WEBVTT

NOTE The Economics of Modernism

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.000
We're halfway through, believe it or not, five down, five to go, and we've made it to the 20th century, and my topic today will be, this afternoon will be Modernism.

2
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:16.000
My epigraph is taken from an epigraph in Paul Delaney's book, Literature, Money and the Market.

3
00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:25.000
This is Ezra Pound writing to James Joyce in 1918, why in Christ's names we aren't all millionaires, I don't know.

4
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:55.000
To go back to my initial parable of the cave, where I try to define the fundamental artistic transaction, let's go back to those caveman days, and imagine some progress has been made, and one day, our caveman artist says to the group, well, things are a little different now, you guys still go out and kill the mammoth, and you still bring me the meat while I stay in the cave.

5
00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:01.000
The drawing I'm going to do today, don't expect it's going to look like the mammoth.

6
00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:07.000
In fact, it may not look like anything, but don't let that upset you.

7
00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:12.000
And that drawing I did of the god of hunting to help you guys kill a mammoth,

8
00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:16.000
I'm going to cover it with mammoth dung today.

9
00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:21.000
I'm feeling expressive today, but I still want the mammoth meat.

10
00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:27.000
and the mammoth meat. Don't worry, but that's modernism for you.

11
00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:37.000
So I'm going to ask you to rethink modernism today in light of what we've been discussing.

12
00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:45.000
And this may be my most controversial lecture, but maybe modernism needs some rethinking.

13
00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:49.000
And I want to do it in light of the fundamental issue that's emerging,

14
00:01:49.000 --> 00:02:19.000
that we could really focus on this morning and that's this question are artists better off being shielded from the market or actually being exposed to its pressures and there's no simple answer to that and I looked at the example of the serialized novel in Victorian Britain to show that there are pluses and minuses to market pressure that indeed we can see the novelists themselves complaining about commercial pressures we can identify ways in which their novels

15
00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:29.000
became aesthetically worse because some of the commercial pressures, sometimes they're too long, sometimes they're too short for commercial reasons.

16
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:42.000
On the other hand, I've pointed out ways in which the commercial system could, in many ways, improve their work through this feedback system of seeing what the audience liked and didn't like.

17
00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:57.000
Just to point, you know, one obvious factor, the commercial nature of 19th century publishing forced people to produce novels at the rate of sometimes two every three years, let's say.

18
00:02:57.000 --> 00:03:05.000
Sometimes they were rushed because of that and maybe had less aesthetic value. On the other hand, we have more novels out of these people.

19
00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:13.000
James Joyce took seven years to write Ulysses, and I think 13 years to write Finnegans Wake.

20
00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:18.000
In effect, we have three novels from his whole career.

21
00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:25.000
Now, maybe we should be thankful for that, especially looking at Finnegans Wake.

22
00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:34.000
But, you know, the output of 19th century novelists is much greater than that of most 20th century novelists,

23
00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:55.000
and yes, individual novels may be more aesthetically perfect because the author took more time on it, but would we really like fewer novels out of Dickens in return for the few we had being more aesthetically perfect?

24
00:03:55.000 --> 00:04:02.000
There is a trade-off there between writing a lot of novels with some aesthetic failings

25
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:05.000
and writing fewer that are aesthetically more perfect.

26
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:09.000
That's a genuine trade-off, and you can argue either side of the point.

27
00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:13.000
But I do want to suggest, in just some sort of a basic way,

28
00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:18.000
simply this aesthetic commercial pressure to churn out novels.

29
00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:21.000
It was very difficult on the novelists,

30
00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:25.000
But in many ways it may have left us with a richer world of literature.

31
00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:37.000
Now, as I talk about modernism, I want to think about it in these terms that it specifically developed as an anti-commercial movement.

32
00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:42.000
And a lot of people have been rethinking it that way.

33
00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:47.000
Lawrence Rainey in this book, Institutions of Modernism, that I recommended to you,

34
00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:50.000
and Paul Delaney in this book, Literature of Money in the Market.

35
00:04:50.000 --> 00:04:57.080
So I didn't develop this theory, I'm just capitalizing on the work of others here.

36
00:04:57.080 --> 00:05:04.600
Again, the way modernism presented itself is that it's set off on this deliberate aesthetic

37
00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:11.540
course and it happened to be incompatible with commercial considerations.

38
00:05:11.540 --> 00:05:26.540
People like Rainey and Delaney have suggested that, in fact, modernism set out to define itself in opposition to commerce.

39
00:05:26.540 --> 00:05:34.540
Delaney quotes Ezra Pound at one point, in some ways formulating the essence of modernism,

40
00:05:34.540 --> 00:05:41.540
Nothing written for pay is worth printing, only what has been written against the market.

41
00:05:41.540 --> 00:05:47.540
And you can find analogous statements from Arnold Schoenberg about music.

42
00:05:47.540 --> 00:05:54.540
Right down the line, you can see the modernists explicitly defining themselves against the market

43
00:05:54.540 --> 00:06:01.540
by claiming that precisely if something is commercial, it lacks artistic merit.

44
00:06:01.540 --> 00:06:07.820
And if something is not commercial, it must have artistic merit.

45
00:06:07.820 --> 00:06:15.020
In fact, what I'm going to argue is modernism is the chief source of our anti-commercial bias.

46
00:06:15.020 --> 00:06:23.860
That when you have an anti-commercial bias in culture, you're buying in to what is essentially a modernist myth.

47
00:06:23.860 --> 00:06:26.620
So how did that develop?

48
00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:40.020
It really develops in reaction to the emergence of a mass market for culture for the first time ever in the world in the 19th century, beginning in England and in Europe and eventually in the United States.

49
00:06:40.020 --> 00:06:49.520
This is a tremendous change in human life, an ethical change, and it understandably did produce some interesting reactions.

50
00:06:49.520 --> 00:07:02.520
That is, before 1800, what we think of culture was of necessity an elite phenomenon restricted to a really small portion of society.

51
00:07:02.520 --> 00:07:05.520
Both Shakespeare and Love and Amadeus helped crystallize that.

52
00:07:05.520 --> 00:07:20.520
in both works, culture really revolved around a court, occasionally spilled over into some popular areas and artistic endeavors like the theater or operetta.

53
00:07:20.520 --> 00:07:33.520
But basically, when we now as cultural historians look back at things before 1800, we are inevitably looking at largely elite phenomenon centered around aristocratic,

54
00:07:33.520 --> 00:07:40.520
and in some cases church centers and somewhat spreading out for example in

55
00:07:40.520 --> 00:07:46.280
literature you have the issue of sheer literacy literary literacy rates were

56
00:07:46.280 --> 00:07:52.440
basically so low that when you talk about literature up to 1800 you're

57
00:07:52.440 --> 00:08:01.120
talking about things that are being read by a couple of thousands of people both

58
00:08:01.120 --> 00:08:05.520
both because of low literacy rates, the expansiveness of books, and so on.

59
00:08:05.520 --> 00:08:16.320
What capitalism made possible in the 19th century was the mass production of literature, the spread of literacy.

60
00:08:16.320 --> 00:08:29.120
Richard Altick's book shows that. What's interesting in that book is he desperately considers every altruistic, philanthropic attempt to spread literacy in England.

61
00:08:29.120 --> 00:08:38.120
Church Organizations, wonderful philanthropists who would open up libraries for the poor and provide them with literature for free.

62
00:08:38.120 --> 00:08:45.120
And one after another, these projects failed. Why? Because they were not market-oriented.

63
00:08:45.120 --> 00:08:57.120
You went to the wonderful free library and there was all this moral, religious literature for you to read, to uplift you, and the working class stayed away in droves.

64
00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:05.120
who made the English working class literate and gave them the habit of reading the capitalist book-selling industry

65
00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:08.120
because it gave them what they wanted.

66
00:09:08.120 --> 00:09:15.120
Now, in the course of the 19th century, cultural elites were appalled at that result

67
00:09:15.120 --> 00:09:23.120
because what they saw was that the price of widespread cultural literacy and making reading a habit

68
00:09:23.120 --> 00:09:27.120
was what they regarded as a displacement of taste.

69
00:09:27.120 --> 00:09:31.120
When you think about it, the logic was inevitable.

70
00:09:31.120 --> 00:09:39.120
You know, the 18th century literacy, as we see it, revolves around the poems of Alexander Pope.

71
00:09:39.120 --> 00:09:43.120
Magnificently sophisticated, brilliantly written poems.

72
00:09:43.120 --> 00:09:47.120
But they were read by hundreds and maybe thousands of people.

73
00:09:47.120 --> 00:09:51.120
The idea that you could take millions of people

74
00:09:51.120 --> 00:10:01.120
and get them to read Pope's Essay on Man or Pope's Essay on Criticism, that proved to be a chimerical dream.

75
00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:07.120
What is truly impressive is you could get them to read Dickens' novels.

76
00:10:07.120 --> 00:10:15.120
I want to stress that we're talking about change in taste here, but it's not necessarily a pure debasement, far from it.

77
00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:22.120
And when you look at what was the basis of widespread literacy in 19th century England, it was pretty impressive.

78
00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:26.120
So much so now that we assign those books in universities.

79
00:10:26.120 --> 00:10:38.120
So much so now that cultural pessimists lament the fact that the average college student doesn't read Dickens for pleasure, but instead goes to a movie or watches television.

80
00:10:38.120 --> 00:10:51.120
It's interesting to realize that in the 19th century, reading a Dickens novel was looked down upon with the same contempt that people now look down upon as watching television and going to movies.

81
00:10:51.120 --> 00:11:02.120
I was actually astounded to go back and look at books attacking reading in the 19th century.

82
00:11:02.120 --> 00:11:10.120
Hard to believe, but there were substantial anti-reading campaigns in early 19th century literature.

83
00:11:10.120 --> 00:11:17.120
People were convinced, in early 19th century England, people were convinced that this was destroying the working class,

84
00:11:17.120 --> 00:11:20.120
that they were picking up this habit of reading.

85
00:11:20.120 --> 00:11:27.120
A lot of, I'm not joking about this, this is for real, there are whole books written on this subject

86
00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:42.120
And it's partially the old moralistic campaigns, the same kind of objections that were raised at the Elizabethan Theatre that people said, books are morally corrupting, you know, there's sex and violence and books that should be read.

87
00:11:42.120 --> 00:11:48.120
But I was shocked to see that it was a more abstract, media-oriented argument.

88
00:11:48.120 --> 00:11:55.120
You know, a lot of people now object to television, not on the specific grounds of the content of the programs,

89
00:11:55.120 --> 00:11:59.120
but they say it's just a bad habit watching television.

90
00:11:59.120 --> 00:12:03.120
You get locked into it, it's like a drug, you get addicted to it.

91
00:12:03.120 --> 00:12:09.120
What really surprised me was to see that that argument was made against reading novels in the 19th century.

92
00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:15.120
Matthew Arnold's father, Thomas Arnold, the headmaster of Rugby School,

93
00:12:15.120 --> 00:12:24.120
When he was in school, one of the most prominent Victorians gave a sermon in which he condemned the horrible habit of serialized novels.

94
00:12:24.120 --> 00:12:31.120
And he said, it's just awful now. These kids can't wait for the next installment of the novel to come out.

95
00:12:31.120 --> 00:12:36.120
And they read it instantly. And they don't do their schoolwork. Instead they want to read the novel.

96
00:12:36.120 --> 00:12:38.120
And they're hooked into it. They're addicted to it.

97
00:12:38.120 --> 00:12:46.360
to it. I mean, he's not even saying anything about the content, but just about the habit

98
00:12:46.360 --> 00:12:51.360
of these serialized novels. That really stunned me, but it shows you something. Every time

99
00:12:51.360 --> 00:12:56.600
a new medium comes along and gets popular, the intellectual, cultural, moral elite objects

100
00:12:56.600 --> 00:13:01.040
to it, you know, the way Plato objected to Greek tragedy. All these things now that we

101
00:13:01.040 --> 00:13:05.560
hold up on a pedestal and contrast with the basement of our culture, they were regarded

102
00:13:05.560 --> 00:13:07.640
is the base culture in their day.

103
00:13:07.640 --> 00:13:11.560
And indeed, there was a real almost class panic

104
00:13:11.560 --> 00:13:15.240
in the 19th century, precisely as literacy spread

105
00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:17.200
to the middle and lower classes.

