yes literary "realness" is no more existentially secure than popmusicky "realness" -- though obviously the relevant institutions of self-prodction are different organised, and set against each other
i somewhat cavil with frank's argt that classical and/or jazz have been simply dropped as a measure of quality -- i think a powerful ghost of the threat of them still functions very strongly indeed (for example as firepower in the "stands the test of time" argument); what's been droped was never that much there, which was a widespread grasp in the "critical classes" of the actual modes of judgment that old-skool musicians make... someone like adorno is REALLY UNUSUAL in being deeply literate in the rules of classical harmony, and how these rules were breaking down within the composer community between the 1890s and the 1940s... but most cultural commentary which paid mind to this history of music as marking a measure of quality was no more competent to analyse the actual rules of its judgment than ppl totoally outside the game of it
Don't know what you mean by "existentially" secure but the question I'm asking is about how "socially" secure literary "realness" is, and the point is that when SF wants to improve, it thinks that at least it has some idea of what it would take to be more "literary"*; obviously literature is part of a larger culture that has made hierarchies of taste less secure in a lot of endeavors, and the intelligentsia has consciously (and admirably) made itself less secure but
( ... )
*And I'd say that even if English depts. are questioning themselves as to what constitutes the "literary," the fans of science fiction would still have a fairly conventional idea of what counts as literary (i.e., what was on the high-school and college reading lists), whereas I don't think fans of popular music - some of whom presumably are also fans of SF - have in mind a section of the musicocultural landscape that constitutes "the good music that self-improvement would take us to." Try this: "Wait, some science fiction is great art, and [science fiction writer] does well what [acknowledged literary titan] did well." As opposed to "wait, some popular music is great art, and James Brown does well what [acknowledged classical musical titan] did well." I don't know what acknowledged classical musical titan would be relevant, could fit into that spot
( ... )
ok well i have to go catch 1xplane in an hour to fly to STRASBOURG to WATCH OPERA (wagner no less) so 0xtime at all to pick up on the many many strands of this: i think it's a giant huge massive question
when i spoke on the prog and then wrote that post this morning (abt classical music and/or jazz; abt "modes of judgment") i actually had in my head more the anxieties of musicians-as-musicians (and sfwriters-as-writers) than of fans or critics -- a craftsperson's map of "what will work" and "what will last" and "what is teh aweseom" bein sharply different from the (non-craft-capable) fan's...
(disclaimer: the relationship of craftsperson to fan in each of these different areas is almost certainly very different) (music allows for a lot more self-taughtness than eg fine or applied arts -- outside comics anyway -- which, i think, probably embeds a lot more defensive anxiety)
With SF, is its accuracy or predictive powers a factor in its art?
So "James Brown is art because he does X well" - there is no value of X which lets us map JB onto classical music*, so we have instead to confront the version of art which might include X.
Similarly the X in "SF is art because it does X well" doesn't HAVE to be an existing literary map, it can be a new X, and if so maybe the new X is 'prescience', which when you look at the SF which DOES get valued and praised is indeed often a factor.
*(There may be values of X which let us map JB onto rhetoreticians and public speakers and actors, mayn't there?)
"and James Brown does well what [acknowledged classical musical titan] did well." I don't know what acknowledged classical musical titan would be relevant, could fit into that spot."
I would say Igor Stravinsky, who shocked audiences with his starkness of rhythm, and his recasting of harmony (his own stylee not derived from the serialists). However, I don't believe that Stravinsky was ever called upon to perform on TV to calm a nation on the verge of riot. Also, I never saw him do the splits.
i somewhat cavil with frank's argt that classical and/or jazz have been simply dropped as a measure of quality -- i think a powerful ghost of the threat of them still functions very strongly indeed (for example as firepower in the "stands the test of time" argument); what's been droped was never that much there, which was a widespread grasp in the "critical classes" of the actual modes of judgment that old-skool musicians make... someone like adorno is REALLY UNUSUAL in being deeply literate in the rules of classical harmony, and how these rules were breaking down within the composer community between the 1890s and the 1940s... but most cultural commentary which paid mind to this history of music as marking a measure of quality was no more competent to analyse the actual rules of its judgment than ppl totoally outside the game of it
Reply
Reply
Reply
when i spoke on the prog and then wrote that post this morning (abt classical music and/or jazz; abt "modes of judgment") i actually had in my head more the anxieties of musicians-as-musicians (and sfwriters-as-writers) than of fans or critics -- a craftsperson's map of "what will work" and "what will last" and "what is teh aweseom" bein sharply different from the (non-craft-capable) fan's...
(disclaimer: the relationship of craftsperson to fan in each of these different areas is almost certainly very different) (music allows for a lot more self-taughtness than eg fine or applied arts -- outside comics anyway -- which, i think, probably embeds a lot more defensive anxiety)
Reply
Reply
So "James Brown is art because he does X well" - there is no value of X which lets us map JB onto classical music*, so we have instead to confront the version of art which might include X.
Similarly the X in "SF is art because it does X well" doesn't HAVE to be an existing literary map, it can be a new X, and if so maybe the new X is 'prescience', which when you look at the SF which DOES get valued and praised is indeed often a factor.
*(There may be values of X which let us map JB onto rhetoreticians and public speakers and actors, mayn't there?)
Reply
I would say Igor Stravinsky, who shocked audiences with his starkness of rhythm,
and his recasting of harmony (his own stylee not derived from the
serialists). However, I don't believe that Stravinsky was ever called
upon to perform on TV to calm a nation on the verge of riot. Also,
I never saw him do the splits.
(AkinCLE)
Reply
Leave a comment