Hello. I'm new to the group. I've been finding this discussion quite fascinating. I'd just like to respond to both Judy and Jon by asking this: If the application of theory to a work of art debases the viewing of that work of art, is this a fault of theory or is it that our first perception was innocent and without knowledge so that we saw the shiny surface of the work without seeing beneath whereas, through being informed by theory, we could see deeper and found it wanting? At this past Winnipeg New Music Festival, the audience in which I sat watched the Scrap Music Ensemble. We were mesmerized by all these bright lights shining on metallic surfaces and all the frenzy taking place on stage as the musicians ran out from the wings pushing brighter and shinier pieces of equipment onto the stage at times dancing with it in pirouettes. Half way through the performance, I realized that all I was watching was taiko drumming with a little more glitz and glitter. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with taiko drumming and I can quite enjoy it given the right context. But a festival that was supposedly dedicated to the best of the new in classical music? My theoretical knowledge of taiko drumming and classical music permitted me to see through the veneer of the surface and question the appropriateness of this performance in this context giving me, in essence, a much greater appreciation of what constitutes new classical music.
John Herbert Cunningham
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Judy Prince
Sent: May-12-09 7:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theoretically ... (corrected, what was I thinking)
When Jon says 'Can we read poetry without theory?' he means 'Does "theory"
help or hinder us in appreciating art?', implying that either we can better
*appreciate* art 'with theory' or we can better appreciate it without
theory, or both, at different times and in different circumstances. In
other words, does 'theory' help or hinder us in appreciating art?
'With theory' means two things: 1) having read/heard/seen explanations and
analyses of various components of art; and 2) having experienced those
arts. We often mean both, of course, because theorists frequently give
examples of the art in their analyses, though some, unfortunately, do not.
If theory shows us the various things the artist is doing in creating, it
helps us understand what other artists are doing. Crucially, then, the
question becomes "Do we better appreciate an artist's work when we know more
about what she has done to create it?" Yes, we better appreciate what it
takes for the artist to create the work; and this better appreciation may
lead us to like or to dislike the work [ie, more highly value or devalue the
work].
Now to what Jon *probably* was proposing: "We can sometimes [or always]
LIKE an artwork better if we have NOT first engaged with 'theory'."
Damned if I know.
Best,
Judy the Libran
|