An article in the NY Times made me think of this.
How the Art world has co-opted the musical arts and the consequences thereof.
You see in the visual arts "Training" is just another style. In the music world skills such as performing or composing take a lifetime to learn. In the visual arts said skills are just another style. That is to say at least in the art world "my ignorance is equal." In previous posts I pointed out how this "ignorance" is trumpeted as an "advance" and how that overlooks the fact that rigorous training in art is required, just not in music. As hypocritical as that is, we have to face the fact that museums are offering more and more concerts as they have become presenters and producers. The irony here is that traditional performance organizations have been disparaged as "Museums". Yet in all cases institutions present their own version of orthodoxies and stay in their lanes.
I am not sure how this will all play out. I am happy to see more work by artists of color and different genders. Yet because performance is everything today my question is about the effect of artistically narrow *opportunities. Who gets performed and why? Does art create the artist or does the artist create the art?
Artistically narrow opportunities: refers to the following:
When Institutions offer commissions the semi-famous rather than trained musicians.
For one example of many; when the MN Opera commissioned "Doubt" the composer said ( I paraphrase) How upsetting it must be for "real composers" that he got this opportunity" -overlooking that the opportunity was never available to a "real" composer.
On the museum end it seems to be coolest thing at the moment or any musical event that does not feature the music.