Wittgenstein, Collingwood, and the Aesthetic and Ethical Conundrum of Opera

Wittgenstein, Collingwood, and the Aesthetic and Ethical Conundrum of Opera Yaroslav Senyshyn and Danielle Vézina Simon Fraser University, Canada There are two important dimensions of coauthorship vis-à-vis the opera.1 First, in its most general sense, co-authorship has to do withactualizing any musical text through an interpretive performance and second, it is concerned with the philosophical relation ofthe writtenword, the text or libretto, with music. Although we shall deal very briefly with its first orientation, our major concern in this paper is mostly focused on the latterconceptualization. The term 'co-authorship' canbe amisleadingone as it has differentimplications depending on its usage. It is true that its most common use in music is that of two authors collaborating on any literaryor musical text. In the interpretive sense co-authorship in music maybe defined as theperformer's abilityto competently add to or, in very exceptional cases, subtract from a given musical score which is commonlyand holisticallyreferredto as the 'text.' Thus, co-authorship is the activity which takes place when any changes or modifications in dynamics, phrasings, agogics, tempi, etc., are made by the performer that are not inherently 'visible' in the musical text as such. These changes or modifications may or may not necessarilybe implied by the musical text. As well, coauthorship may be called a collaborative activity because it can take place between the performer and the composer (represented by the text).2 It is fashionable to view the musical text, regardless of the wishes of the composer, as a kind ofpermanent document etched in stone and thus a holy, absolute, and sacrosanct icon of worship. In our century, the issue has been hotly debated in the neo-idealistic writings of Alfredo Parente, Salvatore Pugliatti, Luigi Pareyson, and others.3 R. G. Collingwood wrote that "every performeris co-authoroftheworkheperforms."4 He felt that "authors who try to produce a fool-proof text are choosing fools as their collaborators."5 Collingwood felt that this problem was exasperated by incompetent performers who simply lacked imagination and passion. It is strange that in many North American critical circles it is precisely this "incompetence" that is actually praised and apotheosized. PeterKivy, in describing what he calls a "cult ofworship" surrounding composers and their texts, in his book Authenticities* somewhat aligns himselfalong the same lines as Collingwood, although his aim is directed towards a historical perspective for authenticity and text. His general point regarding performance and musical texts is such that [i]ftheestablishingofhistoricallyauthentic performance were carried to its ultimate (and presumably desired) conclusion , performance would collapse into text, and what we used to call "performances " would now have the logical status of prints (if you like) rather than true performances.7 Much is at stake in terms ofaesthetics, creativity, and imagination ifperformance is to collapse into text, not least the role of creator, performer, and audience. Themostobviousfactbeingthat'performance ' becomes an object itself, it becomes regarded as a static/neutral e\ent, dulled in sensation by a certain lack of possibility, growth, and complexity. Inthisdeficientmanner,the 'print' or 'performance' is simply an object lacking the essence of a living and breathing moment; it is a fossilized trace. Rather, to perform the text in reciprocal co-authorship means to bring forward an immediacy ofpassion, an infusion ofimagina-© Philosophy ofMusic Education ReviewlO, No. 1 (Spring 2002):27-35. 28 Philosophy of Music Education Review tion, and a possible realm of understanding for both performer and audience that orbits beyond the blueprint oftext and symbol. SorenKierkegaard approachedthe notion of imagination and passion by way of a concrete conceptualization of subjectivity related to an individual's existence. He managed this brilliantly by focusinghis ideas indirectlyandparticularlyon the notion of"passion is truth." He believed that existencewithoutpassionpreventedapersonfrom becoming personally integrated.8 He wanted to dismantlethe myth ofa scientismwhich canargue that everythingis causallydetermined.9 Ofcourse this does not imply that one should disregard objective knowledge. Far from it. He, like many others who followed after him, simply wanted people to recognized the limitations and myths of the 'what' of objectivity and to preserve their individuality and those of their students through subjective reflection. For Kierkegaardpassion is subjectivityanddoesnot existobjectively.10 Thus, the performing artist, according to both Kierkegaard and Collingwood, must exercise...