106
00:13:17.200 --> 00:13:20.840
And they were finally getting their entertainment

107
00:13:20.840 --> 00:13:23.600
and had novels being written with them in mind

108
00:13:23.600 --> 00:13:26.240
as audiences that they could appreciate and enjoy.

109
00:13:26.240 --> 00:13:28.600
Again, many of them were no doubt trash.

110
00:13:28.600 --> 00:13:30.320
Many of them have been forgotten.

111
00:13:30.320 --> 00:13:33.960
But all the novels that we now teach in universities

112
00:13:33.960 --> 00:13:40.960
in the 19th century, the sense that the old forms of the cultural elite were being displaced.

113
00:13:40.960 --> 00:13:44.960
One perfect way to see it is in the status of poetry.

114
00:13:44.960 --> 00:13:54.960
Going into the 19th century, poetry was regarded as the highest form of literature and over the course of the 19th century.

115
00:13:54.960 --> 00:14:05.960
Going into the 19th century, poetry was regarded as the highest form of literature and almost as the essence of literature.

116
00:14:05.960 --> 00:14:13.960
So that you would teach poetry in universities then, not English poetry, but Latin and Greek poetry, but still poetry.

117
00:14:13.960 --> 00:14:22.960
And anyone with literary aspirations to immortality, to be a great writer, would want to go into poetry.

118
00:14:22.960 --> 00:14:29.960
The joke is, if you had the brains in 1800, you would have seen that the novel was where to go.

119
00:14:29.960 --> 00:14:36.960
That a lot of great poetry had been written, and you weren't going to challenge Homer and Dante and Shakespeare,

120
00:14:36.960 --> 00:14:41.960
but not too many great novels had been written by then.

121
00:14:41.960 --> 00:14:49.960
And indeed, in literary terms, the great history of the 19th century is, in a way, a shift in power from poetry to fiction.

122
00:14:49.960 --> 00:15:04.960
And much of the reaction at the time was a result of an older poetry-oriented elite feeling it was losing its grip on the world of literature.

123
00:15:04.960 --> 00:15:11.960
So then, for example, the first Marxist criticism of popular culture comes from William Wordsworth.

124
00:15:11.960 --> 00:15:18.960
Long before Marx, Wordsworth was a member of the Frankfurt School, 150 years ahead of time.

125
00:15:18.960 --> 00:15:38.960
In the preface to the second edition of the lyrical ballads that Wordsworth wrote with Coleridge, came out in 1800, Wordsworth offers these poems as an alternative to the debased taste of contemporary readers.

126
00:15:38.960 --> 00:15:47.440
and he gives a pure Frankfurt School argument he says people are more and more forced into cities

127
00:15:47.440 --> 00:15:54.560
and their lives are becoming more and more monotonous and as a result they need sensation

128
00:15:54.560 --> 00:16:03.040
their craving a kind of morbid excitement and they turn to these cheap German dramas and Gothic

129
00:16:03.040 --> 00:16:10.080
like fiction, you know, because the industrial world has dulled their senses, and so their

130
00:16:10.080 --> 00:16:18.820
taste has been debased, and we're going back to the nature and the countryside and the

131
00:16:18.820 --> 00:16:25.120
roots of true virtue, and our poems are a cure for this.

132
00:16:25.120 --> 00:16:30.720
Again, it's a pure Frankfurt School argument, and he actually uses, doesn't quite use this

133
00:16:30.720 --> 00:16:37.720
He talks about urbanization, talks about all the things that the Marxists complained about in modern life

134
00:16:37.720 --> 00:16:47.720
and offers his romantic poetry as a cure for that and an alternative to these debased forms of mass popular literature

135
00:16:47.720 --> 00:16:58.720
chiefly German melodrama and these Gothic novels with their sensational plots and their blood and gore

136
00:16:58.720 --> 00:17:05.440
are absolutely fascinating. It's only about four sentences in the preface. It's a lot

137
00:17:05.440 --> 00:17:09.800
better reading than dialectic of enlightenment, I'll tell you. Wordsworth says about four

138
00:17:09.800 --> 00:17:16.320
sentences what Horkheimer and Adorno take a whole book of turgid German prose to say.

139
00:17:16.320 --> 00:17:20.620
But it's important to see that that argument was made that early because I think it really

140
00:17:20.620 --> 00:17:28.280
gives a sense of the context for modernism and for much of the Marxist critique of commercial

141
00:17:28.280 --> 00:17:34.880
Literature. The old elite didn't like what was happening. There was a great

142
00:17:34.880 --> 00:17:42.680
power shift going on and in the, you can see it, the fact that going into the 19th

143
00:17:42.680 --> 00:17:51.600
century, poetry was still a best-selling form. People like Walter Scott in his

144
00:17:51.600 --> 00:17:57.160
Scottish tales like Marmion and Leia the Last Minstrel, Lord Byron in his

145
00:17:57.160 --> 00:18:04.120
Oriental tales like the Jower and the Bride of Abydos, these sold really staggering amounts

146
00:18:04.120 --> 00:18:11.960
of volumes for poetry. Some of Byron's poems would sell 10,000 copies in a week. I think

147
00:18:11.960 --> 00:18:17.640
poets would kill for that and now sell 10,000 copies in a lifetime. Now it is interesting

148
00:18:17.640 --> 00:18:25.640
if you look at the Byron's poems that sold, they were tales, get this, of liberating a woman from

149
00:18:25.640 --> 00:18:33.640
from a Turkish harem, killing a sultan on the way, they turned out to be pretty blood and guts themselves.

150
00:18:33.640 --> 00:18:43.640
And one of the great cultural signs in the 19th century, in 1816, Walter Scott switched from poetry to the novel.

151
00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:52.640
He published a novel called Waverly, the first of his so-called Waverly novels, published it anonymously because he had a great reputation as a poet.

152
00:18:52.640 --> 00:18:59.440
He didn't want to ruin his reputation by being caught writing something so vulgar as a novel.

153
00:18:59.440 --> 00:19:04.040
So he published his novels anonymously for many years.

154
00:19:04.040 --> 00:19:09.860
It wasn't the greatest kept secret in British literary history, but it's a sign that he

155
00:19:09.860 --> 00:19:11.680
himself looked down upon novel writing.

156
00:19:11.680 --> 00:19:16.440
This was a way to make money, but his novels were so successful that it really opened up

157
00:19:16.440 --> 00:19:17.760
the whole possibility.

158
00:19:17.760 --> 00:19:22.480
It suddenly became clear there was a lot of money to be made in novel writing, and people

159
00:19:22.480 --> 00:19:30.120
like Dickens came along showed something more was even possible so what you have

160
00:19:30.120 --> 00:19:37.160
is this tremendous expansion of the reading public from a time in the 18th

161
00:19:37.160 --> 00:19:42.160
century when books were lucky if they sold hundreds of copies maybe 5,000

162
00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:45.920
copies the figures are really astounding and now Frankenstein for

163
00:19:45.920 --> 00:19:50.000
example which Mary Shelley brought out in 1816 I've always thought of that as a

164
00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:52.640
is a very successful novel.

165
00:19:52.640 --> 00:19:58.600
It turns out that in the whole of the 19th century, it sold only 7,500 copies.

166
00:19:58.600 --> 00:20:01.720
I found that astounding when I discovered that.

167
00:20:01.720 --> 00:20:03.840
That was still considered very good sales.

168
00:20:03.840 --> 00:20:06.960
It sold a lot of copies, more sensitive.

169
00:20:06.960 --> 00:20:11.060
If she'd had the movie rights, she'd be a rich woman today.

170
00:20:11.060 --> 00:20:15.460
But still, it gives you some sense of what we're talking about, how shocked people were

171
00:20:15.460 --> 00:20:21.240
When Dickens started selling 40,000 copies, 50,000 copies, 100,000 copies,

172
00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:28.520
that's a major demographic shift in the industry, and it of course had consequences.

173
00:20:28.520 --> 00:20:35.320
100,000 readers are not going to have the same taste as 500 readers,

174
00:20:35.320 --> 00:20:40.280
though that doesn't necessarily mean that they have bad taste.

175
00:20:40.280 --> 00:20:46.280
That's, of course, what the old cultural elites said, that these novels aren't bad taste.

176
00:20:46.280 --> 00:20:55.280
And in retrospect, we say no, that, I mean, in fact, the Victorian public had pretty remarkably good taste,

177
00:20:55.280 --> 00:21:01.280
and that the fiction they liked, we still admire today as models of fiction.

178
00:21:01.280 --> 00:21:05.280
But this is the cultural pressure that generated modernism,

179
00:21:05.280 --> 00:21:15.280
that a certain kind of author and artist in other fields felt this new pressure of the mass market

180
00:21:15.280 --> 00:21:19.280
and we've talked about the real effective commercial pressures.

181
00:21:19.280 --> 00:21:25.280
If you wanted that market, there were certain things you had to do.

182
00:21:25.280 --> 00:21:28.280
You had to write a certain way.

183
00:21:28.280 --> 00:21:29.280
Now, it's interesting.

184
00:21:29.280 --> 00:21:34.280
Tennyson stuck with poetry and was an enormous bestseller in poetry.

185
00:21:34.280 --> 00:21:44.280
I think he was handed, I think, a £25,000 check as an advance from a publisher for one of his poems.

186
00:21:44.280 --> 00:21:48.280
I think that's right. That's millions of dollars for a poem.

187
00:21:48.280 --> 00:21:50.280
So none of these things happen overnight.

188
00:21:50.280 --> 00:21:56.280
It's not like up to 1816, people write poetry, then they stop and start writing novels.

189
00:21:56.280 --> 00:22:12.280
for Writing Novels. But broadly speaking, you can watch the change in public taste over the 19th century, a shift from poetry-based popular literature to a novel-based popular literature.

190
00:22:12.280 --> 00:22:24.280
And you can see how the poets began to feel left in the dust and why they start to comment negatively against commerce. You see it in Blake. You see it in Percy Shelley.

191
00:22:24.280 --> 00:22:31.880
and why the novelists like Dickens are raising their toasts to cities like Birmingham that are buying their books.

192
00:22:31.880 --> 00:22:37.880
But notice we're talking about an additive phenomenon now.

193
00:22:37.880 --> 00:22:48.880
And I'm sure more volumes of poetry were being sold at the end of the 19th century than in 1800.

194
00:22:48.880 --> 00:22:53.880
But relative to novels being sold, it looked bad.

195
00:22:53.880 --> 00:23:02.440
I've listed Robert Darten, the French historian, on your new bibliography

196
00:23:02.440 --> 00:23:07.560
because he's spent his whole life looking at the French book trade

197
00:23:07.560 --> 00:23:12.200
and has written some remarkable books, this book on the French encyclopedia called

198
00:23:12.200 --> 00:23:18.360
The Business of Enlightenment, whole studies of the development of the infrastructure

199
00:23:18.360 --> 00:23:21.800
of the French publishing industry confirms much of what I've been saying.

200
00:23:21.800 --> 00:23:31.300
at the English Publishing Industry, but he talks about the paradox of the situation of writers in the 19th century.

201
00:23:31.300 --> 00:23:41.300
As the publishing industry developed, never had writers had greater opportunities to get published and to make money.

202
00:23:41.300 --> 00:23:50.800
But that, at the same time, created immense frustration because some made so much more money than others.

203
00:23:50.800 --> 00:23:54.800
and you had a kind of revolution of rising expectations.

204
00:23:54.800 --> 00:24:00.300
As the markets opened up and there were more and more opportunities to publish

205
00:24:00.300 --> 00:24:05.800
and more ways to make money for publishing, people in fact got more frustrated

206
00:24:05.800 --> 00:24:12.300
because more people wanted to go into the publishing industry, into the writing industry

207
00:24:12.300 --> 00:24:18.800
and they might in fact do much better than 18th century writers did financially

208
00:24:18.800 --> 00:24:25.400
but they didn't let's say do as well as Dickens and and and and d'Artin talks about the generation of envy

209
00:24:25.760 --> 00:24:33.400
in the French intelligentsia he goes back into the 18th century in this sees it actually is one of the causes of the French Revolution that

210
00:24:34.120 --> 00:24:40.320
precisely the expansion that capitalism made possible led to great frustration because it was never enough and

211
00:24:41.080 --> 00:24:44.720
You suddenly began to have the phenomenon of the unemployed

212
00:24:44.720 --> 00:24:56.720
and employed intelligentsia, who people felt they'd been lured into writing with promises of, you know, they were all dreams on air, with promises of great success and the market hadn't met it.

