|
Baz
Guest
|
 |
« on: 09:41:19, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I refuse to recognize any causal connection between Politics and Art, though a comparison may be drawn if necessary: while Art generally seeks to illuminate and expand man's spiritual experience and awareness, Politics always exists to impair and restrict these. But beyond the "dissonant counterpoint", quite a bit of difference between Crawford and Ruggles. And Crawford and Riegger were both firmly on the political left and Ruggles, er . . . was not.
Who cares?! Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 09:56:15, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I refuse to recognize any causal connection between Politics and Art, though a comparison may be drawn if necessary: while Art generally seeks to illuminate and expand man's spiritual experience and awareness, Politics always exists to impair and restrict these.
But surely there are cases where Politics has had the most direct of causal connections on Art? Viz FIDELIO, EROICA... almost all of Kurt Weill's work... NABUCCO... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 10:02:50, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I refuse to recognize any causal connection between Politics and Art, though a comparison may be drawn if necessary: while Art generally seeks to illuminate and expand man's spiritual experience and awareness, Politics always exists to impair and restrict these.
But surely there are cases where Politics has had the most direct of causal connections on Art? Viz FIDELIO, EROICA... almost all of Kurt Weill's work... NABUCCO... There is no reason why artists should not express (like anyone else) a political opinion - indeed every reason why they should. But I should like to know (title page apart) exactly how politics caused Beethoven to alter a single note of the Eroica. Surely it is one of the best examples to show that Art transcends mere Politics? Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:06:31, 14-12-2007 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 10:11:15, 14-12-2007 » |
|
But I should like to know (title page apart) exactly how politics caused Beethoven to alter a single note of the Eroica. You don't think that the spirit of Revolution permeates every note? Shouldn't we be using our ears, rather than relying on mere titles (or changed titles)? What about FIDELIO? An innocent man is locked-up secretly in a punishment cell and walled-in, on the orders of a corrupt Government Minister? You're saying that's not politically-inspired, and politically motivated? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 10:27:58, 14-12-2007 » |
|
But I should like to know (title page apart) exactly how politics caused Beethoven to alter a single note of the Eroica. You don't think that the spirit of Revolution permeates every note? Shouldn't we be using our ears, rather than relying on mere titles (or changed titles)? My point is again proved surely? The piece stands up perfectly well (as a piece) whether or not the listener is inclined to connect it with the Revolution. Whether one does or does not make this connection does not mean that ears are not being used, does it?
What about FIDELIO? An innocent man is locked-up secretly in a punishment cell and walled-in, on the orders of a corrupt Government Minister? You're saying that's not politically-inspired, and politically motivated?
Are you suggesting that the artistic attainment of Fidelio is the same thing as the "story line"? I have never suggested that art which is "politically inspired" fails to become art by virtue of its political inspiration. What I have, however, suggested is that unless - as a work of art - it stands above such inspiration it is thereby diminished. I could never accuse Beethoven (and should never wish to do so) of failing to pitch his art way above the (sometimes) mundane inspirations that caused its genesis. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 10:42:08, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I could never accuse Beethoven (and should never wish to do so) of failing to pitch his art way above the (sometimes) mundane inspirations that caused its genesis.
As it happens, I was listening to Fidelio on the train this morning ... and the thought that occurred to me, as ever, was this - what was it that inspired Beethoven to lavish so much time and effort, and to produce such extraordinary music - around a plot that has more holes in it than an old sock and characters who, shorn of their music, are little more than ciphers? To me, the answer must be that Beethoven believed that the underlying subject-matter was important. Whether we call it politics or not is in one sense irrelevant, but it's difficult to conceive that it was not a response to the what was going on at the time (some of which impinged quite directly on Beethoven's Vienna. This may be a personal reaction, but I for one can't hear the work in any other context. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 10:53:02, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Indeed PW. Beethoven - like most true artists - was always deeply affected by human conditions and situations. This has been the same throughout history. Often these conditions have been the innocent result of politics. But responding to human conditions is very different from merely 'commenting upon' (artistically) POLITICS.
If, through the Eroica, we perceive resonances of the Revolution (as most intelligent listeners might), these resonances surely link more with the spirit than with the politics of the Revolution. Composers who end up writing what they do merely because of their 'political persuasion' are - in my view - less likely to produce output that lasts by virtue of its intrinsic artistic merits alone (which is, I think, what explains why most artistic output that stands the test of time does).
