The story of the european arts since the middle ages is a story of the fight for independence. In the medieval society, the artist had the position of a craftsman. In service of the church he had to create artworks, whose contents were determined by the church. After a while, the artists gained more freedom to create different forms of expression, for example the polyphonic church music in the 13th century, or the development of the central perspective in renaiessance paintings. But still the artists depended on their commissioners.

The rise of the civil society in th 19th century went along with the idea of the independence of arts, especially of music. The “Geniekult” (veneration of the genius) proclaimed the right of the artist to create independent works of art with the single purpose to express his individuality. In the 20th century the idea of “Lárt pour lárt” (the art exists for itself) was radicalized even more. The artists created for themselves a role completely outside the society, where freedom and individuality were the highest values.

With the achievement of the complete freedom for the artist it is impossible and also not reasonable to continue this way. In contrary, the question rises, how artists can handle this freedom responsible. For centuries, art was valuated mainly after the quality of being “new” and after agreeing to the laws of “Materialfortschritt” (progress of artistic material, Adorno). Now, in my opinion, it is time to start different questions.

The main question cannot be: “Is this new?” It is more important, that person and work of an artist harmonize, that the artwork speaks to different people in their living situations and that it is convincing with regard to it´s contents and it´s emotional message. The questions should be: “What happens to people that encounter that work of art? Does it help them with the problems they have? Opens it up perspectives for a better reality? Does it improve communication in the society or ist it isolated in a self-constructed secret language?”

Of course it doesn´t make sense to abandon the artistical freedom and look only for public acclaim. Critic and provocation still are an essential part of a responsible form of art. But it is important, that the artist sees himself as a part of the society that he can improve by his work.

This change of view, that is described above, relates to living streams of tradition in european and especially african art. In the 20th century, artists like Bertholt Brecht or Joseph Beuys tried to influence society and politics with their work. This kind of artisic statement is of course vulnerable not only in terms of esthetic and creativity, but also for it´s contents and opinions. This is obvious with Brecht, whose work lost a lot of it´s importance with the failure of the socialist experiment.

From earlier centuries J.S. Bach springs to mind, whose compositions are inseperately linked with the christian religion. Also the religious messages of medieval artists are not only caused by their dependence on their commissioners, but also by their own convictions.

In the african society, the transmission of religious, moral or political messages is one of the fundamental qualities of art. The value of a piece of music, a mask or a poem is judged by it´s success in fulfilling this mission. The political and religious statements of black jazz- and pop-musicians like Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, Archie Shepp, Albert Ayler, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, to name just a few, are rooted in this tradition.

I think, that it is necessary to change the view to art as a whole, and to redefine the relation between artist and socoety. It is important to stop the fruitless self-fixation of the art scene, and to develop a strong connection to the people outside this narrow circle, that would be useful for both sides. (See also Jazz musicians and their audience; Jazz seen as an encounter of african and european musical traditions)

Matthias Petzold
 

Back to the Top