</Metamodernism in Music: Rethinking Aesthetic Evaluative Judgments in the Digital Age>
author: Anna Samosudova
picture: David Lung, Are you experienced?
picture: David Lung, Are you experienced?
Anna Samosudova is a researcher exploring music through the lenses of philosophy and sociology. She graduated with distinction in Sociology from HSE University and studied at the University of Edinburgh as an Erasmus+ scholar, where she focused on the sociology of music under the guidance of Lisa McCormick. During this time, she also developed an interest in metamodernism. Currently, she is pursuing an MPhil in Music at the University of Oxford. Her research interests include the philosophy of music, sociology of music, and critical theory, with a particular focus on Theodor Adorno.
In recent years, the emergence of new artistic trends and movements, alongside the advancements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, has significantly influenced various fields of art. Among these trends, metamodernism has garnered attention from scholars and practitioners as a promising framework for analyzing contemporary reality (Khrushcheva, 2022), despite its still-limited acceptance in academic discourse. Some argue that music was the first art form to acknowledge and adapt to these changes, as evidenced by the resurgence of tonality, affect, and melody, as well as a departure from excessive citation and technique. Given this, my analysis will focus exclusively on the field of music.
Therefore, in this analysis, I will focus solely on the field of music. It is important to clarify that this paper does not examine specific musical works that are explicitly considered metamodernist, nor does it engage in direct critique of them. Instead, my argument is grounded in theoretical literature that explores the nature of metamodernism and the various aesthetic criteria historically used to evaluate music. However, the theoretical framework I propose could be applied to specific musical pieces for a more precise and detailed analysis.
According to Khrushcheva (2022), the cultural state of metamodernism emerged around the 1970s, understood as cultural state which can be described in the passage from Luck Turner’s manifesto:
Whereas postmodernism was characterised by deconstruction, irony, pastiche, relativism, nihilism, and the rejection of grand narratives (to caricature it somewhat), the discourse surrounding metamodernism engages with the resurgence of sincerity, hope, romanticism, affect, and the potential for grand narratives and universal truths, whilst not forfeiting all that we’ve learnt from postmodernism (Turner, 2015).
Whereas postmodernism was characterised by deconstruction, irony, pastiche, relativism, nihilism, and the rejection of grand narratives (to caricature it somewhat), the discourse surrounding metamodernism engages with the resurgence of sincerity, hope, romanticism, affect, and the potential for grand narratives and universal truths, whilst not forfeiting all that we’ve learnt from postmodernism (Turner, 2015).
It is characterized by a shift away from the deconstruction, irony, pastiche, relativism, and nihilism of postmodernism, towards sincerity, hope, romanticism, affect, and a renewed potential for grand narratives and universal truths. Metamodernism acknowledges the impossibility of returning to the modern metanarratives embodied in religious, philosophical, and historical systems, but also recognizes the absence of meaning, sincerity, and authenticity in postmodernist art. This search for new meaning often results in a lack of strict and objective criteria for evaluating art.
The ambivalence of metamodernism poses a challenge for cultural critique. On the one hand, it abolishes the typical dualisms of mass and elitist culture, complex and simple art, making it harder to criticize. Evaluation of art becomes more horizontal, with no “objective” knowledge of what constitutes art, and people can base their opinions on subjective preferences. With the rise of the fourth industrial revolution, more and more people can express their opinions, which can become a valid source of knowledge for others, especially through widespread Internet platforms. On the other hand, criticism of art still exists, and the basis for evaluative aesthetic judgments must be formed.
The ambivalence of metamodernism poses a challenge for cultural critique. On the one hand, it abolishes the typical dualisms of mass and elitist culture, complex and simple art, making it harder to criticize. Evaluation of art becomes more horizontal, with no “objective” knowledge of what constitutes art, and people can base their opinions on subjective preferences. With the rise of the fourth industrial revolution, more and more people can express their opinions, which can become a valid source of knowledge for others, especially through widespread Internet platforms. On the other hand, criticism of art still exists, and the basis for evaluative aesthetic judgments must be formed.
