Inflict away! The only person who I can discuss any of this stuff with is my father, which is great, but I appreciate learning what others think about and wrestle with. They are interesting things.
Mark Citret is one of my favourite photographers. I’ve never had the opportunity to meet him, although he was nice enough to answer a bunch of emails from me some years ago regarding some technical matters.
Originally Posted by h2oman
I just finished listening to Götterdammerung, the last installment in Wagner's Ring Cycle. The other three preceding parts I listened to earlier in the week, all broadcast by KING FM from a live Seattle Opera performance in 2005.
I loved it.
I suppose there are lots of people who can't deal with a work of that size and complexity due to their lack of familiarity with the idiom or lack of musical education. For others, Wagner is simply not their cup of tea; too "German," too complex for music theater, too idiosyncratically philosophical. Some only get as far as three-chord pop songs in their ability to appreciate music, others prefer jazz...
There's no doubt that the Ring is one of the great artistic achievements of the 19th century and a culmination of German Romantic music, uncompromisingly crafted in scope and in detail.
I don't believe, however, that Wagner went to all the 28-year-long struggle of writing and staging the work solely for his own enjoyment or just to please his own artistic ego. He desperately wanted to communicate his vision to others; that doesn't mean he was willing to compromise it.
Those that appreciate that style and take the time to educate themselves in order to bring enough to the work to understand, identify with, enjoy it, and be moved by it are (and were) Wagner's chosen audience. I'm sure he was aware that there would be many, likely a majority, of people, who would not be able to relate to his work. I don't think that bothered him a bit, and I don't think he did any pandering at all the sake of gaining more audience. Instead, he was looking to communicate his personal art with like-minded people who shared his vision and sensibilities.
Connecting with others, finding resonance for his ideas and beliefs, creating a platform to communicate his ideas with like-minded souls was what drove him. No compromises needed for that.
Neither in photography...
Doremus
I enjoyed this illustration whose point (I think) is that an artist’s or LFer’s attention to an audience need not sully a fidelity to independent, self-driven work. Indeed, the audience might very well be created by it. Quite entertaining and full of informative points.
I love Wagnerian opera and won’t elaborate here why his main audience (and fellow musicians) were much more influential on his music throughout his astonishing career than his opaque writings try to claim…
…but I am curious if you might offer an example of a historically prominent photographer with similar claims about his or her work. Of course, Wagner (or maybe I should say his extravagant claims) might be in a class of their own.
Heroique,
I'm sure Wagner was in a class of his own; arguably the largest ego that ever existed. I don't know of any photographers like that offhand (except maybe for Fatali, who tried to burn down Delicate Arch to get a photo and claims to be "God's Portrait Photographer" or something like that). Wagner's ego was, fortunately, balanced by his genius. That combination is exceedingly rare.
As you correctly infer, my point with the illustration was that one's audience doesn't have to include many (or even exist yet) to be valid, and that the desire to communicate with that audience, now or in the future, drives artistic creation a lot more than the (disingenuous, I think) claim that "I just make my art for myself."
Best,
Doremus
“I have seen and greatly enjoyed the first act of everything Wagner created, but the effect on me has always been so powerful that one act was quite sufficient; after two acts I have gone away physically exhausted.”—Mark Twain
From experience - there's nothing more exhausting than performing Wagner.
Just my opinion here - but I absolutely loath his work. I just find it extraordinarily tedious - the logical end to the excesses of the Romantic era.
But feel free to ignore my opinion. I'm a big fan of Schoenberg's 12-tone work, so you may find my tastes are...varied?
Since we have left photography behind for Wagner, I have seen three complete Ring Cycles, I am clearly a Wagnerian (I also enjoy Meistersinger and the Flying Dutchman). One of the cycles was in Seattle with my wife on our honeymoon (40+ years ago) and since we were spending the rest of the honeymoon backpacking, our dress code probably seemed a bit unusual to the rest of the opera goers.
He’s not the end of the romantic period! Maybe you should try Strauss’ operas (Electra, Rosenkavalier). They’re actually somewhere between Wagner and Schoenberg :-)From experience - there's nothing more exhausting than performing Wagner.
Just my opinion here - but I absolutely loath his work. I just find it extraordinarily tedious - the logical end to the excesses of the Romantic era.
But feel free to ignore my opinion. I'm a big fan of Schoenberg's 12-tone work, so you may find my tastes are...varied?
I would trade listening to Tristan und Isolde instead of the Ring any day of the week, and use the remaining ~12 hrs to indulge in some photography.
Sure, but he's in the latter part of the period, and at least in my thoughts, the pinnacle of the style (for better or worse).
With regard to operas - I greatly enjoyed seeing the MET live broadcasts of "Akhnaten" by Philip Glass and "Wozzeck" by Alban Berg - the latter being a big influence on me when I was working on a degree in composition. My favorite MET broadcast though has been "Nixon in China" by John Adams!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks