On Eco

Umberto Ecos essay, The Poetics of the Open Work, written in 1959, offers one an
aesthetical critique of particular musical compositions, in particular, their forms, and postulates
that each work of art is intrinsically informed by the scientific, and cultural, views of reality,
iven a particular work of arts respective time, and place, within history! Eco puts forth that,
throuhout history, there has been a tendency towards developin forms of musical compositions
that promote an increasin level of autonomy in reards to the performer"s# reali$ation, or
audiences interpretation, of a iven composition! %hrouhout his essay, Eco considers
compositions from &arlhein$ 'tockhausen, (uciano )erio, *enri +ousseur, and +ierre )oule$!
%his paper will discuss how Eco formulates his notion of the ,open work-, how the influence of
scientific and cultural factors inform these types of composition, provide a critique on elements
of the essay itself, and, as well, offer a eneral analysis of how current scientific, and cultural,
trends are informin todays compositional practices!
.irst, it is important to note the relation between a compositions interpretation and its
reali$ation, or performance, and how these ideas correspond to a particular compositions sense
of what aesthetic theorists refer to as a works sense of completeness and openness
1
! %he notion
of completeness, as put forth by Eco, refers to the condition in which ,we see it as the end
product of an authors effort to arrane a sequence of communicative effects in such a way that
each individual addressee can refashion the oriinal composition devised by the author-
/
! %his
notion of completeness, as well, entails the notion of a compositions preservation of particular
1
Ecos notion of a work bein ,open- varies from the term, ,openness-, bein discussed above!
%houh to avoid any confusion, the ,classical- conception of ,openness- "and ,completeness-#
must be discussed before handlin Ecos notion of the term!
2
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
1
characteristics, as desired by the composer! ,%he author presents a finished product with the
intention that this particular composition should be appreciated and received in the same form as
he devised it!-
=
%his act of preservin particular features within a composition is essential in
definin, and distinuishin, a composition as an individuated piece of art! 1ithout the
preservation of particular characteristics within a composition, however vaue, it is impossible to
consider said composition, in fact, to be an aesthetically valid work of art! One should conceive
of the notion of validity, in reards to aesthetics, as the notion of an artist followin a set of
principles, loical functions, or uidelines, in order to achieve a desired aesthetic result! %hus the
,piece of art- that fails to preserve definin characteristics, via some sort of inherent uideline, is
equivalent to a meaninless statement, and in the case of sound, noise! 1ith this conception of
aesthetic validity in mind, Eco puts for that ,the form of the work of art ains its aesthetic
validity precisely in proportion to the number of different perspectives from which it can be
viewed and understood-
>
! *ere Eco is touchin upon the notion of interpretation, or the
openness, in which one can approach the reali$ation of a composition and ,supply his own
e4istential credentials, the sense conditionin which is peculiarly his own, a defined culture, a set
of tastes, and pre?udices-
5
, whilst the composition achieves a ,wealth of different resonances and
echoes without impairin its oriinal essence@-
<
! %his condition e4plains how one is able to
3
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
4
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
5
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
6
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
2
listen to countless recordins of a )eethoven symphony, with all of the numerous, varyin,
interpretations, and still reconi$e it as a work of )eethoven!
,2 work of art, therefore, is a complete and closed form in its
uniqueness as balanced oranic whole, while at the same time
constitutin an open product on account of its susceptibility to
countless different interpretations which do not impine on its
unadulterable specificity! *ence every reception of a work of art is
both an interpretation and a performance of it, because in every
reception the work takes on a fresh perspective for itself!-
A
6ow that the classical notions of completeness and openness, as held by aesthetic theorists,
have been discussed, we will now consider Ecos nuanced notion of the ,open work-, and how
particular ,open- compositions are relative to the particular scientific, and cultural, view of the
world durin the time in which they were formulated! Eco beins his essay by considerin
&arlhein$ 'tockhausens Klavierstck XI, composed in 195<. 1ithin Klavierstck XI
'tockhausen presents the performer with nineteen musical framents placed upon one lare sheet
of paper! %he performer is instructed to start the piece by performin any of the musical
framents heBshe wishes to bein with! .rom here, the performer is, as well, indicated to proress
throuh the piece by successively performin the remainin eihteen framents in any order that
heBshe wishes! ,9n this type of performance, the instrumentalists freedom is a function of the
,combinative- structure of the piece, which allows him to ,mount- the sequence of musical units
in the order he chooses-!
