And I thought I was a late starter… [ 3 ] ←
In addition to his accomplishments as a painter (visit this website to see his paintings and learn more about him: https://www.artsy.net/artist/wassily-kandinsky), he was also a theorist with strong convictions about the role of art and the artist in society, and more painting-specific issues such as colour theories (he believed that certain colors have an affinity for certain shapes; see more here).
My friend and fellow composer John Oliver wrote a blog ("Artist's Statement") in which he cites Kandinsky's three "mystical necessities" that define artwork of lasting value: The Personal, The Ephemeral, and The Eternal. This topic—the role of the artist—fascinates me, and it's something I try to get my students to think about, so I will follow my own advice about not getting too hung-up on originality (see: Is Originality a Detriment in Art?, How Important is Originality in Art?, and Originality — Does it have Any Role in Art? ) and reproduce John Oliver's Kandinsky quote below:
1. Every artist, as creator, must express what is peculiar to oneself (element of personality).I will also add another quote from the same booklet, entitled "On the Spiritual in Art" (the publication date of which I have seen listed as 1910, 1911, and 1912 at various places on the Internet). Kandinsky also wrote:
2. Every artist as a child of his time, must express what is peculiar to one's own time (elements of style ...)
3. Every artist, as servant of art, must express what is peculiar to art in general (element of the pure and eternally artistic which pervades every individual, every people, every age, and which is to be seen in the works of every artist, of every nation, and of every period, and which, being the principal elements of art, knows neither time nor space).
Every work of art is the child of its age and, in many cases, the mother of our emotions. It follows that each period of culture produces an art of its own which can never be repeated.
Okay; lots to think about there! I will explore Kandinsky's ideas in my next two posts:
Posts
16 comments:
"1. Every artist, as creator, must express what is peculiar to oneself (element of personality).
2. Every artist as a child of his time, must express what is peculiar to one's own time (elements of style ...)
3. Every artist, as servant of art, must express what is peculiar to art in general (element of the pure and eternally artistic which pervades every individual, every people, every age, and which is to be seen in the works of every artist, of every nation, and of every period, and which, being the principal elements of art, knows neither time nor space)"
This is interesting. I have never considered myself as a "Servant of art". I like that statement. I think that that gives what we are doing a new meaning (for me anyway) and a new approach. I am still stuck in the mindset that I must write music that sounds "good" to me, and something that I think others will like. I tend to always forget that I can pick and emotion (that is what this particular project is helping me with) or a place or time and write about that. I tend to go for a more "scientific" way of writing.
I like it.
Last year I studied Kandinksy's paintings in Music history... there were some beautiful images, and some very abstract messages. Theres something I found so cool about his paintings in relationship to music: He called many of his spontaneous paintings "improvisations" and his more complex, elaborate works "compositions".
This is interesting to me in the context of music and arts relating. One can sit down and improvise and play beautifully, and it can be a work of art, like painting, spontaneous mixing of colors and shapes can be beautiful. On the other hand, we can also spend time on perfecting something they would like to have structured and perfected. We can plan out a composition or painting so that we hear or see exactly what we would like. Both improvisations and compositions can 1) express personality, and 2) express style of the the given time period.
I dont understand the 3rd point of the Quote. Help? What I understand of it is that we are servants of art (aka we make art to please patrons and to continue to make it flourish and grow- am i right?)
And as servants we must find elements in the arts that are unique... ?
-Kim
Follow up from last post-
I just asked Kalen what he thought about statement number 3 and that i just didnt understand it and his thoughts were pretty intriguing..
I'll share...
What I was (and maybe still am) confused about is why the word "peculiar" was written in the quotes. I was thinking of the word peculiar as something odd/strange. But really there are several different meanings. As kalen pointed out, the british/english definition of the word peculiar is
"belonging exclusively to".
So.. rearranging the phrase gives us something like [Every artist, as a servant of art, must express what is "original" or "unique" to the the artists, and every individual, that knows neither space or time.
Every artist is unique... if not, they are merely imitators. Thats my opinion!
