Michael Baxandall makes the same metaphorical point in _Patterns of
Intention_ (a fave book!), but in strikingly concrete terms. He
observes that Picasso had his first show a few years after Cezanne died,
after which the prices for Cezanne's paintings went sky-high. B's
conclusion is that Picasso showed the viewing public what (he thought)
was new and exciting in Cezanne's work by appropriating those lessons
into his own oeuvre -- so that people now saw Cezanne through Picasso's eyes.
As for Hitler's passion for Wagner impacting on the way we perceive
Wagner, IMO the question is complicated somewhat by Wagner's political,
non-musical polemical writings. One of his apologists remarked that
these writings were so important, Wagner would have had a place in world
history had he never written a note of music (!). (Sorry I can't supply
the source of the remark, but I think it is in Viereck's book -- for
which I also got the original second title wrong: From the Romantics to
Wagner, not ... to Hitler. Scusi!). The more knotty issue is whether
we percieve Wagner's MUSIC as intrinsically evil, and whether we have
this perception because of Hitler's admiration for it (and how much H's
admiration may have been colored by his knowledge of the political theorizing).
-- Vivian Ramalingam
"Charles E. Hamm" wrote:
>
> Theresa Muir wrote:
>
> "In one of David Lodge's academic satires, didn't someone present a paper
> on T.S. Eliot's influence on Shakespeare?"
>
> Yes, Persse McGarrigal in SMALL WORLD. The point of his paper, to belabor the
> point: whatever happens subsequent to an event affects our perception of that
> event. As John Cage put it, "The past doesn't influence me, I influence the
> past." Or, even more succinctly, "Only the present is fixed; the past is always
> changing." Thus Hitler's passion for Wagner has an impact on the way we perceive
> Wagner today.
>
> Charles Hamm
> charles.hamm@dartmouth.e
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 28 2002 - 09:19:00 PST