I still think you need to add** John Adams**. Nixon in China is already standard repertoire, and Klinghoffer is only held back due to political sensitivities.
As I said before, I’m not exactly a fan of his (although there are one or two paintings I think are reasonable), but I have a hunch that he will be remembered. It would be kind of hard to go through any art history and gloss over perhaps the highest profile late 20th century art movement (Young British Artists) and Damien Hirst’s involvement. Like him or not, he’s secured his place historically as a high profile (probably the highest profile) 20th century artist. Now will he be remembered fondly or more critically? I suspect that history will be kinder on him than us.
I’m not talking whether someone is remembered in the history books. Or even retain some sort of reputation among academics. I’m talking about whether their art will still be considered “great,” “major,” etc., in 2114. For example, Shakespeare is still performed and appreciated, nay, worshiped, today. I think that will still be true in 2114. I don’t think Hirst will be ranked with Picasso in 2114.
I wouldn’t say that for sure. I think he will be remembered as a major artist. Will he be canonical like the other ones I mentioned? I don’t know. But I don’t find it inconceivable as, love it or hate it, he’s created some of the most memorable late 20th century art. If Warhol can be canon (and I don’t really like his work and, to be honest, the few pieces of Hirst that I like I prefer to any Warhol I’ve seen), I see no reason that Hirst can’t or won’t be canon.
I think this is generally true about pop/rock music these days. The record companies did serve a purpose, promoting things. Now that the cost of pressing/distributing your music has hit rock bottom, there’s no barrier to getting your music out there. But unless you’re a skilled self promoter, it’s not getting pushed unless you’re on a label. The labels used to take chances on adventurous acts, but they just don’t anymore. If you’ve got a crazy idea on the edge of music, they’ll let you take your own chances, thanks. This contributes to the perception that there’s no innovation in pop/rock these days.
In the end, it’s liberating for both the performer and the listener. At the same time, it’s more work for both, with more reward when you get it right.
I see this effect less in visual art, because there still seems to be around the same market for original art, and there hasn’t been a great change in who is the establishment. Some people have been able to use the internet to market/exhibit their art successfully, but I haven’t heard of gallery owners clamoring about their lost sales, and Art In America and Artforum both seem to be doing well, with the same established galleries advertising.
I don’t know enough about the economics of contemporary classical music to comment much on how they get promoted and become successful. However, I’ve always thought that classical music ensembles, and by extension the composers of contemporary works, generally depended on benefactors to perform. Is this incorrect?
Absolutely, Warhol and Ruscha as well.
My wife hopes Hockney would be durable for 100 years. I don’t think he will be for his painting, but possibly for his photography. I’d like to think that Rauschenberg would survive, simply because he was the first to overlay images in a way that is very important in the modern era. My wife disagrees, and thinks he’ll be like Corot, who’s important to painters, but isn’t well known.
One of the things that will keep some contemporary artists from being durable is that their work is intentionally created in ways and on things that won’t be here in 100 years. (e.g. Banksy, Robert Smithson)
Thanks for reminding me about Ligeti; I’ve been meaning to check into his stuff.
But all these guys were basically established pre-War and certainly by my new arbitrary cutoff date of 1960. Barber’s string quartet with the famous adagio is from 1936.
Fame and legacy tend to work based on “brand.” If you can establish the brand, your work will continue to be “input” into the system even after it is not taking new applicants, so to speak.
If a crude, poorly written play by Shakespeare were discovered next week, it would be huge news reported by the major media, performances would be put on immediately, and so on. In contrast, if a masterpiece by Ben Jonson were similarly discovered, it would not be big news. Further, there is no way any new author could write a play so good that it would get as much press as a crude Shakespeare work. Shakespeare has “brand.” (I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it, but the way such brands work does not always lead to justice.)
That’s why I emphasize when these guys got their start. They were able to establish their brands when new classical music was a part of mainstream life. Perhaps highbrow mainstream life, but it wasn’t just academics.
Thomas died in 1953. Cummings is basically a pre-War poet and died in 1962. Larkin was born in 1922. I would say he was never really famous among the masses in the first place.
Let’s keep in mind that we just have not produced a Dickens in our era–someone who sells a lot of books and is considered “great” in his or her own time. Some of the above, perhaps all, seem like writers only academics will know about in 2114. I really don’t think anyone is going to give a shit about Margaret Atwood then. Or Jonathon Franzen, for that matter. They haven’t established the big brand and cultural cachet that people were able to do up until around 1960.
