# Academicism in the creative arts



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I put this here because it's not exactly a _fun_ thread. But its not only about music but all the creative arts.

How I would define *academicism* in art as when the artwork becomes:
- Too focused on technique, so much so that the work becomes like a dry academic exercise (eg. going through the motions)
- Redoing things that have been done before by the author, or others (& in a better & more interesting way, perhaps)
- Spinning out material that is too thin for the kind of treatment it is given (eg. overblown or a bit long-winded)

Examples of _academicism_ in music that I can think of are the finales of some of Brahms' piano trios, also the last movement of Schubert's _Piano Trio D929 _and in an earlier era, the first movement of Haydn's _Cello Concerto in D major_. I do not avoid these works and don't mind them, but most people I'd guess would admit they would have done with a lot less spinning and more tightening up. But the conventions of the time where that you had to do certain things in that way (eg. finales in rondo form, or with a fugue thrown in, etc.).

Strictly speaking though, _academicism_ is less an individual artwork or style than an ideology, which can become entrenched, esp. in places of higher learning (eg. universities).

But there are more concrete examples of _academicism_ in all the arts. In visual art, the late 19th century painter Hans Makart is a good example. In architecture, what is commonly called the Victorian Academic Gothic style is another example (many buildings of this style have survived in Australia).

Sometimes, _academicism_ speaks to a rearguard action to preserve the dying days of a style that's obviously past its used-by date.

The only positives I see in it is providing some sort of comfort with the onslaught of new things that many people might not be comfortable with. Easier to live in the past, basically, and these artists/composers (etc.) basically cater to that need.

& it's not only limited to times in the distant past. This kind of thing went on in music academies well into the 20th century. In Australia, music history at our schools of music stopped with middle period Beethoven. Most things after that were considered too radical. This was still going on in the 1950's (read Peter Sculthorpe's autobiography _Sun Music_, and he goes into this, he was young then & is still alive). Then after 1945 in Europe we had _total serialism_ becoming an entrenched dogma, particularly in academic circles who supported the ideology of _progress_ and _the future_ above everything else. This is a different kind of _academicism_, not rearguard as the other type, but equally restrictive.

*So I'm looking at a broad discussion about your experiences and thoughts on academicism.

Do you like it or not?

Have you experienced similar things as a music student, or as a student of other things?

Give some examples if you can.

Do you agree with my analysis? Why or why not?*


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm not sure I agree with Sid's definition of academicism (is there even such a word?) as being "too focused on ...". I think that Sid is correct when he says that academicism (we will accept this word for the purposes of this thread) leads to something that is dry and dull. My gripe is not so much with academicism, as dull as that can be, as the lack of academic skill. 

When one has nothing but technique and theory, lacking creative spark, there is no artistic magic. The chances that things exist in this theoretical, technical world without creativity are much, much lower than the odds of creativity taking place all around us without enough technical and theoretical training and ability. In music one of the examples of this is Paul McCartney. He lacks the technical and theoretical training and ability to make the kind of classical music magic he made when he was working in the pop genre. I find it difficult to articulate what I am trying to say in the context of music, but the original poster invites exploration of the question in all the arts. 

I see it all the time in contemporary dance in South Africa. Most of the dancers in South Africa have not received a classical ballet training. It shows in nearly all cases. With classical ballet training (and I think probably with classical Indian dance training and some of the other classical movement trainings, probably including some of the martial arts) the sense of movement comes from inside a person and moves outwards, while without it the movement comes from outside and applies only to the limbs and head and torso, never reaching inside. There are some people who move so beautifully that the lack of a classical training is not noticed - their movement comes from inside anyway - but they are rare. 

In short there is a need for both academic knowledge and the creative spark and where both are great there we find great music, great dance, great visual art and where one is lacking the work is less great. Where both are lacking we find poor examples of whatever genre we are examining. So your examples fall into the category of only one being lacking. The work is less great and that is because it is academic, dry and dull.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Moira said:


> ...There are some people who move so beautifully that the lack of a classical training is not noticed - their movement comes from inside anyway - but they are rare...


What you say there, reminds me of what some people say about a some ability, incl. a creative talent, _you either have it or you don't. _Like any cliche, it has it's limitations.



