Wittgenstein, Collingwood, and the Aesthetic and Ethical Conundrum of Opera

Author(s): Yaroslav Senyshyn, Danielle Vézina and Simon Fraser

Source: Philosophy of Music Education Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 27-35
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40327171
Accessed: 12-12-2015 05:36 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40327171?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Music Education
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Wittgenstein,Collingwood, and the Aesthetic and
Ethical Conundrum of Opera
Yaroslav Senyshynand Danielle Véána
Simon Fraser University,
Canada
There are two importantdimensionsof co-
authorshipvis-à-visthe opera.1 First,in its most
generalsense,co-authorship has to do withactual-
izing any musical text throughan interpretive
performance second, it is concernedwiththe
and
philosophicalrelationofthewritten word,thetext
or libretto,withmusic. Althoughwe shall deal
verybrieflywith its firstorientation,our major
concernin this paper is mostlyfocused on the
latterconceptualization.The term'co-authorship'
can be a misleadingone as ithas different implica-
tions dependingon its usage. It is true that its
mostcommonuse in music is thatof two authors
collaboratingon anyliterary or musicaltext.
In the interpretive sense co-authorshipin
musicmaybe definedas theperformer's abilityto
competently to in
add or, veryexceptionalcases,
subtractfrom a given musical score which is
to as the'text.'
commonlyand holisticallyreferred
Thus, co-authorshipis the activitywhich takes
place when any changes or modificationsin
dynamics,phrasings,agogics, tempi, etc., are
made by the performerthat are not inherently
'visible' in the musical text as such. These
changes or modificationsmay or may not neces-
sarilybe impliedbythemusicaltext. As well, co-
authorshipmay be called a collaborativeactivity
because it can take place betweenthe performer
and thecomposer(representedby thetext).2 It is
fashionableto view themusicaltext,regardlessof
the wishes of the composer,as a kind of perma-
nentdocumentetched in stone and thus a holy,
absolute,and sacrosancticon of worship. In our
century,the issue has been hotlydebated in the
neo-idealistic writings of Alfredo Parente,
SalvatorePugliatti,Luigi Pareyson,and others.3
R. G. Collingwood wrotethat"every per-
former is co-authoroftheworkhe performs."4He
© PhilosophyofMusic Education ReviewlO, No. 1 (Spring2002):27-35.
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
feltthat"authorswho tryto produce a fool-proof
text are choosing fools as their collaborators."5
Collingwood feltthatthis problemwas exasper-
ated by incompetentperformerswho simply
lacked imaginationand passion. It is strangethat
in many North American critical circles it is
precisely this "incompetence" that is actually
praised and apotheosized. PeterKivy, in describ-
ing whathe calls a "cult of worship"surrounding
composers and their texts, in his book
Authenticitiessomewhatalignshimselfalong the
same lines as Collingwood, althoughhis aim is
directed towards a historical perspective for
authenticityand text.His generalpointregarding
performanceand musical textsis such that
[i]ftheestablishing
ofhistoricallyauthen-
ticperformance werecarriedto itsulti-
mate(and presumably desired)conclu-
sion, performance would collapse into
text,and whatwe used to call "perfor-
mances" would now have the logical
statusof prints(if you like) ratherthan
trueperformances.7
Much is at stake in termsof aesthetics,creativity,
and imaginationifperformanceis to collapse into
text,not least the role of creator,performer, and
audience. The mostobviousfactbeingthat'perfor-
mance' becomes an object itself, it becomes
regardedas a static/neutral e\ent,dulled in sensa-
tion by a certainlack of possibility,growth,and
complexity.In thisdeficientmanner, the'print'or
is
'performance' simply an object lacking the
essence of a livingand breathingmoment;it is a
fossilized trace. Rather,to performthe text in
reciprocalco-authorshipmeans to bring forward
an immediacyof passion, an infusionof imagina-
28
tion, and a possible realm of understandingfor
both performerand audience that orbitsbeyond
theblueprintoftextand symbol.
