On Culture

Phonograph, issue of November 26th 2008

Alexandra Fol

When in 1st c. AD Roman philosopher, linguist, lawyer and politician Cicero borrowed a Latin agricultural term to digest the Ancient Greek word paideia for the Romans who lacked classical education he was probably unaware of some long-lasting repercussion that his simplified definition would propel. Unfortunately Cicero, who had excellent command of Greek, did not transmit successfully in Latin the meaning of paideia, but settled for cultivation of the soul. He thus used a metaphor borrowed from the common knowledge of his fellow countrymen, who were skilled at cultivating the earth via agriculture to describe how the soul had to be cultivated via cultura, i. e. philosophy.

Cicero’s definition proposed towards the very end of Roman Republic is an uneasy reflection of modern issues of culture – as the term tends to be commonly (mis)understood in the present day – in today’s world, which is easily comparable in its social and state construction and even deconstruction, to the expiring Roman Republic. I shall later return to the question of contemporary definitions of culture.

The possibly haunting social, cultural and even political comparisons between the world at the end of the Roman Republic and the world today can be deduced in many ways, including by remembering a work which appeared in 1911: one of German philosopher and anthropologist Franz Boas’ most important books, The Mind of Primitive Man. The idea that every population is self-reliant and cannot be reduced to another is a somewhat clean and may be even utopian vision of cultural pluralism. Accepting the characteristic of cultural plurality of humankind did result into a politically functioning Roman state about two millennia before the date of Boas’ publication – at least until certain religious sects began to question the state’s universal laws and began melting the borders between cultural and moral pluralism; two concepts, which have been discussed and differentiated, albeit with certain huge unanswered questions by Clyde Kluckhohn among others.

In his attempt to recapture the depth of a 20th c. idea of paideia, Kluckhorn published in 1952 the treatise Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions comprising one-hundred and sixty-four definitions of the term and their explanations. His meticulous treatise, however, could, of course, neither reverse, nor even influence, the continuous trend to equate more and more the cultivation of the soul as imagined by Cicero to external manifestations of aesthetics, such as art in all its forms, and external manifestation of framing, as understood in social theory.
Each type of manifestation, already thrice removed from the multifaceted meaning of paideia was adopted, twisted, misrepresented and ultimately advertised by clever manipulators, pardon, strong leaders, until any relation to and memory of the soul was completely exterminated. Following the always successful Roman principle of divide et impera art emerged divided in “high” and “low” and cultural pluralism became a grotesque mockery which could be tactfully described as multicultural moral relativism.

The deliberate eradication of the relationship between the process of cultivation of the soul and art left a void, which led to the spread of revisionist, reductionist, uninformed and socially divisive commentaries regarding the place of art – the demonization of the financial privilege of wealthy people to commission (occasionally hedonistic) artworks and the branding of artistic solitude as egotism being notable examples.

Cultivation of the soul being long forgotten, art had to be found a new purpose in order its proponents to be allowed public exposure and may be even the occasional public financing in this democratic and tolerant new world where immediate mass appeal and guaranteed financial return are the main criteria for usefulness.

Art resisted Joseph Beuys’ attempts from the 1960s to “widen the definition” and declare “every human being” an artist, because Beuys and other populists misjudged the historical and philosophical relationship of art to the individual as a microcosm of society. For the credit of the ‘average persons’ they were not fooled for long by Beuys’ convictions that universal human creativity is possible without cultura, i. e. without cultivation of the soul. They retained the lingering suspicion that much more needed for them to relate to art, namely culture.

In an age where non-conformism is frequently equated to selfishness being an aristocrat by spirit and promoting cultivation of the soul by means of art to anyone willing, is not only a test of courage, but also the responsibility of any individual who, daring to consider “culture as behaviour” as discussed by Bulgarian philosopher Alexander Fol, remembers that there is nothing more universal, nothing more conscientious and nothing more noble than striving for paideia.

Learning about teaching

"The Phonograph" 2008


I frequently get asked the question why I am doing a Doctorate in Music. The answer is always the same – I want to be hired to teach composition at a university level. “Why?” is the question which almost always follows the first one. I also have an answer ready – I actually love teaching.

