As discussed in class, the issue of initial reaction versus acquired taste arises. You may like something at first but after a few times lose interest. On the other hand, you may not like something initially simply because you do not understand it but later, after learning about the artists struggle and purpose, learn to love the work or at least respect it. Many of the artists and events we went to this semester can fall under these two divisions. However, which division each experience falls under is entirely subjective. It depends upon a person’s opinions and preferences. Let me explain using specific examples.
Personally, the jazz portion of the Fall for Dance performance falls under the initial reaction category. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it. I thought it was very theatrical and full of spunk, however, if I was to see it again, I doubt that I would have the same reaction. I would most likely tire of it rather quickly. The last portion of the performance, on the other hand, falls under the acquired taste category. When the dance began, I was shocked and very confused. Many questions were running through my mind at that point. Why are they dancing like this? What are they doing? Why are the genders split? Why are they counting in this language? What is the point of all of this? But, as it continued, I became rather intrigued and started interpreting the dance. The counting began to entertain me. The dance became, to me, an acquired taste.
Not all people however believe in the distinction that I make, as revealed through a fellow classmate. That is where the issue of subjectivity arises. Some people think that art is an objective field. It is either good or bad the first time around, that there is no such thing as an acquired taste. Some people believe that abstract art is not art. Others believe that realistic art is not art. Everyone has a different point of view, a different judgment. That’s the beauty of it. If everyone had the same ideas and the same creations, art wouldn’t be interesting. Life, in itself, wouldn’t be interesting. This class discussion revealed many insights to me that I truthfully was not expecting. It made me realize how much I really learned and how my views on art broadened. Thank You, Professor Smaldone for allowing such a comprehension to occur.
I agree that sometimes we do not like something at first, and then we acquire a taste for it. I experienced this myself during our class on The Bald Soprano. When reading the script for the first time, I thought it was completely nonsensical and pointless. However, after thinking it over for a while, and definitely after seeing it performed live, I started growing more found of it. I think I finally understood the concept that Ionesco was trying to bring out. Although there is a lot of nonsense, there IS a point, and I think the point is that the playwright, together with the audience, is exploring the meaning and often futility of communication, and the idea that maybe, no matter how much we think we do, people can never really fully understand each other.
Fall For Dance and the understanding of the choreography and the appreciation of it is a good example of how something that may appeal to us at first, might turn out to have absolutely no depth and possesses no meaning whereas pieces that are avante garde and frustrating to sit through, might gain our appreciation later on because they possess depth and require a bit of contemplation.
Another good example of this is Willem de Kooning’s work as opposed to Franz Halls work. At first glance, Halls’ work is easy to understand. They’re simply animated portraits commissioned by the upper middle class. They possess a bit of narrative, providing the viewer with a scene. All the portraits also capture character which was an element that Halls’ style comprised of. However, after seeing portrait after portrait, the paintings, to me, lost their luster and their appeal. I saw no depth in his portraiture and there was little to interpret. His artwork that I saw did not speak to me and therefore, lacked the intimacy that I associate with a good piece of art. de Kooning’s work proved to be the opposite. It was abstract, it was hard on my eyes at first, and it wasn’t something you could casually view to appreciate as one could with Halls’ work. de Kooning’s work required thought and contemplation because it possessed depth and meaning. With a little time invested at the exhibit, I was able to find that intimacy between the pieces and myself, making it an experience much more memorable than the Halls exhibit.
Willem de Kooning and Franz Halls are my personal examples of how initial reaction/impression and acquired taste are subjective to the viewer, but nevertheless powerful impressions that form passionate opinions.
I could not agree more with you more on many of the pieces you reflected upon. For instance, the jazz piece we examined in class was quite exiting and enjoyable to watch the first time. Nevertheless, because it was rather empty in metaphorical substance, it was quite dull the second time around.
In terms of other pieces we examined this year which quickly appealed to me initially, Don Giovanni and Antonio Hart’s performance top the list. In contrast, retrospectively Count to Ten in fall for dance was amazing. During the outset of the performance it appeared rather cliché, yet by the end of the performance I was quickly in awe. My Gamelan experience relays a similar tale of acquired taste. When we first sat down to glean how the music works, it merely seemed like a enactment resulting in bunch of random noise. It was not until the end of the class session, and when I later watched QC students performed it live that I developed a deep liking for this unique type of music. For future note, I will always make sure to keep an unbiased mindset while experiencing a novel art form until the taste has fully settled.
This relates to what Shane commented on one of my blogs (the one about the New York Times article about new music). Everybody has a different perspective in life, and this, basically, affects everything. How we respond to art depends on what we have learned, been exposed to, are accustomed to, and have a preference towards. I agree with Ilanna about The Bald Soprano. At first, I thought that it was, quite frankly, stupid. After learning about Ionesco’s intentions, however, I gained a great appreciation for his creation and understood his meaning. Although I do not agree with his claim that life is meaningless, I completely understand how he could arrive at such a belief by his play. Even though I hold different views than Ionesco, knowing why and how he pieced The Bald Soprano together gives the play so much more meaning than an initial, superficial judgment did.