213
00:24:56.720 --> 00:25:05.720
And so the generation of anti-commercial sentiment in the 19th century has a lot to do with that logic.

214
00:25:05.720 --> 00:25:12.200
You can understand that, that it's not that capitalism doesn't deliver the goods,

215
00:25:12.200 --> 00:25:17.800
but it often doesn't deliver enough goods to sacrifice certain people.

216
00:25:17.800 --> 00:25:22.680
And if it's intellectuals, that means they're the most vocal people in this regard.

217
00:25:24.680 --> 00:25:28.200
One of the books I suggested was John Bailey's The Intellectuals and the Masses,

218
00:25:28.200 --> 00:25:31.000
which develops this argument as well.

219
00:25:31.000 --> 00:25:45.000
And so when you get to the 20th century, you have a lot of sour grapes mentality having developed in the intellectual world and the world of writers.

220
00:25:45.000 --> 00:25:56.000
Again, it's astounding how many people were able to earn their livings writing in the 19th century in a new way that had never been possible in the world.

221
00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:00.800
The literary world expanded exponentially.

222
00:26:00.800 --> 00:26:06.000
I didn't even talk about the phenomenon of magazines in the 19th century,

223
00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:11.000
because in many ways, magazines were a better source of steady income.

224
00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:17.000
And many of these novelists actually made their steady income writing book reviews,

225
00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:20.000
which were disproportionately rewarding.

226
00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:29.000
You could get one-tenth of the money for writing a novel, for writing one-hundredth the length of pages.

227
00:26:29.000 --> 00:26:33.000
I'm just making up those figures, but that's roughly what we're talking about.

228
00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:39.000
And so a lot of people were able to support themselves. George Eliot would be an example.

229
00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:47.000
Writing book reviews and other little essays, there was a vastly expanded market, totally made possible by cheaper paper,

230
00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:56.000
better distribution systems for magazines, the elimination of taxes on magazines, which occurred around the middle of the 19th century, and so on.

231
00:26:56.000 --> 00:27:05.000
You know, people complain, say, about the 20th century, oh, poetry isn't supported the way it was in the 18th century.

232
00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:16.000
I mean, the number of practicing poets in the United States today undoubtedly exceeds all the poets in the history of humanity.

233
00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:25.000
in every corner of the earth. You know, my university alone has three tenured poets in its department.

234
00:27:25.000 --> 00:27:34.000
You know, we remember maybe 50 poets total from the 19th century in England.

235
00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:41.000
And now, you add up just to the academic world, there are thousands of poets in America.

236
00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:47.000
What they're complaining about, again, is not something absolute, but something relative.

237
00:27:47.000 --> 00:27:57.000
They're earning livings, but they're not earning as big a living as Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise and all these people out in Hollywood.

238
00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:05.000
Again, I will repeat, pound to joys, why in Christ's name we aren't all millionaires, I don't know.

239
00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:13.000
Again, that's always the problem in capitalism. It generates lots of wealth, but doesn't spread it around equally.

240
00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:18.000
I don't think that's wrong, but it does show why people begin to resent it.

241
00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:25.000
Mises is very good in discussing this in the anti-capitalist mentality, especially when he talks about the resentment of the literati.

242
00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:28.000
He analyzes the process there.

243
00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:42.000
What this is saying is that the situation out of which modernism grows, the idea that the market is failing, not absolutely, but relatively.

244
00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:47.000
It's failing because it's not supporting us to the extent it's supporting other people.

245
00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:57.000
And so you get art novelists, artsy novelists in the late 19th century, early 20th century, basically their resentment is they're not making as much money as Dickens did.

246
00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:02.440
Dickens did. Now it turns out they're not willing to do what Dickens did. Meet his audience

247
00:29:02.440 --> 00:29:09.440
halfway and write novels that would be popular and they, but they resent that and so they

248
00:29:09.440 --> 00:29:16.560
start to try to turn their disadvantage into an advantage or their necessity into a virtue.

249
00:29:16.560 --> 00:29:23.840
And you start to generate this new modernist ideology that if something succeeds in the

250
00:29:23.840 --> 00:29:38.840
in the market, that's evidence that it's not artistically good, and a totally illogical conclusion from that, that if something fails in the market, that proves that it is good, that it's not illogical.

251
00:29:38.840 --> 00:29:49.840
The first premise is dubious, but the conclusion from it is even more dubious, but modernism does come to define itself precisely on its anti-commercial character.

252
00:29:49.840 --> 00:30:19.840
Artists who, for one reason or another, could not compete in the markets, who did not want to compete in the markets, tried to make a virtue out of that, and that's when we developed this myth of the outsider artist, the alternative artist, the myth of the misunderstood genius, and let me take what in some ways is the defining artistic myth of the 20th century modernism, and that's the premiere of Stravinsky's Right of Spring in Paris, maybe the single most

253
00:30:19.840 --> 00:30:29.840
and the famous artistic premiere of the 20th century with the possible recent debut of Pirates of the Caribbean, which set all those wonderful records.

254
00:30:29.840 --> 00:30:42.840
But I suppose you know the story that Diaghilev's Ballet Company is staging the Ryder Spring with Stravinsky's music, and there's a riot.

255
00:30:42.840 --> 00:30:51.040
The audience boos, stamps, drowns out the orchestra and the premiere of this great masterwork

256
00:30:51.040 --> 00:30:56.000
of the 20th century, Rider Spring, is ruined.

257
00:30:56.000 --> 00:30:59.480
We have paid ever since for that night.

258
00:30:59.480 --> 00:31:05.080
I'd like to pistol whip that audience, if only they'd behave themselves better, because

259
00:31:05.080 --> 00:31:10.120
since then we have not been able to boo at the premiere of Eddie Mada's work.

260
00:31:10.120 --> 00:31:12.720
We have to sit there and suffer.

261
00:31:12.720 --> 00:31:19.600
No matter what trash the artist serves up, we got to be behaved and not riot because

262
00:31:19.600 --> 00:31:24.360
we mustn't ever recreate the tragedy of that night.

263
00:31:24.360 --> 00:31:30.520
Now, it's a very interesting story, but it's a myth.

264
00:31:30.520 --> 00:31:35.860
And let me defend that opening night audience a bit.

265
00:31:35.860 --> 00:31:42.180
We now know Rite of Spring is a great, great piece of music and I love it and in fact become

266
00:31:42.180 --> 00:31:47.580
part of popular culture because of Walt Disney's Fantasia in which you had a wonderful performance

267
00:31:47.580 --> 00:31:52.140
by Leopold Sikowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra performing it.

268
00:31:52.140 --> 00:31:57.220
The fact is if we'd been at that premiere we might not have liked the music because

269
00:31:57.220 --> 00:32:00.060
it was being badly played.

270
00:32:00.060 --> 00:32:04.460
Now Pierre Montour was conducting it and one of the great, one of the ten greatest conductors

271
00:32:04.460 --> 00:32:08.620
of the 20th Century and a Man I Deeply Admire, and he later went on to record it with the

272
00:32:08.620 --> 00:32:13.680
Boston Symphony, it's a great performance, but it was very hard for that premiere night

273
00:32:13.680 --> 00:32:14.680
for the orchestra.

274
00:32:14.680 --> 00:32:19.460
The rhythms were very complex, they didn't have enough rehearsal time, they weren't playing

275
00:32:19.460 --> 00:32:20.640
it very well.

276
00:32:20.640 --> 00:32:27.860
As you might imagine, the first time, as try hard as Montour could, he couldn't whip that

277
00:32:27.860 --> 00:32:32.460
orchestra in shape to give a performance of it that was good.

278
00:32:32.460 --> 00:32:39.820
But that really wasn't the problem. In fact, the problem was the choreography. Nijinsky,

279
00:32:39.820 --> 00:32:45.740
greatest male dancer of the 20th century. But he wasn't that great a choreographer,

280
00:32:45.740 --> 00:32:50.580
and this was one of the first ballets he'd choreographed. Again, typical, he was a great

281
00:32:50.580 --> 00:32:57.260
dancer, but now he's got to be a choreographer. Diaghilev led him. It's virtually the first

282
00:32:57.260 --> 00:33:20.260
And so the dancing was pretty bad and awkward. Someone recreated it. There was no film of it, but there's a form of choreography notation, and there was a PBS special about 15 years ago where they recreated it, and it doesn't look very good.

283
00:33:20.260 --> 00:33:26.260
And I'll tell you another thing, Writer's Spring is usually successful as an orchestral score.

284
00:33:26.260 --> 00:33:32.260
It's very seldom performed as a ballet to this day, because it's great music, but it's not easy to dance to.

285
00:33:32.260 --> 00:33:38.260
Remember in Dick Clark's American Bandstand, where there were rating records, you know, 98, why, Dick would ask?

286
00:33:38.260 --> 00:33:44.260
It's easy to dance to. Well, Socret de Printal would not have gotten a 98 on American Bandstand.

287
00:33:44.260 --> 00:34:01.260
to this day, you know, orchestras can now play it, but it's still not easy to dance to, and I don't know if it's out on DVD, I luckily taped it, but if you ever see this recreation of what the ballet looked like, it's pretty laughable.

288
00:34:01.260 --> 00:34:20.260
And then there's the costumes. I went to this exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in New York because it was this history of Diaghilev and the great master of the ballet ruse, the great empresario, and they had all this stuff of the costuming.

289
00:34:20.260 --> 00:34:27.260
And I got to the right of spring and I said, well this can't have been what the dancers were dressed like.

290
00:34:27.260 --> 00:34:35.260
It looks like a Daniel Boone movie. It looks like, you know, silly American Indian costumes.

291
00:34:35.260 --> 00:34:40.260
And I said, well, this is just ridiculous, you know, someone's silly idea what it looked like.

292
00:34:40.260 --> 00:34:44.260
And then I found photographs. And they'd reproduced them perfectly.

293
00:34:44.260 --> 00:34:48.260
I mean, it looked like bad costuming out of an American Western.

294
00:34:48.260 --> 00:34:55.260
So, I would have laughed. I laughed at the costumes the first time I saw them. I hate to say it.

295
00:34:55.260 --> 00:35:10.260
Actually, I think in the, there's a 1980s movie about Nijinsky's life with Alan Bates as Nijinsky and George de la Pena as Alan Bates as Diaghilev and George de la Pena as Nijinsky.

296
00:35:10.260 --> 00:35:20.260
I think they have a brief recreation in that. And, you know, it really was bad, even though we can now say Rider Spring is a great piece of music.

297
00:35:20.260 --> 00:35:28.260
Probably, that was a failed production, and people were right to laugh at it and hooted it.

298
00:35:28.260 --> 00:35:33.260
Now again, you shouldn't embarrass Russian composers like that, or choreographers.

299
00:35:33.260 --> 00:35:39.260
But still, the idea that this was some great performance of right of spring,

300
00:35:39.260 --> 00:35:45.260
and only the Philistine stupidity of the audience made them reject it is a complete myth.

301
00:35:45.260 --> 00:35:57.260
Moreover, it now turns out that there were enemies of Diaghilev, I think, who paid people in the crowd to boo, or for all I know, Diaghilev paid people in the crowd to boo, to create a scandal and promote the work.

302
00:35:57.260 --> 00:36:08.260
But, you know, there are many such stories, this I think is the most famous one, which is supposed to teach us never reject a work of art.

303
00:36:08.260 --> 00:36:17.260
Would we would reject more of them? Because, you know, this was part of this movement to free the artist from any audience pressure.

304
00:36:17.260 --> 00:36:25.260
That's why this myth is told and retold, and why we're told nobody appreciated Vincent van Gogh during his life.

305
00:36:25.260 --> 00:36:33.260
And nobody, you know, we've actually bought the line that nobody appreciated Picasso, and that Picasso had to struggle and struggle, get a breakthrough.

306
00:36:33.260 --> 00:36:39.260
He was a very wealthy man, early in his career, worked very carefully with his dealers.