SorenKierkegaardapproachedthenotionof
imaginationand passion by way of a concrete
conceptualizationof subjectivityrelated to an
individual'sexistence.He managedthisbrilliantly
by focusinghis ideas indirectlyand particularly
on
thenotionof "passion is truth."He believed that
existencewithoutpassion preventeda personfrom
becoming personallyintegrated.8He wanted to
dismantlethemythof a scientismwhichcan argue
thateverything is causallydetermined.9Of course
this does not imply that one should disregard
objectiveknowledge. Far fromit. He, like many
others who followed afterhim, simply wanted
people to recognizedthe limitationsand mythsof
the 'what' of objectivityand to preserve their
individualityand those of theirstudentsthrough
subjectivereflection.For Kierkegaardpassion is
subjectivityand does notexistobjectively.10Thus,
the performing artist, according to both
Kierkegaardand Collingwood,mustexercise her
passion and imaginationin her interpretation and
actualizationin the immediacyof performanceof
musicaltexts. Certainly,theseand otherconcerns
are fascinatingbut mustbe dealt within thisbrief
mannerelsewherebecause our emphasis is much
moreclosely aligned to the notionof operaticco-
authorshipas thecollaborativeaspectbetweenthat
of the librettoand musical score and the philo-
sophical implicationsthereof.Indeed, thisnotion
reallyis just a sneakyvariationof the venerable
and musty,age-old issue of the relationbetween
language and music.
The relation is a precarious one at best.
Darwin argued,forexample,thatmusic preceded
language in the evolutionarydramawhich in turn
providedthe necessarylink forthe inventionof
human language. Indeed, Darwin's seemingly
simple account is, in fact,filledwith an uncon-
summated complexity because opera is an
evolutionary-historical processwhichoriginatesin
musicbeforeitseventualcollaborationwithwords
made ita viable formin Westernmusical heritage.
In this extraordinary sense music, too, makes the
language of Western opera possible within its
realmsof musical thoughtand drama.
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PhilosophyofMusic EducationReview
If we begin to philosophize about this
relationbetweenlanguage and music, it does not
take long to sort out that there are all sorts of
vexing anomalies such as the simple observation
thatgood scriptsdo not necessitategood operas
and thatthereare greatoperas whose scriptsare
not good. But thereis no such thingas a 'good'
opera whose music is inferiorregardlessof the
qualityofthetext. Thereare, indeed,greatoperas
thathave terriblescriptsand thereare operas that
are verydramaticbutlack a music whichsupports
or collaborateswith the drama. There are also
good operas which are not dramaticby modern
standardsbut are toleratedbecause of the recog-
nized qualityof musicthatis heardin them. How
are we philosophicallyto resolve such aesthetic
conundrumsand contradictions?Thus far,such
issues and apparentparadoxes have evaded the
musical semioticsand linguistic-analytical philos-
ophies of our time. Even ontological-
phenomenological discourse has quite often
resulted in a cripplingparalysis of unresolved
dissonance and complexity. As scholars we
welcome thatwhich is dissonantlyunresolvedas
being closer to a bedrock of truththan those
philosophical accounts which merely dismiss
these concernsout of hand as being philosophi-
cally untenable. The lattercourse is much too
easy, convenient,but ultimatelyand philosophi-
cally irresponsible.
The problemofoperareallylies betweenthe
juxtapositionandparadoxicalcharacterofextreme
propositions. On the one hand is theview repre-
sentedby ArthurSchopenhauerthatthemusic of
an opera can be whollyindependent,separate,and
completelyeffectivewithoutthe text. On the
otheris Adam Smith'sperspectivewhichunequiv-
ocally statesthatmusic's meaning as such does
not existunless it is made clear bywords.
It would be fascinatingtoresolvetheappar-
entcontradiction in theseperspectivesbyconduct-
ing a thought-experiment which findsits origins
based on theinteresting approachto philosophical
complexitydevised by Collingwood who spoke
against his countrymen's logical posturing.
Collingwood wrotethatone cannotfindout what
an individualmeans even if a statement is written
witha perfectcommandof language and truthful
Yaroslav Senyshyn/Danielle Vézina
intention. He implied that the meaning of a
proposition is correlative to the presupposed
question which is in the individual's mind and
presumedbyhimto be in ours"to whichthething
he has said or writtenwas meantas an answer".11
In otherwords a particularizedpropositionpro-
vides an answer to a question just as equally
particularizedas itself. Collingwood concluded
that
[n]o two propositions. . . can contradict
one anotherunless theyare answersto the
same question. . . . Meaning, agreement
and contradiction,truthand falsehood,
none of thesebelonged to propositionsin
their own right,propositionsby them-
selves; theybelongedonlytopropositions
as answersto questions:each proposition
answeringa question strictlycorrelative
to itself.12
In thisway he foundit possible to bid farewellto
a falselogic "in whichtheanswersare attendedto
and the questions neglected". For him there
were no meaningfulpropositionswhich ignored
the presuppositional/correctquestionscorrelative
to those verysame propositions. But whatques-
tion or questions in particularshould we ask in
order to reveal the contradictionof our former
propositionsof Schopenhauerand Smith? Here
are some possibilitiesthatcollectivelyreveal the
complexityof the paradox posed by these two
philosophers:Whatdo we mean by co-authorship
in operaand music?Can instrumental musicon its
own or opera as musicrepresentan idea of some-
thingsuch as an ethical dimension? Is the word
'drama' vis-a-vismusica viable conceptin opera?
