It really is all semantics

Back to my disbelief in the 14 Huffington Post artists who are transforming opera and the fact that many critics have been wrong for many years regarding the progress of music and art.

In the past, with a piece of revolutionary music such as The Rite of Spring or Tristan and Isolde, there was an established tradition from which it was breaking away.

A critic or audience member usually has a strong idea regarding the nature of the tradition of the event which they are attending.

Often times, the idea is so strong that the critic associates the idea or aesthetic with who they are as a person. Anything that challenges that idea is perceived as attacking the very core of their being. This also happens in religion and politics.

A good critic understands that an idea about (in this case) opera is only that — an idea. Yes, I understand that by writing this I’m declaring myself as a good critic, and that’s unattractive.

Let’s change the grammar up and relieve me of self-proclamations.

When we understand that an idea about opera is only that, an idea, and not the fabric of our person, then we have a little more freedom to experience the arts. This doesn’t mean that we try everything, swallow it, and declare it delicious.

This also doesn’t remove our emotional responses or passions, but they are blunted a little bit when we recognize that we usually don’t like something because it isn’t in line with our idea of what it should be.

For us to be aware of this phenomenon we need to start with a clear idea of the artform we are experiencing. My basic idea of opera is unplugged voices, on a stage, singing with a full range of beauty and power and truthfully expressing the story the music is telling.

If one of those elements is missing then I tend to get worked up about it.

Everything else — language, staging, costumes — is free game and it might work for me and it might not.

The 14 Huffington artists aren’t in the opera tradition, even though the author tried to make opera include anything that is a performance. They can keep doing their own thing to their heart’s content and maybe even express truths in their art, but it simply isn’t opera. Nor is it generally appealing.

There’s a little bit of Wittgensteinian language-game going on here as well.

If we say the word opera then there is a general cultural idea of what that is and we all reference it so that we can understand each other.

It’s a little disconcerting because it means the lowest common denominator is the truth. The mass, agreed-upon perception of what opera is — is what opera is.

Unfortunately the common perception is that opera is boring. The Huffington Post author is trying to remove the boring perception by broadening the definition of opera.

Calling other artforms opera doesn’t change the mass perception, and opera retains it’s soporific designation.

Yes, this language-game approach is the genesis of the tactic of changing popular perceptions instead of changing or improving policy or products.

Opera could use both right now.