307
00:36:39.260 --> 00:36:43.260
That Fitzgerald book I told you about proves that.

308
00:36:43.260 --> 00:36:52.260
And again, we've got this myth ingrained in us so that we're afraid to dislike any modernist work

309
00:36:52.260 --> 00:37:00.260
because we've been convinced that modernist artists have to struggle, you know, TSA in the wasteland.

310
00:37:00.260 --> 00:37:09.260
It took six months for the genius of that poem to be recognized and what an agonizing six months it must have been for T.S. Eliot.

311
00:37:09.260 --> 00:37:15.260
It's almost laughable when you realize how quickly modernism came to dominate in every field.

312
00:37:15.260 --> 00:37:20.260
Most artistic styles had taken centuries to establish themselves.

313
00:37:20.260 --> 00:37:27.260
Modernism was very well organized, lots of great self-promotion, self-publicity,

314
00:37:27.260 --> 00:37:36.860
and part of it was convincing us that we're too dumb and we don't appreciate great art

315
00:37:36.860 --> 00:37:41.960
and so we better shut up and sit there and like it and unfortunately that's actually worked.

316
00:37:41.960 --> 00:37:46.060
Now, the first generation of artists were great artists, really.

317
00:37:46.060 --> 00:37:52.060
I mean, I'm a great admirer of modernist painters like Picasso, modernist composers like Stravinsky.

318
00:37:52.060 --> 00:38:02.460
My problem is that this first generation, maybe the second generation triumphed in their desire to get artists shielded from public pressure.

319
00:38:02.460 --> 00:38:12.460
And that's what's opened the floodgates to a virtual half-century of trash in modernist music and modernist painting.

320
00:38:12.460 --> 00:38:22.860
Now, drawing upon Rainey and Delaney, I want to look into some more detail on this modernist reaction.

321
00:38:22.860 --> 00:38:32.460
One of the forms it took, and this is again important for us as we think about things in economic terms,

322
00:38:32.460 --> 00:38:42.460
Both Delaney and Rainey show that for all the scorn for marketing and commerce in modernism,

323
00:38:42.460 --> 00:38:49.460
in fact it developed a very recognizable marketing strategy which we call niche marketing.

324
00:38:49.460 --> 00:39:01.460
That is, in reaction to the mass market, these modernists, together with various cultural middlemen,

325
00:39:01.460 --> 00:39:09.700
Art dealers, publishers, actually evolved very canny marketing strategies that made them money,

326
00:39:09.700 --> 00:39:14.260
not at the rate of bestsellers in books, but made them quite a bit of money.

327
00:39:14.260 --> 00:39:22.820
Rainey famously has discussed Joyce's Ulysses in this regard, and again I recommend very highly

328
00:39:22.820 --> 00:39:28.220
the chapter in Institutions of Modernism on Joyce's Ulysses.

329
00:39:28.220 --> 00:39:37.520
Ulysses was published initially in a private edition, a limited run of 1,000 copies.

330
00:39:37.520 --> 00:39:42.020
They knew that Ulysses was not going to be a bestseller.

331
00:39:42.020 --> 00:39:45.720
They could figure that out.

332
00:39:45.720 --> 00:39:52.620
And so they pursued the opposite strategy, which was to price it higher,

333
00:39:52.620 --> 00:39:59.700
produced it in a very luxuriously designed private edition, and they

334
00:39:59.700 --> 00:40:05.820
actually targeted the book collecting market, not the book buying market. And

335
00:40:05.820 --> 00:40:10.820
Reidy has done a careful study and shown this. Again, the myth of Ulysses as this

336
00:40:10.820 --> 00:40:17.740
very high-ranking group of brilliant intellectual and artists subscribed to

337
00:40:17.740 --> 00:40:21.660
the initial publication, and they can show that people like Andre Gide, and I

338
00:40:21.660 --> 00:40:51.660
I believe even Winston Churchill were among the original subscribers but Reidy went down the list beyond the first few names and then you see one rare book dealer after another buying this thing because they know even at a very expensive price Reidy calculates it cost as much as a month's rent in a Paris apartment that time that's his attempt to give us an equivalent for it you go down and more than half the buyers are book dealers and they knew

339
00:40:51.660 --> 00:41:12.660
This thing was going to go up in price as a collectible. In other words, Joyce's Ulysses was marketed as a limited edition collectible, and part of Joyce's remuneration was that he got a certain number of copies, which were worth more than royalties he could get at the time or any kind of advance.

340
00:41:12.660 --> 00:41:19.060
And indeed, well, I don't know what a first edition of Ulysses sells for now, but let's go on eBay, it's probably a lot.

341
00:41:19.060 --> 00:41:24.900
And the funny thing, this goes all the way back to William Blake, around 1800.

342
00:41:24.900 --> 00:41:38.140
He despised the commercial market, yet he was a small businessman, and he chose to, he published his books himself on his own little printing press, and he chose to price them higher.

343
00:41:38.140 --> 00:41:52.140
And, you know, that sounds crazy, but, you know, go through the ads you get in the mail for limited edition books and for collectible silvers, things, and these commemorative plays.

344
00:41:52.140 --> 00:42:07.140
I mean, two words, Franklin Mint. I mean, this is a familiar capitalist strategy, that you take a book that anybody can buy for five bucks and put it in a leather binding and have an introduction by somebody

345
00:42:07.140 --> 00:42:13.140
and tell you there's only 500 copies being printed and you can charge a hundred bucks for it.

346
00:42:13.140 --> 00:42:19.140
That's the strategy that Blake had figured out. Didn't work too well in his case, I have to say.

347
00:42:19.140 --> 00:42:27.140
But he made a living and it's exactly the strategy pursued in Joyce's Ulysses.

348
00:42:27.140 --> 00:42:29.140
And as Rainey points out, I mean, they thought this through.

349
00:42:29.140 --> 00:42:34.140
They were essentially trying to transfer to the book market what was already there in the art market.

350
00:42:34.140 --> 00:42:51.140
Modernist artists, painters, were doing quite well already by the 1920s because they were selling unique collectible items and you could see already at auctions the prices were going up and this was not lost on other modernist artists, in this case the writers.

351
00:42:51.140 --> 00:43:01.140
and the writers. So, there it is. Modernism, in terms of its economic underpinnings, to a large extent, took the form of niche marketing.

352
00:43:01.140 --> 00:43:15.140
And that's what I was saying earlier today. Capitalism supports a whole range of cultural achievement, including everything that has been done before and all these new things.

353
00:43:15.140 --> 00:43:21.140
Again, what frustrates people is it doesn't support everything at the same level of support.

354
00:43:21.140 --> 00:43:29.140
And you can't say, you know, Joyce was frustrated that he wasn't making as much money, let's say, as Hemingway did,

355
00:43:29.140 --> 00:43:35.140
who knew how to approach a popular market more. But still, he was in some ways making good money.

356
00:43:35.140 --> 00:43:39.140
And many modernists learned to pursue that.

357
00:43:39.140 --> 00:43:48.140
But also, as both Delaney and Rainey show, modernist artists marked a return to patronage.

358
00:43:48.140 --> 00:43:53.140
There was a kind of nostalgia for patrons, patronage.

359
00:43:53.140 --> 00:43:59.140
Again, when people had patrons, they realized what a problem they were.

360
00:43:59.140 --> 00:44:05.140
And you get these statements like Dickens saying, thank God we don't have to rely on patrons anymore.

361
00:44:05.140 --> 00:44:08.140
The market has liberated us from patrons.

362
00:44:08.140 --> 00:44:14.140
But the people who felt frustrated by the market, they didn't see what was wrong with patrons.

363
00:44:14.140 --> 00:44:22.140
They just saw what was wrong with the market, and so they longed to get back to patronage.

364
00:44:22.140 --> 00:44:34.140
And typically there was so much wealth floating around in the 20th century that a new class of patrons developed.

365
00:44:34.140 --> 00:45:04.140
sons and daughters of wealthy families, some people who are businessmen who have made a lot of money themselves and wanted to spend it on art and get the prestige of being literary patrons and so what you find out is that a lot of these modernist artists either some of them were relatively wealthy T.S. Eliot for example was for a rather substantial

366
00:45:04.140 --> 00:45:16.640
The financial St. Louis family had enough money to send him to Harvard, for example, but other people sought out patronage, and Joyce had several patrons,

367
00:45:16.640 --> 00:45:29.640
above all this man named John Quinn, who kept Joyce and money while he was writing Ulysses and helped other artists, including Eliot.

368
00:45:29.640 --> 00:45:36.480
Delaney has a wonderful chapter on the finances of T.S. Eliot, where he shows how much money

369
00:45:36.480 --> 00:45:42.360
Eliot had from his family, how much he inherited from them, how much he borrowed from whom.

370
00:45:42.360 --> 00:45:48.640
It's actually rather amusing that Delaney points out that Eliot managed to borrow money

371
00:45:48.640 --> 00:45:54.500
from people who were poorer than he was, that he had a bigger income from his investments

372
00:45:54.500 --> 00:45:58.220
than some of the people he was borrowing money from.

373
00:45:58.220 --> 00:46:08.340
And then you get the phenomenon that many modernist artists manage to support themselves in relatively

374
00:46:08.340 --> 00:46:11.420
easy desk jobs.

375
00:46:11.420 --> 00:46:13.700
Elliot worked for Lloyd's Bank for many years.

376
00:46:13.700 --> 00:46:19.060
He has a great comment where he says it's tough but it's not as bad as school teaching.

377
00:46:19.060 --> 00:46:28.860
Paula Stevens was an insurance executive at Hartford, Ives, the American composer, was

378
00:46:28.860 --> 00:46:36.700
also in the insurance business, and so they got, Kafka, Kafka was in a job in the insurance

379
00:46:36.700 --> 00:46:37.700
business.

380
00:46:37.700 --> 00:46:43.460
Can you imagine going in and getting your insurance policy underwritten by Franz Kafka?

381
00:46:43.460 --> 00:46:45.740
I'm looking for some life insurance, Franz.

382
00:46:45.740 --> 00:47:03.740
You're not going to have some death insurance, but you can, if you go to Prague, you can still see the insurance business building, it's right on Wenceslas Square, where Kafka worked, I just, the number of famous modernists who were in the insurance business, really very strange.

383
00:47:03.740 --> 00:47:15.740
But, so, you have to think that Lloyd's Bank helped support T.S. Eliot at a key point in his career.

384
00:47:15.740 --> 00:47:23.740
And so, you know, again, we have this image of these starving, struggling artists.

385
00:47:23.740 --> 00:47:31.740
And, you know, they're all living in nice apartments, traveling to Italy for vacations, throwing parties.

386
00:47:31.740 --> 00:47:44.740
I mean, it really, it's very much one of the catiest things of modernism, the way it promotes business, to make us all feel bad about we own more money and why aren't they millionaires.

387
00:47:44.740 --> 00:47:50.740
Now, and again, it's quite amazing the number of patrons who came forward in the 20th century.

388
00:47:50.740 --> 00:47:54.740
Peggy Guggenheim is obviously one of the most famous of the figures.

389
00:47:54.740 --> 00:47:59.740
A number of the Rockefellers supported art in various forms.

390
00:47:59.740 --> 00:48:10.740
So in a certain way you can say the market stepped up and restored patronage in a kind of upper middle class form.

391
00:48:10.740 --> 00:48:23.740
Now there is a dark side to this turn to patronage that is worth discussing to sort of bring out what I'm talking about in modernism.

392
00:48:23.740 --> 00:48:44.740
The return to patronage was real return to patronage, namely a return to renaissance tyrants, and if you couldn't get a renaissance tyrant, a fascist tyrant would do almost as well, and his name was Mussolini.

393
00:48:44.740 --> 00:48:55.740
As you may know, Pound ended up in St. Elizabeth's Hospital in the Washington, D.C. area after World War II,

394
00:48:55.740 --> 00:49:00.740
because during World War II, he was the Tokyo Rose of the Western Front.

395
00:49:00.740 --> 00:49:15.740
He had made a broadcast on behalf of Mussolini and fascism, and the U.S. didn't know what to do with him after the war.