Beckett was born in 1909, and Waiting for Godot came out in 1953. I don’t think he qualifies. I can’t comment on the others.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not talking about whether works are being produced. I’m not even talking about their quality. I’m saying that people are not taking notice in large numbers, and the social mechanism by which we used to elevate a Beethoven or a even a Britten to “greatness” no longer exists. Thus, when classical music fans or even academics look back to the year 2014, they may have their favorites, but they will not be able to claim that that anyone became famous for music composition at this time. My theory is that, unless someone is famous in his or her time, he or she will not be famous in the future. Thus, the masses will still listen to Beethoven in 2114, but they will not (in any large numbers) listen to Ligeti–or to anyone composing in 2014. I’m not saying that’s fair or right, but I do think it’s true.
What you say is interesting and true, but the implications may be the opposite of what you are saying.
In Bach’s time, there were big trends in music, and people were as you say forgetting the “old”: the galante style was replaced Baroque, and idiots like Stamitz were considered the bee’s knees. Out with the old, in with the new.
Then, in the 19th century, as you know, Bach was revived. Good move! I love Bach. The “trouble” (both blessing and curse), however, is that we’ve kept all the good stuff since, so that classical music, to most people, now means that good stuff from the 18th and 19th centuries, with the rare 20th century piece thrown in.
The thing is, it’s a big deal for a symphony orchestra to learn and perform one symphony–think of all the man-hours! So are they going to do Beethoven’s 5th or some new work? What will bring in the dollars? Hell, even among Beethoven’s symphonies, some are not performed very often (I was lucky to see the 1st a few years ago). I listened to the Kodaly Quartet’s complete set of Haydn string quartets in the car for years but still feel I didn’t get to know them well enough.
And that is another issue when imagining 2114: just the glut of stuff people will have to deal with: another hundred years of movies, TV shows, popular music, and so on. Human mental bandwidth will not increase, but the amount of stuff to be sorted through will be that much greater. All of the dross does make it harder to locate the gold, especially if it was not mined in its own era.
As for your comments on modern classical music, I think they show an academic bias. There are no “towering figures” in our era. That’s precisely the problem I’m addressing. People don’t know about these guys. I consider myself a big classical music fan and do listen to “contemporary” classical, and I haven’t heard a lot of what you’re talking about. Now why is that? Basically because I am passively open to new classical–if I encounter it in the media or it smacks me in the face somehow, I will give it a chance. But the fact is that it doesn’t smack me in the face. People outside of classical music message boards and whatnot do not not talk about this stuff. My friends that I consider smart and intellectual do not talk about this stuff.
And that’s the thing: smart people who are open to new classical, people who would be in the “demo,” don’t hear about it. That’s what I’m talking about with the “social mechanism” thing. People hear about Miley Cyrus at the VMAs, even if they are not interested in it. No one hears about Nixon in China, even if they are open to it. (Btw, that sounds like a spoof of modern opera as opposed to an actual opera. The thought of Nixon belting out an aria sounds, well, absurd. Just sayin’.)
What you say is interesting and true, but the implications may be the opposite of what you are saying.
I didn’t clarify this enough. What I ultimately meant is that the preservation of past gold reduces the bandwidth for recognizing new gold. And I think the bandwidth people have reserved for classical music is pretty much used up now, to the point where great pieces from recognized giants like Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart are regularly neglected.
I concur with your analysis.
I think another thing that’s happened is that record companies–and movie companies–have gotten “better” at their jobs. Movie companies didn’t put out great movies like Taxi Driver in the 70s out of a desire to create great art (I’m not saying that desire was zero, but…). Rather, they hadn’t learned to focus almost entirely on blockbusters yet. Same thing with pop music. They didn’t have the formula down yet. Now they do. They are going to “One Direction” us forever. Now I love a good pop song (and even like a couple of their songs), but c’mon…
Ja, that’s why I said visual art is not like the others, cuz rich people can own it. I have no doubt that people will still want to own Damien Hirst works in 2114. There are going to be a lot more rich Chinese people then who want to put something on their walls. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he will be considered a great artist like Picasso (not that you were saying this–I’m just building on your point).
Yes, there is not a lot of money in it, and I know that symphony orchestras have to be subsidized with donors. Even then, the tickets seem expensive.
I think you’re prfoundly wrong with your initial premise. Our view of great literature is based on what’s currently in fashion. The literary giants of 2114 will be defined by what’s ever in fashion 10 years in the future. Just because something is regarded as a crapfest today won’t make a jot of difference to the literarti of the 22nd century.