Can any textualmeaningbe accomplishedby the
expression of wordless voices or instrumental
music in an opera withoutthe added help of a
libretto?Can opera reallyexistas such withouta
libretto?Is a definitionforoperapossible without
a script?Can therebe an operawhereintheaction
is mimed? Is not mime a formof language and
action? Is notplotan optionalformof drama? To
what extentis drama a textual and/ormusical
emanation? Is it possible to define an opera?
Does the composer and author have to work
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
29
synchronically?How is the lack of or contain-
mentof synchronicity of authorshipa factorin the
makingof an opera? Does the composer need a
librettist?Is dramain opera all we can talkabout?
Are there good operas that are not dramatic?
What is drama as somethingbeyond its usual
meaning? Is therecomplete fusion with words
and musicin thetext? Can thewholenessof opera
be contained in a philosophical propositionor
propositions?And so on.
It is quite obvious that even if we could
possiblygroupthesequestionsintoa singlemean-
ingfulone (an obvious impracticality), we would
have
still no meaningful propositions, i.e.,
presuppositional/correct answers correlative to
thoseverysame propositions.Even ifwe avoided
the largerquestion and dealt withits small parts
we would still evade a holisticresolutionof this
problemof definitionof opera and co-authorship
as the relationof words and music.
Nevertheless,we shouldnotwantto give up
this quickly. Instead,let us trysomethingthatis
even a littlemore historicallybasic than all of
these othertraditionalquestions. Which is the
richermedium for expression,music or words?
This mightappearto be a morecorrectquestionto
the anomalycreatedby Smithand Schopenhauer.
Interestinglyenough, Kierkegaard provides an
indirectanswerwhich is useful forour purposes
because of its particularlydichotomousambiva-
lence. In one place he definesmusic aesthetically
and subjectivelythus:
Music . . . really exists only in being
performed. This mightseem to be an
in thisartas comparedwith
imperfection
the others whose productions remain,
because theyhave theirexistence in the
sensuous. Yet thisis not so. It is rathera
proof of the fact jljiatmusic is a higher,
more spiritualart.
One could just as easily substitutethe word "mu-
sic" with"drama" and arriveat the same conclu-
sion. It is in drama's actual performanceon stage
thatimmediacyofactionand live performance can
take place. Yet Kierkegaard also offersa less
flattering conceptionformusicthoughan interest-
ing answerto ourbrutalquestionof themedium's
30 Philosophyof Music EducationReview

expressiveness vis-a-vismusicandlanguage.He concomitant meaning through signsand symbols.

writesthatalthoughthe power of music as a Kierkegaardsimply believed thatinstrumental
mediumforcommunication may suggestideas musicsimplylacks ethicalor religiousstruggle
thatare moreeffectively graspedthanlanguage, because it is based onlyon the immediacyof
thisis reallya misconception.Inhiswords(which feeling.Therefore, its'fleetingness' canonlylead
areinan intriguing way andan ironic
reminiscent to a lifeofboredomanddespair.
variantof EduardHanslick'slaterideas in The Wherecan we go fromhere? Even the
BeautifulinMusic),Kierkegaard writes, questionofwhichis thericher mediumforexpres-
sion,musicorwords,does notseemto providea
This mightseem to imply thatmusic is consistentanswerto co-authorship of musical
even closer to perfectionas a medium texts. Perhapswe could stretch ourpatienceto
thanlanguage. But this is one of those one morequestionwhichappearsto relateto
sentimentalmisconceptions that sprout
Wittgenstein's musical,aestheticinterests: If the
only in emptyheads. . . . Here the point ofmusic is
purpose emotional communication and
certainlycannotbe thatmusic is a richer
medium than language, unless it is ofwordsis meaning, thenis nota musicaldrama
assumed thatsaying 4Uh' is more valu- simplyan advantageous combination ofthesetwo
able than a complete thought. But what disparities? One could presumably answer thisin
does this mean-that where language theaffirmative. Butthiswouldonlybe so ifone
leaves I find the musical? This indeed didnotquestion theinherent presupposition ofthe
expresses perfectly that language is questionthat,namely,music's most important
bounded by music on all sides. . . .
