Provocation or holiness - what's the role of the arts?

[counterpoint]

In my personal opinion, provocation is one of the main powers of art, in music as much as in writing or painting.

Many of the "errors" or "flaws" of now established artwork has its origin in provocation. Artists always have liked to break the "rules". That's why "new" art often is controversial, why it is so fighted by the contemporaries.

On the other side, there are people who claim art to be "holy". Something that is not allowed to be discussed or questioned. Because it's art, it's sacrosanct. That's a weird idea for me.

Just a few thoughts. Perhaps someone likes to discuss?

[ahinton]

It could be argued that some art provokes (or has in the past provoked) for the sake of so doing, whereas other art has done so without necessarily seeking that result as its sole or principal object; this fact reveals the issue to be rather more complex than you suggest in your opening salvo and is perhaps further complicated by an argument that conscious or subconscious artistic provocativeness need not necessarily be incompatible with a notion of artistic sacrosanctity.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I think we can get confused with all sorts of terms when describing art. Provocation in art, what is it supposed to mean? Something that goes against the "norm" thus "provoking" approval/disapproval from observers?

I doubt it is the main aim of all artists to provoke people, perhaps a handful are thinking this way, the majority are not. Most artists simply do their stuff for the Love of their art and if people find what they do is interesting that is just the cherry on top. Most of us do not care what other people think and simply do what we like despite other people opinions. We don't go, right, this is how everyone does it and accepts it being done, let me twist and change it to my own way.

I guess many artists have some nagging force inside them to be unique, different, stand out, and try to do this in whatever way possible. They want to leave some type of contribution to music that lets them somehow achieve some kind of immortality with their artistic creation. Whatever method you use usually it is the Love for music which is more longer lasting that trying to provoke people.

[pianochick93]

Wel provocation doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Sure a picture or musical piece could provoke anger, hate, or any number of 'bad' emotions, but it could also provoke a whole sensation of 'good' emotions, such as bliss, ecstacy, and other things like that.

A passing thought when I read this title, was that a very very good work of art, could both provoke emotion, yet be holy at the same time.

[ahinton]

I think we can get confused with all sorts of terms when describing art. Provocation in art, what is it supposed to mean? Something that goes against the "norm" thus "provoking" approval/disapproval from observers?

I doubt it is the main aim of all artists to provoke people, perhaps a handful are thinking this way, the majority are not. Most artists simply do their stuff for the Love of their art and if people find what they do is interesting that is just the cherry on top. Most of us do not care what other people think and simply do what we like despite other people opinions. We don't go, right, this is how everyone does it and accepts it being done, let me twist and change it to my own way.

I guess many artists have some nagging force inside them to be unique, different, stand out, and try to do this in whatever way possible. They want to leave some type of contribution to music that lets them somehow achieve some kind of immortality with their artistic creation. Whatever method you use usually it is the Love for music which is more longer lasting that trying to provoke people.

Much good sense here. There can, for example, a difference between the challenging and the provocative in music, in terms of its listeners; for example, Xenakis (no, PLEASE don't anyone start another chain of vitriolic blasts and counter-blasts just because I mention his name here!) spoke of having written not to challenge others but to challenge himself. Doing things one's own way is not necessarily the same as deliberately challenging accepted norms (whatever they may in any case be). Carter has often written music that challenges listeners, but, again, a "challenge" is not necessarily to be thought of in any pejorative sense; in an interview some 12 years ago (before the world première in London of Adagio Tenebroso, the middle movement of his magnum opus Symphonia: Sum Fluxæ Pretium Spei), he was asked what he expected of his audience when confronted with this new piece and he simply hoped that they would concentrate on what's in front of them, just as he'd done when working on it and his wholly unabrasive attitude is perhaps further revealed in his very recent interview here:
https://www.boosey.com/pages/cr/composer/carter/
That said, Carter says that he writes for performers rather than listeners, because one cannot write for the latter as one simply cannot know who they'll be or how they'll respond (Birtwistle, Sorabji, Babbitt and others have expressed similar sentiments, independently of one another); that is a practical inevitability, however, rather than representative of a couldn't-care-less attitude on the composer's part -  the end of Carter's recent interview reveals his take on this. So, caring what others think is important, but it's no good for a composer to try to be slavishly hidebound by what he/she may believe them to think.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

It could be argued that some art provokes (or has in the past provoked) for the sake of so doing, whereas other art has done so without necessarily seeking that result as its sole or principal object; this fact reveals the issue to be rather more complex than you suggest in your opening salvo and is perhaps further complicated by an argument that conscious or subconscious artistic provocativeness need not necessarily be incompatible with a notion of artistic sacrosanctity.

Best,

Alistair

When playing Bach (J.S.Bach) or Beethoven, I always feel this provocative way of composing, and that's why I like to play this music. If it was not for this provocation, I would not play it.

Then I do not live very far away from Donaueschingen. I listened to many premiere performances on the radio (life!) in the sixties and seventies and I have clearly in my ears the  screaming of the (partly angry and partly enthusiastic) audience at the end of each work. Nothing like the "holiness" which often is celebrated in "classical" concerts. So there obviously was a provocation and it was intended as a provocation.

[ahinton]

When playing Bach (J.S.Bach) or Beethoven, I always feel this provocative way of composing, and that's why I like to play this music. If it was not for this provocation, I would not play it.

As I said, provocation is not necessarily a pejorative; if music does not arrest the listener's attention and encourage the best of his/her concentrative efforts on it, then either it, the listener or both are likely at fault.

Then I do not live very far away from Donaueschingen. I listened to many premiere performances on the radio (life!) in the sixties and seventies and I have clearly in my ears the  screaming of the (partly angry and partly enthusiastic) audience at the end of each work. Nothing like the "holiness" which often is celebrated in "classical" concerts. So there obviously was a provocation and it was intended as a provocation.

I think that it's dangerous to conclude from a provoked reaction that the composer's intention was in all cases deliberately to incite just that, even if part of that kind of reaction is positive; it does not necessarily follow that evidence of the provocation of an audience is also evidence that the composer him/herself felt in provocative mood when writing the pieces concerned - in other words, what may provoke an audience may not have provoked to composer in the same way. This, however, risks drawing us into an area which, while equally interesting of itself, is perhaps not directly covered by the topic - i.e. that of the difference between how any audience member listens to a work (especially for the first time) and how its composer does so in his/her mind when composing it.

Best,

Alistair