Last week I mentioned the story of the Soviet composer Dmitry Shostakovich and how he was influenced by his government to compose in a certain way. This brings up some important questions. For one, what role should a government play in influencing a composer or artist? Let's address this one first. First, I don't believe the answer is as easy as merely waving the banner of free speech. If a government supports the artist, especially financially, why shouldn't a government have a say in what is produced? As a composer, I have received commissions to write new music and there are usually strings attached. These conditions include the work's length, the instrumentation, and at times even the subject matter (I was once asked to write a musical selection about Theodore Roosevelt. How surprised my patron would have been if I changed the subject to Sarah Palin!). This is all typically stated in a contact–a mutual agreement. What is rarely ever stated is the “style” in which the piece is to be written. I must assume, however, that if I am being commissioned, it is because the commissioner is already familiar with my music, likes my style and wants some more in generally the same vein. Also what cannot be solidified in a formal contract is the relationship of trust that must exist between the artist and the art patron (whether the patron is a private person or a government). In this relationship, it is incumbent upon the artist to reconcile his or her individual creative voice with the expectations of the patron. This is not a call to compromise an artist's standards. On the other side, the art patron must remain open-minded and trust that the artist and resulting art product has something valuable and unique to say. But what of the musician or artist who decides to compose free of patrons or contracts? These artists too may have something valuable to say (or not). Are these works somehow more profound because they were written “freely?” I dare say that the vast majority of works we consider masterpieces were written for somebody. But ultimate the judges of quality will be present and future members of the society for which the artwork was intended. But back to our initial question, under what conditions might a government intervene? A government might suggest intervention (pulling a piece of music off the airwaves or pulling an artwork down) and offer the justification that it is protecting its people and culture. This is a difficult prospect and assumes a role where the government takes a leadership role in determining the worthiness of art. If a government is truly representative of its people, it (along with other institutions) must be a faithful custodian of its people's cultural heritage. It must carefully preserve a country's cultural heritage. But a government needs to be more than that. It must also serve as a conduit to a nation's rich cultural future. Being an effective facilitator of culture means understanding that cultural expression is not frozen in time but ever evolving. And these new musical sounds or artistic colors or literary metaphors can potentially cast new light or a new appreciation on a society's cultural values without necessarily weakening the bonds of those values. Artistic diversity has the ability to add more strands to the fabric of a culture, thereby strengthening it, as opposed to a society that can only find expression within the narrow confines of a single strand. So I'm for many “strands” in a culture. Diversity is a nice word, yes? But does this mean that all strands are of equal quality? All music, all art, all philosophies are equal? Should I be teaching my students rock and hip-hop alongside Beethoven or Brahms? I suggest the answer to this is no–all strands are not equal. Some styles and artistic voices have withstood the test of time and have grown stronger to the point of being part of a culture's foundation. Other strands are newer and so have yet to stand the test of time. We may not like some of these new strands but we should not stand in their way. Some will wither naturally on their own while others ascend (in my culture, jazz is a good example of this). And what of Shostakovich? What if he had been left alone to follow his own voice? As abrasive as some of his music was, I imagine that his catalogue of works would still have found its rightful place in the constellation of great Russian/Soviet composers. So yes it is true, if Shostakovich had been left alone, the scales of artistic freedom would have been tipped more towards free speech. But how much I would miss his magnificent Fifth Symphony. I invite you to listen to this music for yourself: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_cD6Ug3xzk[/youtube] BM **The beliefs and statements of all Bikya Masr blogumnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect our editorial views.
