Polar opposites in the arts

I have a fairly eclectic interests in the arts, so much so that I may admire two artists who are antagonists in their field. In film, music and literature there can often be two artists whose aesthetics conflict with one another. Followers of these art fields will often 'jump on a bandwagon' and have disdainful feelings against the dilettantes who jump on the bandwagon which is the antithesis of their chosen artist.

In this post I will go through three art fields - literature, music and film - and choose artists who can be divided into two factions. I will then reach a decision as to who I side with and which 'bandwagon' I jump on.

Film

Dichotomy 1: Ingmar Bergman vs. Jean-Luc Godard

This is a really tough decision for me. This dichotomy could be described as 'Snobs' vs. 'Hipsters'. Bergman is more about the human condition and introspection while Godard is all about innovation and breaking new ground.

I do have a soft spot for Godard because his films were one of my first exposures to 'art' cinema, but if I had to side with either of these director, in terms of how their aesthetic has more to do with my outlook on the world, I'd have to choose Bergman.

Bergman does piercing explorations of the human conditions; his interests are existential and philosophical. Godard, on the other hand, especially later on in his career, constructs film essays dealing with political issues. The former's work is more carefully constructed and rooted in theatre whilst Godard is improvisatory and wholly cinematic. Both of them can be self-indulgent: Bergman's films can often be long-winded and obscure while Godard abandons any element of narrative to explore subjects which, often, only make sense and hold meaning to no-one but himself.

Godard's earliest films are, for me, full of vitality and vigour. They can be very exciting. Yet it is still something that works at the surface and, once Anna Karina left him, he veered farther and farther away from his audience, becoming a Maoist. Most of his post-1968 films can often be impenetrable and irritating.

Bergman's films appeal to my sensibilities far more. He produced films of consistent quality throughout his entire career and they have a lot more substance and depth than Godard. I guess that I prefer the 'construction' ethic over 'deconstruction' and, while I do like film-makers to dabble with experimentation, I like it all to be done in a more tightly-disciplined and structured way.

Music

Dichotomy 2: Igor Stravinsky vs. Arnold Schoenberg



These two composers represent two factions the music cognoscenti either aligned themselves to or disparaged in the early 20th century. Allegedly, both composers hated each other.

Both were innovators. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring famously caused scandal on its premier while Schoenberg conceived the twelve-tone technique, a method that attracted as many followers as it did detractors.

Stravinsky adopted three styles of composition throughout his career and they all bear his hallmark of 'organised sound', from a Russian phase, through to Neo-classicism until he eventually adopted the serialist procedures that Schoenberg devised.

I do find Schoenberg's concepts dogmatic and pretentious. I am not musically literate, so I can't come anywhere near in decoding the real worth of his music. Meanwhile, I do think his disciples produced music of worth to me - I have been able to enjoy output from both Webern and Berg. He did devise this procedure for composing that was welcomed by a generation of composers, but he did not use it effectively himself. I have enjoyed the romantic music I've heard by him and Survivor from Auschwitz, however.

I side myself with Stravinsky on this one. The range of his pieces are extraordinary and I find myself hearing his music very frequently. He was able to adapt himself to various forms and styles of composition and produce music that was stimulating to both the music lover and musician.

Literature

Dichotomy 3: Fyodor Dostoyevsky vs. Leo Tolstoy

I'll make this one brief. Both Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy are very, very respected 19th century Russian novelists. From what I've encountered from the latter, I've always been inclined to prefer the former. Dostoyevsky dealt with all the existentialist themes that were to be developed in the 20th century; his novels have been very stimulating to me. I tried reading Anna Karenina once, however, and simply had to give up. I prefer the existential questions and dilemmas over family romances and histories; I have found Dostoyevsky to be far more preferable.