purposeis to arouseemotions inthelistener.No
[SJensuousnessin its elementaloriginal- one seriously the latter
questions presupposition
ityis the absolute themeof music. ... It thatwordsconvey,communicate,
sounds-and withthisI come back again
oraresomehow
to the elementaloriginalityof the sensu- relatedto some formof meaningwe call 'lan-
ous as that which in its immediacy guage'. Butthisis notthecase formusicas there
manifestsitselfmusically. is no generalnotionofmusicas languagedespite
theUtopianwishesof musicalsemiotics.Some
Here Kierkegaard assumesan aestheticposition musicphilosophers would even argue,as Kivy
that places itselfambivalently neitherin the does, that"a of
piece musicmightmoveus (in
absoluteorprogrammatic camp. Ifhewereinthe part) because it is expressiveof sadness;but it
absolutecamp,he wouldnotneedto insistonthe does notmoveus bymakingus sad." ForKivy
need forwords or programmatic hints;on the as well as forKierkegaard, thoughfordifferent
otherhand,he is notin theprogrammatic camp reasons,onecannotimpart an ethicaldimension or
becausehedoesnotbelievethatmusiccanconvey representation to music as there is no direct
feeling
ideaswithout thehelpofwords.ForKierkegaard, associatedwithinitsownabilities.On theother
operais inescapablythebest formof musicbe- hand,Wittgenstein writes,"The aimofmusic:to
cause it is a fusionof wordsand musicwhich communicate feelings."18 Wittgenstein, arguably
provides initsimmediacy anexactcommunication the greatest philosopher of thiscentury, did not
basedontheexactitude ofwords. hesitateto side withthatvenerableschool of
Thus, for Kierkegaardand Smithmusic thought thatbelievesthatmusicdoes moveand
without languageis an inferior
mediumbywhich affect ouremotions19 andthusouractions.He had
to appreciate theideasoflanguage.Instrumental his ownvariant aesthetic thesisandnon-question
musicforthesephilosophers wouldnotbe amena- whichwas occasionallyexpressedin his earlier
ble to anyseriousthought of theEternaland the philosophy and laterin his lectureson aesthetic
ethicalbecauseitssounds,bybeingvoidofwords, at
philosophy Cambridge.The following famous
inevitablyavoid the imageryof languageand quotations from his Tractates makeforan inter-
bypasslanguageas a capable representative of esting comparisonwith the question-answer-
propositions ofCollingwood andmakeitclearthat

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Vézina
Yaroslav Senyshyn/Danielle
throughoutboth phases of his
for Wittgenstein,
thought,aestheticquestions cannotbe separated
fromethicsfa*the followingreasonsthat:
. . . ethics cannot be put into words.
Ethics is transcendental.(Ethics and
aestheticsare one and thesame.)20
When the answer cannot be put into
words, neithercan the question be put
intowords. The riddledoes notexist. If
a questioncan be framedat all, it is also
possible to answerit.(How veryreminis-
centof Collingwood thisis.)21
There are, indeed, thingsthatcannotbe
put into words. They make themselves
manifest.They are whatis mystical.
It is possible thatitis notso muchtheopera
as a separateentityof wordsand musicas product
thatprovidesus withphilosophicalanswersas itis
the artist'sbody and soul thatcreatesthe artbe-
cause forWittgenstein "The I is not an object."23
In the case of what may be consideredto be a
good opera or musical drama,is it thebodyof the
librettist and composeras eitherone or twobodies
in intimateco-authorship-regardless of whether
they are one and the same-that make the ethical
issues manifestand mystical?The veryfusionof
wordsand music in the immediacyof music and
dramamustultimatelybe passed over in silence
because thisaspect of artwill remainas elusiveas
the human being or beings behind its creation.
Ultimatelytherecan be no propertyof opera in
music or art because, in Wittgenstein'swords,
"There are, indeed,thingsthatcannotbe put into
words."24Thus thewhole contextof thenatureof
operawillremainindefinableand elusivebecause,
according to Wittgenstein,"We feel that even
when all possible scientificquestionshave been
answered,theproblemsof liferemaincompletely
untouched."25As the enigmas of opera remain
ambiguous and unresolvedit may very well be
thatopera is such a worthyproblemof life. The
collaboration found in the complexityof co-
authorshipof individualsmakesit so.