> ...
> In short there is a need for both academic knowledge and the creative spark and where both are great there we find great music, great dance, great visual art and where one is lacking the work is less great. Where both are lacking we find poor examples of whatever genre we are examining. So your examples fall into the category of only one being lacking. The work is less great and that is because it is academic, dry and dull.


I agree that thing about balance. But I would, given some technical ability, emphasise a level of daring by an artist, a willingness to show themselves, express their own personality and uniqueness.

By today's standards, Elgar and Schoenberg lacked basic formal music education, yet it didn't prevent them from becoming major composers of their time.

Of course, some _academicist _composers do still survive in the repertoire, or have made a comeback of sorts. Examples are Stanford and Bruch. Maybe aspects of Rimsky-Korsakov's and Glazunov's output as well. & certainly Ippolitov-Ivanov, he had one big hit (the _Caucasian Sketches_, a style done before by his teacher Rimsky). But it's skillfully done music and goes for pleasant listening, if not much else. Hindemith is often accused of dryness and _academicism_, but from the little I've heard of his music, I've not found a dull piece, or at least not a really dull and dry one. Indeed, I would say his _Violin Concerto _is easily among the finest of the last century.

With daring, it goes like this. Picasso, at a young age at the academy, could draw photorealistically. Later, he said that he wanted to get away from that, _to learn to draw like a child again_. In other words, be natural without the academic sort of constraints. Do things the way he wanted to, to naturally express himself, rather than being hidebound by all these conventions & stuff.

Food for thought?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I put this here because it's not exactly a _fun_ thread. But its not only about music but all the creative arts.
> 
> How I would define *academicism* in art as when the artwork becomes:
> - Too focused on technique, so much so that the work becomes like a dry academic exercise (eg. going through the motions)
> ...


"Academicism", interesting sounding word. I might have thought "academia" could partly fit the idea? I could agree with your first suggestion about "too focused on technique, ... dry academic exercise" etc. Baroque counterpoint and fugues came to mind. Many composers of the period wrote and published didactic works. The finest example were perhaps none other than JS Bach's _Art of Fugue_ and _Musical Offering_. Majority of his (few) published works (mainly keyboard works) were didactic, and even dedicated to "connoisseurs" of fugal compositions. Contemporary reports were that he was "excessively technical" or to that effect.

I can't agree with the other two points suggested about redoing things in a better way, and spinning out material that is too thin. The first is progress/development, building on what was done before. You see that with many endeavours of man. Spinning out material that is too thin - you meant superficial? Well, perhaps academia can be all a bit superficial at times or at least lack of relevance in the real world! That I can agree! "High-end" theory that reads elegantly on paper and page but solves little real problems? I guess in art that might be related to bombastic works; works that sound or look good only (and yes, length can be a part of it).

Why do you think Haydn's D major cello concerto, first movement fits? Curious. It's a charming piece.


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Arid-looking topics like this don't generally interest me but I thought I'd delve quickly into this one. To be honest, I couldn't relate to any of the propositions set out in the OP, so I did what I usually do when in need of some proper enlightenment on topics I know little about, and that was to consult Wikipedia. It's all there and explains that "academicism" is another name for "academic art", a concept related to painting and sculpture produced under the influence of European academies of art which practiced under the movements of Neoclassicism and Romanticism. As far as I can see, this concept of "academicism" has not been applied outside these specific artistic spheres, eg to classical music. Whether it has or not, the particular examples of classical music chosen to indicate "academicism", namely some of Brahms' piano trios, the last movement of Schubert's Piano Trio D 929 and the first movement of Haydn's Cello Concerto in D major, seem to be wholly inappropriate. I can't see anything remotely "academic" in any of these works. Schubert and Haydn are not noted to be "academic" composers, as far as I'm aware. Brahms was a fuss-pot, but only as regards getting things right, not in terms of excessive embroidery. If the concept has any relevance to classical music I would have thought that it is more likely to apply to much later developments, possibly serialism and all that kind of material, but not to major classics such as any of those mentioned. I'm afraid that this is a further thread to hit the dust as far as I'm concerned, as another empty box.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Hmmm... I'm uncertain as to what exactly counts as "academic". I'll assume that academic means exhibiting the a mastery of the skills taught in academia. As such this would be academic:










and this would not:










