Explicit rules, Implicit Rules

“Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention which all events and facts arouse by virtue of their existence.”

Hannah Arendt, Responsibility and Judgement

In many professional systems there are always those who are so dependent on what they perceive to be the status quo that any questioning or criticism is seen as a threat to their livelihood and very survival. These true believers are often the fiercest guardians and perpetuators of the entrenched dominant culture. The institutions they are a part of and support validate certain interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. When faced with a potentially negative analysis, the reaction is not one of the deep reflection or reconsideration, but rather an instant circling of the wagons, of coming up with and promulgating what at its best could be called knee-jerk defensive bromides. “They hate us for our freedom”, would be a prime example. This unexamined slogan has all the cultural power and seeming validity of an incessantly pervasive advertising campaign. Both speaker and listener immediately understand the context of the dismissal message. The status quo is protected, not through any kind of tortured detailed defense, but through the simplest of statements. The persuasive power of these catchy deflections is in fact almost always greater than the strength of actual, often times hard won truth. It is always expedient to believe the easy thing, while it is much more arduous to do the hard work of actual study and contemplation to come to ones own conclusions, even if, and especially because, they can call into question long held beliefs. This is why public relations and advertising has such a tremendous hold over most populations. Lies and innuendo are easier than detailed fact. Simpler and more obvious ideas are more likely to take hold in the cultural commons. If one tends to feel a certain way or believe he or she has a certain allegiance, a counterpoint or differing narrative can be threatening, or at least be perceived as threatening, especially to one’s usually fragile sense of self or economic situation. Yes, gossip and griping behind closed doors are tolerated and even encouraged as a way to blow off steam, but a public statement would be regarded a betrayal – thus the all too common code of silence and the visceral hatred of whistleblowers. While it is always important to question the motivations of the critic, it is also equally essential to consider their ideas. However, even this concept is too complex for most believers, because why should they take time to actually defend against a critique point by point if it isn’t necessary? A lazy reference to the most base, prurient possible motivation is usually more than sufficient. If one is so enmeshed in a system, one tends to idolize those they perceive as their superiors, and in such a situation it would be only natural to seek to one day attain such highly admired positions. If one is so invested in such a hierarchy, it is considered not beneficial to question it, if such a thing is even possible. In this way, great ideas and critiques are casually brushed aside with basic phrases, and systems continue, even in the face of imminent failure and disaster, especially for the true believers themselves.

MUSICIANS: Think about the system you currently find yourself in. Be it an educational institution, a professional symphony, or some kind of freelance gig, what are the underlying presumptions and systems that are simply taken for granted? Does it make sense that university string professors be required to recruit their own studios? What are the possible effects of such a system, positive or negative? What role does hierarchy play in professional symphonies? What are the official, explicit rules, and what are the implicit, unwritten rules? What are the consequences?

LUTHIERS: What are the public rules, if any, of the violin business? Why is critique or criticism oftentimes quickly dismissed with crude gossip or inaccurate comparisons to infamous, discredited predecessors? What are the other rules, never publicly recognized, which are so crucial to the identity of our trade? What the things that we quietly accept which should be questioned and challenged?


State of the Market (Preview)

Certificate Seal

 I’m working on a long-form article on the state of the violin market.  This is a small preview.

One current problem with the violin business is the proliferation of dealers and a kind of atomization of the trade, which when combined with an increase in the higher end of the market and in sales costs overall, creates a situation where the desire to “cash-in” trumps the need to carefully vet provenance and authenticity. Where there is a rise in prices, there will always be a rise in fakes. As high-end violins and bows are further commodified, priced out of the range of most musicians and pushed as financial investment products to wealthy collectors, institutions and oligarchs, serious experts are increasingly coming under threat due to the potentially high profits at stake. The irony is that this is precisely the time when we need real expertise to check the irrational exuberance of a market where everyone or anyone is an “expert” because more people want to get in on the action, despite their lack of knowledge. Add to this desperate “rush to profit” the problem that real expertise cannot be empirically proven in most cases, such as in a court of law. Science can be used as a tool, but it can never replace true connoisseurship. The nature of true expertise is subtle and based on years and years of study and experience, but the current market demands certificates now, and it is all too easy for some to fall into line and give the trade what it wants. There are those who have benefited financially and professionally, but at what cost? If we are not careful the market will eventually destroy itself, taking along with it our hard-won reputations and income.

Market Logic

From the documentary film on the art market and forgery:

Beltracchi: Die Kunst der Fälschung

“There’s and inherent market logic that penalizes depreciation, criticism and doubt, and rewards appreciation, euphoria, and calling something a masterpiece. If someone has a paining and asks, ‘Could it be a Derain?’, the expert will say, ‘It’s a Derain.’ The auctioneer’s excited. He can earn millions from the masterpiece at auction. The expert pockets a large commission. The vendor makes money, and the buyer is excited to see a Derain reappear on the market. None of the people involved in the system want it to be a fake.”

Niklas Maak

Art Critic

“Sadly in the art world there are more people who know how to make money then there are works of art. There’s a surplus of financial interests. And enormous sums of money whirling around. The record prices for art are broken every year.”

Sofia Komarova

Gallery Manager

Interesting parallels to the violin, and more specifically, the bow market, don’t you think?