What are we to make of this? Is therea
definableresultof co-authorshipin theopera vis-
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
31^
a-vis the interactionbetween the music and li-
bretto? Can we say thataestheticsis ethicsin a
waythatultimatelycannotbe justifiedphilosophi-
cally in absolute or instrumental music and that
co-authorshipprovides fora complex interaction
of words and music-a complex formof fusion
between these two entities which results in
drama-opera as drama? It is here thatwe must
take a momentto be clear thatthe fusionthatwe
call opera, is just this-a complete fusion. Both
partsof music and text surelycan stand on their
own,butmoreimportant is whatmaybe achieved
as a resultof such a thoroughfusion. While with
wordsand language in generalthereisa quest for
the uncoveringof referential meaning,in music-
drama we may findthatthe process of uncover-
is applied to morenebulous,less
ing/discovering
determinatequalities. No less than real, these
qualities are revealed throughmusical themes,
and so on. As Sarah Worthnotes in her
rhythms,
paper regardingWittgensteinand musical under-
standing, "The necessarily abstract quality of
musicallows us to avoid beingabsorbedmerelyin
thequest forreferentialmeaning."26 The paradox-
ical fusion that results in opera is one which
negotiatesa co-authorshipthatis both literalas
well as being inherently envelopedin thecapacity
to point to thatwhich lies beyond itselfthrough
music.Furthermore, WorthquotesWittgenstein in
Cultureand Value that:"A theme,no less thana
face,wears an expression."27In recognizingthis
amazing quality for both musical, literary,and
gesturalthemes,we find that in the interaction
between the expressivenessof music and words
lies a space which opens itselfup in performance
to new possibilitiesformeaningand being.
Thus, we shall standout on a philosophical
limb and say that according to our experience,
opera as drama and ethics groundedin meaning
resultsin words and music thatplay thisout in a
complex synthesisor fusion. Words and music in
musical drama depend on each otherin the sense
thattheyare captiveaudiences of each otherin the
time-bindedness of synchronicityand theimmedi-
of in
acy actualization performance. Ethics and
dramacan onlybe philosophicallyjustifiedin this
notionof timein itsown synchronicity and imme-
diacy. These aspectsadd up to thedramaofbeing
32
and music. Yes, opera could be appreciated
without'words' or 'text' but thenit is not opera.
It can onlybe an absolute music withouta philo-
sophicalbasis forany representation of ethicsand
drama. At most, it could be dramatickinetically
and emotionallybutwithouttheadded philosophi-
cal justificationof "aestheticsand ethicsare one."
Only in opera and Heder is therea philosophical
basis fordrama and ethicsas one in the fusionof
music and words. Withoutwordsthereis onlyan
emotionalbasis withoutrepresentation in philoso-
phy.
The otherside of the dramaticcoin is the
questionof what value is drama withoutmusic?
This is not a problemas the question containsits
own answer. It is drama and ethics withoutthe
added dimension of music and for this reason
opera remains significantlyformed with that
added dimension. Then thereis thatquestionthat
we have been assiduouslyavoiding:What is good
opera? Althoughwe cannotanswerthisquestion
we do know what the best opera can aspire to
aestheticallyand ethicallyspeaking. Perhaps all
we can say is that at its best it is a complex,
analysis-defying fusionof words and music in a
dramatic-musicalthat reveals the limits of our
philosophical understandingof ethics and thus
aesthetics in a way that somehow satisfies us
beyondour immediaterealizationin the realmof
the unsayable. Perhaps all we can say is that
fusionof wordsand music has takenplace regard-
less of the 'how' of thematter.
Consideringthe opera as a conundrumhas
shown how thoroughlynecessaryit is to under-
standwhat the opera is beyondthe limitedscope
of music and text. Whetherit is witha new term
such as 'textual musical drama,' or something
similar,it is of interestto opt foran expanded or
broadernotion of opera in an attemptto make
knownits complexityand performativity.
The opera is neitherto be reckonedsolelyas
an object(artifactofthepast orobjectivetext),nor
as an art formaccessible to a select few within
'fine art circles.' If we considerthe opera as a
living and breathing, multi-layeredand co-
authored form,there is then the potential for
growthin scope and definition.A recognitionof
opera as a medium for expressionwherebyaes-
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Philosophyof Music EducationReview
theticsand ethicsare one is to followa transcen-
dental path wherebythat which is beyond the
bounds of anyfinitecategory(thatwhichis mysti-
cal) maybe made knownand encountered.
To claim our notion of opera as being
transcendentalin nusic, gesture,and text,as well
as to defineit throughco-authorshipis to foster
withinmusic education a much deservingtoler-
ance and understanding. Among musicians,
students,teachers,and audiences alike, what is
called foris a broaderconceptionofwhatan opera
is or can be. Opera, or textual-musicaldrama,is
not understoodhere as a static medium; it is
always in the active mode of being/becoming,
defining/re-defining, and being appropriatedby
boththeindividualand his or her community.
