The Proper Place of a work of art. The Iterability of Electronic Music

Biography:

Rob van Gerwen is lecturer in philosophy at Utrecht University. He published several books in aesthetics, and edited Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting with Cambridge University Press (2001). He is presently finishing a book on Facial Expression in the Aesthetics of Cosmetic Surgery. He teaches at the departments of Philosophy and Humanities at Utrecht University, and at University College Utrecht. His elaborate website offers texts for download, philosophical discussions, and a weblog: http://www.phil.uu.nl/~rob

Abstract (draft):

When we watch something in real life we do one thing (direct realism), but when we look at a picture we do two things: we see the picture and see the depicted in it. Starting from the opening sentence of Kant's Critique of Judgement, I argue that considering the beauty of something involves treating it as if depicted. One abstracts from the full presence of something to all of one's senses. Computer art can perhaps be characterised as 1. interactive, 2. digital, but these characteristics both pose problems for its possible art-status. Weak interaction is at stake in all art (a work of art addresses its audience in peculiar manner), but the strong interaction often found in computer-art holds a threat to the work's identity, its iterability. If the nature of the work depends centrally on the interferences of the audience, then in what sense is it one work? Secondly, until now art forms can be characterised in terms of their proper spatiality (paintings are appreciated while hanging on the wall, music in a concert hall, etc.), but what is the proper place for digital work?

Thirdly, can digital music be art? Why not? Well, it is impossible to hear the musician's body's manipulations in the resultant work, other than rationally: we may understand that the musician has made certain choices, but these choices can not be heard as made physically (unlike with painting where we can see from the daubs of paint what the painter did to his canvas). The question whether digital music can be art presupposes some definition of art, and assumes that here, perhaps, we are witnessing the birth of a new art form.

What should be the characteristics of a new art form? Music, I argue in my "Scruton" paper, is primarily live music (and this is due to the fact that the performer relates both to the instrument and the sounds it produces and to the audience), but in what sense is electronic/computer music ever performed live? (If it is, then perhaps the "electronicity" describes only the nature of the instrument used. The improvisations of Richard Teitelbaum come to my mind). Or perhaps should we concieve of the performing musician as a composer, rather. But then, would we not have created a kind of music that no longer needs to be performed - something Platonic?

Objection to be addressed: Is iterability even a good criterion to think about music? Surely, jazz improvisations are unique and unrepeatable ideally?