C
%he ne4t composition Eco touches upon is (uciano )erios Seqen!a
for solo flte! )erio provides the performer with a piece of te4t that indicates a predetermined
sequence of the sounds to be performed, as well as, indications for varyin ,intensities- to be
7
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
8
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<C
3
applied in performin said sounds! 1hile the performer is bound to a particular sequential
e4ecution of sound events, the performer is iven the freedom to perform particular notes for as
lon as they wish!
Eco continues by considerin the piece Scam"i, an electroacoustic e4ample, composed by
*enri +ousseur in 195A! Scam"i, or translated as #$chan%es, is partitioned into si4teen sections
of tape! +ousseur instructs that the si4teen sections of tape are to be linked toether in any
fashion one wishes! +osseuer offers this note8 ,Scam"i is not so much a musical composition as a
field of possi"ilities, an e4plicit invitation to e4ercise choice-
9
!
.ollowin Scam"i, Eco considers the Third Sonata for piano, composed by +ierre )oule$
from 1955D195A! )oule$s piece is comprised of five sections that each e4hibit there own rules
for how the performer is naviate each particular section! Eco only touches upon the first two
sections of the Third Sonata for piano. %he first section, &ormant I' (ntiphonie, is comprised of
ten separate pieces written upon ten separate sheets of paper! )oule$ instructs that performer is
allowed to arrane the ten separate pieces! %houh )oule$ indicates that not all of the possible
permutations are permitted! %he second section, &ormant II' Trope, presents the performer with
four framents "Te$t, Parenthesis, )ommentar*, and +loss#! 1ithin this section the performer is
free to bein on any of the four framents! %houh )oule$ indicates that )ommentar* must be
performed directly before or after +loss! Eco notes that within the frament Parenthesis, the
performer is allowed to e4ercise the most freedom in interpretation, in which there are frequent
rests that can be held for indeterminate lenths of time! )oule$, as well, places restrictions upon
the manner in which the performer is to naviate between each section with indications, such as,
sans retenir and enchainer sans interrption!
9
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and 5aniel
1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<C
4
2fter presentin the unique feature of the works discussed above, Eco then considers how
these works, containin various elements of indeterminacy, are diverent from the forms of the
,timeDhonored- precursory compositions! Eco beins this analysis by considerin more
traditional compositions, such as, a )ach fuue, Eerdis (ida, or 'travinskys ,ite of Sprin%. 2ll
three of these compositions are e4amples in which there is ,an assemblae of sound units which
the composer arraned in a closed, wellDdefined manner before presentin it to the listener@
which more or less oblie the eventual performer to reproduce the format devised by the
composer -
1;
! %he compositions of 'tockhausen et al!, as put forth by Eco, ,re?ect the definitive,
concluded messae and multiply the formal possibilities of their elements-
11
! 9t is this kind of
plasticity of the constituents of a composition that is essential in formulation of Ecos notion of
the ,open work-! ,%hey appeal to the initiative of the individual performer, and hence they offer
themselves, not as finite works which prescribe specific repetition alon iven structural
coordinates, but as ,open- works, which are brouht to their conclusion by the performer at the
same time as he e4periences them on an aesthetic plane!-
1/
%his notion of openness, Eco claims,
is one that is more ,tanible-! Eco claims that the works previously discussed are ,quite literally
unfinished8 the author seems to hand them on to the performer more or less like the components
of a construction kit-! %houh one miht now be inclined to ask8 is this condition is really that
much different from the relation of one receivin parts to a score in preparation for a
performanceF %his raises questions of when one ouht to consider a musical composition
completed! 9s the ink on the paper showin the double barDline sufficient in bein considered
10
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<C
11
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<C
12
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<CD1<9
5
complete, or is the completion sufficed only throuh performanceF One may even claim,
perhaps, that it is only throuh auditory perception that one fulfills the completion of a
composition! Ecos use of the term ,unfinished- in this case hihlihts an interestin condition,
in which certain characteristics are thouht of as bein a ,"%- in one system, and featre within
another! .or e4ample, a lack of e4plicit tempi, dynamics, determinate duration, or static
structure, would be inherently nonsensical to a lare amount of past musical aesthetic practices
1=
!
