It is interesting to consider how the artists of the day so often seem to instinctively have a feel for the pulse of the society, and integrate these into their arts. There is a sort of symbiosis that occurs, wherein the artist needs society to drive his art, while the art produced not only reflects, but subtly affects the society and its progress. It is a piece of the phenomenon so aptly discussed in "The Ecstatic Nerve" (Lindsann).
In pre-revolutionary France, Mozart was an example of this. He was always on the fringe of "good" society -- he was wild, free-wheeling, temperamental, impulsive, he was even rumored to be a Freemason! Mozart, already an immensely popular composer of opera, which was at the time an entertainment for the masses as well as the rich and powerful, used his operas "The Marriage of Figaro" and "Don Giovanni" not only to reflect the temperature of the society that was building toward the Revolution, but also brought those feelings and attitudes closer to the surface. Art like his served as a part of the heating process that brought revolutionary impulses from a low simmer closer to the boiling point.
I have found a wonderful discussion of Mozart and the French Revolution here. The operas discussed are wonderful -- on the surface and in today's light, they seem merely playful, devious and stories of the kind of rebellion our culture applauds. Put in the context of history, however, this music takes on new meanings and a bit of foreshadowing. The article discusses mostly the libretto, but listening to the music in contrast to other composers of the day one realizes that the same themes addressed in the libretto are also addressed by musical techniques, use of motives and variations, tonalities, and instrumentation. This is perhaps the explanation for the extreme popularity of Mozart. It was highly unusual for the court musicians to be truly beloved by the common people, but Mozart accomplished that -- perhaps because he was able to use his music to support what the common people were feeling while still composing music sufficiently "high-brow" to appeal to his patrons. Maybe the Genius of Mozart extended far beyond the elements of music?
I have to admit, I've always hated Mozart and this makes me think about him a bit differently!
ReplyDeleteBeaumarchais, who wrote the original 'Figaro' plays, looks really interesting too--I've seen the Romantics talk about him here and there but this is the first time I've gotten around to looking him up. Three people killed in the theatre riot! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumarchais )
Moliére is another 18th Century satirist who is usually grouped in the same camp--another person I know I need to read but haven't gotten around to yet.
This article touches on another important point--as a court musician (even a famous one), Mozart was still considered an artisan by his employers, a skilled craftsman like the world-class woodcarvers, cooks, painters, goldsmiths, grooms, butlers, poets, tailors, etc. that he employed. The special status of 'artists' (whether musical, visual, or literary) was only half-developed, and wouldn't become a common idea until after the Romantics fought for the idea after the Revolution.