In this text, I will explore the possibility of cultural critique in the era of metamodernism, a complex concept that presents two main challenges for art evaluation. By cultural critique, I refer to the process of forming evaluative judgments about art that are typically attributed to professional critics. The first challenge is the viability of professionalism of the critics in the age of delegitimization of cultural power with the advent of new technologies. The second challenge is based on the fact that metamodernism overcomes the dichotomy between elitist and mass art in metamodernism and therefore lets art criticism be based not only on formal and intellectual properties of art pieces.
To begin with, I will discuss how the role of professional criticism has transformed in the new circumstances of delegitimizing cultural power and authorities. The rise of social media and other online platforms creates new conditions which lead to a greater emphasis on personal opinions and preferences of individuals. As a result, professional criticism may need to adapt to this changing landscape by embracing new technologies and engaging with wider audiences. Moving forward, I will examine whether there can still be valid criteria for evaluating art on a general level, without reducing these evaluations to individual preferences. I will discuss the challenges of establishing objective criteria in a cultural context that values subjectivity and personal emotional experience.
Professional criticism in the digital era
In 2013, Nancy Weiss Harnahan observed a decline in the influence of professional music critics, which she attributed to the rise of digital technologies that enable individuals to share their opinions with a wider audience and to easily access music. While this trend reflects a shift in how people consume music, I find one aspect of Harnahan's argument problematic. She states that “[r]ather than an absence of cultural authority, its traditional forms have been replaced by new, technologically-mediated ones that return us increasingly to ourselves, or to our own personal ‘chorus’” (2013: 82). However, she then adds that “the new media technologies accelerate the postmodern tendency to put the self at the center of authentic experience and to understand cultural authority as fundamentally illegitimate or at least unnecessary” (2013: 82). I think there is an inconsistency in her argumentation: to say that one is relying on genuine, authentic experience when evaluating music seems at odds with the idea of transferring one's own subjectivity into technological algorithms that shape musical preferences. To resolve this contradiction, I suggest a different approach. Instead of viewing technologies as substitutes for traditional forms of cultural authority, one should see them as tools that enable open critique and idea-sharing.
It is also important to recognize that while the decline in cultural power may be related to the rise of digital technologies, it cannot be solely attributed to this factor. Rather, this trend has deeper roots in postmodernist thinking, which emerged in response to the historical and social construction of language, knowledge, and culture. Postmodernism challenged the legitimacy of cultural authorities as institutions that imposed a fixed view of reality and personal identity through metanarratives. Instead, postmodernists favored irony and skepticism as ways of subverting these narratives. Therefore, I argue that while the development of technologies may have contributed to the decline of cultural power, it is not the sole cause nor a complete alternative. Instead, one must recognize the complex interplay between technological change and cultural transformation.
Although Harnahan is correct in stating that the fourth industrial revolution has transformed the way art is consumed and criticized, her perspective seems to paint the Internet as being at odds with professional criticism. However, it's possible that her article, written a decade ago, failed to capture the current state of productive Internet discussions that have emerged. In fact, the Internet has become a platform not only for philistine comments but also for professional criticism, as evidenced by blogs such as “Expert Witness” which Harnahan herself mentions in the note section. Today, professional critique is widely disseminated through platforms like The Quietus, NPR Music, Rolling Stone, and others. Furthermore, even non-professional critiques on the Internet, while some may appear polemic rather than argumentative, often still provide a range of perspectives and allow individuals to share their experiences. Thus, while the fourth industrial revolution has brought about significant changes in art consumption and criticism, the Internet has proven to be a valuable tool for both professional and non-professional critiques, offering diverse opinions and facilitating meaningful discussions which often focus on personal experience.
Although Harnahan is correct in stating that the fourth industrial revolution has transformed the way art is consumed and criticized, her perspective seems to paint the Internet as being at odds with professional criticism. However, it's possible that her article, written a decade ago, failed to capture the current state of productive Internet discussions that have emerged. In fact, the Internet has become a platform not only for philistine comments but also for professional criticism, as evidenced by blogs such as “Expert Witness” which Harnahan herself mentions in the note section. Today, professional critique is widely disseminated through platforms like The Quietus, NPR Music, Rolling Stone, and others. Furthermore, even non-professional critiques on the Internet, while some may appear polemic rather than argumentative, often still provide a range of perspectives and allow individuals to share their experiences. Thus, while the fourth industrial revolution has brought about significant changes in art consumption and criticism, the Internet has proven to be a valuable tool for both professional and non-professional critiques, offering diverse opinions and facilitating meaningful discussions which often focus on personal experience.
