Reflection
upon Issues of Identity in New Music Composition, via “plastik”
Independent,
Montréal, Canada.
e-mail:
jef@newmusicnotation.com
Abstract
New Music in its broadest definition comprises a wide range of
approaches to creation in a sound-based medium, including, for example,
electroacoustic music, performance art, live electronics, various
cross-disciplinary explorations. We will, however, for concerns of brevity,
restrict the present discussion primarily to artistic contexts in which
professional musicians are involved in the interpretation and presentation of a
musical work.
The problem is not unique to the latter half of the twentieth and
beginning of the twenty-first century, but during this time period the
difficulty of being able to unambiguously define the identity of
the individual New Music composition has increased exponentially. The
individual listener’s perception and comprehension of the potential complexity
of identity in a musical composition is subject to many factors. These include,
amongst others, his awareness of various aspects which the composer or other
listeners might consider to contribute to the identity, the inherent
limitations in the adopted perceptive faculties of the artistic community which
he frequents and his desire and capacity to question and surpass them.
In order to consider this problem, we will address issues specific
to the composition and performance of plastik,
a work for a variable instrument that the performers themselves construct anew
for each performance. Although plastik
can convincingly be considered from within the historical context of New Music
composition or, alternatively, Improvised Music, other realms of artistic
activity – as seemingly remote as dada –
can also be seen to contribute to the definition of its identity. The
breadth of potential results in the interpretation of the performance
instructions – between performers in the course of a single performance,
as well as between multiple performances – will offer an effective
illustration of the variability of identity. Parallels the work has with
improvised music will lend further support to the discussion.
Because of the manifold influences on the creative act and the
inherent perceptual differences regarding the resulting creation, the identity
of the individual work cannot be deliberated exclusively within a single realm
of artistic activity, as has often traditionally been the case. Any attempt to
ignore or even disregard the inherent obstacles to an unequivocal articulation
of an immutable identity will inevitably result in only a partial understanding
of the complex of identity and of its potential impact on the artistic milieux
with which it is in contact.
Keywords: New Music, identity, composition, improvisation, performance protocol.
Against the backdrop of an ever-increasing diversification of the
sonic landscape of New Music since the early twentieth century, and of inherent
variations in the perceptive capacities of the individual listener, the problem
of unequivocally defining the identity of a musical composition is
significantly complexified. The individual perceptual experience is
unique; the possibility that two persons might share the same degrees of
perception and comprehension of the multiple factors contributing to the
manifold identity of the individual composition is virtually nil.
My own familiarity and experiences with instrumental and electroacoustic
composition incorporating sound materials of varying facture (live and recorded
instrumental sounds, analogue synthesis, digital processing, “sound objects”)
previously contributed in part to satisfying my interest in unique sound
materials which, precisely because of the unicity of their identity, question
the capacity and relevance of the compositional context in which they are
employed to respond to and encourage their developmental potential. The
compositional contexts employing and exploring these unique sounds were not
seen as absolute masters over submissive and infinitely malleable
materials, but also responded to the obligations of the individual sounds’
identities, ultimately allowing these to contribute to the course of the entire
work, to participate in the definition of their form. Once the
composition was “finished,” their form was fixed and might be seen
to have somewhat compromised – or at the very least constrained – the
impact the materials might have had on the nature of their identity.
Reflection on these issues led me to conceive of a composition for
a variable instrument – a sculpture of sorts – that the performers themselves
construct, and that would offer continually changing perspectives on the real
and potential identity of the work, both in the individual performance as well
as between separate performances. This unique compositional and interpretive
context would offer a kaleidoscopic context in which to consider the factors
which contribute to the definition of identity in the musical
composition. The title of the work, the German word plastik, holds several meanings. Firstly, it translates as
sculpture; secondly, as plastic, the physical material; and thirdly, as the
adjective plastic, it refers to the malleability of something, to its
plasticity. Despite the first translation, this composition is not
intended as a visual work: the materials which form the sculpture are chosen
for their sonic and gestural potentialities, not for their physical appearance.
The visual aspects of the instrument itself, as well as the possible position
of plastik within the visual arts
will not be discussed at length.[1]
After brief reflection upon some of the factors which have contributed to the complexification of the sonic landscape in New Music, the variability and unicity of the perception of identity will be elaborated. A description of some aspects of the composition and interpretation of plastik will then lead into a demonstration of how inherent and interpretational differences in the performance of this work enlarge the scope of its potential identity. Issues of identity which problematize plastik’s association with and dissociation from various performative contexts will close the discussion.