Itis mostusefulto applyEstelleJorgensen's
conceptof "music educationas community" as an
indirect conceptual tool to both broaden and
defineopera. Communityas a conceptualtheory
carries inside itselfthe inherentquality of co-
authorship(between people, between music and
text,and betweendifferent art forms). It further
affordstheoperaticformthe power to change,as
well as an acknowledgedrich and powerfulbase
fromwhichto grow.
Jorgensen'sconcept of music educationas
community is made of up of fourkeycomponents,
namely:place, time,process,and as an end. These
navigationalcomponentshelp to develop a broad-
er definitionand understanding of opera by hous-
ingcurriculumand pedagogybeyondthefinitesof
skill acquisition, simple recognition,or mere
appreciationalone. To take part in 'the commu-
nity' is to be whollyengrossedand a partof the
process and theproductthatis deemed theopera.
'Place' is complexand web-like,invokinga space
fromwhich people can move in and out of, or
furthermore, which they can reconfigureor re-
shape in terms of boundaries.
The conceptof 'place' withinthecom-
munitysignifies:The importanceof
groundingthe music curriculum in a
place and movingto an ever-
particular
broadeningview,ensuring thatall learn-
erscometounderstand theirplacewithin
a growingcommunity, value differences
 Vézina
Yaroslav Senyshyn/Danielle 33

feelconnectedto
as wellas similarities, sucha community,to playa partin itsrituals,to
acceptandlovetheirownmusical
others, andtotakean activepartin it's
knowitsheritage,
andareempowered
traditions, to change "becoming"and unfolding is an activeengage-
thosethingsthatshouldbe changedand ment.
embracenewperspectives. 28

In the musical community'process':

Theviewofoperaas distinguished by'place' acts acceptingthe need for reviewingthe
to stabilizeandpromote traditions;itfurthermore worldofmusic,as wellas theprocessof
provides a much needed sense of interconnected- musiceducation,
perhapsrevolutionizing
ness betweenideas,formalpractices, as well as notonlythewayspeoplecometo know
withotherartforms suchas dance,mime,costum- music,butmusicalexperienceitself.31
ing,andstaging.'Place' literally signalsa ground
uponwhichto stand,a base fromwhichwe can The opera is thenin the processof redefining
moveabout. As suchit allows formembers to itself,renewing,dissolving,and renegotiating
become attached-tobelong-by empowering as wellas itspoweras a particular
styles,
qualities,
studentsandthecommunity tobe "dynamic inthe artform.In co-authorship theoperatakeson new
29This of "becom- both in its form as well as in the
processofbecoming". process possibilities,
ing"ensuresthatoperasofthepastcontinue tobe meanings that
the form can produce.The operais
performed, whilea future is ensuredfordevelop- dynamic, resistingthedeterminate endpointofthe
ingendeavors andexpanding concepts. objectdefined. It has yetto restupon a single
Forstudents as wellas seasonedperformers understanding ofitself.
and creators,the consciousnessof experience
withinthe operaticformtakeson a paramount Lastly,as an 'end' themusicalcommu-
nityprovidesa meansof inculcating in
importance.To experiencethe opera as a live studentsa love ofwisdomandan under-
performance, toimaginewhatitwas inthepast,to
envisionwhatitcouldbe in thefuture, to simply standingof how to go on in music as
opposedto knowingaboutit,anda high
be a partofit,is notnecessarilya linearunfolding.
(be itphysical
degreeof skillattainment
It is rather,the consciousgathering withinthe or critical).32
operaticform ofbothplace andtime.
Itmustbe understood thatwhatis beingcalledfor
The conceptof 'time': meansopening hereis notprescriptive; at theveryleast,it is a
andliteracy
theworldsofmusicalorality theoreticalattemptto make room in a music
to students through composition,
curriculum for the necessarysubjectivity that
performance, amongthe
and listening,
in which belongs toeach and everystudent, while maintain-
manyways peopleexperience
music.30 ingexperiences thatare livedthrough, rather
than
passedonby. The community approachprovides
To experience theoperaas a performative fusion a much-needed gravitational centerthatallowsfor
oftextandmusic, towitness itsdrama is to
unfold people to work together from separateinterests
witnessitas a living,breathing, accessibleprocess and relations,as well as peripheralworkthat
andevent.Students andperformers musthavethe allowsfortheimport and exportofnewand vital
opportunity in some capacity to experiencelive ideas. As 'an end'thecommunity mustmakesure
performances, to take part in the creation,the thatthenotionofoperadoes notmovetowardsa
presentation,and theappreciation operas. To
of fixedand determinate definition signifyingits
an
experienceprovides expansivepossibility to arrivalandina senseend. Rather, thecommunity
comefacetofacewiththatwhichis beyondwords mustensurethatthe operawill alwaysredefine
and symbolsalone,as well as to possiblymove itselfso thatit is continuously in the dynamic
beyondtheprescribed limitsofwhattheoperais processofbecomingthatwhichitis.