Baz
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 10:54:54, 14-12-2007 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 11:13:33, 14-12-2007 » |
|
As it happens, I was listening to Fidelio on the train this morning ... and the thought that occurred to me, as ever, was this - what was it that inspired Beethoven to lavish so much time and effort, and to produce such extraordinary music - around a plot that has more holes in it than an old sock and characters who, shorn of their music, are little more than ciphers? To me, the answer must be that Beethoven believed that the underlying subject-matter was important. Whether we call it politics or not is in one sense irrelevant, but it's difficult to conceive that it was not a response to the what was going on at the time (some of which impinged quite directly on Beethoven's Vienna.
The characters are drawn rather better in LEONORE than in FIDELIO, I believe - Rocco, for one, is a much more interesting and ambivalent character in LEONORE. But I entirely agree with you, PW - the work came into being because of political conviction, and it cannot be (correctly) understood outside that context. To do so would be like reading "Animal Farm" as merely a cautionary tale about farmyards  The conditions which applied at the time in Beethoven's Vienna somewhat directly impinged on the work - LEONORE closed after just one performance, as Napoleon's troops occupied the city on the following day these resonances surely link more with the spirit than with the politics of the Revolution. This depends if one believes these things are actually separable. You clearly do, but I don't share your opinion on this point  less likely to produce output that lasts by virtue of its intrinsic artistic merits alone ( Conversely, it might be said that artistic work which touches on "political" topics - repression, imprisonment, torture - retains a universality which ensures their currency and relevance - and thus popularity also - for successive generations The USSR banned FIDELIO, and HOUSE OF THE DEAD - they feared the content implicit in these works. Enver Hoxha's Albania (one of the few regimes to have outdone Stalin's USSR in its ferocity) even banned THE SOUND OF MUSIC By the way, Britain banned Eisenstein's film BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN until the late 1950s, on the basis of its content - so it works both ways |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 11:18:59, 14-12-2007 » |
|
responding to human conditions is very different from merely 'commenting upon' (artistically) POLITICS.
Responding to human conditions IS politics, Baz. The alternative for artists is either to become a passive reflector of their circumstances or an active responder to them, and that decision is a political decision: it depends on the artist's view of his/her relation to society, which is a political issue. Art which responds in the most profound way to the circumstances of its own time and place is more likely to speak to others across time and space. I think the problem here is that when you hear the word politics you seem to think only of think of politicians, governments, party affiliations - that's what the people who run those institutions would like us to think politics is, but actually the relationship of individual to society, which is a political relationship with many dimensions, is something that pervades most aspects of our life and being. The distinction you're making between the "spirit" and the "politics" of the Revolution is no distinction at all: a revolution is a political phenomenon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 11:26:22, 14-12-2007 » |
|
As it happens, I was listening to Fidelio on the train this morning ... and the thought that occurred to me, as ever, was this - what was it that inspired Beethoven to lavish so much time and effort, and to produce such extraordinary music - around a plot that has more holes in it than an old sock and characters who, shorn of their music, are little more than ciphers? To me, the answer must be that Beethoven believed that the underlying subject-matter was important. Whether we call it politics or not is in one sense irrelevant, but it's difficult to conceive that it was not a response to the what was going on at the time (some of which impinged quite directly on Beethoven's Vienna.
The characters are drawn rather better in LEONORE than in FIDELIO, I believe - Rocco, for one, is a much more interesting and ambivalent character in LEONORE. But I entirely agree with you, PW - the work came into being because of political conviction, and it cannot be (correctly) understood outside that context. To do so would be like reading "Animal Farm" as merely a cautionary tale about farmyards The conditions which applied at the time in Beethoven's Vienna somewhat directly impinged on the work - LEONORE closed after just one performance, as Napoleon's troops occupied the city on the following day these resonances surely link more with the spirit than with the politics of the Revolution. This depends if one believes these things are actually separable. You clearly do, but I don't share your opinion on this point less likely to produce output that lasts by virtue of its intrinsic artistic merits alone ( Conversely, it might be said that artistic work which touches on "political" topics - repression, imprisonment, torture - retains a universality which ensures their currency and relevance - and thus popularity also - for successive generations The USSR banned FIDELIO, and HOUSE OF THE DEAD - they feared the content implicit in these works. Enver Hoxha's Albania (one of the few regimes to have outdone Stalin's USSR in its ferocity) even banned THE SOUND OF MUSIC By the way, Britain banned Eisenstein's film BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN until the late 1950s, on the basis of its content - so it works both ways I shall respond to this posting later today.... Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 11:37:35, 14-12-2007 » |
|
responding to human conditions is very different from merely 'commenting upon' (artistically) POLITICS.