396
00:49:15.740 --> 00:49:25.740
Maybe at the time, the most famous living American poet, and he'd been broadcasting for fascist Italy during the war

397
00:49:25.740 --> 00:49:34.740
and more, and appealing to American troops to lay down their arms in support of Mussolini and that sort of thing.

398
00:49:34.740 --> 00:49:40.740
By all standards, quite honestly, he should have been executed for being a traitor.

399
00:49:40.740 --> 00:49:45.740
And if he hadn't been Ezra Pound, he undoubtedly would have been.

400
00:49:45.740 --> 00:49:50.740
And the solution they came up with was to say he was crazy.

401
00:49:50.740 --> 00:49:57.140
To do this for Tokyo Rose, for example, who turns out to have been only one person among

402
00:49:57.140 --> 00:50:02.580
a whole series of people that were named Tokyo Rose and so on. But for Pound, they came up

403
00:50:02.580 --> 00:50:10.420
with a fiction that he was insane. To do this, he must have been insane. And so he was put

404
00:50:10.420 --> 00:50:16.660
in this hospital. Oddly enough, one of my students' fathers was stationed at St. Elizabeth's

405
00:50:16.660 --> 00:50:21.700
This time we got the new pound and he was no more insane than the average American poet

406
00:50:21.700 --> 00:50:29.580
is, and he continued to write poetry from St. Elizabeth, many of the last cantos were

407
00:50:29.580 --> 00:50:32.380
written there and published from there.

408
00:50:32.380 --> 00:50:42.380
In a way it's a very sad story, but people are reluctant to face the consequences of

409
00:50:42.380 --> 00:51:12.380
that he was this man that thought the world owed him a living and thought that there should be patronage for art, that a man like him should not have to depend upon the market to support him, that there should be patronage for him, he should be relieved of the pressure of the market and supported so that he could write these incomprehensible cantons

410
00:51:12.380 --> 00:51:42.380
which could never sell adequately in any market. Now that's sort of, people know that story and they try to come up with the argument, you know, oh late in life, Pound got confused and what Rayleigh does is show that in the 1920s, Pound is already sucking up to Mussolini and dreaming of him as his new patron and it's a very

411
00:51:42.380 --> 00:51:52.380
This is a very controversial argument. Again, I recommend reading the chapter in this book From the Patron to Il Duce.

412
00:51:52.380 --> 00:52:05.380
And it's really quite remarkable what he discovers. He finds first that what's so interesting about Pound is he thinks this through with true logic and historical perspective,

413
00:52:05.380 --> 00:52:14.380
so that in his cantos, he celebrates Sigismundo Malatesta, one of the most famous of Renaissance tyrants,

414
00:52:14.380 --> 00:52:19.880
a guy that Burkhard discusses at length in his Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy.

415
00:52:19.880 --> 00:52:32.380
And you can see Pound celebrating this very typically nasty Renaissance despot in his cantos

416
00:52:32.380 --> 00:52:40.780
and starting to make the connection with Mussolini and starting to wonder whether Mussolini is the answer,

417
00:52:40.780 --> 00:52:47.040
whether he can do for the 20th century what Malatesta did for the 16th century

418
00:52:47.040 --> 00:52:57.280
and could Mussolini be the new patron of arts that among other things could relieve Pound of any market pressures

419
00:52:57.280 --> 00:53:04.000
and given the kind of resources he needed to be the great artist he wanted to be.

420
00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:10.300
This is from a letter, a pound star to write to a woman he knew who was an American woman

421
00:53:10.300 --> 00:53:15.280
but who was connected with the Mussolini circuit.

422
00:53:15.280 --> 00:53:22.780
If you go down to Rome, Georgia, up to Rome, Georgia from here, yeah, in the town of Rome

423
00:53:22.780 --> 00:53:37.780
There is a, it's the famous wolf statue, the Romulus and Remus and the She-Wolf, the founding of Rome, it was a gift of Mussolini to the sister city, his sister city in Georgia.

424
00:53:37.780 --> 00:53:44.780
It was tactfully removed for many years during World War II, but it's back now, I think. Last time I was there it was back.

425
00:53:44.780 --> 00:53:50.780
I mean, there's a lot of interesting relations between Mussolini and Americans before the war.

426
00:53:50.780 --> 00:54:03.780
And this is a letter that Pound wrote to this woman asking her to help him approach Mussolini and broach a great arts project with Il Duce.

427
00:54:03.780 --> 00:54:07.780
This is the source for government support of the arts.

428
00:54:07.780 --> 00:54:14.780
To clear up what I said the other day, it would be quite easy to make Italy the intellectual center of Europe.

429
00:54:14.780 --> 00:54:18.780
And that by gathering 10 or 15 of the best writers and artists.

430
00:54:18.780 --> 00:54:26.780
The experiment would not be expensive. The whole thing depends on the selection and the manner of the invitation.

431
00:54:26.780 --> 00:54:32.780
Next sentence. I shouldn't trust anyone's selection save my own. That's the key.

432
00:54:32.780 --> 00:54:38.780
Give me the choice and I can put together the 15 greatest minds in Europe and Italy and we'll have the Renaissance again.

433
00:54:38.780 --> 00:54:44.780
There's no use going into details until one knows if there is or could be any serious intent in the idea.

434
00:54:44.780 --> 00:55:12.780
If he is interested in the procedure of Sigismundo Malatesta in getting the best artists of his time into Rimini, a small city with no great resources, I know in a general way the fascio includes literature and the arts in its program that is very different from being ready to take specific action.

435
00:55:12.780 --> 00:55:19.780
Mussolini willing to back up his words and produce a cultural revival in Europe because if so, I'll lead it.

436
00:55:19.780 --> 00:55:25.780
You have to avoid official personages, the dead wood of academies, purely pedagogical figures.

437
00:55:25.780 --> 00:55:33.780
The life of the arts is always concentrated in a very few individuals, they invent and the rest follow or adapt or exploit.

438
00:55:33.780 --> 00:55:39.780
So he doesn't want any bureaucratic procedure. Me and the Duce, we get together, we'll solve the problem.

439
00:55:39.780 --> 00:55:43.860
He makes the trains run on time. He can make the arts run on time, too.

440
00:55:43.860 --> 00:55:46.580
That's just what he was admired for.

441
00:55:46.580 --> 00:55:51.780
The duché doesn't mess around with little things like rule of law and that, gets things done.

442
00:55:51.780 --> 00:55:53.620
Let's see him do it in the arts now.

443
00:55:53.620 --> 00:55:56.020
I'm not making this up.

444
00:55:56.020 --> 00:55:58.540
This is great now, the last paragraph of this letter.

445
00:55:58.540 --> 00:56:01.100
Italy has an opportunity now.

446
00:56:01.100 --> 00:56:04.060
This is 1924, he's writing.

447
00:56:04.060 --> 00:56:08.780
An opportunity she would not have had 30 years ago or even 10 years ago.

448
00:56:08.780 --> 00:56:15.860
Germany is busted. England is too stupid. France is too tired to offer serious opposition.

449
00:56:15.860 --> 00:56:24.340
America is too far from civilization and won't for a hundred years distinguish between the first rate and the second rate.

450
00:56:24.340 --> 00:56:28.340
She will always stay content with copies.

451
00:56:28.340 --> 00:56:37.340
And then, a year later, he asked her to arrange a personal meeting between him and Mussolini. It was 1924.

452
00:56:37.340 --> 00:56:43.340
Now, half of this is in Italian, but I'll translate it, because my Italian's so bad.

453
00:56:43.340 --> 00:56:53.340
If the topic can be opened by your asking Mussolini one simple question, or even getting Rismondo to ask it,

454
00:56:53.340 --> 00:57:13.340
So long as you get a direct, definitive answer, and the question is, does he want Italy to be truly the center, not a center of European life, the intellectual and cultural center of Europe, as it was in the 15th and 16th centuries?

455
00:57:13.340 --> 00:57:17.340
If he's, if so, he can have my support.

456
00:57:20.340 --> 00:57:24.340
I'm sure Mussolini was just waiting to get the support of Ezra Pound.

457
00:57:24.340 --> 00:57:29.340
Though he did, I mean, the sheer pretentiousness of that.

458
00:57:29.340 --> 00:57:32.340
It's of Wagnerian proportions.

459
00:57:32.340 --> 00:57:41.340
But it is, you know, I want, this is, and this is not an isolated or off-base example.

460
00:57:41.340 --> 00:57:44.340
Don't tell me Pound was crazy in 1924.

461
00:57:44.340 --> 00:57:50.340
I mean, this was the central figure in Anglo-American modernism.

462
00:57:50.340 --> 00:57:57.340
The patron of Joyce, the patron of Eliot, very much closely connected with Yeats.

463
00:57:57.340 --> 00:58:03.340
Wyndham Lewis, this was the man who was absolutely at the center of what we think of as Anglo-American modernism.

464
00:58:03.340 --> 00:58:06.340
And that's what's going on in his mind in the 1920s.

465
00:58:06.340 --> 00:58:12.340
If I can just get an Italian dictator as my patron, we can really bring Europe to life.

466
00:58:12.340 --> 00:58:22.340
And again, Pound is an extreme example, but not all that extreme, and it's a story that is increasingly being told,

467
00:58:22.340 --> 00:58:29.340
but the connections between modernism and the European right are quite deep and extraordinary.

468
00:58:29.340 --> 00:58:35.340
The myth is that by and large modernism was left-wing, but you look at Yeats,

469
00:58:35.340 --> 00:58:47.340
He was writing some very ugly pro-fascist things in the 1930s, so much so this book on the boiler has never been reprinted to this day.

470
00:58:47.340 --> 00:58:58.340
Obviously in Germany there are lots of figures, the most famous of whom would be Martin Heidegger, who in some ways was too extreme even for the Nazi party.

471
00:58:58.340 --> 00:59:17.340
We'll talk a bit about that tomorrow, but certainly there were sympathies with the Italian futurist painters with fascism in France, all sorts of figures that were sympathetic to fascism in the 1930s.

472
00:59:17.340 --> 00:59:34.340
There was that famous scandal a couple years ago when the Belgian-American deconstructionist critic at Yale, Paul de Man, was discovered to have written pro-fascist journalism during the early years of World War II, back in Belgium.

473
00:59:34.340 --> 00:59:50.340
So it seems in a way so strange to us, but modernism bought into the left and the right because both the left and the right were socialist, anti-market, anti-commercial and anti-capitalist.

474
00:59:50.340 --> 01:00:00.340
And it was very tempting for artists to make a deal with either the European left or the European right because they saw it as the alternative to the commercial world.

475
01:00:00.340 --> 01:00:06.340
And above all, you see this idea, we'll see it again in talking about Shostakovich,

476
01:00:06.340 --> 01:00:11.340
talking about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany tomorrow,

477
01:00:11.340 --> 01:00:18.340
that the attraction of the political extremes is they seem to care about artists.

478
01:00:18.340 --> 01:00:24.340
They seem to give the artist a central role in the culture.

479
01:00:24.340 --> 01:00:37.340
and Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, it was part of their political program to look very carefully at the arts and to encourage the arts

480
01:00:37.340 --> 01:00:47.340
and if you could get on the good side of one of these dictators, it actually was very profitable to your career and all the architecture they sponsored

481
01:00:47.340 --> 01:00:51.340
and the various forms of music, painting and literature they sponsored

482
01:00:51.340 --> 01:01:02.340
And you can see here, Pound wants to get back before capitalism, and of course his cantos are filled with crazy American populist attacks on capitalism.

483
01:01:02.340 --> 01:01:07.340
Although he's right about some of the economic issues like the gold standard.

484
01:01:07.340 --> 01:01:19.340
But here you can see in an extreme form, but therefore a clear form of this terrible temptation of the modernists

485
01:01:19.340 --> 01:01:25.140
that the market had betrayed them, that the market didn't sufficiently value them,

486
01:01:25.140 --> 01:01:29.340
that it made other writers millionaires and not them.

487
01:01:29.340 --> 01:01:35.940
And so therefore there must be something wrong with the market and the enemies of the market must then be our friends.

488
01:01:35.940 --> 01:01:43.840
And in some cases it turned out to be fascist dictators and in other cases Soviet communist dictators.

489
01:01:43.840 --> 01:01:53.840
But the political and economic extremism of modernism has its roots in this profound envy generated by the market system.