1.1 The Shifting Sonic Landscape of New Music
In the past century, innumerable new instrumental techniques and manners
of sound production have been introduced into the realm of instrumental musical
creation.[2]
In particular since the mid-twentieth century, the performer is often required
to significantly alter his accustomed manner of producing sound on his
instrument, sometimes even having to fundamentally change his understanding of
and relation to the instrument and possibly to the performance situation. In
the most extreme cases, the work obliges the performer to explore new norms of
interpretation. This is not indicative that the composer has the intention of
disregarding, negating or even discarding the entire tradition of performance
and interpretation, but rather suggests that the inherent nature of the
composition, those elements defined through the composer’s formal
concerns and the characteristics of the materials he employs in the
composition, necessitates a more radicalized approach to performance practice
and its appropriation.[3]
Radical expansion of instrumental performance protocol – the more or less
codified collection of sounds and of the sonic palette and techniques of
instrumental performance within the various milieux – can now be seen to
characterize the identity of post-romantic music as much as the collapse of
tonality in the early twentieth century and the dissolution of metric regularity
in the mid-twentieth century were considered to have done in the past.
Another factor affecting musical identity is the exploration and
incorporation of elements whose heritage lies outside the realm within which
the composer habitually works. Sounds, performance techniques and instruments
from other cultures or from different disciplines within one’s own culture or
milieu have been extensively explored by numerous creators, not just in the
realm of music, but in all artistic domains.[4]
Their increased presence has nonetheless contributed considerably to the
parabolic complexification of the sonic landscape, of the ambiguity of
identity, in Western composition. If Debussy’s importation of scales and
rhythms from Indonesian Gamelan music into his own piano compositions caused
alarm in the musical establishment of the time, the problem of identity in his
music is nevertheless not a terribly complex one, as he was clearly composing
within one tradition – without underestimating the radicality of the impact
he had on that tradition – and using another essentially as a
flavouring agent.
Today the situation is quite different. Since the mid-twentieth century the problem of identity has increased exponentially. Numerous sub-communities, or factions, can be discerned even within what some claim to be singular cultural or artistic traditions. Within the New Music milieu, which itself is only a part of Western instrumental music, we can distinguish numerous strands of compositional activity: Serial Music, New Complexity, Instrumental Musique Concrète, Minimalism, Spectral Music are but a few having more or less clearly-articulated barriers. In general, composers associate more or less exclusively with one group or another, some even calling into question the relevance of other groups within the larger social constructs of the New Music milieu. Regardless of the relevance, or at least of the interest, of this line of questioning, it would nevertheless be incredibly naïve to ignore the impact the various cliques within the larger national and international New Music community have had, and continue to have, on each other.
1.2 Intention and Misunderstanding in the Definition and Perception of Identity
Each individual listener perceives the identity of a musical composition
differently according to his background and particular predilection for one or
another mode of perception, or group of modes of perception. Even though two
listeners may be equally sympathetic to more experimental trends or events in
recent music history, due to variance in their familiarity with the composer
and with New Music in general, in their socio-cultural background, but most
importantly, in their own experiential and perceptual limitations, governed by
the socio-musical background with which they associate themselves, the
likelihood that they might experience a single work in the same way is virtually
nil.[5]
The greater the number of factors which may be instrumental in defining
the identity of a work, the greater the likelihood there will be serious
divergence in their experiences. What one listener takes for granted in the
composer’s intention, and therefore in the identity of a work, another may not
even perceive: both perceptions may in fact be correct. Certainly they may come
to agreement on a number of points in regards to the perception and experience
of the work, but ultimately, the degree to which they experience or perceive
each individual factor will create a unique perceptive situation for each
listener.[6]
Differences in perception can be even greater across artistic disciplines, as I have discovered in discussing my work as well as the works of others with artists working in various disciplines. Discussion of plastik with visual artists may tend to centre around issues such as the socio-economic identity of the materials used to construct the sculpture, and ramifications of choices of materials on the level of intimacy an audience member may experience with the work’s execution, rather than around the sonic and performative issues of the work.[7] Many classically-trained musicians have great difficulty even accepting the work within their understanding of the Western musical tradition, while listeners who have been exposed to a broad variety of electroacoustic music appreciate the complexity of the individual sounds, and the combinatorial potential of these sounds, and improvising musicians will relate varyingly to aspects of the degree of freedom allowed the performer in articulating the various actions, and to what extent the individual performer succeeds in emancipating himself from or elaborating the composer’s material predetermination.
