Romanticism Revisited
I am always fascinated with the subject of the status of music among the other arts. What makes it unique? What are its limitations? These kinds of questions are constantly in my mind. And in doing some recent reading on the Romanticism of the 19th century, these questions were thrust to the fore. What follows here is a broad sketch of what I mean by this, though subsequent posts will dig deeper into the particulars. With the advent of Romanticism, there was a grand SHIFT of ideologies, which produced an ELEVATION of art and (particularly) music, which resulted in some philosophical PROBLEMS. Perhaps most importantly, what APPLICATION is there for us today in the way we think about music?
SHIFT – Romanticism brought about a dramatic shift of ideals. Stated extremely broadly, a new emotionalism superceded the rationalism that prevailed during the previous century. This grand shift had numerous important implications for art in general, and music in particular. With this new emphasis on emotion, art became seen essentially as the self-expression of inner emotions. (It is often noted that form and balance were, conversely, de-emphasized.) The person behind the artwork became much more important and of much greater interest than the work itself. New criteria for artistic value began to be emphasized—criteria such as originality, novelty, and sincerity of expression. Art began to be enjoyed on its own grounds – “art for art’s sake.” The early 19th century, therefore, saw the birth of the concert hall, the “musical museum” which displayed works of music for its audience, and eventually standardized a repertoire or “masterworks.” The work of art/music thus gained an autonomy it had never before attained, and the logical outcome of this was an understanding of music more as a thing rather than an activity.
ELEVATION – With this new hyper-emotionalism, the elevation (glorification may be a better term) of art to new heights is not surprising. Art became viewed, as Wagner suggested it could be, as a substitute for religion. Music, on the other hand, was elevated not only along with the other arts, but also within the hierarchy of the arts. Music was the most romantic art, indeed, “one might almost say, the only genuine romantic art.” (E.T.A. Hoffmann) The reason for this pertained to music’s “freedom from the laws of logic and causality” (Wagner), and the fact that music is not “forc[ed] to contend and combine with thought… If music has one advantage over the other media through which a person can represent the impressions of the soul, it owes this to its supreme capacity to make each inner impulse audible without the assistance of reason.” (Liszt) Music was, in fact, “the language of the emotions.”
PROBLEMS – There is much irony in this exaltation of music. For what was seen by the Romantics as music’s “great advantage” (namely its freedom from concepts, words, thoughts) is exactly the thing seen by philosophers prior to 1800 as music’s inherent weakness – exactly the thing that kept them from naming music among the fine arts. Rather, music was considered a “decorative” or “agreeable” art. (It should be noted that here I am referring to absolute music—music without text, title, program, or plot.) Music lacks what literature and other representational arts possess: the capability of presenting ideas and concepts. And without this ability, it is difficult to see how music can teach us anything at all. Even someone as late as Hegel insisted that “music must call on the help of the more exact meaning of words… It demands a text which alone gives a content to the subjective life’s outpouring in the notes.” Therefore the crux of the problem is this: music was elevated to a status that proved to be very difficult to justify logically. But many attempts were nonetheless made, and as a result, many theories were produced in the 19th century which now seem strange and esoteric, even bizarre. (i.e. Schopenhauer’s theory that music is “the copy of the [divine] will itself… as direct an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself, nay, even as the Ideas, whose multiplied manifestation constitutes the world of individual things.”) Music, indeed, rested on a lofty pedestal with minimal support, all due to the mysterious nature of the expressive power of music, a nature which philosophers still today struggle to explain.
APPLICATION – What does this all mean for us today, if anything? Well, I think there is much to learn, or at least much that should cause us to re-examine our music-creating and music-making. And I think this is true particularly for us composers and classically trained musicians. In fact, I believe that it may even cause us to re-evaluate the very purpose of our music-making. The implications are numerous, but let me give just two thoughts here. First, we should remind ourselves that the lofty status that music had attained, and which music continues to possess, at least in the minds of most academic musicians, is a relatively new one. Second, we should consider thinking of music as an activity, rather than a thing. These ideas, which may be disappointing or sobering to musicians and composers, I find to be very liberating. For one thing, it allows me to enjoy the very process of composing as a creative activity, rather than waiting for the final product (the thing produced) to justify that process. And this makes all the difference in the world for me, in day to day life.
