When does
the moral repugnance of an artist or scientist or musician disqualify one from
enjoying their work???
2013 marks
the 200th anniversary of the birth of Richard Wagner. During
November and December 2013, Opera Australia (OA) is performing complete cycles of
the four blood stained operas which make up his epic vision – the Ring Cycle.
It was booked out a year ago even though it cost well over a grand and is 17
hours of not very tuneful dirges.
As you may know
from my last blog, I was part of cut down, sawn up version of Wagner’s Ring
Cycle for the Opera Australia Ring Festival.
It was for a cut opera company called Emotionworks. As part of OA’s Ring Festival, Emotionworks performed
all four enormous works in one hour as rock icons and gods of the late
twentieth century. This is cut opera at
its most condensed. It was really dense. For my sins, I was Garry Glitter playing the
murderous thug Hunding – a complete bastard playing a prick of a bastard. The pictures below tell the tale of how we
adulterated and butchered this endless work of 17 hours of operatic
madness.
Our performance was very true to the original Wagnerian conception. |
Sadly its
brilliant creator was a virulent anti-Semite.
He was a prolific writer which included his essay “Das Judenthum in der Musik”,
(Jewishness in Music), a nasty view on the influence of Jews in German
culture and society at that time. There is no doubt that essay “Jewishness in
Music” will taint his reputation forever. The evidence of his anti-Semitism is undeniable. Moreover, there are suggestions of a sort of
Aryan style racism emerging later in his life.
One can never be too earnest in one's operatic adventures |
But Wagner’s
main sins occurred after his death. His
music was appropriated to be an iconic part of Nazi ritual. The Die Meistersinger (Overture) was chosen by Hitler to open the Nuremberg
rallies. For the music buffs, here is a recent version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zcxx7fNqIs
The dramatic anthem celebrating the Ride of the Valkyries is another example of
work popular with the Nazi in war time news reels. However, it was also used for that anti war
work of Apocalypse Now. Which appropriation counts the most?
Can you
really be responsible for those who appropriate your work? Are the great composers responsible for the toilet
paper their work now promotes in advertisements around the world? The appropriation of Wagner’s work by the
Nazis was aided by the coincidence of their ideas. Wagner’s family knew Hitler. This was an appropriation that seems to have
been abetted by the coincidence of views between Wagner and the Nazis. That however is speculation by me.
The issue of
Wagner was a pointed one in the production I was involved in. Three of the performers were Jewish. One of
the singers was a German scholar who was also a Cantor (ritual singer) at the
local progressive Jewish Temple. The cut opera was performed in the
Jewish heart of Melbourne in St Kilda. So the troubling aspect of Wagner
and his anti-Semitism had to be addressed.
Jewish
Wagnerians from Stephen Fry to Daniel Barenboim (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/20/wagner-and-jews/?pagination=false)
wrestle with this issue in this, his 200th year. At the same, many areas of Jewish life
boycott the Wagnerian Operas. My opera chose this means of acknowledging the
Wagnerian anti Semitism. We ran a
competition (which was a bit of token gesture as it was virtually invisible). This was put out before the performance:
“Emotionworks,
wishing to acknowledge the historical blight (of Wagner’s anti-Semitism) is
running a competition. The winners receive free tickets to the cut opera
which will be performed in a boxing ring. The competition is this:
What
gesture, statement or symbol can be used in the program notes, costumes or set
(although there really isn’t a set other than the boxing ring) to acknowledge the vileness of
Wagner’s anti Semitic attitudes and legacies? Emotionworks is concerned
not to use cheap Nazi paraphernalia but does feel the need explore the
contradiction of performing tainted cultural product in a tolerant
multicultural society. Good luck!
Many would
see this as an arse covering exercise.
On the other hand, it was a public acknowledgement of the problem and
might have led to some people at least reading about and discussing the issue. Friends of mine, however, refused to come or thought it was inappropriate to celebrate Wagner's work.
The
suppression of cultural product is very vexed.
Indeed the Nazis themselves were infamous for their cultural suppression
from book burning to the non playing of the music of Jewish composers. Cultural repression seems to be
the handmaiden of many totalitarian regimes.
Moreover, there
is no complete freedom of cultural expression.
