Today's going to be a short one; the reason, it's damn hot. Is that a good reason? No, but it's the reason I'm using.
Today I finished Die Walkure; conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler in 1950 at La SCALA in Milan. This record held the third act in its entirety, and was for the most part unmoving. Well, until the finale, which was full of emotion and strife.
The third act starts off with the famed Ride of the Valkyrie; to which I say, eh. It's a nice bit, I'll give you that'; but goes for epic instead of continuing the complexities that Wagner had been developing up until that point. The second side of the record redeems the first, though I find myself not being able to remember quite why.
One thing that I did think of when choosing the Ring cycle as my starting piece, was history's memory of Wagner. Or rather the separation of his music and his thoughts, and whether or not these two things can be separated. Not surprisingly I'm not the only one thinking about this, and in last weeks NYT there was even an article on it (found here). It's a good quick article on the controversies of Wagner and his music and attempts to go into the idea of art being separated from its maker, and even how art (and in my opinion especially temporal art like music) can change and evolve in different era, with different political thinkers. So I ask you internets, is art something static, a representation of its maker's intent? Or does a piece mean something different to those who experience it (or in the case of music, those who play it), is is separate from its maker and in the eye of the beholder?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think art is static. I think it's meant to create emotion or play on emotion and in most people emotions are such an up and down thing. There are so many artists who weren't appreciated "in their own time" and then suddenly when world views shift there's a revival or discovery.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of being separate from its maker... I think certain pieces of art can get away with this better than others. Modern day art, whether music, movies, whatever, is so sensationalized and publisized (or at least the artists are) I think it's tough to keep that separation. God forbid if Britney Spears actually came out with something genius would we be able to look at it as genius? Probably not. But I think artists who came before the insanity of the world wide web have a better shot.
I don't actually know if that answers any of your questions, Ian... but I don't always require my opinions to make a point. ;)