. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

There is probably nothing that more devastates the development of art that the idea that artists must live a dilapidated and meager existance in order to produce artwork of value. It simply is not true. If anything, a difficult financial existance is more an obstacle to ongoing creativity than a source of inspiration. People who speak from their 'victim voice' when it comes to art and creativity would probably speak from that voice no matter what their income.

This is one reason why the Voice of the Integral Art exercise from the May 2004 Integral Artistry Intensive was so vibrant. The exercise gave space to a victim voice, then transcended and included the it amidst other voices, available to any artist. To help others inhabit and speak from a more expansive and less fearful voice is a main goal of my work in integral art.

I wrote before that my current book of study is Henry Pleasants, The Agony of Modern Music. I'm about 1/3 done. And I like it. Even if the last two-thirds sucks, the book has value for at least one major reason. He dispels one version of the starving artist myth - that of the unappreciated composer myth. Quoth Pleasants:

The most devasting single inhibiting factor standing in the way of spontaneous and honest judgment of modern music is the general acceptance, among professionals and laymen alike, of the fable the new serious music is never "understood" and appreciated in its own time.

This is the result of decades of popularized history and hack program note writing, both of which have consistently indulged in the sentimental dramatization of great composers' initial difficulties, subsequent economic and social setbacks, and occasional musical failures.

Nothing else has done so much to distort society's view of the relationship between composer and public. Nothing else has contributed so importantly to society's assumption that the present gap between composer and public is the normal relationship and that it always has been.

And then the culmination:

The truth is that every composer, without exception, has been appreciated, admired, applauded, and loved in his own time. Even those who died miserably died famous.

For Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Weber, Rossini, Verdi, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, Wagner, Dvorak - the stories are unique and interesting, but one theme resounds in each. And that theme is simple - each composer was loved and recognized by the public on a wide scale during his life.

Or simply - each were popular. Each had an audience, and each composed to please that audience. The audience reciprocated with recognition, consistent attendance, and heavy word of mouth. Just like pop artists of today. And now not like composers of today!

It ought not be this way. Composers need not live in a self-created ghetto of the artistic wayside. They need not be dissociated from society, culture, and the joys shared by everyday folks. Composers can engage widely-held aesthetics. "Popular" can no longer be a bad word. Composers can satisfy regular people with their music, and through this basic satisfaction, choose to inform and deeply inspire. All such satisfaction requires skill and openness to reach others, without shame or embarrassment.

The fundamental injunctions of an integral art production is to wrap into one creation three kinds of audience resonance. Those three kinds of resonance are the capacity for artwork to entertain, educate, and enlighten. Without these three kinds of resonance, artwork can still be creative, interesting, and notable. But is it as full as it can be? Can it offer a full menu, and a full delivery of all of the creative energy that went into its production?

I ask the artists of the world, what do you think? What would it mean to be open and transparent to artwork that entertains, educates, and enlightens? Is it fear that keeps you back, and keeps your art from its fullest manifestation? Is it that you so want the person-to-person resonance of love, that you pretend to be scared of it, and reject it out of hand? I ask you - why?