SHIFT – Romanticism brought about a dramatic shift of ideals. Stated extremely broadly, a new emotionalism superceded the rationalism that prevailed during the previous century. This grand shift had numerous important implications for art in general, and music in particular. With this new emphasis on emotion, art became seen essentially as the self-expression of inner emotions. (It is often noted that form and balance were, conversely, de-emphasized.) The person behind the artwork became much more important and of much greater interest than the work itself. New criteria for artistic value began to be emphasized—criteria such as originality, novelty, and sincerity of expression. Art began to be enjoyed on its own grounds – “art for art’s sake.” The early 19th century, therefore, saw the birth of the concert hall, the “musical museum” which displayed works of music for its audience, and eventually standardized a repertoire or “masterworks.” The work of art/music thus gained an autonomy it had never before attained, and the logical outcome of this was an understanding of music more as a thing rather than an activity.
ELEVATION – With this new hyper-emotionalism, the elevation (glorification may be a better term) of art to new heights is not surprising. Art became viewed, as Wagner suggested it could be, as a substitute for religion. Music, on the other hand, was elevated not only along with the other arts, but also within the hierarchy of the arts. Music was the most romantic art, indeed, “one might almost say, the only genuine romantic art.” (E.T.A. Hoffmann) The reason for this pertained to music’s “freedom from the laws of logic and causality” (Wagner), and the fact that music is not “forc[ed] to contend and combine with thought… If music has one advantage over the other media through which a person can represent the impressions of the soul, it owes this to its supreme capacity to make each inner impulse audible without the assistance of reason.” (Liszt) Music was, in fact, “the language of the emotions.”
PROBLEMS – There is much irony in this exaltation of music. For what was seen by the Romantics as music’s “great advantage” (namely its freedom from concepts, words, thoughts) is exactly the thing seen by philosophers prior to 1800 as music’s inherent weakness – exactly the thing that kept them from naming music among the fine arts. Rather, music was considered a “decorative” or “agreeable” art. (It should be noted that here I am referring to absolute music—music without text, title, program, or plot.) Music lacks what literature and other representational arts possess: the capability of presenting ideas and concepts. And without this ability, it is difficult to see how music can teach us anything at all. Even someone as late as Hegel insisted that “music must call on the help of the more exact meaning of words… It demands a text which alone gives a content to the subjective life’s outpouring in the notes.” Therefore the crux of the problem is this: music was elevated to a status that proved to be very difficult to justify logically. But many attempts were nonetheless made, and as a result, many theories were produced in the 19th century which now seem strange and esoteric, even bizarre. (i.e. Schopenhauer’s theory that music is “the copy of the [divine] will itself… as direct an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself, nay, even as the Ideas, whose multiplied manifestation constitutes the world of individual things.”) Music, indeed, rested on a lofty pedestal with minimal support, all due to the mysterious nature of the expressive power of music, a nature which philosophers still today struggle to explain.
APPLICATION – What does this all mean for us today, if anything? Well, I think there is much to learn, or at least much that should cause us to re-examine our music-creating and music-making. And I think this is true particularly for us composers and classically trained musicians. In fact, I believe that it may even cause us to re-evaluate the very purpose of our music-making. The implications are numerous, but let me give just two thoughts here. First, we should remind ourselves that the lofty status that music had attained, and which music continues to possess, at least in the minds of most academic musicians, is a relatively new one. Second, we should consider thinking of music as an activity, rather than a thing. These ideas, which may be disappointing or sobering to musicians and composers, I find to be very liberating. For one thing, it allows me to enjoy the very process of composing as a creative activity, rather than waiting for the final product (the thing produced) to justify that process. And this makes all the difference in the world for me, in day to day life.
posted by Luke Dahn at 7:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home