490
01:01:53.840 --> 01:02:00.840
And again, it's not that these guys weren't doing actually pretty well financially.

491
01:02:00.840 --> 01:02:03.840
These guys were not starving.

492
01:02:03.840 --> 01:02:07.840
But they weren't making anywhere near as much as other people.

493
01:02:07.840 --> 01:02:18.480
and that proved to them the fundamental injustice of the capitalist system and the market as a basis for culture.

494
01:02:18.480 --> 01:02:32.280
And so again, the idea is that it's right across the board the notion that the proof of your power as an artist is precisely the unmarketability of your art.

495
01:02:32.280 --> 01:02:39.280
that if you're really successful, your stuff can't be good

496
01:02:39.280 --> 01:02:45.280
and you can offer the fact that you're unsuccessful as proof of your achievement

497
01:02:45.280 --> 01:02:53.280
and increasingly you therefore get the cult of difficulty and impossibility of communication in art

498
01:02:53.280 --> 01:02:59.280
and right across the board in painting, in music and in literature

499
01:02:59.280 --> 01:03:06.160
literature, you get artists deliberately insulating themselves from the market, let's say, you

500
01:03:06.160 --> 01:03:16.280
know, writing basically incomprehensible books, so they can't be blamed, you know, if their

501
01:03:16.280 --> 01:03:21.080
books fail in the market, they say, oh, the audience just doesn't understand me, I'm too

502
01:03:21.080 --> 01:03:27.520
profound to be understood, and you know, writing music that no one wants to listen to and then

503
01:03:27.520 --> 01:03:32.520
Oh, this proves how great I am because the audience doesn't understand me.

504
01:03:32.520 --> 01:03:36.520
Now again, I admire Joyce.

505
01:03:36.520 --> 01:03:39.520
I've never been a real fan of Pound's poetry.

506
01:03:39.520 --> 01:03:43.520
I obviously think highly of Eliot and Yates and teach them.

507
01:03:43.520 --> 01:03:49.520
And so in many ways, I genuinely admire this generation of artists.

508
01:03:49.520 --> 01:04:02.520
The problem is, once you establish the principle that art is only good if it's difficult, art is only good if it's rejected by the market, you essentially have no standards left whatsoever.

509
01:04:02.520 --> 01:04:11.520
Anybody can write incomprehensible music, anybody can write incomprehensible paintings, anyone can write incomprehensible prose.

510
01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:17.520
It's very difficult to tell good incomprehensible prose from bad incomprehensible prose.

511
01:04:17.520 --> 01:04:45.520
I see them all the time in my grading of papers, but that's how the first generation of modernism opened the floodgates and that's where it starts to go bad and especially as modernist art tends to define itself in negative terms

512
01:04:45.520 --> 01:04:55.520
and insists on priding itself on what it does not do in opposition to traditional art or commercial art.

513
01:04:55.520 --> 01:05:03.520
I have a really hard time with abstract expressionism as a form of painting,

514
01:05:03.520 --> 01:05:14.520
and I will ask people why I should like this thing by Jackson Pollock or Willem de Kooning or Mark Rothko

515
01:05:14.520 --> 01:05:22.520
And they'll say, I say, what's so great about it? It doesn't represent anything.

516
01:05:22.520 --> 01:05:35.520
And I say, yes. And they say, it's paint. The painterliness of it is patently evident.

517
01:05:35.520 --> 01:05:40.520
You can see that it's just paint and it's not a painting of something. I say, yes.

518
01:05:40.520 --> 01:06:10.520
And then, you know, they'll show you like a blank canvas, and they'll say, well, again, it doesn't represent anything, and that's the same thing when, you know, I'll ask the modernist music, and I, for example, I actually, when I was growing up, bought into a lot of this modernist ideology, and I grew to like Schoenberg's music, for example, and I know it's very easy for people to always just say in that, you know, I could say I like Schoenberg's music and go home and listen

519
01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:40.520
I will say I prefer his first and his fourth string quartets and don't so much like the second and third. I don't like Gerlita, but I like Fairclay at the Dock. I like his violin concerto better than his piano concerto. I own five recordings of his opera, Moses and Aaron. I really do know the guy's music. About half of it I honestly don't like and can't stand listening to. But I actually sit there and hum along with Moses and Aaron. It opens Einziger,

520
01:06:40.520 --> 01:06:47.760
Eviga algegin vertiga, it's Moses thinking about God, alone, eternal, all present.

521
01:06:47.760 --> 01:06:55.200
I mean, I could actually hum the tunes from Moses and Aaron, so I'm not speaking of ignorance when I talk about modernism.

522
01:06:55.200 --> 01:07:04.440
But beyond Schoenberg, I have real problems when you get to even someone like a student, Anton von Webern.

523
01:07:04.440 --> 01:07:09.160
And beyond that, I cease to follow what's going on.

524
01:07:09.160 --> 01:07:39.160
And again, I ask people about Boulez, and I ask them about Stockhausen, and I ask them about Henza, and Uzyachevsky, and whatever, and you know, I say, well, what's so good about this, and they say, it doesn't have any melody, and I say, yeah, yeah, and they say, well, what else is good about this, it doesn't have any harmony, yeah, you know, and they always tell me what it doesn't have or what it doesn't do, and I'm supposed to like it because it doesn't have harmony, and all this traditional art has,

525
01:07:39.160 --> 01:07:42.160
and all this commercial art, music has harmony and so on.

526
01:07:42.160 --> 01:07:53.160
And after a point I really just, now again I'm, maybe I'm wrong on this and I, people I respect genuinely like some of this music.

527
01:07:53.160 --> 01:08:03.160
I pick up on classical music after all this, I start to like things with minimalism, some of Philip Glass and I really like some of the contemporary composers like,

528
01:08:03.160 --> 01:08:09.160
All from the Baltics, Arvo Pärt from Estonia and Pieter Vass from Latvia.

529
01:08:09.160 --> 01:08:14.160
As you'll see, I really love Shostakovich, by and large. We'll be talking about him tomorrow.

530
01:08:14.160 --> 01:08:18.160
And he's in many respects a modernist, though in some ways an anti-modernist.

531
01:08:18.160 --> 01:08:27.160
But what I'm getting at is what strikes me about so much of this art is its only claim to fame is its rebellion.

532
01:08:27.160 --> 01:08:39.160
and not, you know, I can understand what Schoenberg is doing and can see the justification for the ways he departs from traditional tonality.

533
01:08:39.160 --> 01:08:46.160
I still, however, would love to have said to the guy, you know, Fair Claire Tannach is so beautiful. Why couldn't you have written more of that?

534
01:08:46.160 --> 01:08:53.160
And why did you have to take me on to your second string quartet in the Variations for Orchestra?

535
01:08:53.160 --> 01:09:02.660
But still, you know, I can sort of see what's going on there and why he feels compelled to do what he does.

536
01:09:02.660 --> 01:09:08.660
But beyond that, it does seem to me that a great deal of modernist art is just different for the sake of being different.

537
01:09:08.660 --> 01:09:19.660
And it's really, I find it a failure of artistic courage and unwillingness to confront the greatness of past art and genuinely try to compete with it.

538
01:09:19.660 --> 01:09:49.660
Now, what has made this possible? Because what I'm saying is that modernism develops this ideology, this anti-commercial ideology, and tries to shield the artist from the market, and the answer is government support for the arts, and above all, academic support for the arts, which is a form of government support for the arts, and here's the question.

539
01:09:49.660 --> 01:09:57.660
Here's where I'll say that I think government support of the arts can be, in fact, negative.

540
01:09:57.660 --> 01:10:13.660
We can now see it in the context of this larger issue I created, whether artists are better off being shielded from commercial pressures or subjected to commercial pressures.

541
01:10:13.660 --> 01:10:21.660
The ideology behind government support for the arts is specifically that artists need to be shielded from commercial pressure.

542
01:10:21.660 --> 01:10:30.660
That's the logic behind it. It's specific, you know, it's like no commercial artists need to apply for these grants.

543
01:10:30.660 --> 01:10:36.660
And, you know, the argument in favor of this is it can't hurt.

544
01:10:36.660 --> 01:10:43.660
You can get in arguments about the economics of it, but you basically feel like saying it's neutral to good.

545
01:10:43.660 --> 01:10:48.660
And for any government support of the arts, you can point to successes.

546
01:10:48.660 --> 01:10:54.660
You can say this work was funded by the NEA and look how good it is.

547
01:10:54.660 --> 01:11:04.660
And it would seem the worst you can say is okay, a lot of bad art was produced from this agency,

548
01:11:04.660 --> 01:11:08.980
in this agency, but at least something good was happening, and isn't that just the way

549
01:11:08.980 --> 01:11:14.860
you describe the market, that a lot of bad culture is generated, but there's some good

550
01:11:14.860 --> 01:11:20.940
examples, and so let's just leave it at that, and why would government support be any worse?

551
01:11:20.940 --> 01:11:29.940
Well, my argument is that government support for the arts sends a signal to artists. It

552
01:11:29.940 --> 01:11:35.900
It says a signal that commercial art is bad, and it above all sends the signal that pleasing

553
01:11:35.900 --> 01:11:38.980
an audience is bad.

554
01:11:38.980 --> 01:11:44.660
In a way it sounds crazy, but think about it, how ingrained that is in our ideology

555
01:11:44.660 --> 01:11:49.820
about aesthetics now, that pleasing an audience is a bad thing.

556
01:11:49.820 --> 01:11:53.820
And I think it's a bad thing to come to the conclusion that pleasing an audience is a

557
01:11:53.820 --> 01:11:55.180
bad thing.

558
01:11:55.180 --> 01:12:00.620
I think what's wrong with so much particularly contemporary painting and contemporary music

559
01:12:00.620 --> 01:12:09.460
is that it actively seeks to displease its audience and to avoid having a pleading audience.

560
01:12:09.460 --> 01:12:16.500
And the way you do that is get a post in a university, be appointed to a composing position

561
01:12:16.500 --> 01:12:20.260
in a music department or a painting position in a painting department.

562
01:12:20.260 --> 01:12:25.260
Now, I know some people who are good composers working in universities.

563
01:12:25.260 --> 01:12:30.260
I particularly know some people who are good painters working in university environments and so on.

564
01:12:30.260 --> 01:12:35.260
I'm certainly not suggesting it's a uniform bad situation.

565
01:12:35.260 --> 01:12:42.260
But I do think the cumulative effect of foundation support for the arts,

566
01:12:42.260 --> 01:12:49.260
direct government grants for artists and the whole apparatus,

567
01:12:49.260 --> 01:13:13.260
The academic support for the arts has created a sterility in much modern and contemporary art and that shielding these artists has really cut them off from any feedback, just go to any juried show of art at a university.

568
01:13:13.260 --> 01:13:21.260
You know, there are all these polite comments, much like the Salieri in the movie about Mozart's words,

569
01:13:21.260 --> 01:13:30.260
these polite non-committal arguments. There's something to be said for the market as a genuinely disciplining and energizing force

570
01:13:30.260 --> 01:13:35.260
and being forced to please real people who have to put up their own money to support what you're doing,

571
01:13:35.260 --> 01:13:40.260
rather than having someone spend other people's money on you.

572
01:13:40.260 --> 01:14:10.260
and I see the pattern again and again and it's not just that this encourages what I regard as bad art, it actively discourages what I regard as good art and again the record of grant supporter art is mixed, certainly there are good examples of art but for example in music it's quite amazing that Arnold Schoenberg couldn't get a grant

573
01:14:10.260 --> 01:14:16.060
to Finish Moses and Aaron. He wrote two acts of it. He was under tremendous financial pressure.

574
01:14:16.060 --> 01:14:20.580
When he moved to the United States, he had to teach in order to make a living.

575
01:14:20.580 --> 01:14:26.260
He applied to the Guggenheim Foundation and several other foundations.

576
01:14:26.260 --> 01:14:29.660
They turned down Arnold Schoenberg.

577
01:14:29.660 --> 01:14:35.740
And, you know, I would love to know who got the grant those years instead of Schoenberg.

578
01:14:35.740 --> 01:14:47.620
It just shows, I mean, the notion somehow is that these grant mechanisms, government funding, foundation funding, that will, that somehow will, that will be perfect.

