While we stopped talking about Poe's philosophy of composition in class, I felt there might be some potential for further discussion online. One of the things we discussed was how the technique of the writer sets them apart from is. The fact that "nevermore" came to Poe naturally is what separates him from the average writer. I would have to agree. However, I think that it is irrelevant how an artist got to the point of creation. All that matters is what the artist created and how much of his emotions, his person, his soul, if you will, was expressed in the work. I mentioned William S. Burroughs as an example of this. William S. Burroughs' writing, especially his masterpiece "Naked Lunch" is incoherent, disjointed, and generally disregards most rules of the structure of the English language or fiction writing. However, despite its technical faults it is a masterpiece. In fact, the technical faults are largely irrelevant in my opinion. I'd say that the technical faults would even aid the book. What most importantly matters is that the book is an earnest expression of emotion. Even Anthony Burgess, who was well-trained on the so-called "classics" of English literature and was a fan of "Naked Lunch" as well. I would say that an immensely well-trained person, who knows all the tricks of the trade in writing, who can rhyme extraordinary melodically, but writes of nothing emotionally heartfelt or powerful is inferior to one who lacks said training, writes in grammatically incorrect sentences, writes in barely readable scratches, but puts his soul into his writing. (Excerpt of "Naked Lunch")
I've found that emotional expression overrides technical finesse is a belief more common in music criticism. Many musicians have lacked technical finesse, yet created immensely well-respected works. Perhaps the best example of this would be the band "My Bloody Valentine" and their album "Loveless." "Loveless" routinely makes the rounds of best albums of all time list and is considered an unrivaled masterpiece in the shoegaze genre, despite having been made with a low budget and certain technical complications. For instance The guitarist and composer, Kevin Shields, wasn't skilled at guitar playing in the traditional sense and therefore relied on using a few key chords and the whammy bar. As is apparent, however, if one listens to the album, is that it's practically bursting at the seams with emotion. (Song from album)
Film also has similar works. The French New Wave produced very cheaply made films that were immensely emotional. The film "400 Blows" is perhaps the greatest example of this. (Trailer)
So that's my opinion. What's yours? What importance do you feel technique holds on how competent (for lack of a better word) a work of art is.
-Alexander
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think it's safe to say talent can be highly speculative. Not that it always is, it just can be. The majority of people recognize the genius of Mozart, Shakespeare, Dickinson, or Beethoven, but many others considered great by one person are average to another. For instance, I could barely listen to the My Bloody Valentine song posted, though I'm sure several people on this earth would hold some of my music tastes as abject. In terms of the question risen regarding the importance of technique on quality, I believe it is purely a guiding mechanism born out of the successes of others. Technique, as in guitar technique, writing technique, or composition technique, has proven to produce masterpieces when combined with creative genius. The key words are "when combined with" - technique without talent is useless. I can see how genius can propel a work to masterpiece status without technique, though I think it is very difficult. Many people like raw, uneducated works, as evident by the popularity of this growing genre. Take Ellen Hopkin's Crank, or pretty much any second-rate rock song, and you'll see the popularity of raw works. However, when I examine the art I enjoy the most, I see how much technique goes into them even if it isn't readily apparent.
For instance, I happen to love Nick Drake. At first I thought he was simply a mountain man on shrooms picking away on his guitar, though when I researched him as a musician I saw how wrong I was. He was a technical master who practiced guitar technique till the early hours of the morning, wrote in complicated rhythms (such as 5:4) and experimented with alternative chords and chord clusters. I think as I research the artists I love, I'll continue to see the method to their madness and the technique within.
Well, essentially this is all construed out of opinion by its inherent nature. My own personal philosophy is, I respect anything that's a personal expression, even if aesthetically it doesn't particularly please me. For instance, Hemingway's books generally don't interest me, yet I respect them for being personal expressions of his soul. I even admire them because you can feel his soul in each one. In music, Nick Cave is another example. I dislike his music because what he expresses are emotions of which I do not generally connect to and his music doesn't really please my eardrums. However his expression of his feelings is very well apparent and very strong.
The only works of which I would object to would works that are not personal expressions, works that are fueled solely by commercial interests. Those that are "only in it for the money" as Frank Zappa put. I think that the second that someone does that they cease to be artists, and their work is not deserving of my respect. If it contains no 'soul', so to speak, it is worthless to me.