1.3 A Unique Paradigm of Performance Protocol
for the Individual Work
Existing performance protocol must not be taken for granted or
unquestioningly appropriated. This seemingly implacable declamation is not
meant to negate the relevance of historical paradigms of performance protocol
inherited from one’s own (or another’s) culture to a contemporary setting.
Rather it warns that developmental stagnation of the identity may arise out of
excessive simplism in their appropriation, in their mediation: the identity of a
composition using unmediated performance protocols may depend more on the
existence of the source of the protocol than its own inherent potentialities.
Some characteristics of the composition may be comprised, because they will not
be given the proper means to fully infuse the identity of the composition with
their essence. If recourse to an existing paradigm of performance protocol is
critically mediated by the composer, he will, by his questioning, assure the
validity of the protocol in his own work, and therefore be better equipped to
affirm the multifarious identity of the composition.
Critical reassessment of performance protocol – and this concerns
traditional music as much as New Music – can only contribute to its
refinement and evolution, and help assure that it continues to remain
pertinent to contemporary compositional preoccupations.
For me, as a composer who does not naïvely deny the absence of a single all-encompassing paradigm of performance protocol, who recognizes the variability of the perception of identity, and who refuses to be straightjacketed by the clan-built, arbitrarily-constructed æsthetic boundaries plaguing most artistic milieux, it seemed quite imperative to conceive of an artistic context which radicalizes these ideas to such an extent that the work articulated therein inexorably demands a unique paradigm of performance protocol that lays the foundation of an infinite kaleidoscopic potential of material, interpretational and formal identities via singular performances, and refers in varying degrees to a plethora of historical and contemporary artistic contexts.
2.1 Description of the Work; the Unicity of the Individual De-formance
In order to better comprehend the ramifications of “an
infinite kaleidoscopic potential of material, interpretational and formal
identities,” we must be aware of the performative aspects of the work, that is,
how plastik actually functions in performance.
The executants (performers) distribute over one hundred
individually-composed actions (each a unique set of instructions concerning
sounds and gestures to perform) equally amongst themselves, which they will
articulate (perform) upon an instrument (a sculpture of sorts) which they
themselves construct. This constitutes a de-formance (a term I use to refer to
works in which the instrument – traditional or not – is severely
altered or even destroyed over the course of a performance). The physical
materials (metal, wood, cloth) they use to construct the instrument are selected
for their sonic and gestural potential – evident or projected – in
responding to the demands of the actions, as well as their capacity to produce
timbres of varying intensity and complexity. Consideration of the visual
character of the physical materials shall not take priority over considerations
of their sonic potential, and may in some cases be ignored completely. The
materials are connected or attached to the sculpture in varying degrees of
permanence and fragility, using string, nails, tape and other materials.
The nature of the actions ranges from resonant (sound-producing, without provoking any radical alteration of the material or the sculpture) to destructive (those which alter the sonic or physical makeup of one or more materials, or the structure of the instrument) to abstract (defined either conceptually or in non-concrete terms). The actions have been composed with varying degrees of precision regarding the type of sound to be produced, the materials upon which or with which the sound is to be produced, for how long and in which dynamic range the sound is to be produced, and how they are to converge and interact with actions articulated concomitantly by other executants. Duration of the actions as well as their overall sonic and polyphonic complexity vary not only according to the nature of the action, but also, and in some cases more importantly, according to the executant’s highly individual interpretation of the action. The following two actions give an idea of the potential interpretational divergence:
clunking, dull ringing /
circumnavigating :
quietly place a long instrument against the sculpture, circumnavigating slowly,
maintaining firm contact with the instrument, and, as much as is
possible, in contact with highly resonant parts; an irregular texture of
clunking and ringing sounds will result.
quacking, squabble : an energetic altercation with one or more other executants.
During both the construction of the instrument and the execution of the
work, the executants’ decisions bear significant consequences upon the
evolution of the individual de-formance, the character of which is nonetheless
constrained within a tightly-controlled interpretational context borne of a
unique performance protocol which evolved in tandem with the composition of the
actions, each intimately affecting the course of the other’s development.
