Page 236 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7
P. 236
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
he disagreed with the repressive measures taken by the authorities, as he
was extremely disappointed with their conduct, which he opposed.38
“A Critique of Criticism”
On this occasion, political sanctions did not end at the personal level but
also demanded a systematic response in the sphere of music criticism in
general. The editor-in-chief of Slovenski poročevalec, Sergej Vošnjak, later
an editor at some of Slovenia’s most important media organisations, took
advantage of the affair to attack critics who, in his view, judged art pure-
ly on the basis of artistic criteria without taking sociopolitical perspectives
into account. In a lengthy article entitled “A Critique of Criticism” – which
less than a month after the incident occupied more than half a page in the
Kulturni razgledi (“Cultural perspectives”) section of the newspaper’s 8
April 1956 issue – he wrote, among other things:
I believe that the essential weakness of our cultural criticism lies in the
fact that it does not treat each individual work as a whole and review it
in terms of its general social role but, instead, attempts to separate the
“aesthetic” part, one might even say the craftsmanship, which is held to
be the subject of art criticism, from the general social importance of the
work, something which should be addressed (preferably as little as pos-
sible!) by “political” critics. [...] The Tone Tomšič Academic Choir cele-
brated its 10th anniversary with choral works. One would have expect-
ed the essential focus of criticism to have been on the fact that such a
choir, given its character and its name, should have said something new,
something progressive with its song. The critics, however, spoke only
about the sound and the harmony of the voices. They also spoke in gen-
eral terms of the problem of composing individual song cycles, while
avoiding the idea that the battle for the old rights did not consist of pe-
titions to heaven, but instead was difficult and cruel. Criticism of this
kind is, of course, of no benefit to the Academic Choir, since it is not
the job of critics merely to offer formal praise. Instead, criticism should
help the choir take a better path, towards greater successes, for which
the question of whether this movement will be more or less fortissimo is
not the most important thing.39
38 However, the critics back then “understood” the event in a slightly different way, lin-
king his resignation with his acceptance of the position of director of the Ljubljana
Festival. Gobec would therefore no longer have enough time to run the choir. S. B.,
“Pro et contra, Peti in peti,” Tribuna 5, no. 14 (1957): 4.
39 Sergej Vošnjak, “Kritika kritike,” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 83 (1956): 6.
236
he disagreed with the repressive measures taken by the authorities, as he
was extremely disappointed with their conduct, which he opposed.38
“A Critique of Criticism”
On this occasion, political sanctions did not end at the personal level but
also demanded a systematic response in the sphere of music criticism in
general. The editor-in-chief of Slovenski poročevalec, Sergej Vošnjak, later
an editor at some of Slovenia’s most important media organisations, took
advantage of the affair to attack critics who, in his view, judged art pure-
ly on the basis of artistic criteria without taking sociopolitical perspectives
into account. In a lengthy article entitled “A Critique of Criticism” – which
less than a month after the incident occupied more than half a page in the
Kulturni razgledi (“Cultural perspectives”) section of the newspaper’s 8
April 1956 issue – he wrote, among other things:
I believe that the essential weakness of our cultural criticism lies in the
fact that it does not treat each individual work as a whole and review it
in terms of its general social role but, instead, attempts to separate the
“aesthetic” part, one might even say the craftsmanship, which is held to
be the subject of art criticism, from the general social importance of the
work, something which should be addressed (preferably as little as pos-
sible!) by “political” critics. [...] The Tone Tomšič Academic Choir cele-
brated its 10th anniversary with choral works. One would have expect-
ed the essential focus of criticism to have been on the fact that such a
choir, given its character and its name, should have said something new,
something progressive with its song. The critics, however, spoke only
about the sound and the harmony of the voices. They also spoke in gen-
eral terms of the problem of composing individual song cycles, while
avoiding the idea that the battle for the old rights did not consist of pe-
titions to heaven, but instead was difficult and cruel. Criticism of this
kind is, of course, of no benefit to the Academic Choir, since it is not
the job of critics merely to offer formal praise. Instead, criticism should
help the choir take a better path, towards greater successes, for which
the question of whether this movement will be more or less fortissimo is
not the most important thing.39
38 However, the critics back then “understood” the event in a slightly different way, lin-
king his resignation with his acceptance of the position of director of the Ljubljana
Festival. Gobec would therefore no longer have enough time to run the choir. S. B.,
“Pro et contra, Peti in peti,” Tribuna 5, no. 14 (1957): 4.
39 Sergej Vošnjak, “Kritika kritike,” Slovenski poročevalec 17, no. 83 (1956): 6.
236