-Kim
After reading Kandinsky's thoughts, I immediately countered the argument that music of a certain time period ("child" of a certain age) cannnot be recreated. I thought to myself "self- lots of people can write music in the Baroue style or romantic style and make it indistinguishable from the real thing".
But then i thought "self- what if baroque music is only really truly baroque if it's played in the baroque period to baroque people in the exact baroque way it was intended?". You can see where me and myself were going with this. Is Baroque music truly baroque if it's played in the 21st century? Haven't we already changed it by displacing it a few hundred years? Don't our well-tempered, atonally-accustomed ears recieve it differently??? or maybe not.
Music is evanescent. It transcends time completely different from a painting hung on a wall. It exists only in the moment- even if recorded.
Is music enslaved to its created time culture? Is it unequivically changed when displaced to a different era?
Heidi-
Thats deep thoughts sista. ;)
We don't know how baroque music really sounded because we didn't live in it. And we play on different sounding instruments these days as well.
Harpsichord/Organ music is frequently played on piano today, etc...
I have to disagree with Kim. Sure no one alive today was alive in the Baroque period, but that doesn't mean we don't know what Baroque music sounded like. First there were books published during the Baroque period on methods of playing the keyboard, including once by CPE Bach, which is a encapsulation of his fathers performing practice. Now I agree that we may read a book differently today then we did back then, but to counter that arguement I have to bring attention to musicians who by 4 or 5 steps can trace their teaching lineage to Handel, Vivaldi or Bach. So how much can change if 4 students/teachers were trying their hardest to emulate the elder.
To tie this in with the Kadinsky theory. Although we are not in the Baroque period, I believe there is such an existence of Baroque music. It can exist through performance practice (which I agree can differ and vary a lot) but also Baroque music can exist in modern compositions. True pillars of baroque composition, say counterpoint, imitative writing, is still fundamental to many composers. So a musical artist, as a servant of art, can be a servant of different arts, even the Baroque Arts. In the Baroque period and Renaissance many influential people were artists of the Greek arts, and none of them were alive in ancient Greece.
If anyone is interested I have a journal article by Ton Koopman where he met a keyboard player in small town England, who still played with English virginal fingerings of the Renaissance period. When asked why he played with this style of playing he responded "It is how I was taught, It is all I know."
I am going to write mostly dealing with the following quote; "Every artist, as creator, must express what is peculiar to oneself (element of personality)."
I thought this was great. As a musician since five when I began taking piano lessons, there have been some pieces that I have absolutely loved to learn, practice and perform. That being said, there are some that I have struggled with practicing not because of the difficulty level (although there have been many of those too!) but just the fact that I found nothing peculiar about piece, and I found my personality did not relate to what I was playing at all. I think that this point is very relevant to composition. Chances are that the pieces you gravitate towards when choosing rep will be in a similar style to those you set out to compose. One thing about the course I am currently in now that I enjoy is the freedom we have to experiment with whatever path we choose for our pieces.
Over my last three years in particular I have been very fascinated with the use of 20th century techniques mixed in with Bach's rules of voice leading and practices laid out centuries earlier. I very much expect that as I mature as a person, musician, and composer, my personality will always be changing and I will develop new interests for music.
I look forward to the day when I look back on my life and see how it all turned out. It it slightly odd I realize for me to be saying this as I am only 20 years old. I have 80% of my life left to live!
I'm dying when I hit 100.
"Every work of art is the child of its age and, in many cases, the mother of our emotions. It follows that each period of culture produces an art of its own which can never be repeated."
I think this is a great quote which appears to have been misunderstood. What I take from the quote is that, while music from a particular age and style can be mimicked, it is merely imitation, and not true creative expression. I suppose that is a contentious point, but I think it has merit.
I've never heard of Kandinsky, and I think that his colour theories are interesting. But I don't really get these "mystical necessities". Is he saying that art of lasting value needs to follow societal and cultural trends? To write trendy music? I understand that the creation of art is situated in a certain time and place and that we as artists interact with and are influenced by this setting. But I think that if all the music we wrote was "a child of its age", it would be pretty boring to listen to a lot of music by composers from the same time and place. Since they would be creative "servants" to the same society, their art would have to be similar, right? Additionally, I think that he is asking too much of the artist. I don't think that I can name many pieces that have strict stylistic aspects, expresses the essence of art, all while still retaining some of the artist's individuality. And if I can it's not an even balance between the three conditions. I will definitely read the other two blog posts on Kandinsky's Theories, hopefully they will help clear up some of my confusion.