Having a Doctorate seems to be the only requirement to obtain the dream teaching job at a university, professional success coming a distant second. The ability to communicate effectively your knowledge, let alone your wisdom, to the younger generation (also known as teaching), if considered, is frequently the very last issue to be taken into account, after the ‘people skills’ which the job applicant uses to entice his or her peers. If we ignore Aristotle’s statement that examples are not proofs, my above generalization can be disputed (albeit not easily), however one cannot deny that in the world of Academia, the single sheet of paper with the words “Doctor of Music” printed on it embodies the magical key which opens the Door to Good Salary…

… in North America, that is. In another world called Eastern Europe, University professors with multiple doctorates from multiple countries such as my parents, exist on the very bottom of the economic ladder. For this reason immediately after I decided to become a university professor, I had to reach another decision, namely, to wait until I am of age, and to emigrate.

I have been in music school since age five. At twenty-six I have matriculated in five music schools, graduated from three of them with five degrees in four majors, the Doctorate being the single degree I have not yet obtained. I have had eleven teachers in composition, at least ten in music history and thirteen in analysis. I have been through at least five different systems of music theory, the defendants of most claiming theirs was the only “right” one, therefore forgetting the semantics of the word and changing its meaning to “law”. This brief outline should give you an idea that there is nothing which can happen in a classroom or private lesson setting which can possibly surprise me.

My father has explained to me that one doesn’t go to school for learning per se. “If you want to learn”, he said, “you go to the library, you read a book, you learn. You don’t need a school for that. You go to school to learn about people, to meet people, to interact with people, to get a diploma in order to find a job, to network, to seek out professional opportunities. If people went to school to learn, most would have probably cared about learning and wouldn’t have been so uneducated.”

So I set myself the task to go to school to learn about teaching. I have observed my teachers very closely to learn what to do and what never, ever to do.

Since I was three years old, my nanny, Aunt Nezabravka, came to our house daily. She put my at the piano, she spoke to me in German, she taught me math by making little board games and reading music by drawing music staves in the snow. She came to our house for twelve years, even though for the last five we could not afford to pay her. From her I learned my first subconscious lesson about teaching: selflessness.

In 1994 I traveled with my then composition teacher, “A.” to Japan. Two works of mine were to be played by an orchestra in Tokyo. He was invited not only to coach me how to run a rehearsal, how and when to talk to the conductor, but also, to protect me, a thirteen-year old girl. “A” disappeared the day of my arrival. Later did I find out he stayed at the Bulgarian embassy and took care of his own works being published in Japan at the expenses of the event I was invited to. I did not see him again at that trip until Fate put us next to one another on the return flight to Europe. As I walked to my seat I began screaming in the plane “You are not a gentleman, you are not a good person, you are not a good teacher, and I never ever want to see you again!” Sitting silently next to this man for the next twelve hours I took the opportunity to draw my first conscious conclusions as to what defines a “good teacher” and to draft my first two rules:

1. Put the interests of the student before your own.

2. Never abandon your student in need.

I added more rules to these two when two years later I found myself with a piano teacher, “B”, who never came on time, never paid attention to what I was doing and interrupted my playing whenever she had to make or accept a phone call or whenever someone came in. Aunt Nezabravka had to become my chaperone to assure I wasn’t witnessing anything a child shouldn’t and that I at least did play through my repertoire. Rules 3-5 became as follows:

3. Show up on time.

4. Pay at least one hundred percent attention to the student.

5. Respect the sensitivity of younger people and children and don’t take advantage of them. They will realize it.

One incredible woman, pianist Milena Mollova, rescued me from “B”. Her dedication, passion and love for what she does not only rekindled my passion for making music, but also taught me one lesson about teaching, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized:

6. Make it personal.

It is personal, just as Michael Corleone said in “The Godfather”. Everything is personal. The illusion that there is a border between personal and professional can be maintained for good manners, but only when both parties realize that how personal the teaching-learning process is, how intense and how private the intellectual exchanges can be, can the true magic of learning take place. The really, really good teacher will care enough to invest the very best and very personal in the student and will take the successes and failures of the students very, very personally. Milena Mollova taught me a new level of caring.