%houh in the case of the compositions of )erio, 'tockhausen, +ousseur, et al!, these are
necessary to the conception of the desired aesthetic result! .rom here, Eco provides an historical
analysis of how these types of compositions have come to e4ist!
,%his is a loose and parado4ical interpretation of the phenomena,
but the most immediately strikin aspect of these musical forms can
lead to this kind of uncertainty, althouh the very fact of our
uncertainty is itself a positive feature8 it invites us to consider -h*
the contemporary artist feels the need to work in this kind of
direction, to try to work out what historical evolution of aesthetic
sensibility led up to it and which factors in modern culture
reinforced it!-
1>
9n providin an historical analysis, Eco beins by considerin the medieval artist8 ,%he closed,
sinle conception in a work by a medieval artist reflected the conception of the cosmos as a
hierarchy of fi4ed, preordained orders-!
15
Eco, as well, puts forth that the developments in
symbolic loic durin the Giddle 2es contributed to aesthetic developments in music!
,%he work as pedaoical vehicle, as a monocentric and necessary
apparatus "incorporatin a riid internal pattern of meter and
rhymes# simply reflects the sylloistic system, a loic of necessity, a
deductive consciousness by way of which reality could be made
13
9t is important to note that a lack of said features is seen within ancient music and even in
more recent eras, such as, the Henaissance, and the )aroque "thouh less frequently#!
14
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1<9
15
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A;
6
manifest step by step@proceedin from the first principles of
science which were seen as one and the same with principles of
reality!-
1<
One may claim that this aesthetic durin the Giddle 2es, with its use of a ,necessary apparatus-
and unidirectional motion, was, perhaps, directly informed by the 2ristotelian notion of nature
e4hibitin an intrinsic telos, as well! %houh within the )aroque, 2ristotelian worldviews bean
to dissolve durin rise of the era of Enlihtenment! ,%he openness and dynamism of the )aroque
mark, in fact, the advent of a new scientific awareness8 the substitution of the tactile by the
visal "meanin that the sub?ective element comes to prevail@- *ere one can assume that Eco
must be referrin to the scientific developments of those, such as, Iohannes &epler and :alileo,
and their findins based upon optically derived data of heavenly bodies! %he 2ristotelian notion
of substance bean to dissolve with rise of empiricism, and the emphasis on an ob?ects essence
shifted to particular descriptive attributes about the ob?ect! %hus placin an importance on the
observer, and the sub?ective e4perience! ,On the one hand, by ivin up the essential focusin
center of the composition and the prescribed point of view for its viewer, aesthetic innovations
were in fact mirrorin the 3opernican vision of the universe-! %his shift away from the
eocentric worldview, no loner placin man holdin as the center of the universe, Eco claims,
resulted in an aesthetic in which ,component parts are all endowed with equal value and dinity,
and the whole construct e4pands toward a totality@9t shares a eneral ure toward discovery and
constantly renewed contact with reality-
1A
! Upon offerin an analysis of the historical conditions
that formed the )aroque aesthetic, Eco then shifts towards an analysis of the conditions that have
informed the ,open works-!
