Looks Like We Made It... The Eclectic Analysis!

Finally, we reach the meat and potatoes of Ferrara’s book; his idea concerning the aggregation and utilization of all the various methodologies presented and explored in his book. He calls this multi-step analysis “an Eclectic Method for Sound, Form, and Reference,” and it is the final step in being both freed of preconceptions, while simultaneously allowing the work to mean anything. Needless to say, it’s a tad complex. Ferrara focuses on music but since we have used the method for visual art as well, I will try and make the method universal as I explore it.
First Ferrara establishes the importance of keeping the three major methods (phenomenological, conventional, and hermeneutic) autonomous, while exploring each one properly and fully. The eclectic method must suspend prejudgments of what a work could mean, while simultaneously remaining open to all the possibilities. The method is a step by step process, isolating features through the lens of a specific method, and aggregating all the methods simply by placing them side by side, in a specific order.
First, a historical framework must be established. Strictly speaking from a historical context, what was the climate of the world when this piece was created? This analysis includes the life of the author, the world around them, and any pertinent events in their lifetime leading up to the creation of art. From then on, a narrative point of view should be established.
Next, Ferrara tells the reader to do an open viewing or listening, to hear the work as a whole, hear the sound or see the art, and relay some first impressions unbiased by other works. This step is meant to engage an experience in the work, uninhibited by methodology, and record ideas and impressions. This step deals with referential meaning, and only referential meaning.

The third step is the syntax, the formal analysis of the work. What are the technical elements that comprise this piece of art?
The fourth step is phenomenology, the sound-in-time. Here Ferrara notes a more poetic approach when talking about the work is necessary. Also he reminds the reader that keeping each method separate is key. No referential meaning or formal analysis should occur here.
Step five is the beginning of the three levels of referential meaning. The first is representation of a program or text. Step six is the second level, reporting the manner in which the art is expressive of human emotion or feeling (hermeneutics). Here steps three and four should be included in a dialogue with the referential to differentiate the step and create relations with previous analysis. Step seven is the third level, the onto-historical world of the composer or author, incorporating many elements already discussed.
Step eight is a return to the open-viewing or listening, and pegs the analysis as circular. With everything else in mind, the second open viewing should be more developed, more cohesive, and more imaginative.
Step nine is a performance guide (solely for music I’d imagine), utilizing all of what has been discussed to create a map for the performer, highlighting key aspects. Step ten, the final step, is a meta-critique of the analysis as a whole, and is essential to the effectiveness of the method, in order to unite “theory and practice.”


REACTION

Ferrara’s eclectic method is quite a bit of information to take in and digest, but the idea of taking such a dense volume of method and theory and putting it all together in sort of a super-analysis is kind of cool. The electic method allows for so many varied and unique views on one piece of art that it really is an all-encompasing method. It even has a built-in safe guard step to detect it’s own weaknesses.
My only concern is that most people attempting this complex process will not have the thorough knowledge of each of it’s components. Historical is easy enough, but the average person will not be able to distinguish a phenomenological discussion from a hermeneutic discourse. I understand now why most of the book is pure summary of these views, to give the reader an appropriate framework for using the method. However, I wonder, how important is it to know all of these methods when reading a complete eclectic analysis? Is it necessary? Or does the reader of such an analysis simply get an amazing variety of views without fully understanding?
This led to me to another question, difficult to separate out from an academic setting, (considering we have to do these analysis for a grade, and in that respect the question is moot). Anyway, aside from grades, my question is this: is the eclectic analysis purely for the person conducting the method, or for an unnamed reader to see an all-encompassing view of a work? What is the intention? I’d like to think that the average intellectual would love to sit down and bang one of these babies out, but is it purely for self awareness, or is it meant to be read by others? I now pose this question to all of you.