every smith
  • MS: Max Smith's blog
  • History to the Defeated
  • every smith: independent creative consultants
  • Words: Max - a brief bio
  • Sites to see

Dylan's Erasure; aye, there's the rub

4/8/2011

9 Comments

 
Back in 1953, there were few greater gods in the artistic firmament than De Kooning, which is why Robert Rauschenberg wanted one of his drawings for his revolutionary act of erasure in which he took a work of art, and - over a period of a couple of months - carefully erased it. He chose to ask De Kooning, who understood immediately what was required. Rauschenberg admitted he would have settled for anything; De Kooning told him that he wanted to provide "something I will miss". He did so, and the result is the famous work entitled "Erased De Kooning Drawing".

The parallel between what Rauschenberg did in 1953 and what Dylan is doing now has haunted me since I read Doug MacCash's piece in The Times-Picayune yesterday, in which he argued, based on a recent show, that Bob was also, maybe, erasing some of his previous work.

Let's start with what's different and get that out of the way.

Rauschenberg erased a work by De Kooning. The suggestion here is that Dylan is erasing works by Dylan. This is not (necessarily) self-referring: Dylan recognises that, once the work is in the public domain, it is owned by anyone and everyone. And it is the work in the public domain - on disc or in memory - that is being erased on this tour. And that's the second difference: we have no record of the De Kooning drawing which Rauschenberg erased. But we have both a physical and a cerebral, intellectual record of, for example, All Along the Watchtower, the song that prompted MacCash's insight when it was performed in New Orleans earlier this week.

This is significant, because it makes the process of erasure a public act rather than, as De Kooning believed when he donated his drawing, a private matter between two artists. De Kooning was alleged to be angry when the erased drawing was exhibited, and I'm guessing this was because it was intended that the act of erasure itself, the performance, rather than the end result, would be the work of art.

Dylan's exhaustive schedule on the Never-Ending Tour is proof of his belief in the power and importance of performance. And his oft-quoted statement that he never performs a song the same way twice now has a new context.

We are not talking about different interpretations any more. We are talking about elimination by performance of what exists.

This is not negative. To discover new meanings, perhaps we need to erase the old ones. To move forward, perhaps we need to eliminate the past. It's almost Oedipal. It's certainly complex. And it's complicated by the fact that, whereas Rauschenberg was destroying De Kooning, Dylan is destroying Dylan.

I suppose it is just about possible that, at any given Dylan show, there are one or two people who have never been previously exposed to Dylan; but, as we say in the niche-marketing world, they are not the audience.

Or are they?

Most of us enter into a performance with our own preconceptions, a melange of the original recording and a plethora of subsequent versions. We watch and listen for differences. From the original, from '66, from the night before.

Is Dylan now telling us, with these acts of erasure if such they be, that we should come with no preconceptions, even with no knowledge of what has gone before?

Miles Davis, of course, was able to take for granted the fact that a particular melody was a given, part of his audience's collective consciousness, and thus move immediately into his abstractions on the theme. I've argued in the past that Dylan in concert worked in a similar way, but MacCash has got me thinking. What if these songs were completely new songs, and were only available in the version which one is hearing right now? Versions in which only fragments of the old still remain as pale ghosts of what was once, but is no longer?

In other words, like a complete unknown. How would that feel?

Let me know.

Today's listening: Bob, Ryman Auditorium, Nashville. 2011-08-01. The most recent show to which I can gain access. In terms of the debate above, it's a no-decision.













9 Comments
Jill
4/8/2011 06:51:24

Crikey! You've forgotten that the musical parallel with Rauschenberg was not Bob but John Cage. Love you, fair enough? xx

Reply
Neil
4/8/2011 07:48:51

So an interesting debate, what I am missing is exactly what form Dylan's "erasure" has taken in these concerts - is he playing a song called "All along the watchtower" but with different melody, lyrics etc which goes beyond re-interpretation ... please explain further :o)

Reply
Max
4/8/2011 08:23:30

Neil, good point. I've lived with his review for 48 hours and assumed everyone else has. Here's what Doug (an art critic who knew Rauschenberg and Bob fan) wrote in the Times-Picuyane (great final sentence):