Responding to human conditions IS politics, Baz. The alternative for artists is either to become a passive reflector of their circumstances or an active responder to them, and that decision is a political decision: it depends on the artist's view of his/her relation to society, which is a political issue. Art which responds in the most profound way to the circumstances of its own time and place is more likely to speak to others across time and space. I think the problem here is that when you hear the word politics you seem to think only of think of politicians, governments, party affiliations - that's what the people who run those institutions would like us to think politics is, but actually the relationship of individual to society, which is a political relationship with many dimensions, is something that pervades most aspects of our life and being. The distinction you're making between the "spirit" and the "politics" of the Revolution is no distinction at all: a revolution is a political phenomenon. I profoundly disagree with this Richard. "Responding to human conditions" is NOT "politics" at all. It might be Compassion, Sympathy or Empathy. Even if the response is more pragmatic and less "human", it might be Religious rather than Political. The idea that "politics" governs thinking (when in reality all it does is formulate "policies") is to me unbelievably naive. I do not agree, too, that a revolution is a purely "political phenomenon". When people were guillotined, are you telling me that as the blade fell they thought to themselves "Oh well - it's only politics"! You're being so simple-minded here that I can hardly believe the words you are writing. You will next be telling me that when Beethoven penned his Eroica, he thought "Never mind what people think of it - it's only politics". Some of us, in however puny a way we manage, genuinely believe that our interaction with others (artistically, creatively, or even merely conversationally) is something other than "politics". I do not - at this moment - feel that I am having a "political" argument with you. I am exchanging ideas. "Politics" doesn't do this - it merely comes up with a policy and enforces it. Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:40:42, 14-12-2007 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 11:46:02, 14-12-2007 » |
|
I do not agree, too, that a revolution is a purely "political phenomenon". When people were guillotined, are you telling me that as the blade fell they thought to themselves "Oh well - it's only politics"! You're being so simple-minded here that I can hardly believe the words you are writing. Anything which relates to the relationship between the individual and society is politics, and any upheaval in society is a political phenomenon, not, as you put it, "only politics", but indeed a matter of life and death for many people. You think I'm being simple-minded. I think you're being almost superhumanly obtuse. I don't think we have any basis for discussion here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuart macrae
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 11:54:35, 14-12-2007 » |
|
Remember those TV cartoons a couple of years ago encouraging us to get on the electoral register? "I don't do politics" says one man, as the other tries to start a conversation. For the rest of the day, every time the first man opens his mouth to whinge about something, the second man says "a-ah - you don't do politics, remember?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 12:01:12, 14-12-2007 » |
|
responding to human conditions is very different from merely 'commenting upon' (artistically) POLITICS.
Responding to human conditions IS politics, Baz. The alternative for artists is either to become a passive reflector of their circumstances or an active responder to them, and that decision is a political decision: it depends on the artist's view of his/her relation to society, which is a political issue. Art which responds in the most profound way to the circumstances of its own time and place is more likely to speak to others across time and space. I think the problem here is that when you hear the word politics you seem to think only of think of politicians, governments, party affiliations - that's what the people who run those institutions would like us to think politics is, but actually the relationship of individual to society, which is a political relationship with many dimensions, is something that pervades most aspects of our life and being. The distinction you're making between the "spirit" and the "politics" of the Revolution is no distinction at all: a revolution is a political phenomenon. This is indeed a very useful distinction between what we might call "real politics" and "politicians' politics" and I'm sure that Baz is not alone in associating "politics" with the latter rather more than the former (if I understand him correctly). That said, quite how, in practical terms, one consciously and deliberately responds even to that "real" politics" (as distinct from the other kind) is still something about which I have either doubts or insufficient understanding or both. Can you help me out with that? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 12:11:56, 14-12-2007 » |
|
For the sake of clarity I should perhaps point out that I wrote my previous post before reading Baz's most recent one and, now that I have read Baz's, I simply want to add that what appears to be at issue here is neither Richard's alleged simple-mindedness nor Baz's alleged superhuman obtuseness but a mere matter of semantics in terms of what the word "politics" is supposed to signify. I do think that there is a very sound basis for interesting and potentially valuable discussion here, unless no prior agreement can be reached as to the subject under discussion - in other words, it can progress provided that Richard and like-minded people on the one hand and Baz and like-minded people on the other can first agree on a word to describe that subject. The reason I say so is, quite simply, that the discussion is not - or at least should not be - about what the word "politics" means but about how "ideas" (whether or not anyone describes them as "political") about the interaction of individual human beings with humanity as a whole may figure in the act of and motivation behind musical composition.
Or have I got the wrong end of the wrong stick?
Best,
Alistair
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
