It is always easiest to exoticize and revel in the newness of an art form that is “other.” While one might enjoy the art form, if thoughts of the artist are rooted in deeply problematic beliefs, it is difficult to treat admiration of the art form as love. On reflecting upon Andre Levinson on Dance I have reached the conclusion that, while Parisians of the 1920s might have appeared to love, respect, and celebrate African American artists, they viewed this love through an eye of white supremacy, and therefore could not truly love these artists and art forms. By calling Black talent “an innate gift, not a conscious art,” Levinson might as well be saying that Black artists do not spend hours meticulously perfecting their craft, while at the same time, implying that when Black artists are better than their white counterparts, it is no responsibility of the white artists.
Levinson indicates that Milhaud’s approval of Jazz being entered into the “hierarchy of the arts” gave it a time and place in musical history. This, too, disturbs me. Why is it that white Parisians get to dictate what constitutes fine art? Black Americans had been making art the entire time, but it took a Parisian’s approval for other Parisians to accept it as a valid art form. As Jordan writes, Milhaud even wrote “jazz-inflicted music” for Cocteau’s musical drama Le boeuf sur le toit, of which I have included a link below, conducted by my favorite orchestral conductor. This, I feel, could lead into a discussion on distinctions between appreciation and appropriation, which follow us to our present-day relationships with “other” musics. It leads us to ask questions like, “what is appreciation? What is the extent of it? Is historical appropriation excusable?”