And this would be academic:






and this would not:






The problem I have with the term "academic" (And I believe this applies less to music than it does to art and literature) is that it is too frequently used as a pejorative by those who embrace a sort of Romantic fantasy that too much knowledge or skill or education destroys the "natural" voice of the artist. In other words, there is a common misconception, which owes much to the ideology of Romanticism, that art is simply the expression of emotions and feelings to which intellect and schooling get in the way. This concept led to the notion of the "noble savage"... romanticizing the art of the unschooled, the crude African or South American (as if their artists weren't educated in a tradition every bit as complex as that of Europe) etc...

While I've never been a big fan of the painter Renoir... he has a number of really fine paintings, but also far too many that look like Charmin Toilet Paper ads... he voiced a number of the best quotes concerning art. In one such quote he intoned: "First become a master of your craft; such has never prevented anyone from becoming a 'genius'."

I am always wary of anti-intellectualism or any suggestion that a great degree of discipline and practice and even study is a necessity for most art. Yes, as Picasso says, "Inspiration exists... but it has got to find you working." Not staring at your navel and waiting for the muse to arrive. Even the "unschooled" artists I posted above spent many hours and years working at their craft to attain the level of skill they display.

Ultimately the vast majority of all art is mediocre at best. Different artists are bad in different ways. I agree that Hans Makart's paintings were often far over the top... pretentious and vulgar. And yet his star pupil... who mastered the academic skills of the time even better than Picasso... was able to produce this:










The single moist iconic and reproduced painting in history.

I agree there can be nothing more than academicism when it lacks any spark... when it is nothing but a dull and dry going through the motions and following the rules. But on the other hand... what could be worse than the pretension of the untrained artist who lacks any notion of composition, sensitivity, innovation, etc...


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've found that academic folks all too often are armchair artists, talking about art in the abstract without actually creating themselves. They focus on external things, like social and historical issues- or worse yet psychological- and have no concept of the process of creating or the techniques used by the artist.

There are great creator/academics- Leonard Bernstein was a major one in music- and they always have more to say than the purely academic academics.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

By the way, having skills doesn't make someone "academic". All artists should have skill.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

bigshot said:


> By the way, having skills doesn't make someone "academic". All artists should have skill.


Skill and/or imagination.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

This is probably going to be viewed as "academic" eventually, because it holds to an ideology, and countless others would want to emulate it in professional academic settings. Things don't stay new and revolutionary/unconventional for long. It's already about 50 years old.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The only part of your definition of academicism I can at all agree with as being 'academic' is that - in the negative aspects - it can focus on a technical premise, without regard to content, i.e. surfaces and or mechanics vs. the innate worth of the end product. I would more accurately, I think call what you are speaking of as _'petty academic.'_

_"Redoing things that have been done before …'in a less interesting way.' " _*That's not academicism: that's a simple lack of original creativity, or the act of a hack.*
_"Spinning out material that is too thin for the kind of treatment it is given (eg. overblown or a bit long-winded)"_-- *another simple lack of original creativity, or lack of discernment as to what is good or 'interesting.' *
On another tack, this comment could be taken as a desire - request for classical music to 'get right down to it,' a desire from those with listening habits acquired more from pop music and musicals than classical music of other eras: it could possibly translate into, "Nothing wrong with the Beethoven Symphonies, just cut the development sections and that gets right around to the good bits." This is really dangerous territory without citing not only specific pieces but specific measures. As you put it, *"the finales of some of Brahms' piano trios, also the last movement of Schubert's Piano Trio D929 and in an earlier era, the first movement of Haydn's Cello Concerto in D major… would have done with a lot less spinning and more tightening up. *
The British listening public was once asked if they most preferred Puccini or Verdi: The answer was "Puccini - he gets right down to it."
I find similar parts of some classical and romantic pieces also a bit tedious, but I also think you are a listener of both popular and classical with more an ear on individual movements each entertaining you vs. recognizing that to 'tighten those last movements' up might make the whole work seem like a very lopsided building - also part of the overall aesthetic of those pieces, and a part which cannot be ignored. Any of us should recognize that what to us might seem an interminably long Schubert piano trio was from a time when people went out, sought entertainment that lasted for hours, without thought of how many more already purchased CD's they had yet to listen to, or to leaving time that same evening for after-hours bistro hopping, or making it home to watch that game match on the telly. They had a chance to Hear It Once, ergo all those repeats. [Your "complaint" here sounds more like a contemporary producer concerned about the attention span of an audience of the average punter at a popular movie entertainment or staged musical theater piece.]