Despite the decreasing need for critics to be considered experts, they still play an important role in setting standards and determining what is worth discussing (Eyck and Busch, 2012). However, the decline of cultural authorities is evident in the admission of professional critics that they do not possess absolute knowledge and are increasingly perceived as amateurs. For example, Michael Kimmelman, a contemporary critic, began his book with the statement: “I hope to approach the art of seeing here in the spirit of an amateur” (Kimmelman, 2005: 5). Thus, the erosion of cultural authority and the blurring of expertise boundaries cannot be solely attributed to technological advancements. Instead, it also reflects the acknowledgment of these authorities' non-absolute nature by those who hold such positions.
Metamodernism acknowledges relativism and rejects metanarratives while lacking a firm foundation for value judgments. Despite regarding professional criticism as unnecessary, the paradox of metamodernism lies in the fact that individuals exist in an era of immense evaluation, with everyone pretending to be an authority to each other (Harnahan, 2013). This trend is reflected in the ease with which individuals can become artists today, as compared to the past, leading to significant changes in contemporary cultural critique. Eyck and Busch (2012) compare the views of Clement Greenberg, a critic from the 1950s, and Michael Kimmelman from the 2000s. While Greenberg believed that everyone should consume art, Kimmelman advocated for both production and consumption of art using necessary tools. The more people create, the more they want to evaluate and be evaluated. However, the absence of an Archimedean point in metamodernism creates a tension between the relativism it acknowledges and the need for value judgments.
Aesthetic judgements in metamodernism
The decline of professional criticism has led to a blurring of criteria for forming evaluative judgments about art. With the rise of open criticism by anyone, there is a risk of reducing art critique to subjective and personal perception. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the specific criteria that dominate in the age of metamodernism.
Music can be analyzed, perceived, and criticized using objective criteria such as its formal properties, including harmony, melody, rhythm, and form, rather than relying on extra-musical meanings or associations. This view aligns with Kantian aesthetics and is exemplified by the work of Hanslick (1986), who believed that analyzing tonal forms is essential to understanding music aesthetically. However, Hanslick did not address who should be responsible for formulating aesthetic evaluative judgments. One could assume that it would be professional critics and intellectuals, as Hanslick believed that legitimate aesthetic judgment about music is always an intellectual product, not an emotional one (1986: 60). According to Appelqvist (2011), perceiving music through emotions and senses was considered a "pathological" mode of listening. Before proceeding further, it is important to acknowledge the distinction that has long dominated musical discourse, that is, the division between mass and elitist art differentiated by the extent of intellectual capabilities required for perceiving it. The critical theorists such as Adorno (2002) had negative attitudes towards mass art and believed that the cultural industry had turned people into passive consumers, preventing them from engaging in critical thinking and action. As a result, some musical art was believed to be consumed passively, which hinders its potential for intellectual critique. However, as metamodernism overcomes the distinction between mass and elitist art (Khrushcheva, 2022), cultural critique today does not necessarily require the sole use of intellect but can be based on human emotions 1.
Music can be analyzed, perceived, and criticized using objective criteria such as its formal properties, including harmony, melody, rhythm, and form, rather than relying on extra-musical meanings or associations. This view aligns with Kantian aesthetics and is exemplified by the work of Hanslick (1986), who believed that analyzing tonal forms is essential to understanding music aesthetically. However, Hanslick did not address who should be responsible for formulating aesthetic evaluative judgments. One could assume that it would be professional critics and intellectuals, as Hanslick believed that legitimate aesthetic judgment about music is always an intellectual product, not an emotional one (1986: 60). According to Appelqvist (2011), perceiving music through emotions and senses was considered a "pathological" mode of listening. Before proceeding further, it is important to acknowledge the distinction that has long dominated musical discourse, that is, the division between mass and elitist art differentiated by the extent of intellectual capabilities required for perceiving it. The critical theorists such as Adorno (2002) had negative attitudes towards mass art and believed that the cultural industry had turned people into passive consumers, preventing them from engaging in critical thinking and action. As a result, some musical art was believed to be consumed passively, which hinders its potential for intellectual critique. However, as metamodernism overcomes the distinction between mass and elitist art (Khrushcheva, 2022), cultural critique today does not necessarily require the sole use of intellect but can be based on human emotions 1.
