30. A Patriotic Aesthetician

Artists don't like it when people talk about their art who are not themselves active in the field of this art. An important musician once said to me: only the musician should talk about music. I replied that in that case nobody but the plant should talk about the nature of the plant and that we would therefore never get to hear anything about the nature of plants, given their well-known inability to speak. The composer replied to me with the consistency of judgment that is always characteristic of important people: who can claim that we know anything at all about the nature of the plant? It is quite true that only the plant itself could enlighten us about its essence. But since it cannot speak, it is not possible to learn anything about this essence.

It is easy to refute such a view. What we humans call the essence of the plant could never be expressed by the plant itself. We call the "essence of the plant" what we feel and think when we allow the plant to have an effect on us. What the plant feels and thinks and recognizes as its essence in feelings and thoughts is of no use to us. We are only concerned with what we experience when the plant has an effect on us. And we express what we experience there and call it the essence of the plant. How we express what we feel through the impression of the plant depends on which means of expression we can use according to our talent. The lyricist sings of the plant; the philosopher forms the idea of the plant in his mind. Just as the lyricist cannot demand that the plant make a poem about itself, the philosopher will not demand that the plant express its own idea.

So it is with art. I don't believe that the artist should talk about his own art. But of course that is not necessarily true. Because the individual human abilities cannot be completely separated from one another. The plant will never have the ability to talk about itself. The lyricist may have the ability to talk about the lyricist. But the ability to talk about the lyricist is not at all linked to the ability to produce Iyric poems. And the ability to be a lyricist is not linked to the ability to talk about poetry. And so it is in all the arts. Artists can sometimes talk about their art, but often they should remain silent. When they demand of others who are not active in the field of their art that they should not talk about their art, they are speaking like plants, who demand of people that they should not talk about plants, because only plants are called upon to say something about themselves.

Today we have to resort to paradoxical statements if we want to communicate. I have done so in the lines above to show how ridiculous it is for artists to demand that people should not talk about an art in which they themselves are not active.

But now I would also like to reverse the paradox. The lyricist who sings about the plant, the philosopher who expresses the idea of the plant in words, should not be expected to produce a real plant.

There are certainly people who can write dramas of excellent value, even though they are capable of expressing excellent ideas about drama. They are always interesting personalities. They are also happy personalities. For they need not impose any constraints on themselves. Those who can express themselves about art in words and at the same time are able to cultivate an art that corresponds to their words are certainly happy. Those who cannot, however, have the noble virtue of resignation. He is content to talk about art as if it were a plant, and renounces producing a work of art as he renounces producing a plant.

This renunciation expresses the nobility of the aesthete. If he does not renounce, but nevertheless undertakes to create something that belongs to the field he is talking about, he shows that he does not deserve to be taken seriously. An aesthetician who talks about drama and then creates a miserable dramatic work of art is like a poet who sings about the autumn crocus and then forms such a plant miserably out of papier-mâché. We then no longer believe in the sincerity of his feelings. We believe that he felt no more about the real autumn crocus than he did about the papier-mâché one.

What I have written here went through my mind when I came out of the "Neues Theater" (Berlin) on August 16, 1898. The director Siegmund Lautenburg, Austrian and Knight of the Order of Franz Joseph, had the patriotic festival play "Habsburg" performed to celebrate the anniversary of the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph the First. I refrain from saying anything against the director Lautenburg from the outset. He is an Austrian and it is nice of him to make sacrifices to his Austrian patriotism. Judging by the poor attendance, the performance, which was excellent, must have really cost Mr. Lautenburg something. But what can you do when you are Austrian, a Knight of the Order of Franz Joseph and also have a theater in Berlin at your disposal! The director also appeared in the interim files with all his medals - that was good again. I mean that quite seriously. Because an author with high decorations should also have appeared.

I don't know what medals Baron Alfred von Berger, the author of the play "Habsburg" I'm talking about, has. He appeared without a medal when he was summoned. But his play is a change to the highest Austrian medals there are - sorry, shouldn't medals be for higher than poetic merit?

I went to the performance on August 16 with curiosity.

When I was still in Vienna - ten years ago now - Alfred von Berger was a personality that people talked about. He was - as people said - the right candidate for the Burgtheater directorship. He cut off the discussion as to whether he should be appointed or not by marrying Stella Hohenfels, the incomparable actress of the Burgtheater. A house law of the Burgtheater forbids the director to be married to an artist of the institute. So the supporters of the "Berger Directorate" have it good. They say that he would of course be the best Burgtheater director. There is no doubt that he would have been appointed long ago, but he cannot be appointed because he is married to the irreplaceable Stella Hohenfels. Either Stella Hohenfels must leave or Baron Berger cannot become director. The former is impossible, so...

Another theater is now unavailable to Baron von Berger, which is why he is still without a position as theater director. During his incessant candidate period, he is now busy talking about the theater and about art. There are people who think something of his speeches about art. And he really has said some quite good things. In his "Dramaturgical Lectures" there are all kinds of splendid remarks about dramatic art.

After his speeches on art, you might have thought Alfred von Berger was a fine connoisseur of art. But I always believed that there wasn't much behind his speeches. And with his festival play "Habsburg", Mr. von Berger has taken away all my faith. Anyone who is capable of producing such a miserable work of art for patriotic purposes as this festival play is has no right to talk about art. This is a papier-mâché plant that is being passed off as a real plant, while the author is constantly trying to tell us about the nature of real plants in his speeches.

I was mystified when the most boring, banal patriotic phrases rained down on me from the stage on August 16.

I would not have said a word about the festival play, which makes a mockery of all stagecraft, if it had not been a symptom for me of the unfree, servile attitude that can exist even among those who are at the height of contemporary education. Berger, as an aesthetician, is at the height of contemporary education, and he is able to deny his knowledge, his education, everything, just to produce a miserable, bumbling festival play that would be worthy of having the next best scenery ripper as its author. Yes, when the best aesthetes who can talk beautifully write such plays, then the artists may say: stay away from us with your talk about art.