The random distribution of the actions amongst the executants, and the fact that the order of the actions is not pre-determined produces an interpretive context in which specific sonic elements may appear only a single time (the material being physically altered through the articulation of another action upon it), if at all, and the particular order and manner in which the actions converge will be unique. Certain sound types or materials may disappear the moment they are articulated, or at the very least, concomitantly with the disintegration of the sculpture. The idea of unicity extends beyond the composition of individual elements, through the interpretive stage and into the level of the identity of the work: no single de-formance of plastik could ever be repeated, the instrument disintegrating each time the composition is presented!
2.2 Improvisation and Interpretive
Variability
While irreversibility might be considered to be inherent to the work of
many improvising musicians, it only exists artificially in most composed
works: the composer generally retains the privilege of being able to rewrite,
rearrange or otherwise alter the relations between individual elements, or
between individual elements and the whole of the composition, throughout every
stage in the creation of a new work, or at least until the final stage,
that is, until the composer declares the work to be “finished.” Even in
those cases where some form of improvisation has been included as an integral
part of a composed work, the degree of freedom the performer is allowed or
assumes, or the improvisation itself, may become fixed to a greater or
lesser degree over the course of several performances, either by the composer,
or by the performer.[8]
Further, any revisions to the completed composition are generally understood as
improvements to the work, and are, except in isolated cases, neither considered
nor perceivable as developments of fundamentally new works. For such works, two
separate performances will not typically display any radical alterations to the
identity of the piece, despite the differences in the character of the
improvisation between the performances. In contrast, irreversibility can be present throughout the entire
range of compositional and interpretational decision-making processes in the
realm of improvised works. In improvisation projects free of pre-fabricated
architectonic or “conceptual” schemas no “corrections” to the overall form can
be made for the simple reason that compositional decisions are made by the
performers in the same timeframe as their interpretation of the work.
Although not specifically conceived as an improvised work, plastik articulates certain principles
and characteristics inherent to some improvised works. The executants are
largely responsible for decisions regarding the choice of materials and how the
instrument is constructed with these materials. These decisions will to some
extent pre-define the sonic and gestural potential of the instrument. By delegating such responsibilities to the
executants, I was not simply attempting to disburden myself of some of the
compositional responsibility, but rather emphasizing the value I place on
encouraging the performer to fully explore and demonstrate his own interpretive
capacity. The converging results of the executants’ decisions will
affect – and even define! – the character of each individual
de-formance to such an extent that its global (extending throughout the entire
production) and local (the individual moments in the course of the de-formance)
sonic and gestural character will be inextricably linked to that single group
of executants.
The exploration of absolute irreversibility is perhaps the most notable
parallel to improvised music: the articulation of some actions will cause
irreversible effects on the sculpture, and, in direct proportion to the
progression of the work, the ability to continue to articulate the work is
actually jeopardized. In the end, all that remains of the de-formance are
memories: the means by which the
composition may be articulated have disappeared through its very articulation.
A few of the actions also explore (faults of) memory in the interpretive
act as a formative compositional element. Each executant’s interpretation and
capacity to remember sounds or configurations which occurred previously
will understandably vary to an enormous degree:
memory
(lapse) : re-articulate a
sequence of events which occurred 1–2 minutes prior.
One of the most significant differences between composition and improvisation is the tempo at which compositional and interpretational decisions pertaining to local convergences of materials and gestures are made.
2.3 Changing Identity at Different Stages of plastik
Through the articulation of the actions upon the physical form of the
completed sculpture, the work simultaneously takes musical (perceptual) form
and is de-formed (physical form) by the executants.
The potential effects that an individual action might have on the character of the de-formance are incredibly diverse: this potential is contingent on interpretational differences between executants, and on the timing of its articulation and its confluence with actions articulated by other executants. During the construction of the instrument, an executant may incorporate a certain material into the sculpture’s construction, with the intention of using it for the articulation of a specific action, and yet discover, during the de-formance, that the material’s physical state can no longer respond to the specificities of the action, or that the material is no longer even part of the instrument! Some actions also explicitly instruct the executant to subvert another executant’s interpretation:
usurpation : irreversibly alter the sonic characteristics of a
material being articulated by another executant…
Modifications to the physical materials and structure of the
sculpture during the course of the work’s execution incessantly alter the gamut
of sonic and gestural potentialities. By and large, these are increasingly
restricted through these modifications, as the sculpture gradually
disintegrates – in direct proportion with the evolution of the
de-formance – into a pile of dissociated materials severely disendowed of
their initial sonic complexity. Concurrently, the nature of each executant’s
interpretation and the manner by which he manifests his own perception of the
sonic potential will augment, shift, and otherwise modulate the perception and
interpretation of the other executants. Unforeseen sonic and gestural
combinations will also contribute to this perceptual modulation. The executants
must at all times remain open and prepared to reinterpret and re-contextualize
their initial interpretation of the action’s potential according to the moment
when the action is articulated.