I think technique is mainly a tool to achieve that personal expression. Many guitarists are amazingly adept at playing music, and play very complicated songs. Yet many times these song structures are heartless, and a simple 3-chord progression with soul would completely annihilate it. In poetry this is overwhelmingly common with pretentious poets, who might be skilled at the rhymes, yet not say anything with them.
This is probably the biggest problem in film. Films with very mediocre scripts many times get good ratings by critics simply because of the technical finesse of the direction, cinematography, etc.
It's essentially the style over substance question. I believe that substance rules over style personally. Style might fascinate someone, indeed it does fascinate me to, yet essentially, it all comes down to the question of purpose. Would there be style without a substance to wrap itself around? I don't think so. In fact, I think style can hurt a work. For instance, had "Naked Lunch" been written coherently and its technique verbose, it would've lost its identity and emotional resonance.
-Alexander
Ellen Hopkin's "Crank" on which I cannot comment because I have not read it, I would imagine is not second rate because its technique is poor, but rather that the rawness of it is an empty rawness. Good works that are raw, are not good because they are raw, but rather because the emotions that are expressed through the raw prose is strong. "Naked Lunch" is not acclaimed for its style, but for its unfiltered emotions. Again, this is why critics (and fellow author in this case) like Anthony Burgess praise it.
In fact, it can be interpreted that the technique in all these works is precisely the lack of technique.
-Alexander (this and the one above)
And because I am not particularly adept at keeping all my thoughts together at one moment, I'll have my 3rd comment in a row.
I do not believe that having a well developed technique is something bad. To the contrary, I think it is rather beneficial. But I say the same to lack of technique. It depends on the artist. What one does with said technique is more important than the technique itself.
An example of a work of art with both great technical finesse and immense emotion would be Slint's "Spiderland." "Spiderland" invented the math-rock genre of music and required much technical skill. The music randomly changes time signatures, and combines a prose story with the music. However recording it was such an emotional stress, at least one of the band members received psychiatric help and the lead singer became physically sick after singing some of the songs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoH5MPIgM7c&fmt=18
The best point of comparison, at least musically would be Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention to The Velvet Underground. The two
were rivals, and embodied radically different philosophies of musical composition. The former was heavily concentrated on technical finesse and skill with tightly and elegantly composed works with obscure guitar cords, while the latter used 2 chord progressions like D and G with deadpan singing. However, I enjoy both groups, and both had a mutual appreciation of each other. This is because both produced genuine heartfelt music.
On the other hand, you have Earnest Hemingway and Faulkner's rivalry. Faulkner said:‘He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.'
to which Hemingway replied:
‘Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?’
I generally agree with the latter statement.
And to make things complete on my part for now:
My Bloody Valentine is perhaps the best example from any medium of my point. The My Bloody Valentine gang weren't exactly completely lacking in technique, just not anything traditional. Creative use of the tremolo bar on the guitarist's part substituted any traditional but highly developed technique. In fact, MBV songs are extremely difficult to cover because of how unconventional they are. The use of the tremolo bar is used very creatively and individualistically on the guitarists part. It wasn't very difficult to play the songs for him, but nearly impossible for other people. It's not a question of skill, but rather of personal expression. In a sense this is the embodiment of my technique versus substance. Someone could practice MBV songs for years, but couldn't play them because the personal connection to the playing isn't present. So in this case, personal expression trumps neutral technique.
-Alexander
Coming off of what Alex said about my Bloody Valentine not necessarily lacking in technique, I think that "good technique" is not a constant. There are several variations of defining technique and the one that I think is being used here is: "Skill or ability in a certain field." If this is the case, many different people have different views and opinions on what they consider to be "skill." Of course, I am not saying that there are not works that most people would hold as an example of good technique, but I also think that there are going to be people on both sides of an argument of whether My Bloody Valentine has good technique.
What we hold as technique also varies from movement to movement. For example, there were most likely people during the neoclassic era that wrote pieces of literature that may be considered ahead of the times (we'll say they write romantic works) - These artists would be considered lacking technique because, as we know, during neoclassicism order and logic were valued. The point that I am trying to make is that these personal expressions should not be assessed solely on technique because we don't know what we will value in the years to come. Rather, content is the important part of what makes a piece great.
-Kelsey
Post a Comment