579
01:14:47.620 --> 01:14:54.220
The market has failures, the markets are rational, but for some reason the idea is these other forms of funding, they will be rational.

580
01:14:54.220 --> 01:14:59.140
Their record is no better than the market. As far as I can tell, it's far worse.

581
01:14:59.140 --> 01:15:15.140
And again, it's not just that they support bad art, but time and again they appear to fail to support good art by, and I know I'm not supposed to know the difference, know how to tell good from bad art, but I know it when I see it, and I know it when I hear it.

582
01:15:15.140 --> 01:15:22.140
and even the long-term record seems to suggest the errors there.

583
01:15:22.140 --> 01:15:32.140
There's a story that going into World War II, the British were determined not to commit the error they made in World War I

584
01:15:32.140 --> 01:15:41.140
of sending their best and brightest to death, you know, Siegfried Sassoon and Rupert Brooke and all these great...

585
01:15:41.140 --> 01:16:11.140
The British really lost a whole generation of artists in World War I and they supposedly, I mean I read about this, I wish I'd saved the article, they created a committee to draw up a list of all the great young artists in Britain who would not be sent into World War II and he published the list and he didn't recognize a single one of the names. In other words, when the government had been charged with figuring out who the great artists of the next generation would be. As you might well imagine, they had no idea because probably it's a government

586
01:16:11.140 --> 01:16:41.140
and the government committee and they were having the artists of the last generation choose the great artists of the next generation and I bet my life that those were their students that were on the list and not the people who would eventually become the great artists so I'm not at all convinced that the alternatives to the market can make better choices than the market does and in many ways this whole apparatus of non-market funding for the arts has actually fed

587
01:16:41.140 --> 01:16:46.140
and into this whole ideology that art is good only if it's difficult.

588
01:16:46.140 --> 01:16:47.140
That's interesting.

589
01:16:47.140 --> 01:16:53.140
I see signs of the market forcing changes in art.

590
01:16:53.140 --> 01:17:00.900
If you go to commercial art galleries around the country, places like Santa Fe, which has

591
01:17:00.900 --> 01:17:05.900
a lot of good art galleries, you're increasingly seeing representational painting as what's

592
01:17:05.900 --> 01:17:14.900
And it looks a lot better to me than the abstract expressionist paintings you used to see in every gallery around the country.

593
01:17:14.900 --> 01:17:23.900
And in music, again, supposedly the market has failed in supporting classical music.

594
01:17:23.900 --> 01:17:29.900
But this wonderful label, ECM, promoted the music of Arvo Peart.

595
01:17:29.900 --> 01:17:34.200
And if you've not heard this, it's like post-modern medieval music.

596
01:17:34.200 --> 01:17:45.400
It's got a piece called Fratres and Arbos, a wonderful St. John's Passion.

597
01:17:45.400 --> 01:17:47.600
It's really remarkable music.

598
01:17:47.600 --> 01:17:54.400
Guys from Lithuania, who would have heard of him except a record label discovered him and has promoted him.

599
01:17:54.400 --> 01:17:59.800
And I think it's, you know, the most beautiful music, choral music written since Just Can to Pray.

600
01:17:59.800 --> 01:18:29.800
and so I see market forces overcoming this sterility of the, what I regard as the second phase of modernism, all because, again, artists, they balked at the competition, they balked at the market competition with their fellow artists, they balked at any kind of competition with the great traditional artists and wanted

601
01:18:29.800 --> 01:18:35.880
in some way where, in effect, nobody could judge their art anymore, where you just submit

602
01:18:35.880 --> 01:18:42.240
some kind of proposal, have committees of academics, read them over, and if you've ever

603
01:18:42.240 --> 01:18:48.960
been on the committees, you see that professors give the grants to their students, usually,

604
01:18:48.960 --> 01:18:52.280
or to the students of one of their fellow professors, and so on.

605
01:18:52.280 --> 01:18:54.800
It's an incredible hall of mirrors, and then they turn around.

606
01:18:54.800 --> 01:18:58.720
We gave a grant to this person, oh, look, he then won that prize.

607
01:18:58.720 --> 01:19:03.720
And it turns out, you know, half the people on the committee that gave the grant were on the committee that awarded the prize.

608
01:19:03.720 --> 01:19:07.720
It's an enormous hall of mirrors now.

609
01:19:07.720 --> 01:19:17.720
So, again, I really don't want to seem too negative, especially about the first 50 years of the 20th century and the art achieved there.

610
01:19:17.720 --> 01:19:22.720
And I think literature, actually, modernist literature has been more successful in some ways

611
01:19:22.720 --> 01:19:31.720
because there's still been a publishing industry and many of the modernist authors, particularly in fiction, have been successful.

612
01:19:31.720 --> 01:19:40.720
Faulkner was a great, great writer and yet a bestseller, a very successful writer, and then went out to Hollywood and made some money writing screenplays and so on.

613
01:19:40.720 --> 01:19:54.720
and so on. So, it's not as if, I'm not saying that all modern art has been divorced from the market, but I think insofar as it has been, it's suffered for it.

614
01:19:54.720 --> 01:20:06.720
Now again, there are undoubtedly cases where it's, some elite art has been produced. I actually have ridiculously elite tastes.

615
01:20:06.720 --> 01:20:16.720
I love the late writings of Samuel Beckett. It doesn't get any more obscure, difficult and unmarketed oriented than that.

616
01:20:16.720 --> 01:20:25.720
I will confess to having a warm spot in my heart for such delightful books as Worse Wood Ho and Ill Seen, Ill Said by Beckett.

617
01:20:25.720 --> 01:20:32.720
And I'm glad that Peggy Guggenheim supported him at certain points in his life and freed him from market pressure

618
01:20:32.720 --> 01:20:38.720
and the market pressure and freedom from having to be a teacher, which was a brief nightmare in his life.

619
01:20:38.720 --> 01:20:41.720
He had to go in front of a classroom and so on.

620
01:20:41.720 --> 01:20:48.720
And you know, what's great about the capitalist world is it's produced so much wealth

621
01:20:48.720 --> 01:20:54.720
that it can support people on the margin and support people in niches.

622
01:20:54.720 --> 01:21:01.720
But by and large, this ideology that something is necessarily good because it's difficult

623
01:21:01.720 --> 01:21:24.720
I think that's been a very dangerous tendency in 20th century art and very much encouraged by systems of support for the arts that explicitly rule out taste, as I said in my first lecture.

624
01:21:24.720 --> 01:21:29.720
That is, you can see, obviously, why these artists craved it.

625
01:21:29.720 --> 01:21:36.720
You know, I think we all feel, as Pound did when he wrote DeJoy,

626
01:21:36.720 --> 01:21:39.720
why am I not a millionaire?

627
01:21:39.720 --> 01:21:42.720
That's why we have all these game shows now, Marry a Millionaire,

628
01:21:42.720 --> 01:21:49.720
all these shows that try to offer to the average American a chance to be a millionaire.

629
01:21:49.720 --> 01:21:52.720
But that's just not going to happen for most of us.

630
01:21:52.720 --> 01:22:09.720
and allowing the market to distribute wealth is probably our safest and best way of doing it, even in culture because it does leave room for all these special cases and, as I said, niche marketing and special patronage and so on.

631
01:22:09.720 --> 01:22:21.720
At the same time though, again, by and large, I think works of art have more vitality if the artist is in a dialogue with an audience.

632
01:22:21.720 --> 01:22:36.720
And so, in fact, you know, there are signs to me that the history of 20th century art, painting, music, literature, is going to look very different a hundred years from now.

633
01:22:36.720 --> 01:22:46.720
And many of the writers that we now think of as central will be forgotten, and many writers who are thought of as peripheral will be thought of as important.

634
01:22:46.720 --> 01:22:51.420
Here's an interesting example, you know, as the 20th century ended, they had all these polls,

635
01:22:51.420 --> 01:22:53.920
who's the greatest writer of the 20th century?

636
01:22:53.920 --> 01:22:57.020
And we all know who won, it was Tolkien.

637
01:22:57.020 --> 01:23:01.720
When people anywhere were polled, who was the greatest writer of the 20th century?

638
01:23:01.720 --> 01:23:04.020
What was the greatest book of the 20th century?

639
01:23:04.020 --> 01:23:07.420
It was, you know, Lord of the Rings, one hands down.

640
01:23:07.420 --> 01:23:12.720
Now that, I mean, that's a modernist nightmare to hear that.

641
01:23:12.720 --> 01:23:25.720
that this pseudo-medieval epic, which sold hundreds of millions of copies, that that should be what was held up, and it was the great work of the 20th century.

642
01:23:25.720 --> 01:23:42.620
And you can just see modernists say, oh, we told you so. You see this commercial work that is so hokey, that this is regarded by the general public as the greatest work.

643
01:23:42.620 --> 01:24:12.620
And as you well know, Tolkien just had his pulse on the market all his life, all he wanted to do was have a bestseller, and publishers were rushing to get this in press, you know, I think he went through 30 publishers or something before he got accepted, no one in the world thought that would ever sell, and I think it's a great work, I mean, it has its failings, it is somewhat hokey, the plot is a little creaky at times, but you know, it's imaginatively brilliant, it's worked on a vast

644
01:24:12.620 --> 01:24:25.620
scale, it is deeply plugged in to mythology. I personally think it's a great work and I love to reread it, which is more if I can say for some of the modernist novels I've had to read.

645
01:24:25.620 --> 01:24:39.620
And again, I think as I was saying about the Da Vinci Code earlier, this is a more extreme case. I think it's a real tribute to a popular readership that that's the book that more than any other the market has embraced.

646
01:24:39.620 --> 01:24:45.620
Because on the surface of it, it doesn't look like something that would be popular.

647
01:24:45.620 --> 01:24:49.620
That's certainly what every publisher that turned it down said.

648
01:24:49.620 --> 01:24:55.620
And it's hilarious to read the various correspondence with publishers over it.

649
01:24:55.620 --> 01:25:03.620
I mean, the constant reaction was, this will never sell, and yet it has, and now it's been made into movies,

650
01:25:03.620 --> 01:25:06.620
and it's emerged as kind of the great mythic story of the 20th century.

651
01:25:06.620 --> 01:25:15.620
I really love it, and I think it's a great work, not in certain ways that, you know, it's very odd to say I like Beckett's late prose and I like Tolkien.

652
01:25:15.620 --> 01:25:21.620
They have absolutely the opposite set of virtues, but that doesn't mean that Tolkien doesn't have his virtues.

653
01:25:21.620 --> 01:25:29.620
And so, I mean, I would regard that as a great market success of the 20th century, one that in fact would have been utterly unpredictable.

654
01:25:29.620 --> 01:25:38.620
and people rushed to imitate it or promote other books, nothing has had any comparable effect because there's something about it.

655
01:25:38.620 --> 01:25:46.620
It really is in its own way very well written. It is written by someone who deeply knows the mythology he's basing it on and is able to work it up.

656
01:25:46.620 --> 01:25:56.620
And it's quite remarkable. Now it's finally being taught in universities, but it's like academics were virtually the last to discover this work.

657
01:25:56.620 --> 01:26:00.020
The whole rest of the world had to understand how great it was.

658
01:26:00.020 --> 01:26:04.820
Ironically, it's written by an academic and is a deeply academic work.

659
01:26:04.820 --> 01:26:09.220
And it's its own way links up with a lot of interesting aspects of modernism.

660
01:26:09.220 --> 01:26:12.620
And it is a book that reflects the tragedies of the 20th century

661
01:26:12.620 --> 01:26:15.020
and the First World War and the Second World War.

662
01:26:15.020 --> 01:26:19.420
And there are lots of interesting ways to be discussed in that sense

663
01:26:19.420 --> 01:26:22.020
in its relation to the whole question of the nation state.

664
01:26:22.020 --> 01:26:24.020
And libertarians should be interested in it

665
01:26:24.020 --> 01:26:31.460
because it is about freedom in the medieval sense and the rights of the shire and that sort of thing.

666
01:26:31.460 --> 01:26:38.820
But setting that aside, in a way it's an emblem for everything I'm trying to say here,

667
01:26:38.820 --> 01:26:45.380
that here's this work that was a great, I mean, enormous commercial success, totally improbable

668
01:26:45.380 --> 01:26:52.340
and totally against any law of modernism, except the idea that I think it is difficult

669
01:26:52.340 --> 01:26:54.340
in its own way.

