Beethoven, Schiller and Nietzsche

[Henk]

Interesting piece of text by Nietzsche I recently read. Can't be left unwitnessed here.

What's your take?

'126.
The Older Art and the Soul of the Present.—Since every art becomes more and more adapted to the expression of spiritual states, of the more lively, delicate, energetic, and passionate states, the later masters, spoilt by these means of expression, do not feel at their ease in the presence of the old-time works of art. They feel as if the ancients had merely been lacking in the means of making their souls speak clearly, also perhaps in some necessary technical preliminaries. They think that they must render some assistance in this quarter, for they believe in the similarity or even unity of all souls. In truth, however, measure, symmetry, a [pg 068]contempt for graciousness and charm, an unconscious severity and morning chilliness, an evasion of passion, as if passion meant the death of art—such are the constituents of sentiment and morality in all old masters, who selected and arranged their means of expression not at random but in a necessary connection with their morality. Knowing this, are we to deny those that come after the right to animate the older works with their soul? No, for these works can only survive through our giving them our soul, and our blood alone enables them to speak to us. The real "historic" discourse would talk ghostly speech to ghosts. We honour the great artists less by that barren timidity that allows every word, every note to remain intact than by energetic endeavours to aid them continually to a new life.—True, if Beethoven were suddenly to come to life and hear one of his works performed with that modern animation and nervous refinement that bring glory to our masters of execution, he would probably be silent for a long while, uncertain whether he should raise his hand to curse or to bless, but perhaps say at last: "Well, well! That is neither I nor not-I, but a third thing—it seems to me, too, something right, if not just the right thing. But you must know yourselves what to do, as in any case it is you who have to listen. As our Schiller says, 'the living man is right.' So have it your own way, and let me go down again."' (HatH)

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Was this before or after the syphilis ate his brain?

[steve ridgway]

It sounds as if Nietzsche was living in an optimistic time of belief in human progress and spiritual evolution .

[Todd]

It sounds as if Nietzsche was living in an optimistic time of belief in human progress and spiritual evolution .

And one made possible by Western imperial exploitation of poor, brown people all over the world. 

[steve ridgway]

And one made possible by Western imperial exploitation of poor, brown people all over the world.

Poor white people too according to Engels. But Nietzsche seems to have been feeling optimistic.

[Todd]

Poor white people too according to Engels.

That was good, old-fashioned domestic exploitation.  That still happens.  Well, so does imperial exploitation.  Look at the DRC. 

Thank goodness for progress.

[steve ridgway]

That was good, old-fashioned domestic exploitation.  That still happens.  Well, so does imperial exploitation.  Look at the DRC. 

Thank goodness for progress.

I haven't read Nietzsche so couldn't say how much he felt that the progress he was enjoying was or would be shared by the rest of the human species.

[Todd]

I haven't read Nietzsche so couldn't say how much he felt that the progress he was enjoying was or would be shared by the rest of the human species.

I have not read Nietzsche since college.  (Why would I?)  I am content to live the contemporary American middle-class lifestyle, which as far as a I can tell, nearly perfectly exemplifies his conception of the "last man", which, if memory serves, he disliked.  If other people get to, great.  I mean, sure, not everyone can, because global resources would be depleted and exhausted before the end of the century, and the attendant ecological devastation would lead to mass famine and pestilence on a heretofore unrealized scale.  Presumably the type of progress he enjoyed and sought was more spiritual and/or intellectual, or something.  I shall leave those fine distinctions to the Übermenschen.  (And Überfrauen?  Who knows?) 

[relm1]

I think it's a valid point of view to suggest not being too tied up in the styles and rules of the past.  Those composers approached their work in ways that reflected their values and probably with similar regard for even older generations of artists, but we shouldn't shy away from breathing new life into these old works either to keep them relevant and fresh.  If an old master like Beethoven were to hear his music performed with modern interpretation, he might recognize it as something different yet still valid, acknowledging that the present generation must decide how to approach and appreciate art for their time and sensibilities.  There are performance standards that get incorporated into how we understand works of the past, so we evolve our tastes of great works from the past based on performance traditions too.

