PDA

View Full Version : Food for Thought - Bertolt Brecht


bazookajoeshow
Jun 25th, 2005, 05:30 PM
Continuing a discussion on alternative ways of approaching ways of doig podcasts, I present to you an essay on radio by Bertolt Brecht.

The Radio as an Apparatus of Communication
By Bertolt Brecht; July 1932

In our society one can invent and perfect discoveries that still have to conquer their market and justify their existence; in other words discoveries that have not been called for. Thus there was a moment when technology was advanced enough to produce the radio and society was not yet advanced enough to accept it. The radio was then in its first phase of being a substitute: a substitute for theatre, opera, concerts, lectures, cafe music, local newspapers and so forth. This was the patient's period of halcyon youth. I am not sure if it is finished yet, but if so then this stripling who needed no certificate of competence to be born will have to start looking retrospectively for an object in life. Just as a man will begin asking at a certain age, when his first innocence has been lost, what he is supposed to be doing in the world.

As for the radio's object, I don't think it can consist simply in prettifying public life. Nor is radio in my view an adequate means of bringing back cosiness to the home and making family life bearable again. But quite apart from the dubiousness of its functions, radio is one-sided when it should be two-. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out. So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes. That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as to transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him. On this principle the radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers. Any attempt by the radio to give a truly public character to public occasions is a step in the right direction.

Whatever the radio sets out to do it must strive to combat that lack of consequences which makes such asses of almost all our public institutions. We have a literature without consequences, which not only itself sets out to lead nowhere, but does all it can to neutralize its readers by depicting each object and situation stripped of the consequences to which they lead. We have educational establishments without consequences, working frantically to hand on an education that leads nowhere and has come from nothing.

The slightest advance in this direction is bound to succeed far more spectacularly than any performance of a culinary kind. As for the technique that needs to be developed for all such operations, it must follow the prime objective of turning the audience not only into pupils but into teachers. It is the radio's formal task to give these educational operations an interesting turn, i.e. to ensure that these interests interest people. Such an attempt by the radio to put its instruction into an artistic form would link up with the efforts of modern artists to give art an instructive character. As an example or model of the exercises possible along these lines let me repeat the explanation of Der Flug der Lindberghs that I gave at the Baden-Baden music festival of 1929.

In obedience to the principle that the State shall be rich and man shall be poor, that the State shall be obliged to have many possibilities and man shall be allowed to have few possibilities, where music is concerned the State shall furnish whatever needs special apparatus and special abilities; the individual, however, shall furnish an exercise. Free-roaming feelings aroused by music, special thoughts such as may be entertained when listening to music, physical exhaustion such as easily arises just from listening to music, are all distractions from music. To avoid these distractions the individual shares in the music, thus obeying the principle that doing is better than feeling, by following the music with his eyes as printed, and contributing the parts and places reserved for him by singing them for himself or in conjunction with others (school class).

Der Flug der Lindberghs is not intended to be of use to the present-day radio but to alter it. The increasing concentration of mechanical means and the increasingly specialized training-tendencies that should be accelerated- call for a kind of resistance by the listener, and for his mobilization and redrafting as a producer.

This exercise is an aid to discipline, which is the basis of freedom. The individual will reach spontaneously for a means to pleasure, but not for an object of instruction that offers him neither profit nor social advantages. Such exercises only serve the individual in so far as they serve the State,a nd they only serve a State that wishes to serve all men equally. Thus Der Flug der Lindberghs has no aesthetic and no revolutionary value independently of its application, and only the State can organize this. Its proper application, however, makes it so 'revolutionary' that the present-day State has no interest in sponsoring such exercises.

This is an innovation, a suggestion that seems utopian and that I myself admit to be utopian. When I say that the radio or the theatre 'could' do so-and-so I am aware that these vast institutions cannot do all they 'could', and not even all they want.

But it is not at all our job to renovate ideological institutions on the basis of the existing social order by means of innovations. Instead our innovations must force them to surrender that basis. So: For innovations, against renovation!

['Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat' in Bjitter des Hessischen Landestheaters Darmstadt, No. 16, July 1932]

Bazooka Joe

mental-escher
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:15 PM
The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes.