I derived rule No. 7 from my solfège and music theory teacher for thirteen years, Rossitza Pravcheva. She taught me everything I know about ear training and developed all my skills. I only stopped lessons in 1999, right before I began my studies in the United States. Rule No. 7 states:

7. Always push your student to new horizons.

The most shining example of teaching genius that I have encountered, my mentor and hero Richard Cornell, the person whom I call “the Greatest Man Alive”, truly defined the Teacher with capital T for me. In 2000 his example revealed to me what defines a great teacher:

8. In a student-teacher relationship, everything, everything, and this truly means everything, must be about the student. The teacher’s side, the effort, the planning, the thought, the risks, the sacrifices, must remain unspoken.

Richard Cornell gave me as many composition lessons per week as I ever cared to request, even if the request came by phone at midnight for the following morning. My requests were shamelessly selfish; my hunger for more and more lessons grew unsatisfying; This man didn’t flinch at my obsessive desire to learn everything there is ever to learn in the shortest possible amount of time at the expense of his time: he was not offended when I called my homework “insultingly easy” and when I openly manipulated him into giving me extra lessons by doing extra work. He taught me three independent studies, defended and promoted my works sometimes at immense detriment for himself, and supported me in every academic and professional endeavor, composition-related or not. I think about him every single time I am about to teach. Studying with Richard Cornell taught me everything I wanted to know about the kind of teacher and the kind of person I wanted to be.

Nobody was ever to match up to Richard Cornell, but ever since, I did add a couple of teaching rules to my list.

Rule 3, revised: Show up, period. Even if it is simply to say “I am sorry, we can’t meet today” or “I am so sorry I kept you waiting.” If you don’t show up thrice in a row your young student may begin to feel devastated, heartbroken and abandoned (see Rule No. 2).

9. Don’t underestimate your student. They may know much more than you dare to assume.

10. Don’t say to the student “You won’t understand”. If the student doesn’t understand it is usually because the teacher explains well. A good teacher will change the nature of presentation to make it understandable for students.

11. Don’t constantly try oh-so-hard to impress your student. The student will think you are pitiful and it only makes you look stupid.

12. Don’t call you student’s region of origin “under-developed countries”. It may actually not be true.

13. Don’t say that composing is a man’s job in a mixed-gender class. The younger generation is less sexist and would stop trusting you. Forever.

14. Come prepared to class. While it is possible to improvise in a beginner’s level class, a class full of Doctoral students will know you didn’t prepare.

15. When a student sends you an e-mail with questions, reply to the questions instead of sending an e-mail back correcting their English and not replying to the questions. This one doesn’t need explanations, I think.

McGill University has given me an incredible opportunity to apply the lessons I have learned about teaching, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to teach regularly since 2004. And while the Door to Good Salary is still firmly closed I am allowed to peak through the keyhole. McGill University has also given me the opportunity to learn about the incredible amount of red tape associated with teaching. The staggering amount of bureaucracy, invisible to students, can exhaust even the most enthusiastic teacher.

McGill’s teaching contract consists of a single letter-sized page listing the course number, the course title and the amount which the instructor is to receive. McGill does not inform first-time instructors about their rights and responsibilities, and does not provide any information about health insurance, school regulations and requirements. The lonely sheet, which is my teaching contract, lists six rules “Ancillary duties” (SIC!!!), among them attending instructor’s meetings and abiding by all Schulich School and University regulations. Navigating through the red tape implied by these seemingly harmless points has proven a Herculean task, as McGill University does not volunteer any of the information which is necessary for following the above instructions and it only surfaces when a seemingly small contradiction develops into an enormous problem. I am not surprised that many long-term university professors become indifferent to what becomes essentially a bureaucratic day job for them. It is easy to lose the poetical and philosophical meaning of Teaching in the day-to-day troubles.

