Oh for goodness' sake, no, I am not "shocked" to read what you typed about medical professionals, especially having been an Anthroplogy major in college and having taken a few classes here and there on science policy and sociology, etc. Anyone who's read even just a chapter of Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" would not be shocked by that. (But there was no way you would have known I'd read that book, or was an anthro major, so you're forgiven! :P)
Of course medical professionals are political, etc. Of course the degrees and titles may not mean what they're supposed to. But they still have them, whereas there isn't exactly a similar rating system or structure for artists. All human activity is drenched in social and cultural contexts, but that doesn't mean that a system of degrees and status means absolutely nothing. It ain't perfect, but it does what it does. Again, my only point was that art doesn't have, nor do I think it should, such a system whereby the practitioners have any more status than they're given by those around them.
Actually, I suppose in the more conservative music circles your "degrees" are your resume of where you've been. Having worked at Carnegie Hall for a brief (very brief) period, I know how important things like what conservatory you went to or how many hairs were on your conductor's head can be.
You make a good point, however, about "why do we go to the events we do and listen to the music we do" (not your words, I'm just sort of paraphrasing the idea). I've shared that opinion for a long time that one of the main reasons anyone likes any art is for the social trappings associated with it. I don't like Pop Music, but is that only because I've been conditioned not to by the type of people I hang out with and want to hang out with? I think so. I used to like Pop Music when I was younger, and I've grown to dislike most of it over the years. I don't think that's wholly an objective, obvious process. I don't think it proves I'm smarter than other people. It doesn't really prove anything at all.
And now I've become distracted and forgotten what I was saying, so nevermind.
quoted 60 lines -----Original Message-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Reynolds [mailto:reynolda@sas.upenn.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 4:35 PM
> To: idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: [idm] scientists, critics, and chimpanzees
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:31:38 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: damek@earthling.net
> >
> >..Well, the medical profession has degrees and memberships, etc., but
> >that's different. As far as artistic fields like music, sculpture,
> >theatre, painting, lighting designer - the true recognition of the
> >quality of the artist seems to simply be the recogntion and
> >measurement of one's peers, which can change over time.
>
> you'd be shocked. getting published (the nearest equivalent to a
> "musical performance") in established journals in medicine (medical
> research, that is) is based on a process more subjective and
> political than you'd think, despite science being thought as an
> objective endeavor.
>
> scientists are very protective about their pet ideas and set
> conceptions about How The World Works, and when they become editors
> at these mags -- like any situation where someone is in a situation
> to make big decisions -- you'll find that a lot of high-level science
> articles that don't make the cut often conflict with the editor's
> perspective ("the data here are inconclusive, doesn't support this
> claim, etc.") -- and without publication, funding and tenure for the
> renegade scientist can get dropped (no "MTV-level exposure").
>
> likewise you see people at music magazines, people with big mouths
> like me, who shoot down musical ideas because they don't like them,
> but they're in an excellent position to voice and distribute their
> opinions, whereas Real Independent Musicians are generally pretty
> busy touring or focused on the business of Making Music, and Fuck The
> Critics. i suppose one solution is to make and review your own work
> in the big publications -- holding down a couple of legal names if
> necessary -- if you're looking to maximize your exposure.
>
> if a scientific idea is truly earth-shattering in proportion, it will
> be recognized, given enough patience, just like in music -- look how
> long it took sun ra to get some play time on NPR, after all. i think
> it might have been niels bohr who said something to the effect that
> you have to wait for the old guard to die before they listen to you.
> either that or you die first and then become respectable.
>
> i suppose one larger question to this list is, in the purest creative
> sense, if you make music, what is it about others' opinions -- what
> is it about the performance aspect of standing in front of a crowd
> that validates the music?
>
> i go to some of these electronic music shows and the social aspect of
> this stuff simply can't be swept under the rug. i wonder if people go
> to these shows because we're monkeys and we want to be in
> "experimental artsy elitist electronic music tribes" or "trance
> techno rave tribes" or "banjo, fiddle and jug tribes". i wonder if
> the music is really there to validate or reinforce this primal
> behavior, and not the other way around. maybe we're looking in the
> wrong direction.
---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at
http://www.iname.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org