/lit/ - Literature

>>17532641
>Thus undoubtedly the essence of Dramatic art, as against the Poet's method, at first seems totally irrational; it is not to be seized, without a complete reversal of the beholder's nature. In what this reversal must consist, however, should not be hard to indicate if we recall the natural process in the beginnings of all Art, as plainly shewn to us in improvisation. The poet, mapping out a plan of action for the improvising mime, would stand in much the same relation to him as the author of an operatic text to the musician; his work can claim as yet no atom of artistic value; but this it will gain in the very fullest measure if the poet makes the improvising spirit of the mime his own, and develops his plan entirely in character with that improvisation, so that the mime now enters with all his individuality into the poet's higher reason. This involves, to be sure, a complete transformation of the poetic artwork itself, of which we might form an idea if we imagined the impromptu of some great musician noted down. We have it on the authority of competent witnesses, that nothing could compare with the effect produced by Beethoven when he improvised at length upon the pianoforte to his friends; nor, even in view of the master's greatest works, need we deem excessive the lament that precisely these inventions were not fixed in writing, if we reflect that far inferior musicians, whose penwork was always stiff and stilted, have quite amazed us in their 'free fantasias' by a wholly unsuspected and often very fertile talent for invention.—At anyrate we believe we shall really expedite the solution of an extremely difficult problem, if we define the Shakespearian Drama as [144] a fixed mimetic improvisation of the highest poetic worth. For this explains at once each wondrous accidental in the bearing and discourse of characters alive to but one purpose, to be at this moment all that they are meant to seem to us to be, and to whom accordingly no word can come that lies outside this conjured nature; so that it would be positively laughable to us, upon closer consideration, if one of these figures were suddenly to pose as poet. This last is silent, and remains for us a riddle, such as Shakespeare. But his work is the only veritable Drama; and what that implies, as work of Art, is shewn by our rating its author the profoundest poet of all time.—
- On the Destiny of Opera

>>17532641
No, he just turns himself in circles trying to make the reality that Shakespeare is great conform to the ideals he's concocted elsewhere. Who else but a German could see a great play written in verse and then seriously ask the question:

>Was the author of these plays a poet?

Only someone who has perverted the meaning of the word pet away from 'person who writes poems' and towards some ludicrous artificial definition.

>>17532641
No, someone who isn't a native English speaker can't even get close to understanding Shakespeare.

>>17532836
Shakespeare was a German, though.

>>17532876
Shakespeare was actually a Puerto Rican tranny

>>17532826
How far the definition of the poet goes, in the place of art on the whole, goes further than just 'person who writes poems,' which is completely unsatisfactory for understanding art. Besides, Wagner here by no means thinks he is making the absolute standard by which to understand Shakespeare, just as he says, "we believe we shall really expedite the solution of an extremely difficult problem," a problem which many (as he shows Goethe as one) have been stumped by. Or would you not have a difference between Dante and Shakespeare in anything other than metre, language and ostensible topic?

To refuse any further investigation into the nature of Shakespeare's art is not only to be ignorant about the actual character of it, but to completely relativize art on the whole to that same lazy opinion of "subjectivity".

>>17532641
Wagner's music is just bad. Theatrical, boisterous, operatic, showmanlike. Big crashing cymbals and strings to pack the tawdry seats of opera-halls. I doubt any of his Nazi fanbois even listen to it. And Nietzsche certainly knew better than to listen to that crap.

Mahler, on the other hand, (and Strauss as well) displays the characteristics of a true Overman of the arts.

>>17532826
Who else but a German could see a great play written in verse and then seriously ask the question:
>Was the author of these plays a poet?

As a Dutchmen I immediately understand the question. So perhaps you lack a certain racial quality.

>>17532978
Nice we have a jew in here shilling hard for his mediocre ethnic group.

>>17532641
This is badly written and doesn't express any intelligent thoughts.

>>17532978
Nietzsche never stopped loving Wagner. As confessed In his letters that and the antiantisemitism was all performative because he couldn't have sex with Wagner's wife and Wagner was mean to him.

>>17533062
Or are you are merely incapable of understanding them?
Shakespeare is the Faustian homer, let it be known

>>17533062
Badly translated by an amateur from the 1890's, but if you think it "doesn't express any intelligent thoughts," you're just illiterate.

