Heidegger

Hi guys,

Below is some thoughts prompted from a private discussion with Michael
Pennamacoor:

Not being a Barthian - I am unsympathetic to notions of any *death of the
author* jive, which argues against incorporating the intentions and
biographical context of an author in any interpretation of a text, and says that
writing and creator are unrelated.
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

Would to be true to say for example that Verdi in attempting to
incorporate the stories behind such repertory staples as Un ballo in maschera, La
forza del Destino, Macbeth or Don Carlos in operatic form was uninfluenced by
the real historical protagonists? Is it a true claim that the music and
librettos of his operatic dramas do not incorporate any expressions of
Verdi’s own experience of life, attending operatic performances, as well as
being influenced by concerts of specifically, German music - Italy then under
Austrian domination, the Italian audience of Nabucco responding with
nationalistic fervour to the exiled slaves’ lament for their lost homeland, his
unique personality, reactions, responses, and intentions which would be of
interest to modern interpreters or students of his work? Can it be true
that there is there nothing useful or of interest in a writer’s own history
and that which made him what he was, and thus brought to his work that
would help future commentators on works of literature, philosophy and art
(and even politics) to understand the thrust of the piece relevant to its
creator’s own specific biographical context and the background zeitgeist?

Would you say that art in general and its outcome and interpretation is
unrelated to its creator? Does it mean that the authors, composers,
sculptors and artists of cultural works are best left as irrelevant or even
anonymous, as the biographies and intentions/agendas of the creators (if known)
would not provide anything of additional interest, help or assistance in a
deeper understanding of the work? In other words - is it just the
painting on the wall - the text on the page - the overture on the radio that
counts?

For example take the old English folk song Sumer Is Icumen which was well
ahead of its time both musically and libretto-wise.

It is a cannon in four parts sung over a two part “foot” or bass line,
itself a cannon in two parts. This makes the whole song a polyphonic
composition in six parts at a time when the most “advanced” music was in two or
three part polyphony. This song is remarkable for being ahead of its time. The
music with performance instructions was in a manuscript, originally in
Reading Abbey. It is the oldest piece of six-part polyphonic music extant. Its
composer is anonymous and it is estimated to date from around 1260.

Svmer is icumen in
Lhude sing cuccu!
Groweþ sed and bloweþ med
and springþ þe wde nu.
Sing cuccu!
Summer is a-coming in
Loudly sing cuckoo
Groweth seed and bloweth mead
and springs the wood anew
Sing cuckoo! Awe bleteþ after lomb,
lhouþ after calue cu,
Bulluc sterteþ, bucke uerteþ.
Murie sing cuccu!
Cuccu, cuccu,
Wel singes þu cuccu.
ne swik þu nauer nu!
Sing cuccu nu, Sing cuccu!
Ewe bleateth aft-er lamb,
Calf loweth after cow,
Bullock starteth, buck farteth,
Merry sing cuckoo!
Cuckoo, cuckoo!
Well singest thou cuckoo,
Nor cease thou never now!
Sing cuckoo now, Sing cuckoo! Pes
Sing cuccu, Sing cuccu nu! Foot (or Bass)
Sing cuckoo, Sing cuckoo now!

Now would it not only be of human interest to know who wrote in - and
wouldn’t a knowledge of its author and something of his history be of great
help to historians and musicologists with an interest in medieval music to
know more about the personal and cultural influences that came to bear on its
author?
Would our attitude towards the piece be any different if for example we
learned that its creator was a lowly peasant - or a high Lord of a manor,
or a pervert priest or an Italian immigrant - or even (*lawks a mussey!)
a women?

regards,

Jud

*Lauks: i.e., Lawks = Lord! Also lawk-a-daisy (me) and as n. =
LACK-A-DAISY . lawk-a-mercy (-mussy) = Lord have mercy!; also as v. = to cry
‘Lawk-a-mercy!’, and as quasi-adj. (OED)

—————————————————————————-
———————————
Reifications - like biological entozoa are gut-enculturations which are not

necessarily reliant upon nor benignly disposed to the welfare of their
hosts.
—————————————————————————-
———————————-

Sincerely,

Jud Evans.

Private Website: _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
 http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…)

*Common sense and a sense of humour are the same thing, moving at
different speeds. A sense of humour is just common sense, dancing.*
(William James.)

Posted on Sunday, June 7th, 2009 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: Biography»