Page 139 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2019. Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju - The Role of National Opera Houses in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 3
P. 139
on the romanian opera, bucharest: one author, two views
beliefs of the previous ideology,” “had to be subjected to re-education – less
artistic than political – in order to serve the new decrees,” as Cosma notes
in 2017.29 He reveals how artists that expressed their faith in the new re-
gime enjoyed social and economic advantages, including titles such as Art-
ist Emeritus, Emeritus Master of the Art or People’s Artist. Those who had
previously been successful in Western Europe now categorically distanced
themselves from the “formalist, decadent” art of the West, whose influence
“was also felt here.” And, as the logic of propaganda demanded, they con-
ducted self-criticism for ever having indulged in it.30
This ample process of political “education” was also aimed at growing
closer to the masses, through the guiding or amateur choirs or orchestras,
and through performances organized in factories and mills. If, five decades
ago, Cosma writes of these events as “reflecting the revolutionary trans-
formations that are taking place in society and in the consciousness of the
masses,”31 today the author claims that these event “began the offensive to
separate Romania from Western culture and to isolate it under the auspic-
es of the light shining from the East.”32
What is at first striking about Cosma’s endeavor in 1962 is how sel-
domly he invokes the Soviet Union (most frequently through references
to the “unlawful war against the Soviets”), although the artistic model he
promotes – along with its propaganda clichés – was undoubtedly import-
ed ad litteram from Moscow. At one point, when he refers to the techniques
and forms that should be employed in the opera to render “the content of
the new life, which contains the fountainhead of artistic inspiration,” Cos-
ma concludes that “it would be genuinely helpful to study the accomplish-
ments of the musical theatre of the Soviet Union, as well as that of other
countries [italics mine].”33 One can infer here a timid attempt at breaking
away from the monopoly of Soviet art, and its influence on Romanian mu-
sic. This was not, of course, the author’s unique initiative, but a lucid at-
tempt at toeing Romania’s official party line in the 1960s: in the USSR, nine
years after Stalin’s death, his cult of personality had been dismantled. Sta-
linism had implicitly become taboo in Romania, as well. The country was
led by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, who had managed to free Romania from
29 Cosma, Hronicul Operei Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 620.
30 See the case of baritone Petre Ștefănescu-Goangă, in: Cosma, Hronicul Operei
Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 851.
31 Cosma, Opera românească [Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 139.
32 Cosma, Hronicul Operei Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 720.
33 Cosma, Opera românească [Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 263.
137
beliefs of the previous ideology,” “had to be subjected to re-education – less
artistic than political – in order to serve the new decrees,” as Cosma notes
in 2017.29 He reveals how artists that expressed their faith in the new re-
gime enjoyed social and economic advantages, including titles such as Art-
ist Emeritus, Emeritus Master of the Art or People’s Artist. Those who had
previously been successful in Western Europe now categorically distanced
themselves from the “formalist, decadent” art of the West, whose influence
“was also felt here.” And, as the logic of propaganda demanded, they con-
ducted self-criticism for ever having indulged in it.30
This ample process of political “education” was also aimed at growing
closer to the masses, through the guiding or amateur choirs or orchestras,
and through performances organized in factories and mills. If, five decades
ago, Cosma writes of these events as “reflecting the revolutionary trans-
formations that are taking place in society and in the consciousness of the
masses,”31 today the author claims that these event “began the offensive to
separate Romania from Western culture and to isolate it under the auspic-
es of the light shining from the East.”32
What is at first striking about Cosma’s endeavor in 1962 is how sel-
domly he invokes the Soviet Union (most frequently through references
to the “unlawful war against the Soviets”), although the artistic model he
promotes – along with its propaganda clichés – was undoubtedly import-
ed ad litteram from Moscow. At one point, when he refers to the techniques
and forms that should be employed in the opera to render “the content of
the new life, which contains the fountainhead of artistic inspiration,” Cos-
ma concludes that “it would be genuinely helpful to study the accomplish-
ments of the musical theatre of the Soviet Union, as well as that of other
countries [italics mine].”33 One can infer here a timid attempt at breaking
away from the monopoly of Soviet art, and its influence on Romanian mu-
sic. This was not, of course, the author’s unique initiative, but a lucid at-
tempt at toeing Romania’s official party line in the 1960s: in the USSR, nine
years after Stalin’s death, his cult of personality had been dismantled. Sta-
linism had implicitly become taboo in Romania, as well. The country was
led by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, who had managed to free Romania from
29 Cosma, Hronicul Operei Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 620.
30 See the case of baritone Petre Ștefănescu-Goangă, in: Cosma, Hronicul Operei
Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 851.
31 Cosma, Opera românească [Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 139.
32 Cosma, Hronicul Operei Române [The Chronicle of Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 720.
33 Cosma, Opera românească [Romanian Opera], vol. 2, 263.
137