[Todd]

I think it's a valid point of view to suggest not being too tied up in the styles and rules of the past.

There are no artistic rules.  Not really.  Whatever artistic rules may be imagined by reactionaries and timid people can be entirely broken/ignored.  It's down to whether artists prone to ignoring rules can live with the consequences - lack of income, say.

[steve ridgway]

I have not read Nietzsche since college.  (Why would I?)  I am content to live the contemporary American middle-class lifestyle, which as far as a I can tell, nearly perfectly exemplifies his conception of the "last man", which, if memory serves, he disliked.  If other people get to, great.  I mean, sure, not everyone can, because global resources would be depleted and exhausted before the end of the century, and the attendant ecological devastation would lead to mass famine and pestilence on a heretofore unrealized scale.  Presumably the type of progress he enjoyed and sought was more spiritual and/or intellectual, or something.  I shall leave those fine distinctions to the Übermenschen.  (And Überfrauen?  Who knows?)

It looks like Nietzsche said some interesting things -

"everything around them decays and produces decay, that nothing will endure until the day after tomorrow, except one species of man, the incurably MEDIOCRE. The mediocre alone have a prospect of continuing and propagating themselves--they will be the men of the future, the sole survivors." - Beyond Good and Evil : 262

[Todd]

It looks like Nietzsche said some interesting things -

"everything around them decays and produces decay, that nothing will endure until the day after tomorrow, except one species of man, the incurably MEDIOCRE. The mediocre alone have a prospect of continuing and propagating themselves--they will be the men of the future, the sole survivors." - Beyond Good and Evil : 262

That aligns with the writings of my favorite philosopher, Mediocrates. 

[Florestan]

@Henk , I have a few questions and, since Nietzsche cannot answer them anymore, maybe you could answer them in his stead.

Since every art becomes more and more adapted to the expression of spiritual states, of the more lively, delicate, energetic, and passionate states, the later masters, spoilt by these means of expression, do not feel at their ease in the presence of the old-time works of art. They feel as if the ancients had merely been lacking in the means of making their souls speak clearly, also perhaps in some necessary technical preliminaries.

1. According to Nietzsche, Michelangelo's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century sculptors had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century sculptor could be said to be superior to Michelangelo in expressing spiritual states?

2. According to Nietzsche, Rafael's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century painters had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century painter could be said to be superior to Rafael in expressing spiritual states?

3. According to Nietzsche, Palestrina's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century composers had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century composer could be said to be superior to Palestrina in expressing spiritual states?

4. According to Nietzsche, Dante's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century writers had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century writer could be said to be superior to Dante in expressing spiritual states?

They think that they must render some assistance in this quarter, for they believe in the similarity or even unity of all souls.

Actually, who are "they"? I mean, which late 19th century painter, writer or composer felt the need to render some assistance to, say, Rembrandt, Cervantes or Monteverdi?

In truth, however, measure, symmetry, a [pg 068]contempt for graciousness and charm, an unconscious severity and morning chilliness, an evasion of passion, as if passion meant the death of art—such are the constituents of sentiment and morality in all old masters, who selected and arranged their means of expression not at random but in a necessary connection with their morality.

1. Where is the order and symmetry in the works of Hyeronimus Bosch and Shakespeare?

2. Where is the contempt for graciousness and charm in the works of Watteau, Boucher, Claude Lorrain, Domenico Scarlatti, Haydn, Johann Christian Bach, Mozart, Boccherini, Cimarosa, Paisiello and Rossini?

3. Where is the unconscious severity and morning chilliness in the works of the selfsame artists mentioned in #2?

4. Where is the evasion of passion, as if passion meant the death of art, in the works of J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert?

[Henk]

@Henk , I have a few questions and, since Nietzsche cannot answer them anymore, maybe you could answer them in his stead.

1. According to Nietzsche, Michelangelo's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century sculptors had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century sculptor could be said to be superior to Michelangelo in expressing spiritual states?

2. According to Nietzsche, Rafael's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century painters had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century painter could be said to be superior to Rafael in expressing spiritual states?