Universities do not have an exclusive on academicism - look at any other business (Universities are businesses) and its bureaucracy connected to that business.

I would rather say you are defining an "aesthetic" which has lost touch with the very meaning of 'aesthetic,' i.e. creative work gone cerebral and mechanical. There is always a mind with a proclivity to want to remove the 'mess' of creative endeavors and their end result because the mentality is not comfortable with the unaccountable, and they hope to 'tidy it up' by accounting for the heartbeat with theory, or a sort of accountant's ledger-book mentality. _My thought on that sort of 'petty academic' of which I think you speak? They are those strongly drawn to the allure of the creative works, who immediately are compelled to analyze, break it down -- *because they are fundamentally overwhelmed by its vitality*, and as attracted as they are, actually find it raises a great discomfort in them. *It unsettles them so much they are compelled to 'whittle' that scary monster down to the size of their own mental capacities*._ .... _There will always be a type of soul with a proclivity to want to remove the 'mess' of creative endeavors and their end results because they are not comfortable with the unaccountable, at least what cannot be accounted for by theory, or a sort of accountant's ledger-book mentality._

_"….rearguard action to preserve the dying days of a style that's obviously past its used-by date."_
*No, Sid, that's just diehard conservatism, bound up with a fear of losing that which is familiar, ergo - comfortable. That points right to, again, a temperament with lack of imagination and an unwillingness for adventure - imagination and adventure require much greater and more flexible thought.*

The small and unadventurous imagination is found in all areas, both within and outside the boundaries of Academe. It is a "lazier mind," more ready to latch on to a theoretical procedure as 'a rule' while not reaching a deeper understanding that the theoretical procedure is just 'theoretic' - often a reduction of 'what was most often successful.'

Fine arts schools are businesses as much as any bank or other trade is a business -- all businesses have their bureaucracies. Academia has it share, as does every other trade or profession. One could say they are the ants of the world: they are not the grasshoppers: fools though those grasshoppers may be, they are less 'practical' 'methodical' and - rare.

When studying, I saw that the 'influence' of petty academic mentality on students was or could be negligible - only those students already inclined would be 'swayed' in that direction, while those truly creative could weather that study, take from it what was necessary in the way of tools and continue on their way, more adventurous and imaginative than their limited professors or peers.

Those with the lesser imagination, the followers of what are mistaken as 'rules,' are the ones who are more inclined to have the ambition to become bureaucrats, i.e. people as concerned at the outset age of their working lives to choose a career with as much or more of an eye to their job security, pensions, and work which demands little creativity or mental effort.

Those Victorian Academic Gothic architectural blots on the landscape you mentioned are the result of those architects of lesser imagination being selected and hired by bureaucrats of equally lesser imagination, which brings a lot of the 'cause' (I would not quite call it 'blame') for all such thinking, whether in the arts or elsewhere, to be the lesser imagination.

_Why the prevalence of 'academic' works littering the architectural landscape, the arts landscape, the business world? _This is not the result of a conspiracy, nor a league of a handful of people 'in power.' It is a result of a majority: both the generators and the recipients are those with the lesser imaginations and lazier minds. Otherwise, why would there not have been a voluble outcry from the public about the horrid and unimaginative Victorian Gothic Buildings which, after all, went up one at a time? There was / is agreement among the majority.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for all your contributions. Some great responses there.