Teaching remains a vocation, a calling for selected inspired persons who are willing to selflessly commit themselves to the guidance of students. Lighting the flame of knowledge cannot simply be achieved by simple dispersing of information; rather it requires the magic touch of a person enlightened in mind and noble in spirit, a person who can assist the student to discover their inner self and their calling. I consider myself extremely fortunate and honoured to have had two true teachers: Richard Cornell and John Harbison.

The teacher – the person, who leads

(originally published in the mid 90s in Bulgarian; translated in the mid 90s)

A meandering worldly diagram, which The Homo sapiens-sapiens, after 50,000 years of its being, begins timidly to call a hoarded experience, is perceived by everyone as a twinkling path of knowledge. Some student who has suffered from examinations, could humorously characterize its disseminators, naming them teachers, without conjecturing to put them in one and the same melting pot with the delused propagandists, the bigoted adventurers and et cetera picturesque characters, who sprinkle – consciously or unconsciously – not less knowledge around themselves than these, practicing the teaching profession.

But the above-mentioned disseminators must be considered only as bearers of something, seen through and achieved by others, more raised up – by the bearers of the cognition, i. e., by the being able to designate the essence.

Of course each of us, if being asked, could produce with a certain mental endeavour a projection of his or her ideal image of the Teacher, – with a capital T – which is most often a complex hologram of implanted dogmatic-didactic elements and of a personal experience from the tender, that is to say, from the most impressionable age. This kind vision becomes gradually garnished with more and more incredible and dumbfounded details, thanks to the insisting gaze of the interviewer, until converted into a monstrous chimera, from which the legs of the average schoolmaster fail, and because of which s/he – gloomier and gloomier – starts to drive out his/her inferiority complexes over his/her unhappy dependents.

By saying “an average schoolmaster”, of course I have the European typified, more often badly paid, information-sellers in mind who, either by the heading of “curious facts”, or under the section “mandatory axioms”, foist on the youth their school check ups, and often – dexterously or not –their convictions.

The unexpected for the Homo sapiens-sapiens necessity of such impersonal teaching subjects deteriorated in Europe even their social status, which remained practically unaltered, even degraded, down the ages – from the loose sophists in Ancient Greece, throughout the educated slaves in the Roman Empire, the “flunkeys” from the Middle Ages, the pseudo-philosophers of the Renaissance, that much to the today’ s civil servants… No wonder that the original idea of interpersonal contact and spiritual influence is on its way to be entirely ousted by the interactive computer technologies and by Internet – the necessity of individualism, brought up by the pedagogues by vocation, isn’t especially pleasurable to the rulers of the contemporary consumer world. And notwithstanding nowadays each so called civilized country is tortured to this electronic pressure, the antitheses oblige us to mention the recent practice in Asia the students to search for their teachers, who, as hermits, philosophers, scholars, haven’t led themselves by financial or other material benefits when teaching.

I could now jump as a vortex to describe and to interpret the necessary qualities of the teacher – the unearthing of endowments, self-upbringing staminas, self-control, acting gifts, i. e. his or her pedagogical aptitudes – and thus to create my own variant of the hologram, for which I mentioned above. But this would be superfluous, because all these indisputably important talents, dosed and weight with imaginary measuring flasks till the hundredth of the millimeter, would have been worthless without the presence of a strong personality who wield them.

Because precisely the Personality is who makes the system, the process, the upbringing, the teaching and, ultimately, mould consciously or not a new personality through his or her indermediation between her and the cognition. If the teacher is dexterous, s/he is valuable… But if s/he is an artiste with all his/hers positive and negative queernesses, and morally strong, s/he is inestimable.

I give prominence to morally strong. Why? Because being an artiste means to emanate Energy, to create, and to influence the others consciously or not. And noone, least a featureless and a book moralist, who does not possess it, has the right to judge the designations, to which this capability is subjugated. That is to say, that if you possess this Energy and are able to control it, you have endowments for being a Teacher. The point is, that from the artistes, from these perceived, but not attained the cognition initiated persons, only a few can be Teachers. Because not everyone has the strength to meet the positive answer of the question “Can my student surpass me? Will s/he become better?” The artiste could not accept the philosophy of Nitsche, to hasten up the thorny way of the cognition and to forsake his/her student to get lost. Then the lost may die, but his/her spiritual death will not recline on the consciousness of the instructor, because the same has proved not being a Teacher.