670
01:26:54.340 --> 01:27:04.340
And, you know, the success of Lord of the Rings is my example that I actually have greater trust in markets than I do in academics.

671
01:27:04.340 --> 01:27:11.340
I think in some ways the market is a better judge of aesthetic quality than professors are.

672
01:27:11.340 --> 01:27:17.340
And on that noble note, I'll conclude now and take questions. Yes?

673
01:27:17.340 --> 01:27:24.340
I have a little bit of a problem with you criticizing Joyce's manner of release for your listeners.

674
01:27:24.340 --> 01:27:26.340
Here's an example of Arnold Harris.

675
01:27:26.340 --> 01:27:30.340
And it's actually related to UCM's YouTube channel.

676
01:27:30.340 --> 01:27:34.340
I'm sure as you know, the UCM records are very, very expensive,

677
01:27:34.340 --> 01:27:40.340
because they're not as widely available for the record.

678
01:27:40.340 --> 01:27:48.100
Well, first of all, I wasn't criticizing the way Joyce released Ulysses.

679
01:27:48.100 --> 01:27:52.620
Fine, great. You know, it was a pure market transaction.

680
01:27:52.620 --> 01:27:58.300
I was just pointing out that this modernist with an anti-market ideology

681
01:27:58.300 --> 01:28:02.660
actually pursued a well-known market strategy, and that's fine.

682
01:28:02.660 --> 01:28:08.860
But ECM CDs cost the same thing as other CDs.

683
01:28:08.860 --> 01:28:10.340
Oh, you've got to go on the Internet.

684
01:28:10.340 --> 01:28:11.340
Well, what are they?

685
01:28:11.340 --> 01:28:12.340
What are they?

686
01:28:12.340 --> 01:28:13.340
A dollar more expensive?

687
01:28:13.340 --> 01:28:16.340
Oh, no way.

688
01:28:16.340 --> 01:28:19.860
I mean, I buy them all the time.

689
01:28:19.860 --> 01:28:23.300
Oh, look, I go on the Internet through Tower.

690
01:28:23.300 --> 01:28:25.820
I get part CDs for $14.

691
01:28:25.820 --> 01:28:29.180
Oh, that's your Canada.

692
01:28:29.180 --> 01:28:30.180
Yeah, that's your...

693
01:28:30.180 --> 01:28:32.900
Okay, that's your problem.

694
01:28:32.900 --> 01:28:35.660
You're in protectionist Canada.

695
01:28:35.660 --> 01:28:36.660
Go on the Internet.

696
01:28:36.660 --> 01:28:42.660
I mean honestly I mean I man do I buy CDs all the time at most they're a dollar

697
01:28:42.660 --> 01:28:45.820
more expensive but I don't even and you wait and get them on sale they're

698
01:28:45.820 --> 01:28:56.860
cheaper okay well yeah I could have gotten it for you from 15 I swear to you

699
01:28:56.860 --> 01:29:04.260
yes and by the way I mean that's still only a couple of dollars the the I mean

700
01:29:04.260 --> 01:29:09.260
Again, I'm not criticizing Ulysses, but we're talking it was 40 times more expensive than another book.

701
01:29:34.260 --> 01:29:40.260
It's kind of a packed on question of that. Do you think that people like, say,

702
01:29:40.260 --> 01:29:45.260
Falkner's resentment of the lack of populist wealth is also a

703
01:29:45.260 --> 01:29:50.260
resentment in the fact that they see the market as failing to disperse their ideas

704
01:29:50.260 --> 01:29:55.260
to the people, and that, you know, getting money and remuneration from those people

705
01:29:55.260 --> 01:29:59.260
kind of indicates that people are actually getting high interest in their ideas.

706
01:29:59.260 --> 01:30:20.260
The question is, do I think the anti-commercial character of modernism is incidental to it or necessary?

707
01:30:20.260 --> 01:30:33.260
My answer, you know, I was trying to make the radical thesis that modernism is not anti-commercial because at heart it's rebellious,

708
01:30:33.260 --> 01:30:38.260
but rather that it's rebellious because at its heart it's anti-commercial.

709
01:30:38.260 --> 01:30:44.260
Now that's undoubtedly an overstatement and too sharp a reversal.

710
01:30:44.260 --> 01:30:48.260
But it's worth considering and that's why I'm asking you to rethink modernism.

711
01:30:48.260 --> 01:31:18.260
What people, especially like Rainey, have argued is that in a weird way the anti-commercial animus is first and it generates the rebelliousness that because they feel disappointed in the market and are in a certain sense afraid of the market, they deliberately cast an art that they know is not going to succeed in the market and surrounded with an ideology that says that if it's

712
01:31:18.260 --> 01:31:21.940
anti-market, anti-commercial, it must be good art.

713
01:31:21.940 --> 01:31:30.900
Now that is an exaggeration, and as I said, I respect in many ways the internal logic of modernism.

714
01:31:30.900 --> 01:31:40.500
I mean, Schoenberg wrote the way he did because he drew some conclusions from late Wagnerian tonality

715
01:31:40.500 --> 01:31:48.100
and the wanderings towards atonality, especially in Tristan, and he was trying to figure out

716
01:31:48.100 --> 01:32:12.100
The logic of where music could go from there and there's a strong sense of the autonomy of art in modernism and what these artists would claim is we are following out the logic of this art, dam the market, we will not shake in our devotion to what the music demands just to please the public.

717
01:32:12.100 --> 01:32:17.100
That's the self-presentation of modernism and that's the way it's been understood for many years

718
01:32:17.100 --> 01:32:21.100
and I was brought up on that argument and in some ways still accept it.

719
01:32:21.100 --> 01:32:30.100
Nevertheless, it's just so tempting to consider the alternative that what Schoenberg realized is he never was going to be Wagner.

720
01:32:30.100 --> 01:32:38.100
Try as he might in Gurlieder, add as many trombones as he could and contrabassoons he could never outdo Wagner.

721
01:32:38.100 --> 01:32:46.100
and so he came up with an explanation of his art that would make a virtue out of his necessity or make a virtue out of his lack.

722
01:32:46.100 --> 01:32:53.100
Harold Bloom actually suggests that in his theory of revisionary ratios, for example.

723
01:32:53.100 --> 01:33:00.100
Bloom talks about how one strategy of artists is less is more.

724
01:33:00.100 --> 01:33:12.100
that if you're faced with this tremendous titanic towering predecessor genius and so you make austerity a feature of your art.

725
01:33:12.100 --> 01:33:18.100
This is very well illustrated music that Schoenberg tried to out-Wagner Wagner in his early works.

726
01:33:18.100 --> 01:33:24.100
Both harmonically and in terms of scale, the girl leader requires a large orchestra than even a Wagnerian opera.

727
01:33:24.100 --> 01:33:27.100
And there's a certain sense in which Schoenberg failed at that.

728
01:33:27.100 --> 01:33:32.100
I'll be there, and I've always enjoyed the two opposite ends of you, but here's time, I don't get it.

729
01:33:44.100 --> 01:33:50.100
I'll be there, and I've always enjoyed the two opposite ends of you, but here's time, I don't get it.

730
01:33:57.100 --> 01:34:04.100
The man suffers for an hour and 45 minutes until he kills himself on stage, but I love it, too.

731
01:34:04.100 --> 01:34:10.100
I love the Klaus Kitschke movie. I love the original Bixner play, and I love the opera, too.

732
01:34:10.100 --> 01:34:16.100
No, I really do like Boyd Sack. I don't know Lulu well enough, but I love his violin concerto, for example,

733
01:34:16.100 --> 01:34:19.100
and the lyric, sweet, and so I do know Bayard's music.

734
01:34:19.100 --> 01:34:23.100
And you know, but Bayard is often regarded as the sell-out in the Second Vienna School,

735
01:34:23.100 --> 01:34:24.100
in a school.

736
01:34:24.100 --> 01:34:28.540
That Webern really was devoted to Schoenberg and carried out the logic of music.

737
01:34:28.540 --> 01:34:33.340
And the great thing is Berg was the one who commercialized the 12-tone system, because

738
01:34:33.340 --> 01:34:39.820
he made a compromise in Schoenberg's 12-tone system, you must always avoid harmony at all

739
01:34:39.820 --> 01:34:45.860
costs, even if it is falling into place that the 12-tone row will generate some harmony,

740
01:34:45.860 --> 01:34:47.580
you must rewrite it to avoid it.

741
01:34:47.580 --> 01:34:53.260
There are harmonic moments in the Bärg Violin Concerto, for example, that make it beautiful.

742
01:34:53.260 --> 01:34:56.700
He uses a Bach Chorale, for example, in the Violin Concerto.

743
01:34:56.700 --> 01:34:59.400
Schoenberg wouldn't allow that.

744
01:34:59.400 --> 01:35:07.000
So it's funny that people will complain, oh, Alvan Bärg, that's commercial 12-tone music.

745
01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:11.580
On the other hand, he's by far the most successful of the three.

746
01:35:11.580 --> 01:35:15.820
People really do like to listen to the Violin Concerto and some of the...

747
01:35:15.820 --> 01:35:16.820
Yeah, and that's it.

748
01:35:16.820 --> 01:35:46.820
are accessible, that damns it in terms of modern aesthetics, so you know Berg is a complicated case as I have to again I make these terrible admissions that I do like some modernism, but again I find it really interesting in that case that a lot of the really hardcore musicological types will say you know Berg, he sold out, Berg went Hollywood in the violin concert,

749
01:35:46.820 --> 01:35:55.820
I was wondering what you thought here on graffiti as well, and how that goes?

750
01:36:16.820 --> 01:36:21.540
Art. However, it does occur to me, in many cities today, you see beautiful art painted

751
01:36:21.540 --> 01:36:28.760
on walls, and you see that, and it's representational. And so, some of this street art is actually

752
01:36:28.760 --> 01:36:32.620
a rebellion against what I would regard as modernism. You know, if it's just someone

753
01:36:32.620 --> 01:36:38.740
telling me, oh, it's outsider art and it's rebellious, and look, they've painted a curse

754
01:36:38.740 --> 01:36:43.980
word on the wall, that's great art. To me, that's the reductio ad absurdum of much modernist

755
01:36:43.980 --> 01:36:48.100
Ideology but if you're referring to the fact that many cities today you see this

756
01:36:48.100 --> 01:36:53.180
gloriously representative art often of an ethnic nature you can sort of tell

757
01:36:53.180 --> 01:36:59.820
the neighborhood from what the the is that what do you mean by graffiti oh

758
01:37:13.980 --> 01:37:19.380
Q. You haven't people actually critical not by the other is healthy, right?

759
01:37:19.380 --> 01:37:26.440
Q. Or can you keep people from being targeted?

760
01:37:26.440 --> 01:37:30.860
A. Okay, you know, now that you put it that way, yeah, I see what you're talking about.

761
01:37:30.860 --> 01:37:39.420
I've actually noticed that in many cities around the world, now, that there's a kind of grass roots rebellion against this abstract art,

762
01:37:39.420 --> 01:38:09.420
and what I would regard as sterility and these people really, people love representational art, that's what they turn to, they want to see something represented again and again and even if the stuff doesn't represent anything they find something that it does represent and so yeah I'm actually rather touched by the quality of some of this art that you see and around the world, I'm just trying to think where I most recently saw a remarkable example of it and I'm kind of blanking out on it, oh Rio, when I was

763
01:38:09.420 --> 01:38:19.420
I was in Rio last fall. There was just an amazing mural of the girl from Ipanema 40 years later.

764
01:38:19.420 --> 01:38:24.420
It was really just a remarkably clever idea. It was in this Ipanema square.

765
01:38:24.420 --> 01:38:27.420
Obviously, they were sick of the merchandising of the song.

766
01:38:27.420 --> 01:38:31.420
And so they represented a pretty grotesque figure, but very well drawn.

767
01:38:31.420 --> 01:38:34.420
And I felt really brilliant. And I said, wow, that's art.

768
01:38:34.420 --> 01:38:38.420
I'd rather see that in a museum than the stuff I was seeing in the Rio Museum, the official museum.

769
01:38:38.420 --> 01:38:46.420
Official Museum. One more question? Okay, let's call it quits. We're over time already.