The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross

“If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art” Richard Strauss

I was given Alex Ross’ excellent The Rest is Noise for Christmas. I’m only on about page 50 of around 550, but it’s pretty bloody good.  If you’re interested at all in 20th Century music, you’ll love it.

Towards the end of last year I decided that it was time to expand my listening a bit.  I’ve been a big fan of American 20th Century classical music for years – Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians is top played on my iTunes (yes, yes, I know it’s a bit of a cliche), and there’s John Adams, Ives, Copland, Elliot Carter and so on, but there was a big gap on my playlist where Schoenberg, Shostakovich, Strauss, Mahler, Messiaen and Berg should be.  And now I’ve got a book to take me on that journey. Because, let’s face it, it’s not the easiest music in the world to listen to.

So Ross is now guiding may away from the easy-on-the-ear tonality of minimalism to the brutal, complex sounds of the European avant-garde. And it’s fascinating.

But then it got me thinking, and this is where things get a little contentious…

There’s the thinking now, especially in this country where culture is funded by the tax payer, that art should be ‘for all’, and that it should speak to everyone in equal measure.  And of course, I have, and still do, subscribe to this view (especially when writing Arts Council applications!) after all, I co-produce a theatre festival which tries to introduce audiences to ‘alternative’ theatre (although the notion of ‘alternative’ seems bizarre now, since experimental and physical theatre has been around for nearly half a century). But there seems to be a culture at the moment that anyone can have a go, anyone can call themselves an artist, anyone can make a piece of work and somehow expect that a) people should see it and b) that the public should fund it.

In Europe at the turn of the last century, a group of poets, composers, theatre-makers and artists were making beautifully crafted art which genuinely asked new questions, forced audiences to reconsider their notions of culture (inciting riots and the like along the way) and pushing things in radical new directions.  It was provocative, difficult and not necessarily concerned with reaching a broad audience or critical acclaim, but it absolutely was concerned with its place in the history and future of art.  It brought the world crashing into a century which would be dominated by conflict, huge industrial and technological advancements and this music and art seemed to propel things forward in an uncompromising fashion.

Richard Strauss

And now we find ourselves approaching the end of the first decade of a new millenium, and it seems that in the UK the emphasis isn’t on breaking new ground (although how often have you read the words ‘blurring/breaking the boundaries’ in blurbs), but on giving everyone access to artwork which very often doesn’t cut the mustard.  We’re in danger in creating a vast swathe of art which is essentially disposable and will have no lasting effect, making it harder and harder to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

At the risk of this sounding like I’m turning into some kind of cultural fascist (although I have occasional moments in the middle of the night when I think this is exactly what I will be when I grow old), I totally understand the need for proper development for artists – we need to allow artists time to discover their practice and figure out what it is they have to offer, but equally, when is it acceptable to say to someone ‘maybe you just shouldn’t be an artist?’  There’s an assumption that everyone should be allowed a shot, and I’m beginning to think that maybe that isn’t the best way to produce truly excellent art.

Ooh, I have tied myself in a knot there – I need an editor.