# Glenn Gould on art and history



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

_Taken from the wikipedia article on Glenn Gould:_

In a lecture and essay titled "Forgery and Imitation in the Creative Process", one of Gould's most significant texts, he makes explicit his views on authenticity and creativity. Gould asks why the epoch in which a work is received, influences its reception as "art", postulating a sonata he composes that sounds so much like Haydn that it is received as such. If, instead, the same sonata had been attributed to a somewhat earlier or later composer, it becomes more or less interesting as a piece of music. Yet it is not the work that has changed but its relation within the accepted narrative of music history. Similarly, Gould notes the "pathetic duplicity" in the reception of high-quality forgeries by Han van Meegeren of new paintings attributed to Dutch Golden Age master Vermeer, before and after the forgery was known.

Gould, therefore, prefers an ahistorical, or at least pre-Renaissance, view of art, minimizing the identity of the artist and the attendant historical context in evaluating the artwork: "What gives us the right to assume that in the work of art we must receive a direct communication with the historical attitudes of another period? ... moreover, what makes us assume that the situation of the man who wrote it accurately or faithfully reflects the situation of his time? ... What if the composer, as historian, is faulty?"

*Comments, reactions, opinions?*


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm thinking Gould was a better pianist than writer. Why didn't he just ask why we value innovation? It's what he seems to be saying. If we don't put a piece in historical perspective how can we tell if it is innovative or imitative? Yes, to an extent all pieces are both innovative and imitative, else they would be near rubbish, but I think a bit of innovation and understanding the context of the innovation does add value to the listening experience. 

Of course I could have misunderstood his point entirely. I've often found Gould's comments --let's just say they might score low on the Flesch reading ease test. Is he playing the Devil's Advocate here?


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

As a painter as well as pianist, for me the work needs to stand on its own. Perhaps the historical context may add to my appreciation, but the work of art -- painting, music, sculpture, tapestry, dance -- requires its own beauty, and needs to move me emotionally in some way.

My interest is in the power of art to uplift, inspire, challenge, and transform, and transcend time and space.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The full article is available online:
http://kunsthistorie.kunstakademiet.dk/mortlake/pdf/2011/gould1994a.pdf


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Every time I hear the name "Glenn Gould", George Szell's quote immediately comes to mind:

"That nut's a genius!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A work of art must certainly "stand on its own," in the sense that it must have inherent qualities that cause us to pay attention to it, and can give us enjoyment regardless of what we know of its origins or the intention behind it. I think Gould is right in implying that a piece of music appraised as good if it's assumed to be by Dittersdorf ought still to be considered good if it later turns out to be by Fritz Kreisler. But I disagree that knowledge of a work's origin is, or ought be, irrelevant to the quality of our enjoyment. If such knowledge were unattainable the question would not arise; but the possession of that knowledge unavoidably affects what emotions and meanings are communicated to us when we hear the piece.

A work of music does not have a fixed meaning; it has neither a meaning which is the same for all listeners nor one which remains unchanging for a particular listener over time. The meaning of a work - what we experience when we listen to it - will inevitably undergo some change when what we know about the work changes; and "what we know" may include, among other things, who wrote the work and when it was composed. The change in authorship and period of origin from Dittersdorf in the 18th century to Kreisler in the 20th doesn't change the notes we hear, but it definitely changes what they say to us - indeed, what they have the _potential_ to say to us. This is true whether or not accurate identification of a work's origins brings us any true knowledge of those origins. I do not have to possess, in Gould's words, "accurate" impressions of Dittersdorf's or Kreisler's culture, or of the composers themselves, in order for my perception of the music to change when I discover its true author. Any degree or presumption of knowledge will precipitate such a change.

A completely ahistorical approach to appreciating art may have value as a discipline and a tool of analysis, but it seems to me not merely pointless but impoverishing as an ultimate goal.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think Gould is being consistent, i.e. provoking to near inflammatory, and certainly a playful duplicitous devil's advocate.