With regards to academicism, this notion is more applied to the visual arts, eg. historicism or even eclecticism. As* Huilunsoittaja *suggests, everything after a while becomes stale and it's time to move on. In my example about middle period Beethoven being the limit of music teaching in Australia as late as the 1950's, this was of course not Beethoven's fault and it does not decrease his innovations or originality. But as Peter Sculthorpe said in his autobiography, being given assignments to literally do rehash of Beethoven or Haydn string quartets ultimately taught him very little as a music student. It didn't make a balance between learning skills and applying your own creativity. I doubt that music schools give out those types of assignments any more, rewarding dry technical skill over creativity. Sculthorpe actually said it turned him right off Beethoven for decades. Ramming this stuff down people's throats often has the opposite effect to that desired.

So it did exist in music, and probably does (but I'd guess to much lesser degree in this kind of much more relaxed, less outwardly conservative era we are in). Maybe music students can tell us their experiences. I don't know the strict term for it, but it is basically music driven by ticking certain technical boxes rather than being creative. Not to say technique is not important, it is as a foundation, but music as a creative art - and not a straightjacket - is more than that imo.

It is interesting that *HarpsichordConcerto *brings up Bach's _The ARt of Fugue _and _The Musical Offering_, which are two of my favourite works by him. It's funny, as many find these too dry, formal and technically focused. But something in them, maybe that mastery of counterpoint, draws me into them. So I am not a critic of high level of technical ability. But Bach in those works was not merely rehashing but innovating, applying techniques of counterpoint and polyphony around in his own time to older forms like canons and ricercars. That much I do know. It was also no simple thing, very hard to play (only he could play the gruelling_ Ricercar a 6_), and a summation of his creative life in many ways.

As to what *stlukes* says, I will reply just to one point. What you say re Makart teaching Klimt can also underpin my point. Makart was just an academic, just good as passing on technical skills, not much else. Yet he was lauded by the academy at the time as the best painter of Austria and beyond. The Emperor's favourite painter and got all the big commissions. Now he's a footnote in history. He was basically rehashing things like Delacroix half a century before. But it was watered down, formulaic and not original. As for Klimt, the academy, I think, viewed him with great suspicion. Just as they did, in France, the _Impressionists_. At one of their early exhibitions, their paintings where showered with rotten tomatoes. Such was the hatred of challenging those alabaster nudes and mythological godesses and oriental fantasies on canvases that had little relevance to modern life. Manet, when he painted _Olympia,_ a prostitute, was throwing down a gauntlet to the academy. In his own time, Ingres was doing fairly fresh things, and a rightful successor to J.L. David. But by late 19th century, that was way out of date. That's what I'm saying. Academicism, historicism, eclecticism all have some uses, but they are limited. It's an ideology which stifles and ultimately has to be challenged to be overturned. By the time Monet was in his old age, about the 1930's, he had become _establishment _himself. But it was a long hard road to get there, to be accepted.

I can say more but i'm out of time and this is already long. I will be back in future to address other people's remarks here. Thanks again for your responses.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

TresPicos said:


> Skill and/or imagination.


AND, not OR


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What you say re Makart teaching Klimt can also underpin my point. Makart was just an academic, just good as passing on technical skills, not much else. Yet he was lauded by the academy at the time as the best painter of Austria and beyond. The Emperor's favourite painter and got all the big commissions. Now he's a footnote in history. He was basically rehashing things like Delacroix half a century before. But it was watered down, formulaic and not original. As for Klimt, the academy, I think, viewed him with great suspicion.

Klimt was like Ingres or Degas... a master able to rival any academic. What led all of them to be viewed with suspicion is that they pushed their art is some direction beyond the decorum of what was acceptable. In Klimt's case he pushed the decorative aspects of painting (which he fell in love with after having seen the great Byzantine mosaics in Ravenna) resulting in a unique balance between the real and abstract, as well as the element of eroticism to the point that it shocked the academy:










Yet he could produce the most masterful academic portrait:










I've always had to laugh at his rude response to his critics... originally entitled "To My Critics" but now known as "Goldfish":










At one of their (Impressionists) early exhibitions, their paintings where showered with rotten tomatoes. Such was the hatred of challenging those alabaster nudes and mythological godesses and oriental fantasies on canvases that had little relevance to modern life.