But the Student may self-find himself. And may never forgive.

Democratic Art?

(originally published in the mid 90s in Bulgarian; translated in the mid 90s)

It seems, that there does not exist a greater etymological absurdity than that of the combination of words “Democratic Art”, because it combines two incompatible ideas. It brings down the wonderful notion of art from an index of a supreme spiritual lift-up to an indication for sensitive expression of esthetic norm, which “the Demos”, that is to say the people has gladly accepted.

The combination of words in question has been purposefully created during the European Renaissance ever sins the problem of who creates what bears its existence. Ever after the aristocracy by origin and by spirit regenerated and even gave birth everything it thought necessary with the help of the Classical Antiquity, thus creating the modern European culture, the parvenus “by origin and by spirit”, led by their inferiority complexes and cupidity for nobility, headlong rushed into its elbow-room, invading cultural milieu with pseudo-patronage, expressed in stimulating overproduction of mediocrity.

Well entrenched in building-up national markets during the 19th century, the above mentioned influential nouveaux-riches, not yet turned into over national and even over continental monopolists, began selling art as consumer´s goods.

As they were intelligent enough not to rely that the peacefully vegetating and expecting the forthcoming revolution, “little people” would rush into creating aspiration for beauty, as well as by their just anger for being in information blackout concerning the masterpieces of the epoch, the tradesmen decided to turn them into an audience with the necessary consummation efficiency.

That is the way at galleries, concert halls and theaters became the arena of skillful managers, artists, impatient to wait for their glory post mortem, as well as urging hungry inventors of scores and texts, who altogether zealously undertook to make art easily accessible. Fortunately the creators, i.e. called upon by God, did not fool themselves by betraying their inspiration, turning their works into a conveyor production, but this does not change the fact, that during the “fruitful” 19th century the general conviction into “the open door” strengthens: one walks into the street and comes upon a poster, starts reading profoundly or not, says to himself/herself “Look here”, buys a ticket, takes a seat either in the theater or in the opera hall and gives a judgment about the performance being worth (a genius masterpiece) or not worth (pure junk).
Ever since then till the present day the spiritual degradation had gone so far, that the so called simple people have completely loss their ability of trembling up with emotion when confronted by the Creation. Due to the commercialization, even the folklore stopped moving the descendants of its creators, who consider it at best as “folk-art”.

After banality cut off human antennas, which could perceive messages of music, speech and hues and even made the epic song look like “chalga”, one should note be surprised, when throngs remain numb in front of a concrete pillar, covered with stickers, and at the some time callously overlook an exquisite wood-carving. Therefore I think that the quantitative accumulation – both directly and indirectly – leads not so much to qualitative changes but, to changes in the criteria. Having in mind that this basic dialectical law can easily be manipulated in the so called spiritual sphere, vanguardism at all cost, in order to hide that it is merely a “pseudo”- uses the focus of gigantism, i.e. the play of dimension.

The above mentioned wood-carving and the like, which fortunately are created, cherish the hope that Inspiration is immortal. Certainly, when the central heating is switched off at that at the Era of Internet, craftsmanship is under the threat of turning into a habit at the background of the play of dimensions of the sex-bombs and this habit – into a routine which denotes death.

The most dangerous thing is that the inherited rule from the 19th century, which read that everybody could pass on judgments, today is being circulated with computer speed and looks out for reincarnating the writer, the painter and the architect into a scribbler, a dauber and a builder, and the one, without whom they cannot create for the onlooker-contemplator is provided with a consumer-basket in which to put according to the income food product.

It is unrealistic and ridiculous to look around with the hope to be hold to catch a glimpse of the creator in the idealized image of a financially well provided for Bohemian or of an absent-minded and disheveled enigmatic old lady. The Creator can look for his/her truth under the mask of a hasty civil servant or a lonely teenager. This does not by any chance change the intransigence of Art, because it, similar to truth, is beautiful, because of being eternal.