Most salient from that quote for me is his remark on _the "pathetic duplicity" in the reception of high-quality forgeries by Han van Meegeren of new paintings attributed to Dutch Golden Age master Vermeer, before and after the forgery was known._

First, the rather delightful aspect of Han van Meegeren's career, though he was a brilliant forger who did burn a lot of art dealers and their clients, is that his works also burned a lot of Nazi higher up art collectors -- Ergo: van Meegeren was a true criminal, but for the Dutch he is still a super anti-hero 

As a master forger, he used antique wood panels, and all the right elements in reproducing the pigments so works would be accepted as genuine, i.e. he was meticulous. Masterly forging includes creating works which are not replicates, but _as if_ genuinely of the time and from the particular artist being forged.

What finally led to the detection of these otherwise flawless fakes was something highly salient to the argument against replicating period work, and it is the point about music attempting to 'forge' the sound and soul of another era. If you have seen any Vermeers, they are all relatively small. In those paintings of scenes with people which are not the larger portraits, small figures are rendered with but a few small strokes, literally with but a dot for eyes and a tiny stroke for a mouth: from those, _the big tipoff that these paintings were not from that period was the expressions these tiny faces had... there was something about them which was 'modern,' i.e. they expressed neither the psyche of what people of the period knew, or from a modern perspective what seems to us like a naivete of a world culture they could not have known._

Translate, then, expert art forger to expert musical forger, add expert musician who deeply knows period style and applies that to performing the musical forgery, and you have an excellent pastiche rendered with as much "authenticity" as possible, but a work which still does not smile or frown at us with the persona of the age it imitates.

If anyone has a familiarity with works of a period, without all the historical trappings, the lack of the genuine ethos of the era and the writer / painter _just may show through._ If it does not show through, it is still possible, like those expressions which seemed 'out of place,' 'not right,' that a musical forgery may seem very like, while it still does not quite "ring true."

Love ya, Glen... will always prefer listening to your recordings than reading the verbiage. You're in good company, though, a more interesting writer than the seriously pretentious and whacky Wagner, and at the least, compared to Wagner as a writer, you are far more fun and playful


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Gould wax a great pianist but he had the misconception that he was good at other things like writing and radio producing. In these he certainly was far less successful. Pity he didn't stick to what he was good at.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gould was certainly a good writer. The _Glenn Gould Reader _is very much a fun book. And his comedy routines, poking fun at certain other composers, are a hoot. They can be found on YouTube. Those looking for grave profundities may be disappointed, of course.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I think Gould is being consistent, i.e. provoking to near inflammatory, and certainly a playful duplicitous devil's advocate.
> 
> Most salient from that quote for me is his remark on _the "pathetic duplicity" in the reception of high-quality forgeries by Han van Meegeren of new paintings attributed to Dutch Golden Age master Vermeer, before and after the forgery was known._
> 
> ...


I agree with your major point, but you give Van Meegeren and the suckers of the art establishment too much credit. His "Vermeers" are light years from the real thing, and the critics had to postulate an early "religious phase" in Vermeer's career (based solely on Vermeer's _Christ in the House of Mary and Martha_, which looks nothing like a Van Meegeren) to hypnotize themselves into such gullibility and lack of discernment. You're certainly right about the spirit communicated by the faces, but the figures and compositions as well are, compared to the real thing, as clunky and arid as Bauhaus architecture. Not only are these not good Vermeer imitations; they are not even very good paintings. However, there have been far better art forgeries, and no one doubts that many of them still hang in major collections.

As for music: is the Toccata and Fugue in d-minor really by J.S.Bach, and the Piano Trio in A, Op. posth., really by Brahms?
I think they probably are - or am I, too, undiscerning and gullible? Time does have a way of changing the look and sound of reality.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

http://video.mit.edu/watch/looking-at-20th-century-art-through-the-eyes-of-a-physicist-9611/


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> As for music: is the Toccata and Fugue in d-minor really by J.S.Bach, and the Piano Trio in A, Op. posth., really by Brahms?
> I think they probably are - or am I, too, undiscerning and gullible? Time does have a way of changing the look and sound of reality.


