The Condition of Music

Radio Tower and Rolling Hills

I recently came across the idea that “all art constantly aspires to the condition of music.”  The quotation is attributed to the 19th century English essayist and art critic Walter Pater, but still has currency today and is referenced in contemporary conversations about art.  The idea, if I understand correctly, is that music is considered the purest and most abstract of the arts, one that can affect the listener in a direct, unmediated fashion, without needing to describe the world or offer narratives or morals.  It stands in contrast with, for example, visual arts such as photography, which generally (though, concededly, not always) takes the likeness of a real and tangible thing.  Photography and the other visual arts therefore are presumably less pure and abstract than music, which is transitory, ephemeral, and without tangible form.

I’m fortunate to have some knowledge and skill with a few musical instruments, and playing music has been an important part of my life for a long time.  I do wholeheartedly agree with the idea that music, uniquely, affects the listener in a direct and unmediated fashion, without the somewhat complicating introduction of physical, tangible elements taking form as a part of the artwork.

But I’m not sure I agree with the idea that “all art constantly aspires to the condition of music.”  For me, much of the appeal of visual arts such as photography is precisely that they introduce likenesses of real and tangible things.  A well-done photograph, for example, makes me consider the subject depicted – something tangible and real, like an object or a landscape – but usually also introduces an additional element of interpretation that adds to, transforms, or otherwise augments my understanding of the subject.  It’s precisely the interplay between the realness and tangibility of the thing depicted in the photograph and the artistic interpretation of that thing that makes fine art photographs so interesting.  I might even venture that this kind of duality manifests the meaning of another quote that I like by the photographer Minor White – “one does not photograph something simply for what it is, but for what else it is.”

It might even be said that the duality conveyed by visual arts – the interplay between the likeness of the thing depicted and the artistic interpretation of it embodied in the artwork – is a weakness in music.  In music, it’s really very difficult to convey the likenesses or impressions of tangible or specific things, like objects or landscapes.  As powerful as is the direct and unmediated fashion by which music affects the listener, such effects usually are quite unspecific as to tangible and specific things.  They are for me, anyway, and often if I ask others what a specific piece of music made them think of or feel, the answers will vary a lot from person to person.

It's all good.  That’s why I think different arts are to be enjoyed in different ways, and we consumers of art are benefitted by having a wide appetite.  And it’s why I appreciate the virtues of photography, a medium that communicates realism with such specific and precise effect, but still admits the full artistic interpretation brought to the table by talented and skilled photographers. 

Previous
Previous

Foreground, Background, Melody, Rhythm

Next
Next

Chipping Away at Realism