3. According to Nietzsche, Palestrina's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century composers had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century composer could be said to be superior to Palestrina in expressing spiritual states?

4. According to Nietzsche, Dante's means of making his soul speak clearly, as well as his technical preliminaries, were inferior to those that late 19th century writers had at their disposal. That being granted, which late 19th century writer could be said to be superior to Dante in expressing spiritual states?


Actually, who are "they"? I mean, which late 19th century painter, writer or composer felt the need to render some assistance to, say, Rembrandt, Cervantes or Monteverdi?

1. Where is the order and symmetry in the works of Hyeronimus Bosch and Shakespeare?

2. Where is the contempt for graciousness and charm in the works of Watteau, Boucher, Claude Lorrain, Domenico Scarlatti, Haydn, Johann Christian Bach, Mozart, Boccherini, Cimarosa, Paisiello and Rossini?

3. Where is the unconscious severity and morning chilliness in the works of the selfsame artists mentioned in #2?

4. Where is the evasion of passion, as if passion meant the death of art, in the works of J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert?

I appreciate the effort. My brain can't handle this at the moment.

[Florestan]

I appreciate the effort. My brain can't handle this at the moment.

Take all the time you need, Henk.

[Henk]

Take all the time you need, Henk.

I will give your criticism the consideration it deserves. Thanks for posting. Can't promise to investigate and answer.

[Florestan]

I will give your criticism the consideration it deserves.

What I posted is the mildest version of what I had been ruminating in my mind ever after carefully reading your Nietzsche quote.

Thanks for posting. Can't promise to investigate and answer.

I am very much interested in your answers. You need not investigate anything, just answer based on your current knowledge and insight.

 

[Henk]

What I posted is the mildest version of what I had been ruminating in my mind ever after carefully reading your Nietzsche quote.

I am very much interested in your answers. You need not investigate anything, just answer based on your current knowledge and insight.

 

I've read your post closely. In fact I think your criticism is valid. I'm not here to defend all of Nietzsche's opinions. Probably Nietzsche was wrong. Maybe he was generalizing and just broadly outlined a historical trajectory, this is how I read it. I must admit however Nietzsche doesn't pass the test of your reading.

I don't agree with all of Nietzsche's ideas. I just like reading him and find him very clever and inspiring. I benefited a lot from reading Nietzsche.

But I read him no more. I stopped reading books. I just quite suddenly cannot read anymore. My brain can't process it anymore. Could have multiple causes. It's tragedy.

[Florestan]

I've read your post closely. In fact I think your criticism is valid. I'm not here to defend all of Nietzsche's opinions. Probably Nietzsche was wrong. Maybe he was generalizing and just broudly outlined a historical trajectory, this is how I read it. I must admit however Nietzsche doesn't pass the test of your reading.

As is his wont, Nietzsche rambles.

I don't agree with all of Nietzsche's ideas. I just like reading him and find him very clever and inspiring. I benefited a lot from reading Nietzsche.

Of course. One benefits much more from reading authors one disagrees with than from reading authors one fully agrees with.

Nietzsche rambles, for sure --- but he does it with style and panache. Well worth reading, absolutely.

stopped reading books. I just quite suddenly cannot read anymore. My brain can't process it anymore. Could have multiple causes. It's tragedy.

That's not good at all. Might be a symptom of depression. Please, go see a specialist asap --- it's a most friendly advice. All the best and good luck!

[Henk]

As is his wont, Nietzsche rambles.

Of course. One benefits much more from reading authors one disagrees with than from reading authors one fully agrees with.

Nietzsche rambles, for sure --- but he does it with style and panache. Well worth reading, absolutely.

That's not good at all. Might be a symptom of depression. Please, go see a specialist asap --- it's a most friendly advice. All the best and good luck!

It would be a nice exercise for you to read Nietzsche closely and refute him point by point (to the strongest degree). Put his work to your test. Nietzsche would like that, he wants a strong enemy.

Brain won't improve, I hope to slow down further impairment. I don't know the exact cause, so indeed we need to figure that out. I don't feel depressed. I still can listen to music, go outside, garden and, for my personal achievement, creativity and happiness, paint.