And the Eternal is accessible and comprehensible only for a few.

L’artiste et son milieu géographique

L’idée du « goût » musicale en Europe n’adresse pas le goût personnel de l’individu, mais un idéal sur-musicale qui souligne l’identité nationale d’un compositeur et son rôle réel ou imaginaire dans la société.

Quand Schönberg inventa le méthode dodécaphonique il dit : « J’inventai un méthode qui assura la dominance de la musique allemande pour le prochain siècle. » Il fut conscient de son rôle de représentant de l’intelligentsia allemande et, en effet, de son rôle de quelqu’un qui VIT l’histoire comme un de ses créateurs, et ne l’observe pas simplement à distance comme témoin.

En Europe aujourd’hui le modernisme, un dernier rejeton l’expressionisme qui fut un dernier rejeton du nationalisme attend que Ferneyhough meure. Évidemment, l'influence de Stockhausen, le roi de Darmstadt, continuera pour un beau temps – comme chaque tradition européene, – mais c’est Ferneyhough, nommé « le dernier moderniste », qui décrit meilleur le fait que la plupart d’Europe ne réussit pas à dépasser le 20eme siècle à l’heure comme Carter le fit deux fois dans sa vie jusqu’à date.

N’ayant un sense d’appartenance culturele qui a résister les tests du temps, et en chérchant une telle appartenance consciemment ou inconsciemment, les compositeurs des Amériques remplacent fréquemment leurs nécessitées artistiques héritées d’Europe en attribuant les idées philosophiques – réels ou imaginaires – à leurs oeuvres. Parfois ils attribuent une différente idée artistique à chanque oeuvre – un signe claire qu’ils manquent un objectif de long terme, mais aussi une manière de se réinventer et de stimuler leurs imagination d’une façon inimaginable pour leurs collègues d’Europe.

L’idée d’une « école » musicale peut fleurir en Europe plutôt qu’en Amérique, où l’individualisme regne suprême. Aujourd’hui l’education musicale en Europe se trouve à la fin du modernisme qui sera éradiqué par le décès de Ferneyhough. L’éducation en musique en Europe n’a pas produit l’idée d’un doctorat. L’idée d’une diplôme universitaire en musique à l’exterieur des conservatoires traditionnelles fut née à Boston University et l’idée d’un doctorat – à Princeton. Une education universitaire invite une ouverture d’esprit et une égalité en ce qui concenre l’admission d’idées qui est très difficile à trouver en Europe, où l’histoire de la musique dépend du dévelopment des idées liées à l’identité nationale vues par le prisme de la comprehension individuelle concernant la culture (paideia) locale.

On n’a pas besoin de s’inquieter des compositeurs et artistes moyens qui observent l’histoire comme témoins sans la vivre en écrivant de la musique qui reste indescernable de celle écrite par leurs compatriotes. Ils restent des artistes moyens, comme la plupart des représententes d’une société restent moyens, i. e., « typiques ». Une grande partie d’eux écrira seulement de Gebrauchtsmusik (des séries, des sonnérie téléphoniques, des jeux d’ordinateur, musac, etc.) la solution de carrière géniale de Satie et de Hindemith concernant tout le monde qui apprend comment composer de musique générique aux conservatoires en payant es hauts frais pour le service qui couvrent les salaires des professeurs.

Malheureusement dans le milieu d’art l’offre dépasse la demande. Cependant, si on cherche à l’intérieur, on trouvera une demande qui ne pourra jamais être dépassée par l’offre. C’est une demande qui se nourrit de la nécessité interne d’un artiste à écrire comme un acte de volonté libre, un acte qui exprime une vision de la spiritualité. Chaque oeuvre est un testament de cette volonté, une acte d’affirmation contre un monde qui lutte quotidiennement pour préserver sa spiritualité. C’est elle qui nous fait humains.

Alors, nous avons une bonne raison de rester optimistes.