Times critic Anthony Tommasini has an article on Musicians facing pressure to make Political statements protesting Governments that have furthered their careers. He focuses primarily on Venezuelans Gustavo Duadamel and Gabriela Montero, and Russian Conductor Varery Gergiev.
Montero has apparently criticzed Dudamel for not speaking out against the current government, which among other things, has shot unarmed protestors during a Dudamel led concert by the Simon Bolivar orchestra in Caracas. Gergiev gets examined for his failure to protest the Putin
government attitude towards Gay Rights, and his signing of a petition endorsing the recent annexation of Crimea gets a a passing mention.
My first reaction was that there is nothing new in this. The plights and moral dilemmas of Artists under the totalitarian Nazi and USSR
governments have been explored and documented.
One wonders why Artists are expected to be more politically visible than other people. Perhaps one justification can be that when an odious regime actively promotes the career of the artist as a way of buffing the image of the regime, then the Artist has more at stake morally. Furtwangler tried to stay above Politics but was sent on tours by the Nazis in an effort to enhance their image as preservationists of German Culture. I have just finished the biography of Rostislav Dubinsky in which he vividly relates the Soviet Government to do the same, as well as to earn needed foreign exchange currency, by (over)working the Borodin Quartet and David Oistakh.
One feels for Dudamel who is clearly uncomfortable with the controversy. He is a product of El Sistema and goodness knows what he would be doing with his life if not for this program, but he comes off as not at ease with the current troubles in his country. Gergiev is different, as he and Putin appear to be soulmates.
The article reaches no conclusions, and imo doesn't do a particularly good job of re visitng old controversies, but it is worth a read.
Montero has apparently criticzed Dudamel for not speaking out against the current government, which among other things, has shot unarmed protestors during a Dudamel led concert by the Simon Bolivar orchestra in Caracas. Gergiev gets examined for his failure to protest the Putin
government attitude towards Gay Rights, and his signing of a petition endorsing the recent annexation of Crimea gets a a passing mention.
My first reaction was that there is nothing new in this. The plights and moral dilemmas of Artists under the totalitarian Nazi and USSR
governments have been explored and documented.
One wonders why Artists are expected to be more politically visible than other people. Perhaps one justification can be that when an odious regime actively promotes the career of the artist as a way of buffing the image of the regime, then the Artist has more at stake morally. Furtwangler tried to stay above Politics but was sent on tours by the Nazis in an effort to enhance their image as preservationists of German Culture. I have just finished the biography of Rostislav Dubinsky in which he vividly relates the Soviet Government to do the same, as well as to earn needed foreign exchange currency, by (over)working the Borodin Quartet and David Oistakh.
One feels for Dudamel who is clearly uncomfortable with the controversy. He is a product of El Sistema and goodness knows what he would be doing with his life if not for this program, but he comes off as not at ease with the current troubles in his country. Gergiev is different, as he and Putin appear to be soulmates.
The article reaches no conclusions, and imo doesn't do a particularly good job of re visitng old controversies, but it is worth a read.
Comment