typicallyunderstood to be. To becomea partof Thus, the notion of co-authorship and

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34
communityas we have presentedit herehas been
effectively describedas a "fusion".This choice of
word is in no way accidental. It was chosen
because itdenotesthatthroughthetextand music
somethingentirelynew is created;it is something
akinto a chemicalreaction. Otherwords such as
'transaction'betweentextand musicare deficient
because theydenote that somethingis both lost
and gained; transactiondissipates rather than
creates. This sense thatpieces fuse togetherto
createa whole is also necessaryin termsof how
students and performers address their own
performative development. It is necessarythatas
well as attendingto the conventionsof the form
and theprintednotes,thestudentmustreallylearn
to hearand listen,as well as read thetextsliterally
and vocally. The synaestheticfusionof senses in
hearing,seeing, and feelingare paramountto the
opera. The senses take partin themeanings and
understandings thatarehoused withinthedramatic
form.
In musiceducationstudentsandteachersare
part of such a communityof action and under-
standing.They are participantsin the co-author-
ship of opera. Wittgensteinrightlyviews this as
"the necessary connection between physical
responses, the feeling or understandingof the
music, and the possibilitythatthis is where the
meaningmightlie."33
In this way Wittgensteingoes beyondboth
Collingwood and Kierkegaard and reminds all
philosophers that method and its concomitant
propositionsend in mysticismand inwardnessand
thatby transcendingthemwe, too, "will see the
worldall right."34It is in this sense thatwe, too,
will see opera and thevexingnotionof co-author-
ship and music aright.To reiteratetheTractatus:
"There are, indeed,thingsthatcannotbe put into
words." This may certainlybe trueof opera as
well. At least,thecombinedactivityof music and
wordsat itsbest make this'more' manifest.They
are indeed "what is mystical." All in all we are
remindedof Wittgenstein'swords thatif we are
preparedto involve ourselves in states of good
philosophizingthenwe mustbe preparedto accept
a philosophicalnotionthat"leaves everythingas
it is."35
In conclusion, we feel that Wittgenstein
This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Philosophyof Music EducationReview
remindsus ofCollingwood's logic-defying propo-
sitional question-and-answerapproach in that
Wittgensteinhimselfcannot create the question
thatwould satisfyeitherCollingwood or others.
AlthoughKierkegaardunderstoodmusic's power
of emotionalcommunication, he could notextend
to any of the artsany ethicaldimensionexceptat
the veryperipheraledges of the aestheticexperi-
ence as some sortof inferiorfeelingforit. Al-
though operas at their best cannot tell us the
ultimatethingsabout ethics,they can, at least,
manifestthat claim and reveal that notion by
takingus so much closer to it and allowingus to
combine our aesthetic resources of music and
words intoone verypowerfulmusical form.It is
as though we are looking at an image through
more powerfulbinocularsthan any othersin the
world. Althoughthe image is closer it remains
distorted;in our case, distortedforeverregardless
of the power of the lenses. The realm of the
unsayable is then broughtthatmuch closer into
focus. Opera, at itsbest,showsus whyethicsis in
therealmof theunsayablebetterthanmusicalone
withouttheadded collaborationof words. Music
withoutwords at its best allows us the mirageof
thatpossibility.This is whatco-authorship, at its
best, means in opera. It is this combinationof
words and music actualized by artiststhatmake
this manifest and mystical. Although ethics
cannot be put into words, it is in opera thatthe
combination of music and language makes it
especially so because "ethics and aestheticsare
one." This is a heightenedstateofbeingin opera
over absolutemusic. Wittgenstein writes:
My propositions serveas elucidations
in
thefollowing ways:anyone who under-
standsme eventually recognizesthemas
nonsensical, whenhe has used them,-as
steps-toclimb up beyondthem.(He
must,so to speakthrowawaytheladder
afterhe has climbedup it.)36
We, too, must climb up the ladder of the
opera onlyto throwit away afterhavingclimbed
it so thatwe can trulyuse philosophical specula-
tionto leave opera as well as "everything
as it is."