Hanslick's perspective on music emphasized that emotional descriptions related to music lack the ability to provide a complex understanding of a piece because they cannot distinguish between accurate and inaccurate emotional associations. However, this distinction does not hold true in metamodernism, where some scholars argue (Khrushcheva, 2022) that the fourth industrial revolution has enabled the majority of people to express their opinions and judgments openly without barriers. Consequently, the field of critique has become wider and more diverse, and the critiques may vary in their seriousness and meaningfulness.
On the Musically Beautiful, Eduard Hanslick, Translated, with Commentary, by Geoffrey Payzant, 1986 - 151 pp., link
My argument is that emotions should not be disregarded when listening to and critiquing music. According to Hanne Appelqvist's (2011) interpretation of Hanslick, there should be a balance between formalism and the freedom of sensible expression in music. In the metamodern era, which oscillates between irreconcilable alternatives, critiques can take into account both formalism and emotional expression. For this purpose Chong introduces the concept of critical distance, which involves both emotional experience and reflection when consuming a piece of art. Chong's perspective on evaluative judgements in the realm of literary criticism is notable. He suggests that a novel can be considered great when its "quality is evidenced by the affective experience of reading" (2013: 273) In other words, a piece of art can land great reviews and if it fully immerses and engages the audience, whether it is a novel or a piece of music. This emotional connection is seen as a valid and foundational aspect for aesthetic judgements, rather than just being considered irrational personal attitudes. Thus, such emotional indicators are seen as properties of the pieces of art, and they provide a valid foundation for the legitimacy of aesthetic judgements, rather than irrational personal attitudes. While subjectivity in cultural critique typically involves the relationship between the content of art and personal experience, intersubjectivity - as described earlier - refers to the ability to fully immerse oneself in a piece of art and feel a sense of connection with it. So, intersubjectivity goes beyond subjectivity, as it involves the capability of an individual consciousness to transcend oneself and immerse into the piece of art, leading to a more general and universal horizon of experience. This logic corresponds with what scholars say about metamodern music, which has continuous oscillating affect and allows the listener to join the flow of sounds and feel oneself in it.
In this era, people have to become reflexive subjects without losing their emotionality. This is an era of new sincerity, simplicity, and soulfulness, which is why it is referred to as differently.
Endowing music with a special elegance and properties that, together with the emotional perception of the listener, can together form a criterion for aesthetic judgment has become possible mainly in metamodernism. I argue that this shift is made possible by the material turn in sociology and the influence of actor-network theory. This approach recognizes that various actors, including non-human entities, are not just passive objects but actively contribute to constructing social relationships. Scholars have noted that music is increasingly being perceived not just as a reflection of social structures and relations but as having its own agency (De Nora, 2015). This theoretical step has become possible because some object-oriented approaches such as actor-network theory (Latour, 2005) started to appear on the sociological proscenium. Music can be considered an actor because it shapes human experiences, inducing certain emotions and even motivating for actions – this way, it acquires agency, engaging and constructing in relations with human entities. So, recognition of musical agency may prevent emotional analysis from being invalid and too personal to be enough for aesthetic judgement. I also state that such a basis for an aesthetic judgement has become possible because metamodernist critique challenges the traditional role of the author in the creation and interpretation of art. With the “death of the author’s death” 2 concept the focus shifts to the inherent properties of the artwork itself that organize the experience of consuming it. This perspective enables a more holistic view of listening to music, where the properties of the artwork and the listener's subjective experience are equally valued.
Conclusion
In conclusion, metamodernism offers a fresh and innovative approach to art and its critique. Firstly, professional expertise in the field of cultural evaluation is declining due to the lasting effects of postmodernism's rejection of cultural authority and the increasing prevalence of digital platforms, which enable immediate music consumption and open sharing of opinions with a wide audience. Secondly, metamodernism challenges the conventional dichotomy between mass-produced and elitist art that has long been established in art discourse. Unlike postmodernism, metamodernism does not simply reject or devalue the categories of mass and elitist art; rather, it blurs the boundaries between them, lessening their opposition based on the level of intellectual effort required for their production and critique. This allows for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to aesthetic evaluation, which takes into account not only formal analysis but also subjective emotional experience. Historically, human emotions have been excluded from formal art criticism due to their personal nature, which was seen as a potential impediment to objective analysis.
