Finding romanticism in music and art isn’t terribly hard to do. Criteria simply seems to be that the composer sing from the heart or paint with soul. However the idea of taking something, an emotion, that's inside a human and projecting it outwards is defied by form and structure. At least, something that comes from an individual is not always going to easily fall into a structure that already exists. This is why romantic ideas are so easy and yet so hard to pinpoint; originally, it was not so. "Romanticism, in the original application of the word, means what is peculiar to the Middle Ages... In Antiquity, body and soul maintained a steady equilibrium; in the Middle Ages, the soul outbalanced the body." (Niecks) While this presents an interesting idea, he goes on to refute the claim saying that most of modern romanticism strays from the concepts inherent to medievalism and some even run opposite. However, it's possible for individuals to express themselves in a romantic fashion through a form or structure. Take for example Beethoven's third "Eroica" Symphony. At the time, his contemporaries were writing symphonies in the standard classical form. Beethoven took the standard symphonic form and essentially broke all the rules by extending it and making harmony and rhythm more complex. Granted, the piece doesn't fit exactly into the standard classical symphony form but the piece is still considered a symphony. In fact, Beethoven's original intentions were to dedicate his third symphony to Napolean Bonaparte. The idea of dedication touches on programmatic music which we discussed in class, another facet of romantic music. To delve into our class readings for a moment, the only piece that was clearly unconventional was Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell." The majority of the smaller works fit into the category of a "poem." The question that plagues me now is whether classicism exists in romanticism or romanticism exists in classicism. In order to answer the question, one must decide on a standard. Classicism came first so its only natural to consider it the standard. Romanticism seemed to come along and expand upon it. However, romantic ideas stem from the soul which could ultimately make it the standard for considering and classifying ideas simply because the individual creating the art knows best how it should be perceived. But let's not pretend that ideas categorized as classic can't also come from the soul. In fact, composers such as J.S. Bach and Josquin Des Prez were very capable of expressing emotion and they did it through structure and standards that had come before them. (So could romantic idea and feeling perhaps be the standard of the composer and classic structure be the standard of a discipline? After all, the only difference between classic and romantic music is that the aim of the idea of romantic music is to evoke emotion, whereas the aim of classical is to be structured and correct. Individuals such as J.S. and Des Prez just so happened to be flexible enough to fit their art into a mold, it happened by chance but considering the time period was fortunate for them) Artists were also very capable of achieving higher meaning; one such artist being Louis David with a painting entitled "The Oath of the Horatii." Completed in 1784, the painting depicts three Horatii men swearing an oath of allegiance to their swords and Rome. The men are to avenge the honor of their sister. There is nothing abstract about the painting. The color scheme is normal, the most intense color being the characteristic Roman red. The men in the scene have little to no emotion on their faces. Three swear allegiance and the fourth simply holds the swords to signify the strength of the men and their country. The women in the background seemingly weep for the soldiers and their possible doom. However even with all of this standard depiction the painting speaks loudly about patriotism, honor, and grief. All three are fairly subjective emotions but still, the painting conveys them to the viewer. This is romantic idea being present in classic art, especially when the time period is taken into consideration. Since 1784 is just five years before the start of the French Revolution the painting takes on another meaning when placed in historical context. Viewers would've been instilled with a sense of patriotism and duty. (Antal) I feel that throughout the debate between romanticism or classicism, the real answer is finding one in the other and really almost without distinction. One need only know what to be searching for. The article by Liebich highlights many classical composers and then gives a romantic idea about them. For example, Mozart is described in an interesting manner. Liebich uses romantic language to persuade the reader that Mozart's music is in fact romantic. "Spring with its mercurial new skies" compares Nature to Mozart's music. Here we see a romantic idea: taking something and comparing it to Nature. But really, we encounter the same idea in literature. Again, poems, prose, and even an essay can all express a huge amount of emotion but it's up to the author whether or not they wish to fall into the classification. Niecks also brings up a point that most romantics, when expressing themselves the way they wish, simply do not fall into a category.
William Blake believed that nothing was truly original because no matter what an author wrote, it was still in the English language and was confined to the borders of the English language and the methods in which humans have grown comfortable thinking in. If Blake was right, and I think he's got a good point, then instead of forever attempting and failing to create new things why not mix what we have? It seems to be a step backward in the creativity spectrum but musical fusion has been growing over the past decades; for example, the fusion of latin music and jazz or folk tunes written into symphonic compositions. Instead of seeking something totally new and original, composers like Bela Bartok have fused two familiar things and made them something new. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
In the end romanticism can be tallied up to those individuals who felt so compelled to write in such a manner as to upset precedent.
Works Cited
Antal, Friedrich. “Reflections on Classicism and Romanticism.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 66.385 1935, pp. 159-168.
Liebich, Frank. “The Fusion of Classicism and Romanticism.” The Musical Times Vol. 68. 1010. 1927, pp. 311-313.
Niecks, Professor. “Romanticism in Music”. The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular. Vol. 40, No. 682. 1899, pp. 802- 805.
Phew! You offered up several intriguing inquiries in this post—as if a rapid-fire interrogation of Romanticism’s ancestors and progeny (which in and of themselves are arguably interchangeable, as you intimated). But just as I was getting caught up in the questions and beginning to look for answers, you switched from music to art. And then you came to reveal that Romanticism and Classicism could be interchangeable, distinguished only by what an individual seeks. While I can certainly appreciate a kind of productivity in ambiguity, I’m not so certain that this particular instantiation of ambiguity is successful here. Given all that we’ve covered this semester, I found it difficult to believe that the criteria for “finding romanticism in music and art… simply seem to be that the composer sing from the heart or paint with soul.” Moreover, the motto of “if you can't beat 'em, join 'em” seems to be counter-intuitive to Romantic revolutionary notions. How can the Romantics be said to “upset precedent” in this way? Throughout this post you bring up many individual issues, but I’m not so sure I follow the logic overall.
ReplyDelete