Page 47 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7
P. 47
innovation, art, society, and life: deliber ations on music cr iticism’s past, pr esence ...
between tradition and innovation, can musical novelties be accepted by a
broader public.25
As we may read in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
musicology is considered to profit from the decline of criticism by taking
on “some of the broader ambitions that once were the province of music criti-
cism.”26 But is it really musicology which should adopt the task of criticism?
Recently, Frank Hentschel explored whether scientific goals necessarily go
hand in hand with evaluations. According to him, we have to differenti-
ate between unavoidable evaluations which do not do any harm to scientif-
ic objectivity, and a careless attitude that does no longer aspire to scientific
objectivity - under the pretext that it is impossible to be objective anyhow.
From Hentschel’s viewpoint it is the task of science to remain as independ-
ent and objective as possible.27
We can find a similar position when the question of the political im-
pact of science is discussed in a more general framework. Recently, in the
journal Forschung and Lehre for example, an author pointed to the dangers
of an outward political engagement of scientists on social media, which
would compromise science’s standing and credibility.28
Nevertheless, it seems to be important to discuss the quality of art and
its role for today’s society. And it is science which might work on aesthet-
ic criteria and different types of judgement in order to provide information
which such a discussion could be built on. With respect to the situation in
art, Marc Jimenez stressed the need for theories of modern art that help to
understand the new relationships between art, institution, the work of art,
and the public. Only with such information, an artistic creation might be
defended that is not only determined by the art market, he writes.29
This position seems to correspond with the attitude that many artists
expect from themselves today, namely a critical position towards society
25 Cf. amongst others: Michael Heinemann, “Kritik. Emanzipation des Hörers im 18.
Jahrhundert,” in Kleine Geschichte der Musik, ed. Michael Heinemann (Stuttgart:
Reclam, 2013), 145–57.
26 Anon., “Criticism,” 698.
27 Cf. Frank Hentschel, “Zur Rolle der Wertung in der Musikhistoriographie,” in Mu-
sik – Politik – Gesellschaft. Michael Walter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Kordula Knaus
and Susanne Kogler (Berlin: Metzler, 2023), 339–58.
28 Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, “Problematisches Phänomen? – Zur Politisie-
rung von Wissenschaft durch Social Media,” Forschung und Lehre 30, no. 2 (2023):
92–3.
29 Marc Jimenez, La querelle de l’art contemporain (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 9–37.
47
between tradition and innovation, can musical novelties be accepted by a
broader public.25
As we may read in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,
musicology is considered to profit from the decline of criticism by taking
on “some of the broader ambitions that once were the province of music criti-
cism.”26 But is it really musicology which should adopt the task of criticism?
Recently, Frank Hentschel explored whether scientific goals necessarily go
hand in hand with evaluations. According to him, we have to differenti-
ate between unavoidable evaluations which do not do any harm to scientif-
ic objectivity, and a careless attitude that does no longer aspire to scientific
objectivity - under the pretext that it is impossible to be objective anyhow.
From Hentschel’s viewpoint it is the task of science to remain as independ-
ent and objective as possible.27
We can find a similar position when the question of the political im-
pact of science is discussed in a more general framework. Recently, in the
journal Forschung and Lehre for example, an author pointed to the dangers
of an outward political engagement of scientists on social media, which
would compromise science’s standing and credibility.28
Nevertheless, it seems to be important to discuss the quality of art and
its role for today’s society. And it is science which might work on aesthet-
ic criteria and different types of judgement in order to provide information
which such a discussion could be built on. With respect to the situation in
art, Marc Jimenez stressed the need for theories of modern art that help to
understand the new relationships between art, institution, the work of art,
and the public. Only with such information, an artistic creation might be
defended that is not only determined by the art market, he writes.29
This position seems to correspond with the attitude that many artists
expect from themselves today, namely a critical position towards society
25 Cf. amongst others: Michael Heinemann, “Kritik. Emanzipation des Hörers im 18.
Jahrhundert,” in Kleine Geschichte der Musik, ed. Michael Heinemann (Stuttgart:
Reclam, 2013), 145–57.
26 Anon., “Criticism,” 698.
27 Cf. Frank Hentschel, “Zur Rolle der Wertung in der Musikhistoriographie,” in Mu-
sik – Politik – Gesellschaft. Michael Walter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Kordula Knaus
and Susanne Kogler (Berlin: Metzler, 2023), 339–58.
28 Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, “Problematisches Phänomen? – Zur Politisie-
rung von Wissenschaft durch Social Media,” Forschung und Lehre 30, no. 2 (2023):
92–3.
29 Marc Jimenez, La querelle de l’art contemporain (Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 9–37.
47
