A Discussion on the Justification of Art

Recently, able to think and play again in a way that has eluded me for years, I have been devoting a lot of thought to the bigger picture concerning my art. What constitutes a justification of art? Is it emotional expression? Can a justification of art be generated by an extrapolation from some simple axioms? If there is a justification of art, does it demand that art be original? I should preface this discussion with the disclaimer that this discussion concerns only an investigation of my personal notion of what constitutes a justification for art and not a judgment on whether or not any work that doesn't meet the criteria that I will set forth has redeeming value.

While thinking about these matters I spent some time trying to apply these ideas to some of the music that to me by identity achieves the ends of art. I also tried to apply these ideas to music that I feel fails convincingly as art.

First, the failures. At risk of compromising the intellectual integrity of this post I'll abstain from a direct discussion of what music it is that fails and proceed to a discussion of my conclusions. It is not sufficient to emote. Emotion, immediacy, these things are important and perhaps essential to the creation of meaningful art, but they are not sufficient. Everyone emotes. And a good deal of them emote honestly and passionately. But for me to identify a work as art, I demand more than simply the pouring of one's heart into one's craft. Something in the conveyance of the message must demand further thought than that required to initially experience the work. This is not to say that great art has to flow from a formal education; it certainly doesn't. But it cannot simply be literal. What you see is what you get can accomplish expressive but not artistic ends.

So, what explanation of art can account for this missing piece which is lacking in works which accomplish only expression but nothing more? Can there be some abstract answer for what quality art must possess? Many people have tried to put forward some such explanation. Nietzsche famously discussed the artist's interaction with tradition. Only after conquering some such tradition can an artist then assert their creation. But, even then, we must consider what makes any such tradition great. Nietzsche refers to tradition in Zarathustra, characterized as a dragon, on whose scales shine "Values, thousands of years old". He further asserts "to create new values--that even the lion [he characterizes the would-be creator as a lion] cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself for new creation--that is within the power of the lion. The creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred 'No' even to duty ... To assume the right to new values--that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much."

Great art, in my estimation is that which creates new values. It is the act of creation as described by Nietzsche. Robert Johnson's music did not flow from an academic understanding of musical theory, but it also did not merely consist of emoting as many had already emoted. His music created new values. The act of creation, of an idea, and not simply an artifact - an idea manifest in an artifact or in many, this is the act of creating art.

As for justification, I argue that the creation of new values is in and of itself the justification of art. At risk of being dismissive, and I am sure that worthy counterarguments abound, I am inclined to think that any attempt to derive art's significance or raison d'etre from basic axioms will either fail or be useless except as an academic exercise. These discussions, invariably, lead to the tangle of what constitutes significance, what are our ends? Sidestepping these potholes, I think we can evaluate art more successfully by considering it only in regard to itself, and in the context of the tradition that it follows, extends, or rejects. Art is significant, justified, and vindicated as art, as a contribution to the dialogue, if only it can be shown to be significant within the art, that it asserts something that must be acknowledged, whether or not it fails aesthetically. The only way, I argue, that this can be done is through the act of a creation of something so thoughtfully and completely it cannot be ignored.

I should also here clarify that in my interpretation of Nietzsche's rejection of the tradition, this 'rejection' is not a rejection of disdain, nor one motivated by an inability to achieve the demands of the tradition. Nietzsche himself asserts "[the lion] once loved 'thou shalt'", pointing to the embrace of the tradition that must precede its rejection. Also we must carefully consider a separation of the evaluation of art as art from any other context in which it might be considered. Jazz that swings but is devoid of conceptual weight could might not be art, yet still represent an achievement of craft. On the other hand music lacking he same degree of craft might still represent a serious achievement in art.

As an example, much controversy surrounds the saxophonist Mark Turner and his significance in jazz. Many of his critics consider him to be incapable of playing with the feeling of the blues while many of his followers assert that he is the most recent great saxophonist in the lineage. I make neither assertion here, but point out that his vision, regardless of whether or not it accords with a sense of what must be 'correct' in jazz, is so specific, explored, and developed that even by his critics, it can't be ignored. His decision to express himself in the absence of dynamic contrast, without inflection, confining himself to a purity of tone and a specific sort of technique is unique, an act of creation, if only a minor one. Here I might argue that even if one considers the music to fail expressively, which I don't, it still survives as a conception that must be considered.