Many years ago I read a Kandinsky book. Since I read it my music vision changed. I think that there are two ways for an artist. The first one is to use art to feed ego, and the second one to become a "servant of art". I prefer the second one, because I have the romantic idea that music can change our lives and social tissue. An example that came to my mind is Jose Antonio Abreu, who got the children from very poor areas in Venezuela to have classical music lessons. I like this way in art because I consider that music can help to develop nobles thoughts. On the other hand, I disagree with the art way that serves to maintain a social hierarchy.
Returning to the subject, I was surprised to read that Kandinsky started at thirty, and I feel that I still have hope although I started late. Moreover, I consider that starting late gives you a different focus. In general, at lates twenties people are more focus that a teenager, also, they have more expirience and they know that they need to use their time in a wise way. Finally, I consider that age and experience from life gives us a more open mindedness to develop an art.
Angélica López Arzate
Kandinsky is one of my favourite artists. I actually studied art regularly throughout my schooling before my university years and at one point considered art as a profession over music. I often find myself using arts of different mediums as inspiration for my own works musically and Kandinsky has been a large part of that process for me in the past. Interestingly while I love his art I have never looked up any of his (or any of my favourites artists) thoughts on artistic process before, and I certainly hadn't thought about taking that and relating it to music. I really find this approach fascinating and will certainly be looking up some of my other favourites to see if I get anything from their views.
In relation to Kandinsky specifically however I both agree and disagree with some of his points.
1. Every artist, as creator, must express what is peculiar to oneself (element of personality):
This I believe not only to be true but unavoidable. Because we simply live our lives as ourself we can never truly escape the confines of our own mind. Even if we were to create something acting as someone else we would be creating it in our own image of what that is. Skewing it to be created through our own lens of creativity. This is an unavoidable fact of life and something to embrace entirely. Wether we like or dislike what we are creating it will always be tinted with our own shade of the style.
2. Every artist as a child of his time, must express what is peculiar to one's own time (elements of style ...)
Again I find this is slightly unavoidable. We grow up and are constantly influenced by our environment so wether we try to create something entirely new or we try to utilize an outdated or older style of work there will almost always be a certainty that it will be shaded yet again by our own time and how our society prefers things. This level is not as unavoidable in my opinion as the creativity through oneself but it is still very true in what it says.
3. Every artist, as servant of art, must express what is peculiar to art in general (element of the pure and eternally artistic which pervades every individual, every people, every age, and which is to be seen in the works of every artist, of every nation, and of every period, and which, being the principal elements of art, knows neither time nor space).
This is the statement I have the most problem with. I find it hard to agree that there are universal constants of art because if the first (and even second) rules are to be believed everyone brings something slightly different to the creative process therefor breaking down parameters of rules or laws that can be accepted in every artwork.
I think Kadinsky creates some interesting rules for artists to live by, and as an artist, I would have to disagree with all three of them.
First of all, the notion that an artist must express what is peculiar to oneself is perhaps the point I am most conflicted about. On a fundamental level it makes perfect sense that we as artists should create the art that we want, but I do see a couple of problems with it. First of all, I am for the most part a classical double bass player. Even when I am not playing classical music I am still playing music that is written by other people 99% of the time. This is the way I like things to be but if I do not create the music myself then is it truly particular to me? Furthermore, even if I were out there creating music that was definitively my own, it is still very unlikely that would be the case 100% of the time. We've all taken gigs that we have absolutely no interest in so that we can have a bit of extra cash to pay the bills. Some diehard purists might consider this selling out but it is a reality most of us must face at some point, and I don't think partaking in art that is not peculiar to oneself makes the participant any less of an artist.
