Day 2 - My Karajan Dilemma

Herbert Von Karajan, for those of you who don’t know, was one of the greatest and most renowned conductors of the 20th century. His obituary in the New York Times even described him as "probably the world's best-known conductor and one of the most powerful figures in classical music." Simply put, he was amazing. Watch any of his videos on youtube and it’ll be clear how unique he was (eyes almost always shut, no music in front of him). But there’s a little snag, see. He was a member of the Nazi party from 1933 – 1945.

Now, there’s a debate as to whether or not he was idealistically a Nazi or rather if he joined simply to boost his career. I’m not going to give my opinion on the issue because I obviously have no way of knowing. For the sake of this conversation, however, my opinion doesn’t really matter; what matters is that he was a suspect Nazi.

My question, then, is how should we treat his music and performances. Should we say that anything he produced should be off-limits? If we did, we wouldn’t be the first people to do so. Musicians such as Isaac Stern, Arthur Rubinstein, and Itzhak Perlman refused to play in concerts with Karajan because of his Nazi past. Now, this question is not limited to Karajan. Rather, it applies to anyone who produces intellectual property of any sort.

It seems that there are two underlying questions here, both of which need our attention. The first: should the life and historical context of an artist (be it musician, author, poet, painter, etc.) be taken into consideration when evaluating their work? And the second: if yes, how much of an effect should the artist’s life and historical context have on how we treat their work? Before I attempt to answer these two questions, however, let me first state that I think this issue is completely subjective. Meaning, I’m not here to tell anyone what or who they should listen to and how they should go about deciding; you all can fetch for yourselves.

To answer the first question, I think the answer is definitely yes; meaning, the life and times of an artist are inseparable with the artist’s creations. For example, if one was to read through paradise lost, it’s very likely that he would complete the masterpiece thinking that John Milton was a misogynist. Of course, such a notion is absurd, especially considering that seventeenth-century England viewed women as wholly inferior to men, essentially evil, and generally to be avoided (except when procreating with). Milton, who, admittedly, did view women as slightly inferior to men, viewed the role of a wife as an important one and that men were not complete without their woman counterparts. This example is just one of many. So yes, the life and times of an artist, in my opinion, are inseparable with the artist’s creations.

The second question is more distinction-oriented. For example, Karajan-if he indeed was a Nazi-never acted on such an ideology. Wagner, too, never acted on his accused anti-semitism and had Jewish friends. I feel, then, that their works are not problematic in the slightest, and that no one should feel guilty listening to their works of magic (as opposed to some people who disagree with me).

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that they had killed Jews (or anyone, for that matter). What then? I would say that in such a scenario the artists in question should not be listened to, for music (or art, or poetry) is reflective of a person’s inner essence (heads up to Yair Shachak for helping me understand this). And if an artist is a murderer, his music and inner essence is dripping with blood. I want no part of such music. I’d much prefer music that represents a man’s struggle to write music without God’s gift of hearing.

Essentially, then, my rule is that if intellectual property is tainted then I want nothing to do with it. How is tainted defined? Well…that’s subjective. But to me, actions prove a person. Much more than words do, anyway.