That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as to transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him.

On this principle the radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers. Any attempt by the radio to give a truly public character to public occasions is a step in the right direction.

Replace "radio" for audiocasting, videocasting, or blogging and the potential for this realization is at hand... however- the old saying rings true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. Participatory social contructs assume willing and constructive participation.

bazookajoeshow
Jun 25th, 2005, 06:58 PM
That's a very good point.

Open Podcast is a great forum for people to exchange views and opinions via podcast but so far all I've heard is either people promoting shows, posting hsows, or blasting shows or previous messages. So far I haven't heard any evidence of civil discourse. On the other hand, I haven't made any effort in experimenting with this new medium in this fashion.

Tie for me to gather my thoughts and give it a shot. Anyone else?

Bazooka Joe


Replace "radio" for audiocasting, videocasting, or blogging and the potential for this realization is at hand... however- the old saying rings true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. Participatory social contructs assume willing and constructive participation.

Hittman
Jun 25th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Continuing a discussion on alternative ways of approaching ways of doig podcasts, I present to you an essay on radio by Bertolt Brecht.

Interesting conversation starter, but he makes some assumptions that I don't think hold up.
But quite apart from the dubiousness of its functions, radio is one-sided when it should be two-. It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out.

This is not a bad thing. Socrates talks to us, we can't talk to Socrates. Mark Twain speaks to us, we can't speak to Mark Twain. Most art forms are one way – one person (or group of people) creates, the audience consumes. It's that way because that's what most people want.

Improv is interactive, involving suggestions from the audience, and in some cases people from the audience participating in a bit. If .025% of the people in my area going to the movies on any given night would go to an Improv show instead, we could pack a huge theater every night, and make a very good living at it. Instead, we're content to pack a small theater once a month. The two other troupes in the area do the same. Most people don't want their entertainment two-way. They want to sit back and be entertained. That's not good or bad, it just is.

So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes. That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as to transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him. On this principle the radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers. Any attempt by the radio to give a truly public character to public occasions is a step in the right direction.

It's been done. There are two examples of it, CB radio, and HAM radio. CB radio is a vast wasteland – it's just pathetic. HAM requires considerable technical skill and knowledge, so the participants are much more intelligent, but the "programming" consists mostly of people discussing their local weather and, of course, HAM radio.

The slightest advance in this direction is bound to succeed far more spectacularly than any performance of a culinary kind. As for the technique that needs to be developed for all such operations, it must follow the prime objective of turning the audience not only into pupils but into teachers. It is the radio's formal task to give these educational operations an interesting turn, i.e. to ensure that these interests interest people. Such an attempt by the radio to put its instruction into an artistic form would link up with the efforts of modern artists to give art an instructive character. As an example or model of the exercises possible along these lines let me repeat the explanation of Der Flug der Lindberghs that I gave at the Baden-Baden music festival of 1929.

Education and entertainment are two different things. It is possible to make education entertaining, and some entertainment can be instructive, but for the most part mixing them together results in a product that is neither educational or entertaining. Some brilliant entertainment can alter your view of the world, but that's rare.

This is an innovation, a suggestion that seems utopian and that I myself admit to be utopian. When I say that the radio or the theatre 'could' do so-and-so I am aware that these vast institutions cannot do all they 'could', and not even all they want.

Not only could they do this (make it two way) they have done it. It's out there and available for anyone who wants it.

Unfortunately, not too many people do.

Podcasting is just another one-way art form. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the ease of entry and distribution, the fact that virtually anyone can do it, changes that. Even if we were to hold a conversation with it (I do a podcast directed to you, you do one in reply) it's still one way.

But it is not at all our job to renovate ideological institutions on the basis of the existing social order by means of innovations. Instead our innovations must force them to surrender that basis. So: For innovations, against renovation!

Our job is whatever we choose it to be. If we want to change the world (good luck) that can be our job. If we're only looking to amuse ourselves, that's a legitimate job description. If we want to inform, or entertain, or outrage, or whatever, that's up to us. But it still doesn't change the simple, obvious fact – this, like most all other art forms, is one way communication.