>Famously, in his published writing Nietzsche sets up Bizet against Wagner, declares Carmen to be the greatest of all operas, and compares its music favourably with Wagner's in a certain amount of detail. But he does not believe this either. Privately, in a letter to a friend he writes: 'What I say about Bizet, you should not take seriously the way I am, Bizet does not matter at all to me. But as an ironic antithesis to Wagner, it has a strong effect' (27 December 1888). It does indeed, and has been quoted ever since. We begin to realise who, as between Nietzsche and Wagner, is the actor, the master of insincere effect. As for Wagner the man, although Nietzsche heaped almost incredible public abuse on his head ('Is Wagner a human being at all? Isn't he rather a sickness?' — this remark in The Wagner Case is representative of dozens such to be found in his writings) he never, in spite of himself, lost a vivid sense of Wagner's greatness. In the last year of his effective life he wrote to a friend: 'Wagner himself, as man, as animal, as God and artist, surpasses a thousand times the understanding and the incomprehension of our Germans' (26 February 1888).

And there are countless other letters like this from Nietzsche.

>>17532641
I hate 19th century windbaggery.

>>17533131
Right? Like helloooooo? HELLOOOOOOOO? WHAT the fuck my man, my big man, I don't have ALL DAY!!! JUST TELL Me what you wanna SAY and don't be SO LONGWINDED!
Do you agree? I hope so, I really do
Kind regards

>>17533027
>mediocre ethnic group
I'm not Jewish, nor was Strauss. You're incredibly retarded though, Jews are disproportionately represented in the arts, despite their shockingly low population size, mediocrity isn't warranted in this context. Fuck off to /pol/ and stop viewing Jews on the preface that they're all culturally subversive parasites.

>>17533307
I can only conclude he meant Mahler. And though you're half-right about it being false to call jews a mediocre race, it is true in the sense that jews are never of the highest order of artists. But great jewish artists, there most definitely is.

>>17533807
Mahler is easily Wagner tier, Mendelssohn is not far off (and maybe the single most indisputable case of pure genius outside Mozart - wasted his time a bit later on, but he was high-tier already as a schoolkid). I prefer the argument that most of the great composers were manlets and nobody over 5"11 can be a true artist.

>>17533929
>Mahler is easily Wagner tier
Definitely not anon, Wagner will always be far more important and original than Mahler, as important and original as the latter was.

Mendelssohn however is very misunderstood, the constant comparisons to Mozart only blurr him more. If we speak of genius as in this case talent to achieve at a very young age, then yes Mendelssohn comes second to Mozart in that, and no one can deny his intimate value as a composer, but there is no need to exaggerate his greatness to the rank of Mozart and Beethoven.

>I prefer the argument that most of the great composers were manlets and nobody over 5"11 can be a true artist.
What about poor Liszt? He did after all make the music of the future with Wagner.

>>17534020
No, I wouldn't put Felix in top tier, I meant he's not far off the Wagner/Mahler level, and might have a comparable body of work if he'd lived longer. Certainly a countercase to anti-semites, as I think Wagner knew. I actually think Mendy's underrated in terms of influence because his rediscovery and re-emphasis of JS Bach is one of the most important (non-progressive) trends in the tradition.

I was also not aware Liszt was six foot. Handsome devil spoiled my Gesamtgrößetheorie

>>17534020
>If we speak of genius as in this case talent to achieve at a very young age, then yes Mendelssohn comes second to Mozart in that
Mendelssohn was a far better enfant prodige than Mozart, I honestky don't think there's even a contest. His Concerto in A minor (composed when he was only 13) is already better than pretty much everything Mozart composed before his adulthood. When you factor in that by the time he was 16 he had already composed the Octet, Mozart's early achievements get completely overshadowed.
It must also be said that Mendelssohn had far better opportunities than any other composer in human history. By the time he was 12 he already had his own personal orchestra (a birthday gift from his dad). Fortunately all these resources were well spent on him and his genius

>>17534079
>No, I wouldn't put Felix in top tier, I meant he's not far off the Wagner/Mahler level, and might have a comparable body of work if he'd lived longer.
But then Mendelssohn was older than Mozart when he died, I think we can assume that he is not on the level of Mozart and Wagner/Mahler (though again I wouldn't put Mahler as an equal to Wagner). And yes a countercase, you're right that Wagner knew it, as he complemented Mendelssohn many times, both his genius and noble character. But the only problem is, is that even for Wagner, Mendelssohn was never capable of rising to the same innermost depths of feeling as the racially European composers of genius. Judaism in Music is more than just anti-Semitic screeching, and is worth a read as it's not just about jews (Wagner always squeezes a wide variety of topics into his essays, irrespective of the ostensive topic), but even for that he does make more of an argument than just "jews can't into art," he just doesn't think jews can into the very highest level of art. Now it may be that because they're a smaller population they haven't produced such a genius yet, or that Wagner is right, nevertheless none of these definitions are too exact and Wagner never intended them to be. Also Mendelssohn does seem to be like one of those artists who have a very strong influence but not in a seeable direct way, just speaking of his music that is, but then his reintroduction of Bach to mass culture is also another layer of influence.

If we cannot have an argument built on non-jewishness or height, then what next?

No. Victor Hugo did.