Confined to barracks for the last 13 weeks, Bernice and I have been devoting significant time to watching some of the offerings online of plays, (principally from the National Theatre), operas and programs on the visual arts. When we feel our eyes going square, we switch to reading. And when my eyes demand a complete rest, I turn to music. This artsfest has led me to muse about the nature of each of these arts, and, in particular, the relation of each to interpretation.
The art that lends itself most easily to interpretation may well be music. If you want to go along with me (it will take less than ten minutes, and hardly hurt at all), then please listen to this very straightforward (and fairly parve – neither meat nor milk) rendition of Dvořák’s best-known Humoresque. Now, hear what Art Tatum (for my money the greatest jazz pianist) does with the same delightful little jewel. You certainly don’t have to agree, but at least listen to his interpretation.
So, I hear you wearily ask, what’s the point? The point, I think – and bear with me here because, as always, I am making this up as I go along – is that as a performance art, music is, by definition, interpretational, and, given the nature and limitations of musical notation, music is arguably the art form most open to interpretation. This is true even if the performers are not rearranging the music or improvising on it, or playing a set of variations (as Tatum arguably is).
To illustrate this last point, listen to two mainstream classical performances of the Allemande from Bach’s English Suite No 1. The first is from Gustav Leonhardt, playing on a harpsichord from the period of Bach. The second is from Glenn Gould, idiosyncratic Canadian pianist. They are both playing all (and only) the right notes, and, unlike Eric Morecambe, in the right order. (If you don’t get that reference, click here, but only after you have read the rest of the blog.) Two questions: Do you feel that you have just listened to two versions of the same piece of music, or two different pieces of music? And how much of the effect that the music had on you is Bach and how much Gould or Leonhardt?
Another quick question: Is it possible that if Bach heard Gould or Leonhardt (or Dvořák heard Tatum), they would say: ‘A-a-ah-h-h! So that’s what I meant by that!’?
If I wanted to risk losing half my readers (if I haven’t already), I would now offer you Klemperer’s and Bernstein’s conducting of Mahler’s 5th symphony, and then, as the ultimate in how the same thing can sound different, Glenn Gould’s 1955 and 1981 recordings of Bach’s Goldberg Variations: the same piece of music played on the same instrument by the same performer, but two completely different interpretations.
I am no musician, and not even very knowledgeable about music, but I can understand why some musicologists prefer to read a musical score rather than going to a concert or even listening to recorded music, with the coughs and chair squeaks mercifully absent. Only in their head can they hear what the composer wrote (or, I suspect, their own interpretation of what the composer wrote). They want the unmediated experience.
At the other end of the interpretative scale from music are, it seems to me, painting and sculpture. Here, the creator presents a finished work and the consumer’s interaction with it is almost completely unmediated. No performer presents the work to me. And yet, of course, the museum or art gallery chooses to display the painting or statue in a specific position in a specific room, next to specific other works, lit in a specific way. We can surely view all of these decisions as mediations or interpretations of the work, quite apart from any explicit notes displayed next to the piece or in an accompanying catalogue.
The question of background notes leads me to my next set of questions. To what extent, and in what ways, does knowledge of the artist’s biography contribute to (or perhaps influence) our appreciation and understanding of the work? For example, do we need to know about van Gogh the man in order to view, be moved by, appreciate, understand his work? And here come a few more troubling questions that follow on the heels of that one. I have long ‘known’ that Carl Orff was a Nazi sympathizer in the Berlin of the 1930s and 40s. Does this ‘fact’ influence the quality of his music? In background reading for this post, I have just discovered that the ‘fact’ of that sympathy is far less certain than I have always believed. Does my discovery of this alter the music qualitatively? If we were to learn tomorrow that Picasso poisoned and dismembered red-headed men in his spare time, would that change the nature and quality of his art, objectively? Or subjectively? Does the word ‘objectively’ have any relevance in matters of art, or is art appreciation all subjective, and the high esteem in which Rembrandt is held ‘proves’ his objective standing as an artist no more than the results of one general election (or even several general elections) prove the objective superiority of the majority party? No answers, people, just questions.
Perhaps halfway between music and painting comes theatre. I am sometimes tempted to think that theatre is as freely open to interpretation as music, but, on reflection, for me at least that is not the case. If I hear an interpretation of a piece of music, however far removed from the original, I feel the power of the original in it. Barry Manilow’s Could It Be Magic, for example, is still invested with Chopin’s Prelude in C minor, on whose melodic and harmonic frame Manilow hung his song. However, I have seen some theatrical interpretations that seem to me to have no connection to the essence of the work they are interpreting. I wonder whether that is because theatre operates at a more explicit, intellectual, verbal, literal level than music.
Despite that, clearly theatre is very much an interpretative art. Indeed, I expect practitioners of the art – directors and actors – would argue that there is no point in staging a play if the production does not have something new to say about the work. I also suspect that this is more true for theatre than for music. If we go to a concert specifically because a certain artist is performing a certain work, we may well be hoping to hear the songs or music we love played in the interpretation we are familiar with. However, we would probably not want to see Judi Dench reprising her performance as Lady Macbeth in an identical revival of the Scottish play. Most vivid in my mind, because I have seen it most recently, is the National Theatre production of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night in which Tamsin Greig played Malvolia (rather than Malvolio, as written by Shakespeare): turning this character (and also Feste) from a man into a woman not only seemed appropriate in a play that is so much concerned with gender identity and confusion, but also, for me, seemed to help the production to actualise its decision to expose the full force of the cruelty of the trick played on Malvolio/a and his/her subsequent incarceration.
Which brings us back, inevitably, to literature. Where does fiction, for example, lie on this spectrum of interpretability? At first sight, it would seem to be, like painting, complete in itself and not open to interpretation. Even more so than in a gallery, nothing mediates between the work and the consumer. For the reader, one page of black type on white paper looks almost indistinguishable from another.
I am tempted to think (and this may simply because I am a words person rather than a pictures person, but I don’t think so) that a great novel contains within it the possibility for a wider range of understanding and interpretation than a great painting does, or, at least, that more of this range is accessible to the general reader. This is partly because of the amount of space and time it covers – there are more words in a novel than brushstrokes in a painting, and very few people spend an hour a day for a month looking at a single painting, but such a parcelling of time is quite normal for reading a novel. I feel that it may also be because words are more equivocal, ambiguous, nuanced, than paint. It may, of course, also be because I, like most modern non-specialist consumers of art, am better educated and more experienced in interpreting novels than painting.
Certainly, the experience of reading aloud to Bernice over the last couple of months has made me far more aware of the way in which we, as readers, are constantly interpreting the books we read, in an effort to understand and possess them.
So, music, painting, theatre, literature – which is the greatest art? Fortunately, the pantheon of arts is not an Olympic Games. Each of the arts is a gold medallist and our lives are enriched by both the depth and the breadth of the art we consume. Of all the things we have binged on over the last couple of months, the arts may well be the least unhealthy.
And finally, for those who don’t read the blog but scroll straight to the bottom, here’s a couple of portraits of the artist as a very young man (taken three months ago). As you can see, I had the temerity to disturb him in mid-flow.
