Response to Shaw:
Distinction of high art music and "other" types of it (be it "program" music
or "popular"...) is basically a matter of social differentiation, a social
status distinction. Higher social status of some branch of music can be
highly motivating, conductive to higher elaboration and complexity, for
exquisite achievements within the branch. But, it does not preclude works
done within the "high art" branch (the genera of music that strive on
particular socio-cultural differentiation within particular culture) to be
quite non-remarkable "achievements", to be of low quality, and it does not
preclude works done outside the branch, works not having particular kind of
status, and particular kind of social motivation, to reach high complexity
and be of the most exquisite achievement. If you agree, creative
achievements are individually based, though the social circumstances may be
more or less conductive to it. So, can you ask, with a real conviction,
whether "film music can ever be high art"?
Second, what is a method of "high art" achievement evaluation? That the film
music is listened OUTSIDE its original film context, and independently of
its "part of film" function, independently of its CONSTITUTIVE FUNCTION in
film, and than evaluated within the socially (and productionaly) different
experiential context of "single" art works? Or, is the music to be evaluated
more highly if it is in the center of attention (in "focal awareness")
within the particular film (favored over other constitutive aspects), then
if it is "invisible", relegated to a "subsidiary awareness" (Polanyi)?
Though constitutive achievements in collaborative work can be evaluationally
focused upon, can their evaluation be completely divorced from "holistic"
achievement of the collaborative work, of the whole movie they were
functional in producing?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|