As the order of the actions is neither fixed nor known to the
executants, the overall form of the piece for a given de-formance cannot be
predetermined to any extent. Each subsequent de-formance will articulate a
fundamentally new set of perspectives by which to consider the work’s identity,
according to the various material and interpretational decisions made by the
executants, and to the ramifications of the order and convergence of the
actions. Witnessing at least two de-formances, the listener will experience the
variability of some aspects of the work’s identity in a very explicit manner:
his comprehension of what the composer or executants may or may not be
attempting to communicate will augment with each subsequent experience of the
composition. This is certainly true to a large extent for the experience of
virtually any work of art, regardless of the era or tradition to which it
belongs. This concept is simply radicalized in plastik.
In all musical genres involving performers, the effects of individual
interpretive decisions on the character of the individual performance are
immediately apparent, albeit in varying degrees. The greater the potential
impact of individual interpretive decisions on the general flow and on
the resulting form of the piece (assuming the performers are conscious of and
are permitted to explore this impact), the more the work tends to preclude its
reflection solely from a predominantly object-based perspective
(traditional composition), and the more it demands consideration from an
interpretation-based perspective (improvised music). However, the attempt to
situate a work clearly within one or another musical tradition is inhibited by
the fact that neither the New Music nor the Improvised Music milieux can really
claim to have developed a fixed and immutable performance protocol or
permanently delimited palette of forms by which the identity of the individual
piece can be irrefutably assessed.
At this point, I would point out that plastik was conceived first
and foremost as a musical composition, intended for a small group of performers
and a specific instrument: for this simple reason, I do not hesitate to
consider it a part of the Western chamber music tradition. All the actions have
been composed according to sound or gestural considerations, with consciousness
of how these actions might – constructively or destructively – affect
the sonic and gestural nature of the work in the moment of their articulation.
Several factors nonetheless necessitate its reflection with a consideration
of improvised music. In addition to the high degree of interpretational
flexibility already elaborated, some of the actions instruct the
executant to interact with other executants in varying degrees of precision
regarding the specificities of the interaction.
It must further be admitted that plastik on some levels displays semblances to other realms of artistic practice in the past century which may or may not explicitly depend on performance. These semblances severely problematize the consideration of its identity solely in the realm of musical creation, whether object- or interpretation-based. Parallels with individual pieces or events within other artistic traditions may be more or less apparent, however, because of the plethora of associational identities it bears, any attempt to relegate plastik to a single historical artistic or performance practice would be tenuous at best. No matter how important the similarities may seem, the multiplicity of intentions underlying the composition of plastik convincingly preclude its exclusive association with traditions such as dada,[9] Fluxus,[10] and performance and installation art, not to mention Jean Tinguely’s self-destructing sculptures.[11] These and other possible associations are certainly not irrelevant to the comprehension of the work, but rather contribute to the clarification and definition of its identity. As elaborated above, the extent to which they contribute is a function of the individual’s awareness of these art forms and of the direct and indirect influences they have had on the evolution of the artistic community which he frequents.
Today, as the problem of identity is manifold, how do we properly assess
the identity of artistic products, and who ultimately decides on the truth of
these interpretations? The fact that one or more of the composer’s intentions
are not immediately or at all apparent to an individual listener cannot be used
as an argument against the importance or existence of those facets of the
work’s identity. Similarly, something a listener perceives in the work which
the composer does not, can not, or will not perceive must also be admitted as
contributing to the work’s identity on a perceptive level which perhaps lies
outside his experiential scope.[12]
With the proliferation of art forms and artistic practices in the
twentieth century, the augmentation of the palette of sounds and of
instrumental techniques and formal concerns, and the varyingly mutual
influence of these and other concerns, it would seem that no single
tradition or practice is justifiable as the sole and absolute authority
for the consideration and ultimate definition of identity in the work of
art. Unicity of identity may exist only in the relational identity of the
multifarious influences on the creation of the individual work.
