It's been a busy week. After weeks of logistical prep, Gabriel Kahane finally arrived on Monday night (9/14)for an open Q&A on 'Sustainable Creativity.' About twenty students gathered in our smaller performance space to talk with Mr. Kahane about his work, his multiple hats (composer/singer/song writer), and what it means to find one's way as an artist today.Let me take the moment to say that Mr. Kahane was a real delight to have as a guest; honest, thoughtful, and intellectually keen, he graciously let us have a glimpse into his world while posing important questions as to our roles as musicians, as creative entrepreneurs, and as artists. Among the many interesting tangents this framework of a discussion led us down, perhaps the most intriguing was the debate about the inherent danger in mixing entrepreneurship and art. This was a point we returned to again and again throughout our discussion, and one that is worth exploring more thoroughly than a brief 60 minute dicussion would allow. A such, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about this challenging concept (and one that lies at the heart of Arts Enterprise's mission) in this forum, as my first commentary-focused Blog entry.
So, what are we talking about when the idea of entrepreneurship comes to the fore of a discussion of Arts Enterprise? Firstly, let's admit that this is a loaded question. Why? Because entrepreneurship has multiple meanings and definitions, depending on the scholar and/or the constituency of one's audience. At the same time though, entrepreneurship (at least in most of us) conjures up preconcieved ideas of self-centered, profit-hungry, business suits fighting to the death in search of the 'next big thing.' This notion is mostly at odds with that of artistic 'authenticity' (another dangerous term) - an idea rooted in the 19th Century, as a function of the Romantic concept of 'art for art's sake.' Interestingly enough, we forget that today many in the arts world utilize entrepeneurial concepts for the betterment of art, and as a vehicle for bringing creative, socially-oriented, and impactful works of art into being. Maybe it's just must more appealing to focus on crticizing those others who prioritize the fame often associated with successful art (Americal Idol, anyone?).
It is with this idea in mind that I suggest a re-evaluation of 'entrepreneurship' as it pertains to the arts. Lewis Hyde promotes the idea that art must exist both in a free-market economy and as the vehicle for a 'gift-based' economy. His proposition, encapsulated in his book "The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World", claims that we must all recognize the inherent social value of our art, and that this should outweigh our art's practical (monetary, or economically-valued) merits. This statement brings with it an inherent debate regarding whether authenticity is lost the moment one recognizes and tabulates the economic value of art.
I'm not going there, right now anyways, but it is a fact of life that we as artists DO have to juggle these kinds of value judgements on a day-to-day basis. For example, I am not above learning to play different styles of music from within the 'Popular' (yet another problematic label) realm, but when I'm asked to play one hour of Elton John at a wedding reception, I can't help but feel as though I'm doing that gig just for the money. There IS certainly a danger in using a purely economic metric when we measure the success or failure of a project, performance, or the creation of a new work of art.
So how do we reconcile such a paradox? I mean, we have to eat, right? After all, not ALL the creative work by 'the greats' resulted exclusively in masterpieces. Take Beethoven's Wellington's Victory, Op. 91 as a case in point. Written as a benefit piece for wounded soldiers, and to commemorate Wellington's victory over Napoleon (payback for the Third Symphony episode?) this widely popular work brought money and additional work for Beethoven during a time when he desperately needed it (this was the beginning of what noted Beethoven scholar Lewis Lockwood calls "The Fallow Years," 1813-14). Today nobody (OK, I take that back....almost nobody: http://www.battleproms.com/) talks about Wellington's Victory - but we do talk about another work on that same program: Symphony No. 7, Op. 92, which is acknowledged as perhaps one of Beethoven's great symphonic works. This anecdotal example is meant to show simply that the 'greats' weren't completely opposed to getting paid for what they to, and, despite both a common economic impetus and forum for display, two works with the same advantage (here, Beethoven's name attached) found vary different pathes through history. The case could be made, then, that, at the end of the line, great music will stand the test of time. But does great art always outlast mediocre art?
In fact, therein lies one of the core messages of New Music advocates: stop praising the 'canon', simply for being in the 'canon.' How many concerts have you sat through, in which you can't help but wonder why piece X, Y, or Z has been programmed yet again? Well, first off, there is always the prestige factor of going to see a concert with works by 'famous' composers, which give these works a bit of leeway not shared by works by new, often obscure composers. But more often than not, especially in tough economic times, musical institutions are pressured to pack the house to make the bottom line. This often means programs laden with works sure to satisfy the public, often to the exclusion of New Music. While I agree that we cannot ignore New Music if this art is to survive, what is more troubling is that nobody seems to be talking about how artists miss opportunities to find creative ways of leveraging their skills and artistic integrity to create a better chance for their art to make it's statement - and thus have a shot at standing up to the ultimate judge, history.
This is no easy line to walk. But then, no one said it would be easy. We can't forget that, like those before us, each artist has the responsibility to find a way to make our way through his or her economy (real, creative, entrepreneurial or however you choose to define it) so that they CAN make meaningful art. It's hard to do that while working at Wendy's.
Let me close by posing three questions that (and I write this hopefully) will inspire thought and debate on our mission as 21st Century artists. Here goes:
1) What does it mean to be an artist today?
2) How can we more accurately determine where we fall on the commercially-focused spectrum?
3) What can we do to balance our economic livelihood with artistic integrity, in a socially-impactful way?
Ultimately we have to find the treacherous path between the pillars of artistic authenticity and economic value, and somehow walk it, or better yet, bridge the two. Mr. Kahane is a great example of someone who does just that, acknowledging first and foremost that today one must make opportunities and seek out new inspiration, yet always wary of where those opportunities may lead us. It is this very introspection that may lead not only to creative success, but, more importantly, to a sustainable use of creativity that puts our art into central focus.
Check out Gabriel Kahane's website to read more about him, http://www.gabrielkahane.com/. Also, see http://www.lewishyde.com/ for more information on Hyde's interesting work.
Posts