More apparent artists that I considered as exemplars of artists whose work is clearly justified as a creation of values are Bach, Charlie Parker, Picasso, and Dostoevsky. Bach, clearly, in his creation of much of what we call counterpoint, created a world so maddeningly and meticulously ordered that his music serves as the basis for much of what occurs to us as logical or intuitive in music. This is not to say that there is no biological basis for our perceptions of these sounds in this way. But Bach's chosen orderings are not unique. Many cultures have arrived at markedly different melodic conceptions. Charlie Parker, in his innovation of bebop clearly forces forth an idea that all jazz musicians, even those who came before him, had no choice but to acknowledge. The work of Picasso similarly followed the mastery of a tradition with its rejection, creating a new set of rules by which it operated. Dostoevsky, too shattered conceptions of the novel that preceded his work, creating modern prose, according to James Joyce.

The question then must still be raised, why is it sufficient to create new values? It is difficult to answer this question without putting forth an identity response, simply defining the creation of values as constituting justified art. One possibility would be to require that these values are not simply assertions by their creator but values that must be acknowledged, if not employed by others. Still there is something unsatisfying about this explanation. In this case there could be no art in a world consisting of only one being. Perhaps there can be no real objective justification of art in a comparative sense. But I do believe that through the act of creation, the putting forth of an idea so cogent and ordered that within its own universe its rules seem to make sense, to possess a quality of 'rightness' is as close as we can come to justifying art.

A lingering question is whether or not art, true art, not merely the execution of a craft, must be original. I argue that it must. I don't believe that originality is essential to the creation of music, but to art I believe it is. Playing bebop well could constitute great music, enjoyable music, entertaining music, but I don't believe that it can now constitute great art any more than could the production of proficient cubist paintings.

As a jazz musician, I think that the next step must involve, as in any art - and as it has at every major step in jazz's history, a rejection of tradition. Yet something seems lacking in much of today's jazz music that parts from tradition. The problem, I believe is not with the rejection of tradition but with the failure to create new values. A rejection of tradition is abundant, but the creations themselves sound like rejections, not creations. Producing endless records that have no bigger idea than "this sounds cool, we'll put it on the record" does not create new values. John Coltrane had a broader conception in mind than "maybe it would be cool if". He single-handedly developed an aesthetic, following ideas over the course of years, creating an elaborate system of thought, a new theoretical basis for improvisation. Sadly, this is lost on most of those who try to replicate his accomplishments not by pursuing an analogous quest but instead by repeating moments from his, chasing not his goal but merely the aesthetic of having a goal. This attempt to create a 'searching' sound without actually searching for anything - besides an audience - perverts the accomplishments of Coltrane, and certainly fails to capture any of his achievement.

Perhaps most current rejections fail only because most attempts to create lasting art must inevitably fail. But I think the past thirty years have seen far less progress than the preceding thirty. I think this can be attributed to two things. Firstly, a true rejection of tradition requires a thorough understanding of the tradition. Charlie Parker's rejection of swing was not born of an inability to play swing, nor was it born of a distaste for it. Instead it reflected a bold decision to depart from a set of cherished norms and create new ones. The growth of the tradition at each step might yield less people in each generation able to scale to the top and then overthrow it. Additionally business models catered to a decreasing attention span have led many to try to market themselves by a sound and not by an idea or conception.

Having presented this notion of art as creation and a critique of the abundance of failure, it would seem to fall upon me to present an alternative myself, or at least to offer a direction. As for my own endeavors, I am rapidly recovering in recent weeks, repossessing skills that have long been in atrophy, but I am still flirting with Nietzsche's proverbial dragon, not near striking distance of slaying it. As for direction, I offer only that emphasis needs to be reassigned to the act of creation and to understanding. So many jazz musicians today possess incredible skills, but too many use these skills as an athlete does, abilities are cultivated thoughtfully, but broader considerations of the direction of music, of the nature of music, and of its structure are ignored. There are obviously notable counterexamples. Jason Moran is one that comes to mind quickly. Keith Jarrett, while not entirely of the last thirty years has presented many musical ideas. I think that we ought to regard our music as J.S. Bach, Charlie Parker, and John Coltrane among others did theirs. Part of this, I believe, involves reasserting the role of intellect in jazz. For all the complaints of how jazz has become overly 'brainy', very few musicians today use their brains even half as much as did Charlie Parker or Thelonious Monk. I think the big problem is that the music has become too pseudo-intellectual. The appearance of intelligence, or the difficulty of performance is used unsuccessfully as a proxy for the intelligence of the concept. If musicians step back in scope, thinking not about how they sound on a particular chord change, but instead about what ideas they use to frame their entire musical conception, I believe new values remain to be created.