Blues as True American Art - Essay Example

A blues musician d Lorrie Hayes recently said that “the blues is more than just another genre of music, it embodies something much bigger, something that all Americans can relate to” (Snyder). The question thus becomes whether we can verify this claim, or, if not, it is simply a matter of a musician’s aggrandizement of his place in the world—a world which, incidentally, seems to be slowly phasing out blues music from the mainstream consciousness. “It’s a true American art form,” Hayes continues: “if you get into the history of the blues, you get into the history of America” (Snyder). Throughout this essay, I want to examine, theoretically, two concepts which are instrumental in making sense of his claim: “art” and “history”. I feel that in order to firmly establish blues music as a complete, genuine art form, we must connect these two concepts in a philosophical definition of art that considers not only aesthetic qualities but the social and cultural context of art. In doing so, we hope to prove that Hayes is correct in his assessment: that by the blues’ ability to connect art and history, it is full-fledged artform. This process will require a full examination of the blues itself, a comprehensive definition of art, and support of the connection with both primary and secondary sources. In the end, it will be concluded that the blues, by virtue of its historical and cultural significance to both its creators and patrons, fulfills necessary and sufficient conditions for being a complete, genuine art form. First, however, we need a definition of art to proceed. Unfortunately, a widely-accepted definition of art is difficult to come by in philosophy, and many philosophers even deny that defining art is possible. Nevertheless, recent theories can shed some light on this problem for artists and art historians. There are three definitions which are widely discussed today: (i) historical definitions (that artworks hold specific relations to specified earlier artworks), (ii) institutional definitions (that artworks must be created for consumption for the artworld), and (iii) functional definitions (that artworks are created with the goal of evoking appropriate judgments or experiences (Adajian). For the sake of brevity, and for reasons which cannot be argued here, we shall adopt the historical definition: a definition which holds that a sufficient but not necessary condition for the identification of a candidate as a work of art is the construction of a true historical narrative according to which the candidate was created by an artist in an artistic context with a recognized and live artistic motivation, and as a result of being so created, it resembles at least one acknowledged artwork (Carroll). To deconstruct this definition, consider the fact of a “true historical narrative”, which ties artistic creation to a sense of history; whether this sense of history is tied to a certain culture is indeterminate, but it most likely is, as histories of populations usually possess individual cultures. The historical narrative thus stretches back in time, encompassing earlier artworks into the collective classification of this art. Another necessary condition is a “recognized and live artistic motivation”; what this means is that the artwork is created with the intention that it be interpreted as art—art which resembles those other pieces in the historical narrative and, in the case of some practices like the blues, evoke a certain response. In this sense, then, the artwork must “resemble at least one acknowledged artwork”, which, in the case of the blues, is easily accomplished, considering the relative similarity between pieces of blues music throughout the scope of the entire genre, as well as in its relation to other genres like rock and jazz. Thus, we have a proper definition of art. However, this alone does not show sufficiently that blues music is truly a complete and genuine artform. Still, something is missing. The element that is missing is the how criterion of the definition. That is, we now know why, according to this historical definition, blues music is an art form, but we are missing how blues satisfies the principles set forth by the historical definition. How is it that the individual artwork “constructs a true historical narrative”, or how is it that the artwork is “created by an artist in an artistic context with an artistic motivation”, or how is it that the artwork “resembles an acknowledged artwork”? These questions should be addressed in order to prove case being presented here. One may wish to define the blues as “a style of jazz evolved from southern American Negro secular songs and usually distinguished by flatted thirds and sevenths and a slow tempo” (Webster). However, according to our definition of art, such definitions miss an important element when considering the nature of the blues as an artform. As Jacques D. Lacava notes, “[such definitions are] limiting. The blues is much more than music, and all of its aspects should be studied. The blues performing relies on three principle modes of expression—poetry, drama, and music—to convey a message not only through words and music, but also through the ‘here and now’ on stage” (Lacava). To consider the historico-aristic aspect of blues music, we need only devote some attention to two aspects of the total blues experience: the performance and the historical basis of that performance. Charles Kiel has proposed that the blues is a ritual—and thus is a matter not only of performers but all participants. He says: “the word ‘ritual’ seems more appropriate than ‘performance’ when the audience is committed rather than appreciative” (Kiel). B.B. King, a famous blues musician, noted certain moments when the crowd responds in such a way, with pleasure and emotions, while the performer gives “gestural or dramatic adornment” (Kiel). The historical connection this suggest comes to consists of the almost purely West African nature of poetry and music, and draws a distinction between a secular attitude of the blues musician and the religious role of the African-American minister. As Lacava suggests, the theatrical nature of blues performance (that is, understood as a combination of poetry, drama, and music) are best understood with a historical perspective that theatrical African-American religious ceremonies provide the observer. From here, many have come to the conclusion that secular and religious aspects of African-American culture are not separate but are, in fact, intermingled (Lacava). Kiel expands on this point, saying: “Bluesmen and preachers both provide models and orientation; both give expression to deeply felt private emotions; both promote catharsis—the blues man through dance, the preacher through trance” (Kiel). Illustrating this connection, Zora Neale Hurston, in her novel Their Eyes Were Watching God (a work that examines many themes of southern, 20th-century African-American culture), examines the artistic nature of blues in a microcosm. In the midst of an Everglades summer, Hurston describes the nature of blues culture in the South: “All night now the jooks clanged and clamored. Pianos living three lifetimes in one. Blues made and used right on the spot. Dancing, fighting, singing, crying, laughing, winning and losing love every hour. Work all day for money, fight all night for love. The rich black earth clinging to bodies and biting the skin like ants… Tea Cake’s house was a magnet, the unauthorized center of the ‘job.’ The way he would sit in the doorway and play his guitar made people stop and listen…” (196-197). Thus, we have connected history and art with a two-fold connection: by artistic definition and by the nature of blues itself. Thus, blues as an artform consists entirely of its ability to draw a connection between these two concepts in a meaningful fashion: because blues artworks fulfill a certain cultural or societal function, and because it follows in a historical narrative of artworks that fit within the same paradigm, blues music is a complete and genuine artform. In reaching this conclusion, we have done what we set out to do: to validate Lorrie Hayes’ claim that “the blues is more than just another genre of music, it embodies something much bigger, something that all Americans can relate to” and that “if you get into the history of the blues, you get into the history of America” (Snyder). We have learned that blues music is intricately connected both with American history and African-American culture; the former because blues music was constructed from a historical narrative going back to the creation of this nation and the slave trade, and the latter because blues music parallels African-American religious culture in its distinct secularism. Lacava concludes, “[Blues is] a way of ‘inviting the spirit,’ of affirming life and the ideals of community. Blues is an underrated artform with qualities that span the scope of multiple modes of expression.” (Lacava). Works Cited Adajian, Thomas. The Definition of Art. 23 October 2007. 28 October 2008 . Carroll, Noel. Theories of Art Today. Madison, WI: Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000. Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1937. Kiel, Charles. Urban Blues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Lacava, Jacques D. "The Theatricality of the Blues." Black Music Research Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1992): 127-139. Snyder, Josh. "An American Art Form: Festival gives Marquette the blues." The North Wind 28 October 2008. Webster, Daniel. Websters II New Riverside Desk Dictionary. New York: Houghton Mifflin Reference Books, 1995. Read More