Opera in itselfis livingproofof thosethingsthat
Yaroslav Senyshyn/Danielle
Vézina 35

cannotbe putintowordsbecauseit is one ofthe wordswe mustconcludebysayingthat:"Whatwe

"problemsof life". In Wittgenstein's
haunting cannotspeakofwe mustpass overin silence.'67

NOTES
1. Muchof whathas beenwritten aboutoperain H. von Wright,trans.,P. Winch (Chicago:
thispaperwouldapplyto Hederas well. We University ofChicagoPress,1984),38.
have notincludedthelatterformbecauseit is 19. See Maurizio Pollini's remarkson Vladimir
notstagedas such,although itmaybe dramatic Horowitz'splayingand musical emotionin
initscharacterization. Remembering Horowitz:125 PianistsRecall a
2. It is worthnotingthatco-authorship is notan Legend, compiledand edited,David Duval
interpretive issue in most formsof popular (NewYork: Schirmer Books,1993),95-96.For
musicandjazz becausethereis a livingtradition an extendeddiscussionofmusicas emotionsee
thatencouragesitsuse abundantly.To a large Senyshyn, "A CriticalNoticeof Remembering
degreetheseformsofmusicrelyon co-author- Horowitz:125 PianistsRecall a Legend,"xxix,
shipfortheircontinued existence,yetitis a very 383; "Horowitzand theEnigmaofArt,"Inter-
important issueinotherforms ofWestern music. change,27, no. 1,(1996): 79-84.
3. See EnricoFubini'slandmark study,A History 20. Wittgenstein, TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,
ofMusicalAesthetics (London:The Macmillan trans.,D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness
PressLimited.\196411990),404-411. (London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, 1974),
4. R. G. Collingwood,ThePrinciplesofArt(Ox- 6.421
ford:OxfordUniversity Press,[1938] 1958), 21. Ibid,6.5
321. 22. Ibid,6.522, 71-73.
5. Ibid. 23. Wittgenstein, Notebooks,1914-1916,2nd ed.,
6. PeterKivy,Authenticities (Ithaca,NY: Cornell eds.,G. H. vonWright andG. E. M. Anscombe,
University Press,1995). trans.,G. E. M. Anscombe(Chicago:University
7. Ibid.,270. ofChicagoPress,1984),80.
8. StephenEvans,Kierkegaard'sFragments and 24. Wittgenstein, TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,
'Postscript'XAtlanticHighlands, NJ:Humanities 73.
Pressine, 1983),40. 25. Ibid.
9. MaryWarnock, Existentialism (Oxford:Oxford 26. SarahE. Worth, MusicalUnder-
"Wittgenstein's
University Press,[1970] 1988),8. standing," BritishJournalofAesthetics,37, no.
10. Soren Kierkegaard,ConcludingUnscientific 2(1997): 158.
Postscript (¡846) (Princeton: Princeton Univer- 27. Ibid.,165.
sityPress[1941, 1968] 1974), 116. 28. EstelleJorgensen, "MusicEducation as Commu-
11. Collingwood, AnAutobiography (Oxford:Ox- nity," JournalofAesthetic Education,29, no. 3
fordUniversity Pressi 1939] 1978),32. (1995): 80.
12. Ibid..33. 29. Ibid.,74.
13. Ibid.,31. 30. Ibid.,81.
14. Kierkegaard,Either/Or,Vol. 1 (Princeton: 31. Ibid.,82
Princeton UniversityPress,[1944] 1971),67. 32. Ibid.
15. Kierkegaard, Either/Or, Vol. 1, trans.Howard 33. Worth, "Wittgenstein'sMusicalUnderstanding,"
Hong and Edna Hong (Princeton:Princeton 166.
University Press,1987),69-71. 34. Wittgenstein, TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,
16. For example, see Yaroslav Senyshyn, 74.
"Kierkegaard's Aesthetic StageofExistence and 35. Wittgenstein, 1st
PhilosophicalInvestigations,
its Relationto Live Musical Performance," ed., trans.G. E. M. Anscombe(Oxford:Basil
PhilosophyofMusicEducationReview,4, no. Blackwell,1953),49.
1 (Spring1996): 50-62. 36. Wittgenstein, TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,
17. Kivy,"HowMusicMoves"in PhillipAlperson, 74.
ed., Whatis Music? An Introduction to the 37. Ibid.
Philosophy ofMusic(University Park:Pennsyl-
vaniaStateUniversity Press,1994), 153.
18. LudwigWittgenstein, Culture and Value,ed.,G.

This content downloaded from 130.209.6.61 on Sat, 12 Dec 2015 05:36:21 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions