“John (Jacobson) is the founder and president of America Sings, Inc., a non-profit, charitable organization that creates non-competitive choral festivals. These festivals provide young performers with the opportunity to utilize their talents in service projects and worthwhile causes. Since 1989, more than 100,000 young people have attended these events.”

http://www.musicexpressmagazine.com/aboutJohn.jsp

Eric I totally understand that need for there to be a reason behind something even if you already think it may possibly be true… In my paper I define aesthetically beneficial as a work that meets a certain criteria to be determined by anyone but I go on to say that you should only participate in the works and projects that you deem aesthetically beneficial, the caliber at which you execute that project is not really discussed. Although I do think that playing to the best of one’s ability is a moral issue it is not within the scope of the matters addressed in my paper. On the other hand playing a piece of “bad” music, as determined by the artists performing, or writing or whatever, no matter how well you do at it, is what i see as wrong. Most people would probably agree with my statement but have a really hard time as to who gets to decide what is good and what is bad because they are such subjective determinants. What I am trying to make a case for is that it does not matter what the population thinks or what even other artists think when it comes down to you playing or writing, if you think it is not beautiful than you should not be doing it. I think the point from Col. is a really good one and one that should be discussed but my paper is more pointed toward the artists who not do the best they can, but more towards the artists who use their abilities and talents in a knowingly inappropriate way.

I didn’t get the impression that the premise (quoting from the original post: “A musician has an obligation to only create works that best express their aesthetic judgment”) meant one shouldn’t compose or perform unless he/she was completely pleased with the result, but it did make me rethink my criteria for performance.

So, are you the author of the paper in question? You commented, “Using your artistic abilities for in non-artistic ways, defined as anything you think is really bad, for personal gain is morally wrong.” While I tend to agree with that statement, I’m one of those concrete-sequential people who want everything clearly delimited (OK, so I know the world doesn’t work that way, but…), and that definition of “non-artistic” is annoyingly subjective. What is “really bad”?

You implied that it would be a problem if the artist placed financial gain ahead of personal aesthetics. What if I’m just lazy? Suppose I know the result isn’t the best I can do, but I’m not willing to take the time to work at it – is there a place for “good enough”? Or suppose I agree to play a concert of music that I personally think is “really bad”, but I play it really well. Does that pass the test? Yes, that’s a quasi-rhetorical argument.

In an earlier post, Michael wrote, “The phrase “making bad music”, for the purpose of this student’s thesis, has a very specific meaning during the act of creation. It can only mean “making art that is contrary to the artist’s best aesthetic judgment.” That put me in mind of Colossians 3:23:

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men…(NIV).

But we wouldn’t know anything about that personally.

This could easily be outweighed by a number of financial obligations, such as feeding one’s family. But I suppose I am stating the obvious. (?)

The phrase “making bad music”, for the purpose of this student’s thesis, has a very specific meaning during the act of creation. It can only mean “making art that is contrary to the artist’s best aesthetic judgment.” After it has been created, a whole new set of criteria emerge for evaluating it’s worth to others. This thesis argues that the second criteria should never substitute for, or even interfere with, the first criteria during the act of creation.

By the way, Eric, welcome to the blog. I’m glad you found us!

I didn’t get the impression that you were in complete agreement with the thesis. And, there will always be a substantial subjective component where aesthetic judgments are concerned.

I also don’t want to give the impression that I agree with this student’s argument. It would be pretty hypocritical of me, given how I’ve made most of my money in music. It was not, how you say, “Art”. Artfully done, I hope, but not towering works of aesthetic wonder. More along the lines of “Loop it, delay it, autotune it, bop it!”

Dorothy Sayers addressed this question of artistic integrity in her novel “Gaudy Night.” Over dinner, Lord Peter raises the case of an “artist whose works are so original that they fetch very little money” (or something like that), and asks rhetorically if he should paint “pot-boilers” and become commercially successful or continue to paint in his highly original style and let his family starve. One of the academics immediately replies that there is no question, he must cease painting immediately – he would violate his artistic integrity if he painted for popular appeal, and he “mustn’t let his family starve.”

I found myself wondering what the fictional Edwardian artist would do instead to support his family. Probably as art director for an advertising agency, which might arguably be considered another form of artistic prostitution. I agree that framing the argument as a choice between artistic integrity and survival presents a false dichotomy, but (hmm…I always get in trouble when I type that word…) that can present a very difficult choice, and not just between basic survival and a more comfortable lifestyle.

Perhaps in Kant’s Kingdom of Ends the choice is not between integrity and survival, but I’m not entirely ready to accept that the issue is as simple as wanting to earn money in a chosen profession. Charles Ives had the luxury of heading a very successful insurance business to underwrite his artistic integrity. Would he have written anything at all if he was supporting his family as a day laborer? Since the thesis specifically parallels the sacrifice of artistic integrity with prostitution, does one imagine that the sex trade is the preferred profession of most of those engaged in it? No, I wouldn’t accept the argument of survival from a maker of pornographic films, who has a certain position of power, but I would be less quick to condemn the actors (if you will).

I feel blessed.

I think that’s a false dichotomy, a presentation of a seemingly impossible choice that makes the action seem inevitable. To argue “But my kids needs to eat!” seems like survival and compromise are our only two choices, but that’s only true if we accept that music is the only possible way this person can provide for the basic survival of those depending on him or her. Only in that case can we invoke the idea of duty to survival first, and only then to everything else that follows.

I don’t think that’s ever the case. The choice is not between compromise of aesthetic integrity and survival, the choice is between compromise and taking up a different job. We wouldn’t accept that argument from a pornographer who says, “But my kids need to eat! I have no choice but to keep making these films.” It’s not an issue of survival, it’s an issue of wanting to earn that money in a preferred profession.

The second question (solo vs. ensemble) is an interesting one, and something I think he’ll need to deal with in his paper. I think he’ll address it by suggesting a sliding scale between the amount of individual creative input a person has in a project, and the amount of their aesthetic obligation. In the case of a large symphony, there is a low level of individual aesthetic contribution, identity, discretion, whatever. In the case of a bubble-gum pop songwriter, a very high level. The obligations shift on that basis, I think.

And, now that I’ve done his work for him, I kind of hope they DON’T come by to comment.

Re #6: I’ve always had a little trouble with Kant, but that’s probably my imperfect understanding.

I can accept the argument that I have a perfect duty to create compositions or performances that best express my aesthetic judgment, but when I have to balance that against my imperfect duty to pay the bills, well it gets pretty fuzzy. Could it be a difference of degree? As long as I have enough to eat, I can agree that it’s wrong to make musical choices based on popular or commercial appeal – I’m not looking to get rich, or I wouldn’t be in this business – but when money is tight, I become a bit less scrupulous. A slippery slope, eh?

What if I’m part of an ensemble, but not the one who calls the shots? If the conductor asks for something with which I strongly disagree, I am violating the second formulation if go along? I think there is a violation of the first formulation hiding there somewhere.

I’m still hoping some of my students will actually stop by and comment.

The only thing of real value that I can have true knowledge of is my own happiness. Therefore, my only obligation is to act in ways that serve my own self-interest. The only reason I shouldn’t knife you in the gut and keep your kidneys in my freezer on the off chance I might enjoy eating them is because I might suffer punishment.

It’s creepy when the freaky guy is right.

I’m off to Google “Atlas Shrugged”…