Klarinet Archive - Posting 000384.txt from 2004/01
From: "Joseph Wakeling" <joseph.wakeling@-----.net> Subj: Re: [kl] Wagner Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:51:34 -0500
<< decide whether we should reject the writing because it was drug-induced
and maniacal and fundamentally evil >>
Why "fundamentally evil"? I don't see how that follows naturally from the
other two. I would be very shocked if your teacher actually described the
writing in those terms.
I can certainly appreciate the argument that those who sell or encourage
others to take drugs are committing, if not a wrong, then an immoral act.
But to argue that something is evil because it is the product of a brain
operating under the influence of chemical substances seems to me to be an
outrageous claim.
Coleridge and Poe may well have ingested drugs in order to achieve states of
mind they found conducive to creativity, but that surely does not imply
anything about their artistic intent. Actually I also ingest drugs I find
conducive to creativity. They're prescribed by my doctor and called
"anti-depressants".
The only difference I see is that one drug is socially acceptable and the
other isn't. Incidentally, in Coleridge and Poe's time, the drugs they took
were also fairly socially acceptable.
<< Can we argue (my English teacher then asked) that Church and State should
be separated, and but moral/ethical intent and artistic value should not be
separated? >>
I don't see that it's really the same thing. Religions and states are for
the most part very solid political entities and the desire to have an
official separation is natural in any country which has a diverse
population: the state can't adequately represent its people if it
constitutionally endorses one group over the rest. Thus, there is a clear
conflict of interest between the interests of individual religions and the
interests of the state as a whole. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop people
with Christian beliefs (or Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist) from holding
political office and from making decisions based on their personal religious
convictions. The "separation" is permeable.
On the other hand "moral/ethical intent" and "artistic value" are very fuzzy
terms, very dependent on frame of reference (Wagner thought he *was* being
moral), and I would suggest it's not possible to show a clear need for a
separation between them as it is with church and state. It's also not
possible to show that they always coincide.
Ultimately it's worth remembering this: *a work of art is not the same as
its creator*. We don't know what Shakespeare meant when he wrote The
Merchant of Venice. The only thing we have any real certainty about is the
text (and even then intelligent editing is required from the different
sources). But the fact is that depending on how we choose to clothe the
text when we translate it from text into actions and speech, that play can
be either an anti-semitic jolly-romp or a searing expose of a racist
society. Likewise Henry V, which is often portrayed as a tale of heroism
and British patriotism, can be (as was done recently by the Royal
Shakespeare Company) presented as a harrowing tale of how those in power use
propaganda to subvert people into supporting unjust conflicts, while hiding
their immoral aims.
Obviously we should listen to what artists have to say about their
creations, and use that to enrich our understanding of them. But any
interpretation has to start with the work itself, not the artist.
-- Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
|
|
|