In my theatre studies classes, there's one surprising name that comes up constantly when avant-garde theater artists are mentioned; Richard Wagner. Yes, Wagner. At first I didn't think much of it, but I have continuously seen references to Wagner, how revolutionary he was, and the generation of composers, theater artists, writers, painters, and even the occasional monarch, who were diehard Wagner fanatics. I think I'll hit on a Wagner obsession sometime soon. I love his music, the idea of gesamtkunstwerk that he champions seems very synaesthetic to me, and I love fantasy. All of the pieces are in place. Probably when I see my first Wagnerian opera, it'll launch my own full-blown Wagner fanaticism.
The thing that blows my mind is the constant description of Wagner as a theatrical revolutionary. From what I've learned so far, I can start to see why. Wagner was the first person to turn out the lights on the audience. This is something we accept now as standard, but in Wagner's time, that had never been done. He worked to focus people on the stage, not on theatre as a social event. He was also the first to hide the orchestra. I find it amazing that much of Wagner's innovations have become standard. Wagner is now part of the operatic canon, despite how controversial he was, so it's difficult for my generation to even begin to comprehend how much of a shock Wagner was to the world - I'm now researching and trying to understand what he was reacting to and how what he did was so different, because I feel like so much of my theatrical history changed because of Wagner, and I have no real idea what that means.
It's funny, because in the more experimental, downtown theatre that I'm a part of, we're turning the lights back on to toss the ball back to the audience, giving them more creative control or implicating them in the production. Now we're showing the orchestra again. We're doing the exact opposite of what Wagner did, but with the same spirit.
What I love is that we're always pushing forward. Last winter break, I worked on figuring out my personal definition of an artist, because this is the kind of thing I do in my free time. I came to the conclusion that an artist is someone who is dissatisfied with current languages (forms) and must constantly search out new ones to express his or her inner subjective reality. Therefore, to be an artist is to constantly pushing forms and satisfaction with any turns the artist into a craftsman. In Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art, he refers to the progression of society as a triangle, with the artist-as-prophet moving forward at the tip of the triangle. The triangle constantly moves forward, so something that is innovative one day is standard the next. I love the image of the artist at the tip, because I do believe the artists (including those who are not traditionally considered artists, but are the artists of their fields) are the ones who help us all learn new ways of living.
My mother has mentioned Paul similarly to how I'm talking about Wagner. Paul's letters are such standard theology, and are considered conservative today, so it is difficult for us to see and appreciate how revolutionary Paul was. I've come to believe strongly in working to understand the context, understand what came before and how these people completely blew things open. I wonder how many other revolutionaries we write off by not spending the time to appreciate them.
No comments:
Post a Comment