A reader and a colleague writes:
“ ‘In Art History the situation’s even more hopeless because the History of Art requires that we understand not merely what was painted in the past, not simply how, but why one painted as one did.’
Is this your ‘Barbie’ statement: what is art made for?”
Okay. Here’s a test. What’s the difference between these two recordings:
and:
?
Striking. The first tape is played forward and it’s, well, Bach. The second plays the same composition backwards, and it’s crap; movie music. In fact, it could be the sonic equivalent of the Barbie movie—not because the Barbie movie’s bad, necessarily, but because, like Bach played backwards, it doesn’t go anywhere. Wallpaper. Maybe that’s what Adolf Loos meant when he wrote:
“But whoever goes to the Ninth Symphony and then sits down after to design a pattern for wallpaper is either a confidence man of a degenerate.”
„Wer aber zur neunten synphonie geht und sich dann hinsitzt, um ein tapetenmuster zu zeichnen, ist entweder ein hochstapler oder ein degenerierter.“1
Many would consider Ruscha to be one of those two. To me he’s merely the logical outcome of the kind of Art practice taught in art schools: what’s the point?
Because what’s missing from the Backwards Bach is what’s missing from Ruscha. A touch of Music Theory, to explain:
The basis for most musical compositions is a type of grammar called Harmony. Harmony teaches how various single tones are superposed or strung out over time. According to some theoreticians, there is a second aspect to musical composition that Harmony cannot teach: the logic behind the progression from one cluster of tones to another, over time. There is nothing whatsoever missing from Backwards Bach—except Bach’s own reasons for stringing this particular series of tones in this particular order, the complex and compelling inner necessity for this progression.
[To be continued]
WOID XXIII-38
January 20, 2024
“Ornament und Verbrechen“ [1908].
Finally got to see the Barbie movie (on a long flight back from Paris, come on!). Can we agree that Ruscha is Barbie for Kens? (Why Ken is in love with horses and not gas stations is quite beyond me. Maybe the director was afraid of offending Big Oil?)