Not as cut-and-dried as it seems; there are a lot of gray areas, amd twists and turns, in this story:
Hmmm. Seems like no one’s really right and no one’s really wrong here.
No, I think that whenever genuine artistry (this is Mozart we’re talking about, not some unknown Danish cartoonist) is stifled because of Muslim extremists’ propensity for violence, there’s definitely a right and wrong here.
WTF?
He’s editing a Mozart opera? Adding to it?
Who the fuck does that idiotic conductor think he is… Beethoven?
(Sorry, but that’s the controversy I see. YMMV. 
)
I’m writing a novel and it certainly does not conform to the worldview of any major Abrahamic religion. But the one it conforms to the most is the Islamic metaphysics. Yet I would think that if it were better written and thus became famous (or even published :)), that the ones protesting the loudest would be Muslim. But thankfully I’m not a great writer.
As the OP made clear, this is absolutely NOT Mozart we’re talking about here.
Well, it is Mozart–but it’s Mozart, plus an extraneous bit of stage business.
It doesn’t even make sense dramatically, because in the opera, it’s the sea monster sent by Poseidon that Idamante kills, not Poseidon himself, so why would they bring in Poseidon’s head? Just to make some kind of neo-nihil-existentialist statement about the death-of-something-or-other, I guess. And since that’s what Mozart operas are all about, hey, it’s perfectly appropriate. "…[to make] a point that “all the founders of religions were figures that didn’t bring peace to the world.” Yeah, like that belongs in Mozart. :rolleyes:
But even granted it’s a silly bit, still, if they cancel the entire performance now, it looks like caving. Why on earth don’t they just cut out the extraneous silly bit and go ahead and put on the opera? That wouldn’t look quite so much like caving (“well, this bit doesn’t belong in here anyway, we don’t mind dropping it”), and they could get extra points for seeming to be sensitive and for being willing to compromise, plus they’d get even more extra points for eliminating a bit of arbitrarily inserted sermonizing stage business from a Mozart opera, always a good thing.
There is also another issue here, which is that the opera house in question is supported by the state, in which case I think that the tax-payers do have a right to complain if something that they’re paying for is actively offensive to them. The kind of “Artistic freedom” that means that any artist anywhere has the right to get up on stage (metaphorically speaking) and say whatever they please only obtains when nobody’s paying for it except the people who bought a ticket (so to speak), but if we’re all being expected to chip in to underwrite it, then I think we have a say in the finished product, and if the finished product is actively offensive to us, we have a right to ask for changes.
So I think the Islamic taxpayers of Germany have a right to complain about an extraneous silly bit that’s been added to a Mozart opera that they find actively offensive. And I think the management oughta just say, “Whoops, our bad, let’s take it out” and send the plastic heads back to the Props department.
Honestly, I’d say that whoever put the added scene in is most certainly “wrong.” It sounds like a ghastly addition, and removing it would both restore the artistic work and shut up any protest. It’s win-win.
Huh? The scene may well be stupid. It certainly sounds stupid. If critics denounce it and audiences stay away, that’s their right. But surely you don’t believe that religious terror is justified if it’s target is, in your opinion, stupid? You don’t, right?
It’s like the Danish cartoons. Those cartoons were as funny as a tax form, but the response to them should have troubled everyone. The next art work to be cancelled because it pisses off some violent fanatic may not be stupid at all. It may be a work you would have loved.
The most troubling thing about this is that the whole thing was cancelled after one threat. Is Europe really that cowed? That’s sad. They may as well start paying dhimmi tax and adopting to a theocracy, as that’s where they’re heading.
Dead Duck Goose: “Why on earth don’t they just cut out the extraneous silly bit and go ahead and put on the opera? That wouldn’t look quite so much like caving (“well, this bit doesn’t belong in here anyway, we don’t mind dropping it”), and they could get extra points for seeming to be sensitive and for being willing to compromise, plus they’d get even more extra points for eliminating a bit of arbitrarily inserted sermonizing stage business from a Mozart opera, always a good thing.”
The sermonizer doesn’t want to cut it.
Well, forgetting about whether or not it’s wrong to use… creative staging in a Mozart opera…
I don’t know. I look at the words of the leader of the Islamic Council, and I just get frustrated. He says it’s horrible that people have to be affraid, but is he speaking out against subversive violence in his religious community? If not, then that’s just lip-service, and what he’s really saying is, “geez, it sucks to be you, to have to be affraid.”
It’s just like Christian ministers preaching love from the pulpit, while refusing to call their parishoners out specifically and directly for hateful acts towards gays/blacks/whomever.
Sure, people have a right to complain. But as soon as someone makes a threat of physical harm over an issue of expression, the lines of right and wrong are clearly drawn, IMHO.
Oops… Cite
Religious terror is absolutely unjustified under any and all circumstances. The threat is shameful and disgusting and there are no excuses.
I believe that fucking with an extant piece of art in order to promote some political position is stupid and indefensible. Pulling the entire performance because of threats would be a shame but understandable if it were the entire performance that garnered the threats. But pulling it because some bozo tacked on a stupid political statement and apparently won’t remove it is just idiocy. Allowing the bozo to tack on the stupid political statement is just idiocy even if it had garnered no threats.
Artists have the right to tack on what they want. It may be stupid, it may not be stupid, but it’s their–and your–right to make bad art, just as it’s your right to give it a bad review or to avoid it. Threats against bad art are just as bad as threats against good art.
If someone ended a performance of Hamlet by having the dead Hamlet and Laertes jump up and launch in to a long diatribe against the war in Iraq, that would be really really stupid. If a bunch of pissed off right-wingers forced theaters to not show the play under threat of violence, that would be much worse than any stupid play.
The CNN report does not mention a threat, just the police claiming " incalculable security risk".
Does anyone feels the German police were acting in a racist / anti Muslim way when expecting risk from Muslims and not Christians, Buddhists, or Posidonists?
If not, why not?
What makes you think that he might be condoning violence? e.g. On the website of his organization you’ll find a statement denouncing the recent attempted attacks on trains in Germany: Not in our name! - Muslim organizations against terror and violence (German only unfortunately)
To me, the OP is talking about there being two sides to this argument–neither of them being terrorists.
You seem to be looking at this as “artist versus terrorist.”
I’m looking at this as “artist versus people frightened of terrorists.”
I agree that adding to Mozart’s work (apparently just to stir the shit) is probably not such a hot idea. But what if a new artist created a piece that included all the things the muslim community is getting all lathered up over? Do we censor anything that annoys them? Do we send an envoy to the middle east to teach them how resist buying tickets to the performance? What’s the answer?
??
Idomeneos was king of Crete during the Trojan War. What are Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed even doing there? They shouldn’t exist yet!
Thisd looks like something deliberately intended to be provocative. I suspect they’re sitting back and taking note of the lack of outrage from Christians, Buddhists, and the random Greek-god-worshipping Pagans to contrast with any Muslim reaction.
Who is “we”? I would support a house choosing to show the new work, and I would support a house not choosing to show it. But with a new work, I’d say that things are much more honest, not this lame hiding behind Mozart.
Choosing not to tweak a psycho’s nose if you think they might beat you to death isn’t cowardice (which has come up before, not in this thread) and isn’t censorship.
On the one hand we have an artiste making a stupid statement unconnected with the artwork. On the other hand, we have the people who own his venue asking him to drop the stupid statement because it might lead to trouble for them, their customers, and their property. He gets petulant about artistic integrity. I assume this was followed by repeated conversations that consisted of “Pretty please?” and “NO!” Finally they tell him to piss off and find someplace else to get political.
Sounds like the Free Enterprise System in action.