1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
\chapter{\textsc{Art} or \textsc{Brend}?}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\textbf{\arabic*.}, wide, itemsep=1em]
\item Perhaps the most diseased justification the artist can give of his profession
is to say that it is somehow scientific. LaMonte Young, Milton Babbitt, and
Stockhausen are exponents of this sort of justification.
The law which relates the mass of a body to its velocity has predictive value
and is an outstanding scientific law. Is the work of art such a law? The
experiment which shows that the speed of light is independent of the motion
of its source is a measurement of a phenomenon crucial to the confirmation of
a scientific hypothesis; it is an outstanding scientific experiment. Is the work
of art such a measurement? The invention of the vacuum tube was an
outstanding technological advance. Is the work of art such a technological
advance? Differential geometry is a deductive analysis of abstract relations
and an outstanding mathematical theory. ts the work of art such an
analysis?
The motives behind the \enquote{scientific} justification of art are utterly sinister.
Perhaps LaMonte Young is merely rationalizing because he wants an
academic job. But Babbitt is out to reduce music to a pedantic
pseudo-science. And Stockhausen, with his \enquote{scientific music}, intends
nothing less than the suppression of the culture of \enquote{lower classes} and
\enquote{ower races.}
It is the creative personality himself who has the most reason to object to
the \enquote{scientific} justification of art. Again and again, the decisive step in
artistic development has come when an artist produces a work that shatters
all existing 'scientific' laws of art, and yet is more important to the
audience than all the works that \enquote{obey} the laws.
\item The artist or entertainer cannot exist without urging his product on other
people. In fact, after developing his product, the artist goes out and tries to
win public acceptance for it, to advertise and promote it, to sell it, to force it
on people. If the public doesn't accept it at first, he is disappointed. He
doesn't drop it, but repeatedly urges the product on them.
People have every reason, then, to ask the artist: Is your product good for
me even if I don't like or enjoy it? This question really lays art open. One of
the distinguishing features of art has always been that it is very difficult to
defend art without referring to people's liking or enjoying it. (Functions of
art such as making money or glorifying the social order are real enough, but
they are rarely cited in defense of art. Let us put them aside.) When one
artist shows his latest production to another, all he can usually ask is \enquote{Do
you like it?} Once the \enquote{scientific} justification of art is discredited, the
artist usually has to admit: If you don't like or enjoy my product, there's no
reason why you should \enquote{consume} it.
There are exceptions. Art sometimes becomes the sole channel for political
dissent, the sole arena in which oppressive social relations can be
transcended. Even so, subjectivity of value remains a feature which
distinguishes art and entertainment from other activities. Thus art is
historically a leisure activity.
\item But there is a fundamental contradiction here. Consider the object which
one person produces for the liking, the enjoyment of another. The value of
the object is supposed to be that you just like it. It supposedly has a value
which is entirely subjective and entirely within you, is a part of you. Yet---the
object can exist without you, is completely outside you, is not you or your
valuing, and has no inherent connection with you or your valuing. The
product is not personal to you.
Such is the contradiction in much art and entertainment. it is unfortunate
that it has to be stated so abstractly, but the discussion is about something
so personal that there can be no interpersonal examples of it. Perhaps it will
help to say that in appreciating or consuming art, you are always aware that
it is not you, your valuing---yet your liking it, your valuing it is usually the
only thing that can justify it.
In art and entertainment, objects are produced having no inherent
connection with people's liking, yet the artist expects the objects to find
their value in people's liking them. To be totally successful, the object would
have to give you an experience in which the object is as personal to you as
your valuing of it. Yet you remain aware that the object is another's
product, separable from your liking of it. The artist tries to \enquote{be oneself} for
other people, to \enquote{express oneself} for them.
\item There are experiences for each person which accomplish what art and
entertainment fail to. The purpose of this essay is to make you aware of
these experiences, by comparing and contrasting them with art. I have
coined the term \term{brend} for these experiences.
Consider all of your doings, what you already do. Exclude the gratifying of
physiological needs, physically harmful activities, and competitive activites.
Concentrate on spontaneous self-amusement or play. That is, concentrate on
everything you do just because you like it, because you just like it as you do
it.
Actually, these doings should be referred to as your just-likings. In saying
that somebody likes an art exhibit, it is appropriate to distinguish the art
exhibit from his liking of it. But in the case of your just-likings, it is not
appropriate to distinguish the objects valued from your valuings, and the
single term that covers both should be used. When you write with a pencil,
you are rarely attentive to the fact that the pencil was produced by
somebody other than yourself. You can use something produced by
somebody else without thinking about it. In your just-likings, you never
notice that things are not produced by you. The essence of a just-liking is
that in it, you are not aware that the object you value is less personal to you
than your very valuing.
These just-likings are your \term{brend.} Some of your dreams are brend; and
some children's play is brend (but formal children's games aren't). In a sense,
though, the attempt to give interpersonal examples of brend is futile,
because the end result is neutral things or actions, cut off from the valuing
which gives them their only significance; and because the end result suggests
that brend is a deliberate activity like carrying out orders. The only examples
for you are your just-likings, and you have to guess them by directly
applying the abstract definition.
Even though brend is defined exclusively in terms of what you like, it is not
necessarily solitary. The definition simply recognizes that valuing is an act of
individuals; that to counterpose the likes of the community to the likes of
the individuals who make it up is an ideological deception.
\item It is now possible to say that much art and entertainment are
pseudo-brend; that your brend is the total originality beyond art; that your
brend is the absolute self-expression and the absolute enjoyment beyond art.
Can brend, then, replace art, can it expand to fill the space now occupied by
art and entertainment? To ask this question is to ask when utopia will
arrive, when the barrier between work and leisure will be broken down,
when work will be abolished. Rather than holding out utopian promises, it is
better to give whoever can grasp it the realization that the experience
beyond art already occurs in his life---but is totally suppressed by the general
repressiveness of society.
\end{enumerate}
\vfill
\textsc{Note:} The avant-garde artist may raise a final question. Can't art or
entertainment compensate for its impersonality by having sheer newness as a
value? Can't the very foreignness of the impersonal object be entertaining?
Doesn't this happen with \essaytitle{Mock Risk Games}, for example? The answer is
that entertainmental newness is also subjective. What is entertainingly
strange to one person is incomprehensible, annoying, or irrelevant to
another. The only difference between foreignness and other entertainment
values is that brend does not have more foreignness than conventional
entertainment does.
As for objective newness, or the objective value of \essaytitle{Mock Risk Games}, these
issues are so difficult that I have been unable to reach final conclusions
about them.
|