We reasonably suppress by law, some culture for reasons of defamation, intellectual
theft, treason and in an effort to stymie criminal communications. We used to suppress culture where it
transgressed community standards on vulgarity and obscenity but in these coarse
times, that suppression is now too fucking difficult and is pretty fucked up (to coin a
phrase).
I do support the suppression of Holocaust denial because of its dangers, its divisiveness, its offensiveness, its dishonesty and its historical distortion. So clearly there are cultural and pseudo historical statements that ought to be suppressed.
I do support the suppression of Holocaust denial because of its dangers, its divisiveness, its offensiveness, its dishonesty and its historical distortion. So clearly there are cultural and pseudo historical statements that ought to be suppressed.
The need and
legitimacy of suppressing cultural output that is socially corrosive must
diminish over time. My view is that
Wagner’s sins should not be forgotten and should at least be publicly
acknowledged at performances of his works (as we did). But I think I would draw the line at outright suppression
in any environment except perhaps those where Nazism is particularly shocking
such as Jewish, Gypsy, Gay and say Russian circles. In some of those circles, the Nazi crimes
might still be so raw as to justify suppression.
What is your
view?
Should the
creative works of nasty people be suppressed?
Should
creations appropriated by nasty people be tainted by that appropriation?
When does
time run its course so that the suppression loses relevance?
Over to you
guys…
PS Apologies for the late posting of this
blog. Being an opera tart is time
consuming business.
Everyone hates someone. I dont see what the problem is. Just shrug and "whatever". Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteBesides, if he was alive today, I'm sure he'd be an "anti-nobjectivist" instead...lol
WTF?
DeleteWhat happened to the usual swathes of bullshit?
Everyone too busy?
Good news then.
The economy must really be improving if even twiddle[sic] has managed to land a job!
rofl
magicsausagetosser: "What happened to the usual swathes of bullshit?"
DeleteWell, two's not a bad start!
What dy'a want? :)
Thats only one ya dingus
DeleteDo try to stay in focus
Giddyup
Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse & Edvard Munch were two who may fall into this category.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it depreciated Wodehouse's works.
It's more difficult to evaluate how it has influenced appreciation of Munch's efforts.
Certainly hasn't depreciated sale values.
Hi folks. We're off to warmer climes and family for Saturnalia.
ReplyDeleteJust one last reminder of what the real Christmas/Saturnalia is all about in case you have forgotten. Have a good one!
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5182&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Saturnalia is "realer" and "really real" :)
“Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously. …….
DeleteAll the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happiness. ……..
America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent. But the spiritual must start with recognizing reality. Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate--and really, underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate. It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration. (Leonard Peikoff - from Malcolm’s link - MalcolmS6:16 PM)
What a load of utter tosh Malcolm. Do you really want the world to be like Scrooge before his awakening (that’s what Peikoff is advocating). Regardless of what people may make it Christmas is ALL about Christ. It’s about the spirit of love and giving - not the miserliness and greed of selfishness. It’s about recognising that goodness (and it’s attendant truth) which leads to genuine happiness, does not come from material things or from people directly but from something far bigger.
The only true and lasting happiness comes from having care and respect for the joy and happiness of others. As Scrooge discovered, the only sacrifice needed is the sacrifice of one’s greedy, selfish ego so that one can live the real reality i.e. attain an ego based on actual truths (as taught by Christ for example), not on one’s personal greed and self-aggrandisement.
RalphH: "Regardless of what people may make it Christmas is ALL about Christ"
DeleteYou are very confused Ralph. If that statement was true Christians would have celebrated on Christ's alleged birthday. Instead their purpose was all about their lust for converting the pagans and stopping their celebration of the approaching season of "new life." When they failed to do so they took the bull by the horns and tried to take it over. When they took over politically they banned it. The Christians *stole* Christmas Ralph.
"It’s about the spirit of love and giving - not the miserliness and greed of selfishness"
Well, of course it is! What you fail to understand is that the "spirit of love and giving" *is* selfish. Christmas is about celebrating thisworld and this life with family and friends, i.e., those one loves and values. Most people do not give gifts promiscuously to everyone or to their enemies. Why should they? They give to those they *value*! That's selfish Ralph! It's also the *good.*