Yoel L. Arbeitman:
>Yea, I read the whole article after he performed. If only Barenboim
>with his concerts in Ramallah and his Wagner unannounced against the
>will of his Israeli audience could solve all the world's problems,
>wouldn't life be an much easier thing for all of us? The man is
>delusional and basically irrelevant as a peace maker of any kind.
>I cannot read his mind, but he is basically contributing nothing.
If you can't read his mind, how do you know he's trying to solve the
world's problems? Also, as a participant in the American Sixties, I
wouldn't underestimate a gesture like this. I think Barenboim is trying
to live as best he can in a world he would like to see. Since I'm not
an Israeli and have no desire to visit, whether Wagner gets played live
or not doesn't affect me personally. The de facto ban, however, certainly
doesn't make that society any more attractive to me than, say, Pat
Robertson's World o' Homophobia. The concert in Ramallah is a gesture,
but an important one: a gift that recognizes the humanity of the other.
I'm sure there are at least some Israelis and some Palestinians tired
of rhetoric they've been locked into, just as there are Americans sick
of their own political environment. I'm a soft-centered patsy, undoubtedly,
but this kind of maverick action actually gives me a lot of hope.
But Yoel's post also raises another question. Does art make a
practical difference? Normally, I'm against "utilitarian" uses of art
-- Mozart makes your kids smarter, for example. On the other hand, music
seems to mean a great deal to me, and I have indeed chosen certain paths
precisely because it does mean something to me. It gives me a glimpse
of something better than what I normally get. It expands what I may
think possible. If, to take a cliche, Beethoven's Ninth has no consequence
in the world (and surely so far it has had no practical political
consequence), is it therefore, practically speaking, useless? After
all, as Auden once wrote: "Poetry makes nothing happen."
Steve Schwartz
|