Actually, I think the issue is far more complex. This is the usual Modernist narrative... portraying themselves as having taken some moral high-ground... but let's face it, the Impressionists were just as talented in producing beautiful, desirable nudes:










And the Modernists were just as likely to embrace both nudes, oriental fantasies, and ancient Greco-Roman mythologies:



















*****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Manet, when he painted Olympia, a prostitute, was throwing down a gauntlet to the academy.

Manet and Degas... it should be remembered... were both members of the academy. If anyone was really flipping the finger to academia it was Courbet... who was a real outsider. From what I have read of Manet, he was in many ways puzzled at the negative reception of his paintings. After all... he was a true academic master... more skilled in the manipulation of paint than any artist since Rubens, Hals, and Velazquez. He was well versed in his art history... one of the earliest admirers of Vermeer... and thanks to his travels to Spain, profoundly inspired by Velazquez, Goya, and El Greco. His Olympia essentially just updated one of the most iconic of paintings... Titian's _Venus d'Urbino_:


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content










The problem is that Titian's painting could be accepted as it was seen through the perfumed haze of history... but when Manet updated the theme to contemporary Paris, the viewer's were made uncomfortable... forced to recognize what was also in Titian's painting: a brazen, sexually self-aware woman who refuses to demurely look away to allow the unhampered gaze of the male spectator, but rather boldly meets the viewer's stare.










Ultimately, it's difficult to pin-point what makes a specific work of art continue to resonate over time... but being "new" or "novel" is probably the least concern for the simple reason that every work of art... with the exception of the copy, forgery, or blatant pastiche... cannot help but be of its time. As you suggest... by the late 1930s Monet had become part of the establishment... but then again... late Monet...










Bonnard...










and Maillol:










... all continue to resonate with artists and art lovers today in spite of the fact that the visual vocabulary in which they worked was already dated... surpassed by Cubism, Expressionism, and Surrealism. Yet the hold up as well... or even better than many of the more "timely" artists.

*****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

In no way is Modigliani inferior to the Cubists:










In spite of the fact that he was filtering Impressionism as well as Bronzino, Titian, and the Italian Renaissance by way of Cezanne around the time of WWI.

Many would also argue that Francis Bacon, Giorgio Morandi, and Balthus all more than hold their own against the Abstract Expressionists.




























And yet Bacon was working through lessons learned from Picasso, Max Beckmann, Muybridge photographs, and Renaissance altarpieces; Morandi was still working through the issues raised by Cezanne and Italian Quattrocento painting, and Balthus was dealing with Courbet, Cezanne, early Italian Renaissance painting, and Japanese art. Ultimately that which is seen as "new" and "innovative" owes more to the direction taken by subsequent artists than anything else. Cezanne appears incredibly foreshadowing when one looks at Cubism... but by the time of Abstract Expressionism, Monet's late landscapes appear far more relevant... presaging the all-over field paintings of Pollack and DeKooning.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...
> I can't agree with the other two points suggested about redoing things in a better way, and spinning out material that is too thin. The first is progress/development, building on what was done before. You see that with many endeavours of man. Spinning out material that is too thin - you meant superficial? Well, perhaps academia can be all a bit superficial at times or at least lack of relevance in the real world! That I can agree! "High-end" theory that reads elegantly on paper and page but solves little real problems? I guess in art that might be related to bombastic works; works that sound or look good only (and yes, length can be a part of it).
> 
> Why do you think Haydn's D major cello concerto, first movement fits? Curious. It's a charming piece.





Andy Loochazee said:


> ...Whether it has or not, the particular examples of classical music chosen to indicate "academicism", namely some of Brahms' piano trios, the last movement of Schubert's Piano Trio D 929 and the first movement of Haydn's Cello Concerto in D major, seem to be wholly inappropriate. I can't see anything remotely "academic" in any of these works. Schubert and Haydn are not noted to be "academic" composers, as far as I'm aware. Brahms was a fuss-pot, but only as regards getting things right, not in terms of excessive embroidery. If the concept has any relevance to classical music I would have thought that it is more likely to apply to much later developments, possibly serialism and all that kind of material, but not to major classics such as any of those mentioned.


