|
|
|
When a man writes a “lovely” passage, do critics refer to it as “lovely?”
|
I think not.
|
|
|
|
No! That is why we have words like “lyrical,” “melodic,” “melodius” “appealing,” “delightful,” “poetic,” to describe something that is lovely when a man creates it. When Tawa calls Beach’s work “lovely,”
|
|
|
|
it seems to me
|
|
|
|
he is invoking the same subliminal, primal sexist reaction to the work of women composers that the art teachers used on my art while they smilingly insulted it by calling it pretty or decorative. Heaven forbid that any art should be lovely or pretty or decorative!
But, lovely and pretty and decorative art happens – even in the midst of bold art. Even to men creators. So in composer Mozart, “lovely” becomes “lyrical” and in sculptor Mark diSuvero it becomes “detail” – a manly-approved term applied to lovely decorative elements, typically applied by male creators, like the pin-striping of “cherried out” (word alert!!! – think about it) classic cars, and the architectural embellishments inside and outside of buildings.
If women create work that is lovely, it is accidental, not intentional, and naive. But, I cannot imagine Mozart being described as “naively” lyrical, even at the age of four when he first began to compose!
Or perhaps Tawa is linking naiveté with Beach’s inclusion of folk tunes in her “serious” compositions. Heaven forbid that we should link folk art with high art – be it music or painting or sculpture or literature. Clearly, a foray into folk music amidst the high art of symphonic music is to be avoided, just as it is in fine art painting and sculpture - unless you want to be relegated to the naïve heap. Folk art has no place in the serious art capitals, concert halls and museums of the world. . . . Unless you are a male artist. continues on page 18, The Musicologist and I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