The considerations laid out in the present discussion are not specific to plastik, nor to the New Music or Improvised Music milieux, but are equally relevant in consideration of other artistic disciplines since the beginning of the early twentieth century (if not earlier). Any single person’s comprehension of a work’s identity, no matter how convincing it may seem at a given moment within a particular perceptual context, is inevitably incomplete and therefore impermanent. At any moment the individual may be entirely correct in his assessment of the identity of a particular work of art, but in the next moment new factors potentially relevant to the assessment of its identity will necessitate adjustments to his previous comprehension of the work. My own interest in elaborating a context which assumes as a foundation the variability of identity is not a dismissal of the problem of conclusive definition of identity in the New Music composition, but is rather an emphasis of the belief that this variability in fact contributes to an enlarged comprehension of the potential of identity.
[1] However, although this paper discusses
perception of the work of art predominantly from the perspective of the
listener experiencing a musical work involving performers, viewer may be substituted at any point for listener, as the problem of the perception of identity is also
relevant to the visual arts.
[2] Electroacoustic composition certainly benefits
from a palette of sonic possibilities remarkably more complex than that of any
instrumental combination, and theoretically endless, but here we are concerned
primarily with instrumental performance.
[3] Several works by German composer Helmut
Lachenmann could be cited as examples of explicit critique of the norms of
instrumental performance. For example, Pression
(solo cello) and Toccata (solo
violin) both explore manners of sound production which produce sounds which are
quite “natural” to the instrument, but which have traditionally been excluded
from the gamut of permissible sound materials.
[4] This practice has of course existed for centuries in Western Music – consider the mutual influences of “Serious” and Folk Music throughout the centuries – but the degree to which cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary and cross-æsthetic exploration is encountered since the beginning of the twentieth century distinguishes this period from others, at least in this respect. Discussion of the relevance or ethics of such practices is not the goal of this paper.
[5] Although many listeners claim a certain
level of openness and interest in regards to the broad range of approaches to
musical composition in the present day, in my experience, virtually all
listeners – regardless of the extent of their musical training! –
have a more or less fixed set of criterion by which they judge each new
work they come into contact with. These criterion may vary over time, but are
nonetheless profoundly coloured by the individual listener’s perceptual
capacity and awareness of his own past and present experiences, and perhaps
moreso by his ignorance of experiences he has yet to make, or tends to avoid.
His perceptual limitations are also representative of the political and social
agenda of the micro-community – within the larger national or
international New Music community – he frequents.
[6] This leads subsequently into a discussion
of the importance of programme notes in improving the individual musical
experience in the twentieth century, but cannot be discussed here at present.
[7] Depending on the types of materials
chosen for its construction, de-forming the instrument can create an impressive
amount of breakage, some of which flies thorough the air, creating a
potentially hazardous situation for viewers too close to the sculpture. The
executants wear protective glasses and workgloves during the de-formance. The
work will be discussed more in detail in §2.
[8] The phenomenon of a performer
“fixing” an improvisation over multiple performances is too complex a
subject to elaborate in the present paper.
[9] Next to his sculpture on exhibit at the
April 1920 dada Vorfrühlings
exhibition in the Cologne Winter Brauerei, dadamax
(Max Ernst) placed an axe, which the public was encouraged to use on the piece.
Although violent revolt against the excesses and shortcomings of Bourgeois
society was certainly part of the dada
agenda, its raison d’être and its impact on the course of the history of art
are somewhat more complex.
[10] George Brecht, in Play a Sentimental Tune,
asks the performer to first play a tune on a violin, and then perform
several actions to it, such as removing the bridge, de-tuning the strings, etc.
The intention was not so much to create a new musical composition as it was to
radically question the validity of social convention, the status quo of
performance protocol and, using one of the most potent symbols of the musical
establishment, to severely chastize the decorative aspects of the chamber music
tradition.
[11] Taking the incorporation of time into a
medium not traditionally explicitly considering time amongst the experiential
aspects of the work to an extreme, some of the sculptures Tinguely created
destroyed themselves without the direct intervention of their creator, or any
other person, during the actual performance.
[12] If this problem is already
significant in “understanding” the works of our own time, we can only
speculate on the level of misunderstanding we have today of the works of
composers such as Beethoven, to give an example.