Well you both have a point of sorts, against me (as did PetrB). I think that I was thinking more of having something (eg. a musical idea) that is spread too thinly over a long period of time. The Haydn and Schubert are examples, badly in need of editing. Probably not academic but definitely kind of going through the motions. That's if you analyse it technically. I have read writers of music saying this about these, and I agree. But I still enjoy and listen to these works. I can separate these two things.

As for Brahms, I think the piano trios are good examples of a kind of academic style. Not that they are bad works, but their finales again make me feel as if _when is this going to end_. Going through the motions. LIke he has to do it no matter what, in this way. However, these are exceptions to the rule. His other chamber works are the pinnacle of thematic integration and cyclical _coming home or back _in the final movements. The piano trios are okay in doing that, but not as good in comparison to his other things.

But as I said in a later post above, there are composers who worked in academe and their styles reflect that. They did good music, but still were more of their era than beyond it. Nothing wrong with that, just putting this out there. I quite like these composers in many ways. Their students where also attestations to their ability in that realm, but of course surpassed them the way we think now looking back (as with Klimt surpassing Makart, but I think these composers have more lasting value than Makart).

Stanford
Bruch
Ippolitov-Ivanov
Parry

& maybe aspects of the outputs of Rimsky Korsakov, Glazunov & also of post-1945 period, the UK serialist Humphrey Searle, now largely forgotten (well here, anyway).



> ...
> I'm afraid that this is a further thread to hit the dust as far as I'm concerned, as another empty box.


I am just trying to make some discussion about an area relevant here, as many of us do listen to less prestigious or eclectic, academic or whatever composers. I'm just sharing thoughts & trying to make _conversation_ of what things I come across in my listening, reading, etc. That's it, there's no other agenda. Anyone can kind of take it or leave it, to be honest.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re what you are saying* stlukes,* the way I take it is that you think I am singling out figurative or representational art. Or tonal music for that matter. Or a linear narrative in literature.

But really I am not, and I think that what you said about Manet's _Olympia _hits the nail on the head. When artists deconstruct or challenge this kind of academic rigidity, things can get hairy. On the flipside, look at how a number of composers post-1945 where virtually persona non grata for not going along with the _total serialist _fad, then current across university campuses. Composers even like Walton, who incorporated aspects of serialism in their music where put out in the cold (but he used the serial techniques in a non rigid way, and Schoenberg even did this, many times, in any case Webern was the most prescriptive of the big 3 Viennese atonalists, the other two were more flexible, far more). This is only being rectified now, or more recently. Same with composers who were not at all interested in serialism (eg. BAx). Now, most members here know of Walton, or some of his music, but who here knows Humphrey Searle, darling of the UK total serialists in the decades after 1945? That's right, almost no-one. The tables have been turned.

In any case, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater once the baby boomers came of age. In about the 1960's and 1970's, in this country, teaching the skills of representational art in our art schools went out the window. Colour field painting and minimalism - eg. Pollock, and other Abstract Expressionist rehash, as well as eg. Malevich rehash - was the 'in' thing to do. Still, major Australian artists, some of them remained or returned to figuration - eg. Brett Whiteley. I think all of our publicly funded art-schools went this way, to the other extreme, only to return to teaching some skills in recent decades. You can relate what happened in USA, since you are at the coalface of art there. Here, only the Julian Ashton School in Sydney retained the old skills-based curriculum. I think it's a private art school, but limited scholarships are available. Now that school, which was seen by the radicals decades ago as dinosaur has been kind of proven right. Painters do need to learn the skills the old masters did, to provide firm foundation. I don't think it's of much use to try _teach_ people to splatter paint on a canvas. I can do that without any formal art training.

So I'm not arguing against representational art. What I'm against is these things becoming entrenched in academe, and going with fads that don't last. Same things with grammar, it was thrown out the window, but in the last decade or so, it's returned to the curriculum of schools here, what they did before was not common sense to say the least.

Of course this goes to pedagogical issues, and setting standards and curricula, so above the strict confines of this little thread. However, it's all linked. I don't believe in trendy fads. I believe in giving people skills and letting them express themselves. Eg. finding a balance.


----------