The art forgeries -- I have not seen any of those replicated, but have only read of what first led to their being thought forgeries. In the light of perfect hindsight ('knowing' there are but about 30 verified Vermeers, and having seen a few first-hand), I _might, maybe,_ have seen a distinct difference in the forgeries from the 1920's.

We all, 'scholars' or laymen, tend to see and hear what we wish, or hope, to see and hear.

If Bach's _T&C in d minor _is not by Bach, it is fairly certain it is from another in or around the same period, working in a very standard contemporary style of the day, and not in imitation of another composer. I don't even know of the Brahms, so would not venture a stab at that.

Some of these 'mistaken' pieces are, like the Pergolesi pieces given to Stravinsky when he turned them in to the Ballet, Pulcinella, all from within the same era, and likewise have later been questioned, or pretty much determined, to be by another than to whom they were originally attributed. That is a far cry from a good 20th century forgery attempting to pass as earlier music.

Again, I don't know if any 'of us' might have smelled the hoax of Fritz Kreisler's "discovered" pieces by Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini, and Antonio Vivaldi, for example. Since Kreisler revealed they were his works, there will be no telling if later scholars would have found they were contemporary to the early 20th century. The critics who were 'taken' in complained of course, and Kreisler said, "The name changes, the value remains." -- and that is of course endlessly arguable


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Translate, then, expert art forger to expert musical forger, add expert musician who deeply knows period style and applies that to performing the musical forgery, and you have an excellent pastiche rendered with as much "authenticity" as possible, but a work which still does not smile or frown at us with the persona of the age it imitates.
> 
> If anyone has a familiarity with works of a period, without all the historical trappings, the lack of the genuine ethos of the era and the writer / painter just may show through. If it does not show through, it is still possible, like those expressions which seemed 'out of place,' 'not right,' that a musical forgery may seem very like, while it still does not quite "ring true."


Contradictory. If one today cannot produce work with the authentic "ethos" of a bygone era, then one today cannot hear works with the authentic "ethos" that those of the era would have heard it.

In other words, short of a slip up like Meegeren's to flag anything (not to mention chemical testing and dating of his paints), nobody today could detect the inauthenticity of a work by whether it "rings true". Nobody would know the difference if not given additional information about the work.

Also, I think you are starting to give Wagner (Re: his writings) a run for his money.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Contradictory. If one today cannot produce work with the authentic "ethos" of a bygone era, then one today cannot hear works with the authentic "ethos" that those of the era would have heard it.


I suppose if there were a good enough mimic who thoroughly knew my close friends' every little psychological tick and the minutia of their speech habits, patterns, and timbrel qualities, I could be readily fooled. Generally, though, I recognize the voices of those with whom I am deeply familiar -- while I cannot nearly mimic them enough to fool any of them or their friends.

I could not possibly reach the level of Wagner's writings, either, because I never take myself as seriously as did your hero


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

hpowders said:


> Every time I hear the name "Glenn Gould", George Szell's quote immediately comes to mind:
> 
> "That nut's a genius!"


That's Leonard Bernstein's quote, I'm pretty sure. Anyways, I think calling him a 'genius' simply trivializes the word.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Gould was a really smart guy. He's on to something here… I don't know what it is yet, but it's something.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Again, I don't know if any 'of us' might have smelled the hoax of Fritz Kreisler's "discovered" pieces by Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini, and Antonio Vivaldi, for example. Since Kreisler revealed they were his works, there will be no telling if later scholars would have found they were contemporary to the early 20th century. The critics who were 'taken' in complained of course, and Kreisler said, "The name changes, the value remains." -- and that is of course endlessly arguable


A similar thing happened when Andres Segovia began performing newly discovered pieces by Weiss and Scarlatti. They were in fact composed by Manuel Ponce, in cahoots with Segovia. Everyone was comprehensively taken in, so much so that before long, these "newly discovered works" were appearing in print - people transcribed them by ear from Segovia's records, and published them, assuming they were in the public domain.

Well, that is in any event what the notes on my CD of some of these works say. I have to say, they are utterly delightful, whoever composed them.


----------