In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens was the very embodiment of popular literature. People all over the world (Europe and the US, anyway) waited eagerly for new chapters of his latest work to appear in Strand magazine or whatever newspaper it was being serialised in.
This is as close to JK Rowling as it’s possible to be.
Regarding it as “serious literature” is something that happened later.
Same with Shakespeare. Written as throw away pieces in a just a few weeks and forgotten completely for two hundred years. Now they’re among the best stuff ever written by anyone ever. In a hundred years time, Bill might fall out of fashion and literary scolars will carry out deatiled mata analyses of the pivotal seventh season scripts of Two and a Half Men.
My theory is that something needs to be famous in its own time among a large number of people in order to be famous in the future among a large number of people. What academics think today about art doesn’t impact what people read very much. Dickens was popular in the 19th century and is still read. Is there any author who was not popular in the 19th century but now read by a large number of people? None that I know of.
I agree. That’s why I even considered her as a candidate. I just don’t actually think Harry Potter and crew will be enjoyed much in 2114.
Or rather, that division didn’t exist yet. That said, Dickens was indeed recognized in his time as a great writer. Beethoven was recognized in a his time as a great composer. The idea that “true art” could only be understood by college professors didn’t exist yet. It’s this division, I think, that has been a big part of the loss of social mechanism for recognizing artists as “great” by society.
Except not.
I agree with the OP that plenty of movies and TV shows from that period will endure, but for a different reason. It’s not because they’re “easy to consume”: A movie is no easier to consume than a play. Rather, it’s because both media are still young. When a medium is new, there is plenty of room for innovators to take it in fresh new directions, and that gets noticed and remembered.
It’s easier to consume than a play, since you can watch it at home. But basically, yes. The big difference is that plays are not easy to put on, and distribution is highly limited.
I think this is true. People will remain curious about the beginnings of the whole thing as well.
(John Williams’ original classical music.) Yeah, pretty good.
(While naming names, Shaun Davey writes remarkably good “modern classical” stuff. The “Relief of Derry” symphony is brilliant.)
Reasonably similar to what I said. And, yeah, it’s a shame when Beethoven’s, or Vivaldi’s, or etc.'s, greatest stuff squeezes out their other stuff. I have an album entitled “The Forgotten Beethoven,” concentrating on his lesser-known stuff.
(Who ever listens to the first two Leonore overtures, when the third is so surpassingly brilliant!)
I don’t know if Davey’s even that well known in Ireland and the “Relief of Derry” is even more politically fraught than Klinghoffer is, which discourages performances. That said, it’s a cracking piece of music and well worth a listen, even if it’s unlikely to be one for the ages.
There were very few “towering figures” in any era, and fewer still who weren’t as famous for their performances (e.g. Liszt) as their music. It’s posterity who decides.
Well, as I said Nixon in China (which premiered in 1987) is already part of the standard operatic repertoire. It was the subject of an enormous amount of media coverage (regular media, not just “classical music circles”) at the time it premiered and it gets performed a lot, particularly for an opera with few hummable tunes. The Man on the Street may not have heard of it but then the MotS probably doesn’t know who Wagner was either outside of Bugs Bunny cartoons (and, these days, not even those).
You’re not being consistent with your criteria. On the one hand you want to know who will be considered “great” in a few generations. On the other, you want people who write the music the Man on the Street can hum. By the latter criterion, the “towering figure” of 20th-century classical music is Carl Orff. Is that really what you’re asking?
Some is better than none!
I hear you, but people who are reasonably educated who don’t consider themselves classical music fans are likely to have heard of Wagner. I actually have heard of Nixon at some point but could not have told you the composer’s name, and I do consider myself a classical music fan. But not someone who feels he’s got to know everything (I really have no friends to talk about this stuff with, so I also learn in a pretty random fashion, too).
Well, with classical music, the hummable stuff was abandoned long ago, and that’s when the Man on the Street and even Educated People lost interest. Also, the press lost interest. It now only appeals to a very narrow group of people, a high percentage of whom are musicians and composers themselves. It is pretty much the same way with poetry. It’s incestuous. And I think in such a situation greatness is not registered now, nor is it exhumed or otherwise revived later. I really don’t think any poet who started working after 1960 will be remembered in 2114 as “great.”
Tom Stoppard.
And I’m thinking Tolkien, as well. Maybe even Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, but it will probably have been remade at least two times more since then.
In English, I see no reason to doubt Seamus Heaney’s legacy.
Tolkien was one of the progenitors of 20th century fantasy, but the culmination of the art was … Terry Pratchett?
[sub]your 21st century lit crit[/sub]