there's always ideological contents to discourses,
tehrefore I used expression "ideological/discursive" (above).)

Your answer leads to question: on what aesthetic value is based?

Little later you wrote:

>   I'm interested almost solely in
> instrinsic aesthetic properties and the effect they have on human beings,
> which is the only place "emancipation" has a meaningful place.

If we make rude classification between the views that concentrate on
the characteristics and properties of the work of art and the views
that concentrate on the side of the subject(s) then you obviously are
closer to first camp (and the reception aestheticians, 'culturalists'
in general, would be closer to the latter group).

That makes me wonder the relationships between the intention of an
artist, his/her cultural 'environment' or context, as well as the
context and background (shortly: understanding) of the audience. Now,
what are intrinsic aesthetic properties of the work of art, are
obviously partly due to the culture shared by the artist and the
audience? Artist, when he isn't an extremist avantgardist, must rely
on the same culture with the audience. Otherwise he would isolate
himself from the audience (well there are lots of examples of this?).
Let's suppose he avoids this and gets understood. That means the
intrinsic properties of his work of art are selected, basically
because of shared cultural understanding? In other words,
concentration on properties of the work of art has led us into shared
culture. Ideological/discoursive "factor". But hey, wouldn't that make
the whole aesthetic enterprise circular? Poor dialectics, I'd say.

Now, you don't answered to question of aesthetic value. Instead you
referred to intrinsic properties of artwork. Above I tried to hint
that it ain't that simple. Because they aren't eternal, immutable
properties. That is, one property is once favoured as central, then
dismissed as secondary property. Which leads also to the examination
of ideological/discoursive "proceedings".

So far I haven't referred to "real materialist" dimensions. Partly
because I'm not an aesthetician (therefore shy of saying a thing),
partly because I find it laborious and troublesome to introduce these
dimensions at once (or at all, for that matter). It must be enough
this time that I simply remind you of the old theme of sensuousness of
body, or sensuality (not sure how to translate, for example,
'Sinnlichkeit'). Why? As something that breaks the circuit of
properties (of 'object') and All That Talk about them (the 'subjective
side'). In a certain sense, it also makes all that talk possible.
Because without that body-thing there wouldn't be our talks.

>   what would be
> the point of discussing all this on the Frankfurt list, if most of the
> discussion is irrelevant to the Frankfurt School and the Frankfurt School
> is only tangentially relevant to a substantive discussion of music?

Who says it would be pointless on Frankfurt school list? Wouldn't it
also clarify, say, Adorno's or Marcuse's aethetics? However, I'm not
rushing anyone to that direction.

> Once we dispose of illegimitate authority and re-orient ourselves as to who
> must prove what to whom, we can begin to ask real questions.

Well, I wasn't claiming any authority. I think I've explained it
already. But I feel that you're avoiding my question. I think it's a
real aesthetic question. I just wanted to make a question. So simple.

> Macrosociological judgments on aesthetic forms do not impress me.  That
> various forms are constrained by economic, institutional, market factors
> does not settle all judgments once and for all.

No, they don't - because they aren't aesthetic judgements.

>  Even the shaping and
> standardization of taste doesn't say everything that must be said. Lyrics
> of course have demonstrable ideological content, and one could say that
> about musical forms too in many cases, but that doesn't answer all the
> relevant questions.

Accepted.

Then you got into lenghty discussions. I cite only few of your
considerations or observations.

>   I'd rather get down to
> more specific questions, both about the characteristics of jazz in
> different periods and the changing reception of various subgenres, and what
> the problem is today.

I'm afraid that's the dividing line. I feel that's rushing away from
"my" basic question into specialities, though I'm not denying the
relevance of these.

>  However, I begin from different presumptions than,
> say, the opposition between the popular and the esoteric, and the
> presumption of greater musical authenticity based on marginalization. The
> whole Sun Ra discussion has to be re-cast on different premises, for
> example.  The Wynton Marsalis phenomenon is interesting in a variety of
> ways (...)  What went wrong with fusion, or free jazz, are other
> interesting questions.

Yes, indeed. (As a representative of seventies generation I'm of
course moved by the destiny of fusion. I still think that fusion of
rock energy & aggressivity with sophistication and virtuosity of jazz
could be the most appropriate musical expression of late 20th century
North America, but that's just my impression.) And I believe I have a
hint how all that relates to my original question. But I feel that
somehow it, again, avoids my question.

>  (My current interest is the ideology of spontaneity
> [not the same thing as improvisation!] that justifies so much bad
> unstructured music.)

What about this: ideology of spontaneity justifies so much bad
activity in general, not only aesthetically (if that's limited to arts
only) but culturally and politically in general.

>   And now
> that I know there is one person here who intends to make a publication for
> himself out of this debate, why should I single-handedly do his work for
> him, or for anybody else on this list?

I don't understand. Looks like I've lost something? A publication? Was
I doing the work of a puppet...?

>  Adorno is a great read in English translation, even when the
> translations are bad.  Adorno also has his tongue firmly pressed in his
> cheek in some of his best writing.  Adorno has a superb sense of irony,
> oddly lacking in the industry that has formed around him.  Irony is most
> appropriate when one knows the discourse of one's environment is
> essentially not what it purports to be.  Ironically, Adorno's NEGATIVE
> DIALECTICS, a book inherently restricted to a select audience, is really a
> book that is not for that selected audience, but a book posited upon
> everyman.  It is esoteric but non-institutional.

Nicely put.

Yours, Jukka L