The second point I find much easier to refute. Saying that artists can only create art of their own time is just not true. As I mentioned above I am primarily a classical musician, which is to say that most of the music I play is definitely not of my time. Even in our theory classes we are taught to compose music in the style of Bach. If that is no longer art, then what's the point? What does it now become? We can use these basic techniques and build upon them to create more modern music if we so desire, or we can stick to living in the past. It may not be the most innovative to some people, but it is still a valid art form. To say otherwise would be to question the validity of the entire post-secondary music education system. Schindler's List was released in 1993, and was filmed almost entirely in black and white, replicating films that came long before it. It is hailed as being one of the greatest masterpieces in all of film history, a title which stands to this day. This is in spite of its dated techniques. If that counts as art, then so does playing super old music.
This third point is the one I found most confusing, so I apologize if I misinterpreted, but to the best of my understanding he is saying that there are certain aspects of art that are constant, and it is the duties of all artists that they maintain these standards of art. Not only does this not really make sense to me, but it also contradicts the previous two points. Points one and two instruct the artist to push the boundaries of art whereas this final point does the exact opposite and implies that it is our duty to uphold art as a never changing form of expression. He goes on to say that this knows neither time nor space, but what does that even mean? Maybe it is just to distance itself from the other points but I'm not sure. I wish I could understand and do a better job explaining my opinion on this point but it is really far too philosophical for me to wrap my head around. I really wish he had included some examples for this one, because while I don't agree with it, I might change my mind if I understood it better.
If I didn’t become a composition major, I definitely would have done a musicology degree because I love thinking about music and art in these theoretical ways.
Kandinsky wants art to be personal, timely and artistic. I agree with these three elements. If you are not adding personality, there is no point. If anyone could make the same art you are making, why are you doing it? Just let someone else have a turn with the cookie cutter. I also think the “elements of one’s own time” thing is interesting. You could have the same idea as someone had 100 years ago but write something completely different simply because of the generation you belong to. Finally, the artistic part - I think that people get too hung up on being artistic that they lose touch with their art. I think a part of being artistic is not taking it too seriously.
This might be a bit of an odd stance, but I think the concept of lasting value to be incredibly strange in and of itself. Besides having different definitions to different people, and having no concrete factors within extremely broad terms, sometimes I fail to even grasp why we have such a fascination with the idea of lasting value. It’s honestly a fantasy that I find myself buying into quite frequently, but every time I try to think about it logically, there seems to be no real reason to value it.
Is it for fame, or money? An ego boost or some sort of validation that pays off in the here and now? Of course, all of these things are valid to reach for, but because lasting value implies that it will continue through ages, as mentioned by Kandinsky’s third point, none of those things will benefit us once we’re dead. Maybe if it’s for money, it could trickle down into future family members, but the direction of finances is hard to predict.
However, that could indicate that the desire is rooted in something deeply personal, wanting to feel like you had a purpose in the world, or just wanting to know that someone will care about you even after you’re gone. Which, while they can be extremely comforting, I don’t think they’re necessary.
While I’m sure that the reason is different for everybody, I feel that there might be a little too much emphasis on lasting value within artists, leading to subsequently getting too hung-up on originality as you mentioned, or exceptionalism within familiarity, depending on what you’re going for. Therefore, I feel like when we are too invested within lasting value, we lose sight of the small, current values, and as a result, our creations lose a little bit of the us that exists in the here and now. After all, I think that it’s more important to value and enjoy what we actually live, then strive to be preserved in a future that we will never see.
The idea of a "role of art/artists" is very interesting to me, I'm looking forward to reading more about Kandinsky. His idea of artists being "servants of art" resonated with me because I very much believe the goal of music ought to be service, whether that be to oneself, others, or to the very art of music itself. I think often, too much emphasis is placed on art as a means of self expression, and little thought is given to how being a musician, composer, etc. can be a vocation that serves society just as much as any other. In fact, I think we devalue our work as artists when we reduce our art to simple "self expression". The struggle today is we are not given an easy roadmap as to what serving society through music looks like, there is no longer an obligation to religion, nation, ethnicity, etc, in the creation of music as there was in the past, even for those who are still influenced by these. This is a frustration I've experienced in my own work, how to make what I do valuable, but I think it's also exciting to think that we live in a time where art can essentially be whatever we want it to.
Post a Comment