And that's what most people want, and there ain't nothin' wrong with that.

bazookajoeshow
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Keep in mind that Brecht published this essay the first quarter of the 20th century, when radio was still discovering itself.

I have to disagree about edutainment. There is a lot of great stuff out there such as PBS, A World of Possibilities, Grape radio, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that most people want edutainment, just entertainment. But that's fine, there's something for everyone.

As far ad CB radio goes, I haven't listened to it in a decade or so, so I can't judge. The folks from Negativland fooled around with subverting CB communications for a while. When I interview them I'm going to make a point of brinigng it up.

Podcasting by it's very nature is a one-way medium but I can't see that holding true for a medium like television much longer. Television is already becoming more and more interactive. Granted, most of it, if not all of it, is pretty purile. Just look at the reality televsiion shows. Still, I think as time goes by more and more shows will become interactive. People are getting more sophisiticated with their demands on media and want to particpate, not just be passive viewers and listeners.

As I mentioned on a previous post on this thread, I'm going to try and get a dialogue started on Open Podcast. Maybe you should give it a go, too.

Bazooka Joe

Hittman
Jun 25th, 2005, 08:51 PM
I have to disagree about edutainment. There is a lot of great stuff out there such as PBS, A World of Possibilities, Grape radio, etc. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that most people want edutainment, just entertainment. But that's fine, there's something for everyone.

Good point. But most people would rather watch Deadwood than The Real West.
Podcasting by it's very nature is a one-way medium but I can't see that holding true for a medium like television much longer. Television is already becoming more and more interactive. Granted, most of it, if not all of it, is pretty purile. Just look at the reality televsiion shows. Still, I think as time goes by more and more shows will become interactive.
Lots of people have lost fortunes betting on interactive television. Lots of approaches have been tried, and they've all failed. Couch Potatoes want to be entertained, not engaged.

Reality TV isn't interactive, unless you're one of the contestants. For everyone else, it's voyerism. The only interactivity is that some of them let you vote with a phone call, which is pretty trivial.

People are getting more sophisiticated with their demands on media and want to particpate, not just be passive viewers and listeners.

I wish you were right – I'd be able to do improv for a living, instead of a hobby. But I just don't see it. People want more choices. They want to watch what they want, when they want, and to bypass the commercials, but that's just variety, not interactivity.

bramley
Jun 25th, 2005, 10:36 PM
Thanks, BJ, for bringing Brecht into the conversation. I think there's a lot to be learned about how podcasting can evolve from early 20th century thinkers and innovators in theater and radio. If people want to think about it. And I'm glad you started them on their way.

Most art forms are one way – one person (or group of people) creates, the audience consumes. It's that way because that's what most people want.

I don't think you were saying this, but I just wanted to clarify that I don't think that "what most people want" is necessarily a good measuring stick for all art or a reason to not try to change what most people want by introducing them to new experiences and new ways of thinking. There is sometimes tyranny in the majority, and that's why lots of different mediums, themes, and approaches are great. Twenty years ago who would have believed there would be these mega bookstores all over America where people went to browse books and meet friends? That book clubs functioned like dating groups in some circles? Just because we are doing it one way now doesn't mean it won't change.

Hittman
Jun 25th, 2005, 11:28 PM
I don't think you were saying this, but I just wanted to clarify that I don't think that "what most people want" is necessarily a good measuring stick for all art or a reason to not try to change what most people want by introducing them to new experiences and new ways of thinking.

right. If "what's popular" were my motivation I be doing things that are more popular, instead of the improv and podcasting.

But we have to be realistic. We're not going to change basic human nature, and from what I've seen, that nature is to want to sit and be entertained with little or no effort themselves My point is that people don't want interactive TV or Radio, or we'd have it already.

Twenty years ago who would have believed there would be these mega bookstores all over America where people went to browse books and meet friends? That book clubs functioned like dating groups in some circles? Just because we are doing it one way now doesn't mean it won't change.

Your example is just one of size – we've always had book stores where people met friends and browsed. Now we've got bigger ones. The basic function hasn't changed, it's just new marketing.

Even if there were a market for it, how would we go about making podcasting interactive?