16
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A;
17
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A;
7
9n his analysis of the socioDscientific conditions of the formulation of the ,open work-, Eco
first beins by considerin the lanuae, or poetics, that is used in the description of ,open
work- characteristics, and how they relate the scientific worldview of their time! One must keep
in mind while readin The Poetics of the Open Work, Eco wrote this essay only around thirty
years after the advent of quantum mechanics, and, not far after the formulation of Einsteins
theorems, and is for the most part referrin to scientific concepts relative to physics, and how
they relate to the aesthetic of the time! )y considerin a literary counterpart, Eco refers to the
fact that in literary criticism the mention of a spatiotemporal continuum is often used when
referrin to works of Iames Ioyce! .urther, Eco touches upon how +ousseur referred to his
composition Scam"i as a ,field of possibilities-!
,%he notion of ,field- is provided by physics and implies a revised vision of
the classic relationship posited between cause an effect as a riid, one
directional system8 now a comple4 interplay of motive forces is envisaed, a
confiuration of possible events, a complete dynamism of structure!-
1C
%he findins within quantum physics, such as the discontinuity of motion e4hibited by
subatomic particles, and the inherent element of indeterminacy in measurin particle motion,
Eco claims, has undoubtedly been steeped into world culture! 9n reards to ones eneral
perception of an ,open work-, Eco puts forth8 ,+erhaps it is no accident that these poetic
systems emere at the same time as complementarit*, which rules that it is not possible to
indicate the different behavior patterns of an elementary particle simultaneously-
19
! %he
inability to conceive of all the possible e4pressions of an ,open work- is, perhaps, an essential
feature to be preserved! 1hile ,open works- are certainly informed by the realm of quantum
physics, Eco claims that Einsteinian physics is, as well, an informant! 9n reards to special
18
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A;
19
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A1
8
relativity, Eco states8 ,%he multiple polarity of a serial composition, where the listener is not
faced by an absolute conditionin center of reference, requires him to constitute his own system
of auditory relationships-
/;
!
%hrouhout The Poetics of the Open Work, Eco has provided numerous e4amples of how
particular scientific worldviews have an informed aesthetics, and in particular, compositional
structures! %houh what e4actly is the worldview informin the compositions of todayF
Juantum physics remains in virtually the same state as when the theories were developed, and
while there have certainly been enormous proressions in the development of new technoloies,
we have not had any truly novel discovery that alters the eneral view of the universe! %houh
one may arue that the recent discovery of the *isDboson is the supplement to this void of
discovery! *owever, it is too recent to tell what will come of it, and there certainly has not been
a substantial body of musical compositions, other than the few e4ample of data sonification, that
appear to be informed by the implications of this new discovery! 9 claim that what is informin a
vast amount of music, or art in eneral, at this current place in time, is not what our eneral
universal worldview is anymore! %his is not to undermine the obvious scientific advances that
have been made, in reards to various sciences! *owever, it is not very hard to defend the fact
that there has been a lack of novel discoveries that have radically altered our perception of the
universe, and thus drastically chanin aesthetical practices in the manner Eco describes!
%houh what certainly has informed aesthetical practices is the development of new
technoloies, and most notably, the computer! One does not have to research very hard to see
how the computer has become an essential tool for creatin compositions within the twentieth
and twentyDfirst centuries! 9n reards to compositional forms, the computer has allowed
20
Umberto Eco, 0%he +oetics of the Open 1ork- in 2udio 3ulture, ed! 3hristoph 3o4 and
5aniel 1arner "6ew 7ork8 3ontinuum 9nternational +ublishin :roup 9nc!, /;;5#, 1A/
9
composers to create compositions that e4press forms that could not have e4isted otherwise!
3onsider Kenakis works usin his '% alorithm, or 5avid 3opes implementation of chaotic
equations applied to musical parameters! 1hile these e4amples could be reali$ed by hand, the
composer miht never live to complete such works while maintainin a true aesthetical validity!
9n these instances, reali$ation truly requires the assistance of a computer! .urthermore,
composers now have the ability create pieces in which the form is dictated by the interaction
between a performer and a computer, runnin a proram created by the composer that
,responds- to the performer via acoustic input, touch, or even liht! +erhaps this interaction
with the artificial, manDmade, world is what will now dictate the new aesthetic, as opposed to
the discovery of a new natural law, if there is any left!
10