Nevertheless, metamodernism presents a fresh perspective on the role of emotion in art, recognizing the importance of subjective human experience in critical analysis. Assuming that a work of art possesses a certain aesthetic quality, it is possible for the subjective emotional experience of consuming and perceiving that art to contribute to a valid evaluative judgment.
In other words, the emotional response to the artwork can be an important factor in evaluating its overall quality. Metamodernism has made this approach possible through its incorporation of actor-network theory, which grants music agency and the power to shape the human experience of interacting with it. By considering the criterion of intersubjectivity, the sociology of the arts can gain a new perspective on significant phenomena beyond cultural critique, such as the concepts of taste and meaning. Overall, metamodernism offers a promising path forward for the future of art and its critique. As I have already stated, in this paper, I am not examining precise musical compositions that are commonly labeled as metamodern. However, using my argument about the new foundation of an aesthetic judgement, scholars may conduct empirical data and study the specific features of metamodernism in the realm of musical critique.
Notes
- Adorno (1976: 148) wrote: “The subjective reactions of a critic … are not opposed to objectivity of judgment. They are its premise; without such reactions music is not experienced at all. It is up to the critic’s ethic to raise his impression to the rank of objectivity, by constant confrontation with the phenomenon”. Therefore, he argued that when analyzing music, it is impossible to avoid subjective experience. Adorno did not conflate subjective experience with emotional responses alone. Rather, he viewed subjective experience as a way of perceiving music through conscious lenses. While emotional reactions were deemed complementary, they were considered too personal and irrelevant when it came to analyzing and critiquing music. In the view of metamodernism, human emotions are seen as an essential component of analysis.
- In his seminal essay “The Death of the Author”, postmodernist philosopher Roland Barthes (1977) introduced the concept of the author's death. This concept challenged the traditional approach of literary criticism that relied on the author's intentions and personal life to explain the ultimate meaning of a text. Instead, Roland Barthes argued that the interpretation of a work by each individual reader is more important than any supposed definitive meaning intended by the author. Barthes demonstrated that the notion of the author as the sole originator of a text, who expresses themselves through it and imbues it with their essence, becomes meaningless.
References
- Adorno TW (1976) Introduction to the Sociology of Music trans. Blomster W. New York: Seabury.
- Adorno TW (2002) On the fetish character in music and the regression in listening. In: Leppert R (eds) Essays on music. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, pp.288-52.
- Appelqvist H (2011) Form and freedom: The Kantian ethos of musical formalism. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 22(40-41): 1-17.
- Barthes R (1977) The Death of the Author. In: HEATH S (eds) Image, Music, Text. New York: Hill & Wang, pp. 142-148.
- Chong P (2013) Legitimate judgment in art, the scientific world reversed? Maintaining critical distance in evaluation. Social Studies of Science 43(2): 265-281.
- De Nora T (2015) After Adorno in J Shepherd & K Devine (eds) The Routledge reader in the sociology of music Routledge, pp. 341-348.
- Eyck TAT and Busch L (2012) Justifying the art critique: Clement Greenberg, Michael Kimmelman, and orders of worth in art criticism. Cultural Sociology 6(2): 217-231.
- Hanrahan NW (2013) If the people like it, it must be good: Criticism, democracy, and the culture of consensus. Cultural Sociology 7(1): 73-85.
- Hanslick E (1986) On the Musically Beautiful: A Contribution Towards the Revision of the Aesthetics of Music. Hackett Publishing Co Inc, UK ed. edition.
- Khrushcheva N (2022) Metamodernism inside and around music [Метамодернизм в музыке и вокруг неё]. Ripol-Classic.
- Kimmelman M (2005) The Accidental Masterpiece. New York: Penguin.
- Latour B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
- Turner L (2015) Metamodernism: A brief introduction. Available at: https://www.metamodernism.com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/ (accessed 23 April 2023).