interactivity
Philos takes exception to my use of the term “solidly passive” to describe music, objecting that any passivity in music (and in any art form) is specific to particular works, and not inherent in the form itself. He is entirely right, of course. The use of the phrase “solidly passive art forms” to describe film and music was actually something I was stuck on for a while, since it’s completely true that no art form is actually passive (in fact, I think part of what makes art art is its demand for interaction from us)–and even the recordshop boys’ appreciation, categorization and discussion of music is itself a wealth of interaction. The distinction I was after, and still cannot come up with solid terminology for, is something like Barthes’ readerly / writerly split, but broader. Generally, listening to an average piece of music or watching a film requires less involvement than does reading an average book. Not that you can’t insert your involvement into anything, but a film will deliver an experience to you regardless of whether you’re actually paying any attention. A book you’re not paying attention to (assuming it even makes sense) is going to be no kind of experience except that of being bored.
There are all kinds of reasons for this, some of them fundamental to the form (I would argue that film’s multi-media nature is inherently closer to external experience, while writing’s restriction to words makes it much closer to thought, or internal experience), some of them because our cultural expectations of and value assigned to different art forms are very different (and thus we are seldom surprised when the movie version doesn’t live up to the book). Also, I should stress the “generally” above. There are novels that couldn’t get more passive (based on my limited perusal of John Grisham’s oeuvre, I think he’s writing to help people who aren’t dead inside yet, but would like to be), and movies that refuse to tell you a passive story (Last Life in the Universe, which I saw last night, is a good example (and highly recommended)).
Music and visual art I have to put together as forms where our expectations of passivity (walk into an office building — on the wall is inoffensive, bland art, and in the are is inoffensive, bland music) are so strong that they dominate the way we experience them. Don’t you think it’s a bit strange that we use art as home decor? That we listen to art in the background while talking to friends at a bar? I think the strangeness is more invisible for music because of its populist nature (almost no one pays attention to visual art for art’s sake, but almost no one pays attention to visual art), but deeper. Satie’s furniture music was, even at the time, partly a comment on the background position role often takes (and partly an embracing of that role); its successor, ambient music, has less to say about being background because all music is functioning more as background in this era when even a trip to the grocery store has a soundtrack.
So just by actually listening to music instead of its being in the background, Rob & co. are more active in their art experience than most, more so when you include evaluating and discussing it. I’m imagining transferring them to a book store instead of a record store, and I think that saying that because they are dealing with music instead of literature they are more passive and less interactive is a) wrong, since we’re talking about great (at least to them) art, in which the inherent passivity of one form vs. another is fairly irrelevant, and b) tangential to what I meant to be my point: that they are consumers rather than producers of art, and that is the real thing changed by Top 5 Records and Sonic Death Monkey.
Side art note: this essay (via koselitz/MeFi) is great. You should read it.
Filed by shaun at September 24th, 2008 under indifferenthonest