www.lifesitenews.com
He may have considered himself to be devout, but at the age of twenty-eight years he joined the Freemasons, and was an active member of a lodge in Vienna until his death seven years later. His opera The Magic Flute is suffused throughout with Masonic symbols and concepts. The spoken dialogue between the musical numbers, especially in the second act, refers constantly to arcane knowledge and rituals of Freemasonry. I wrote a paper on the Masonic symbolism in The Magic Flute when I was at school and investigated the subject thoroughly. In addition, there is evidence that Mozart and his wife enjoyed what would today be referred to as an ‘open relationship’, one in which the partners, rather than attempting fidelity one to the other, were instead promiscuous in the bestowing of their amorous attentions to various people outside their marriage.
I agree with all this…when I took art history courses, we mostly studied only the artwork itself and its contributions to the art world…less focus was on the artist’s personal life, though sometimes it was relevant.
The fact remains that almost all of Freemasonry is in direct opposition to Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. It is thought that much of the Masonic movement in Vienna was politically motivated, being in part a violent reaction against the arch-conservatism of the Empress Maria Theresia. However, Mozart was not an idiot, and would have been well aware of the conflict between his lodge and his Church. It may also be that his joining the lodge was more mercenary than it was an honest acknowledgment of his beliefs in the cult. He had a large family with many small children and was constantly in debt. It is possible that his Masonic membership was more in the nature of what we would call ‘networking’, a resource for him to find work, or more crassly, to gain access to wealthy members from whom he could borrow money, a habit which became more and more frequent as he aged.
I agree. This is becoming depressing to have these artists knocked off their “thrones”. I think I would rather have remained ignorant, lol.
I know just what you mean. Sadly, we often cannot help being affected by knowledge of an artist’s character and morals, or lack thereof. When I was still a performing musician, I was quite fond of the singing of the soprano Kathleen Battle. Her voice sounded to me quite as if it were that of an angel, and I collected her recordings assiduously. However, upon learning of her hideous character from colleagues whom had worked with her personally, my enjoyment of her art was marred by knowledge of her beastliness to people. I do still enjoy her work, but as in your case with Picasso, I cannot ‘unlearn’ the things I now know about her. Sad.Ardent_Fire:
I agree with all this…when I took art history courses, we mostly studied only the artwork itself and its contributions to the art world…less focus was on the artist’s personal life, though sometimes it was relevant.
I also usually separate the art from the artist, which is why I don’t boycott Hollywood or Disney, for instance. I can enjoy watching Mission Impossible without endorsing Tom Cruise’s personal beliefs.
I’d probably rather not know much about the artist…I’d rather enjoy a Monet painting or a Degas ballerina without having to remember whatever sordid backstory there is.
But in this case, facts about Picasso’s life were pointed out, and it is deeply troubling and heart-breaking to learn of it. It doesn’t lessen his contributions or influence in the art world, or that I’m going to boy-cott his works–I’m not. But I can’t help that it does change how I’ll perceive his work from now on. Same with the others who were pointed out.
Yes, that’s it exactly.