If I hadn’t picked out the phrase “the wind began to howl,” I’d have never known Bob Dylan performed “All Along the Watchtower” near the close of his July 26 UNO Lakefront Arena concert. That’s the way it is with Dylan, of course. The oldies never sound quite like they once did. Every song seems to be in a state of constant renovation. But with this recent version of “Watchtower,” Dylan took his 1967 classic a bit past re-styling. He essentially erased the old version, leaving us with only a few wisps of recognition … and memories.
Copy of bob dylan 001.jpgDrawing of Bob Dylan by Doug MacCash

The original “Watchtower” was an existential hymn. “There must be some way out of here, said the joker to the thief,” Dylan sang. But somehow it sounded like there really wasn’t. The newest version of the song – once I recognized it --was like a fleeting glance at a ghost.

One of the most thrilling moments of my career in art writing was interviewing the king of the combine, Robert Rauschenberg just a few years before his death. I told the aged artist that my favorite of his myriad accomplishments was when, in 1953, he erased a drawing by Willem de Kooning.

Rauschenberg told me he’d originally intended to ceremonially erase one of his own drawings, but it occurred to him that the gesture would be all the more significant if he asked an art superstar to donate a sacrificial drawing – a drawing the whole world would regret losing. De Kooning, a master of the abstract expressionist movement, agreed to the project. Rauschenberg erased the drawing and one of art history’s finest symbols of irreverence was born.

Or was it reverence? If you don’t really revere De Kooning; you don’t really revere Rauschenberg’s dada anti-drawing, right?

Consciously or not, I think Dylan is up to something similar. Unlike the young Rauschenberg, the elderly Dylan doesn’t have to borrow from a better established artist. There is no better established artist. So he toys with his own iconic stature.

There may be something else going on too. Back in college, a professor of mine once pointed out that Miles Davis didn’t have to play the melody of “My Funny Valentine.” He could count on “My Funny Valentine” already residing in the memory of his audience. From the first note, Davis was free to interpret the song in the abstract; the beloved melody was absent but perfectly intact.

So it is with Dylan. No matter how he obscures one of his past compositions, our memory of the beloved original version remains unchanged. To some of us it glows a bit more brightly. To be a Dylan fan is to welcome change, experimentation, irreverence, frustration and attempts at erasure. I remain an indelible fan.


Reply
Charlotte link
5/8/2011 03:41:52

Now I have read and to some extent understood the question , I am still occupied (perhaps wrongly ) with the idea that if visual artists can create a series of versions ( Cezannes Mountain, Monets Cathederal, even Ken Fords Tuscan Landscape ) Why not similarly with music. Dylan is clearly not concerned with clinging on to one static version of a piece of his own music. He still wants to explore, to me that makes him genuinely creative. Crikey,hope my musings make sense !

Reply
Max
5/8/2011 06:59:43

Hi Charlotte

Thanks for this. I take your point: but I think this (performing a series of versions) is what Dylan has been doing for years - I've been to the gigs! What is suggested is that he is now taking this to the next stage, by erasing earlier and original versions, so that nothing remains. It seems to me to be a a revolutionary philosophical, rather than aesthetic, act. And it may be unconscious ...

Reply
Charlotte link
5/8/2011 08:53:38

After a brief cognitive struggle I can see the point of your question from a philosophical point of view. It is very difficult to make a comparison either musically or visually now ! I guess that just shows how unique Dylan is. In erasing a piece of work he is not destroying it but liberating it ?

Reply
Studio Maven
7/8/2011 13:00:16

The changes may be due largely to boredom of doing pieces the same way, for thousands of gigs, over decades. REAL artists, in my opinion, are some of the most selfish people on the planet and create work for themselves first and foremost. I doubt Mr. Dylan relishes the thought of becoming a repetitive oldies review entitled "Dylan on ice".

Reply
Chris Dark
7/8/2011 16:29:12

Jill is on to something with John Cage - ref: 4'33"...but which version?

Reply
Doug MacCash link
20/5/2014 10:37:45

Wow, Mr. Smit, I never knew you wrote this. I'm completely flattered.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Max Smith

    European writer, radical, restaurateur and Red Sox fan. 70-something husband, father, step-father, grandfather and son. Resident in Warwick, England.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Art
    Baseball
    Books
    Film
    Food + Drink
    French Letters
    Leamington Letters
    Media
    Music
    People
    Personal
    Politics
    Sport