The first Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra concert of 2024 featured an excellent performance of Modest Mussorgsky’s “Pictures at an Exhibition”. Mussorgsky wrote this piece originally as a piano concerto in honor of his dear friend Viktor Hartmann, a prominent Russian architect and painter who died from an aneurism at the age of thirty-nine. “Pictures at an Exhibition” became an international favorite when Maurice Ravel orchestrated it, adding all the rich colors of a full symphony orchestra. Today it is perhaps the best example we have of program music, “instrumental music that carries some extra-musical meaning, some program of literary idea, legend, scenic description, or personal drama”. The composer asks us to imagine we are visiting an art gallery featuring Hartmann’s work, and then provides background music as we proceed through the exhibition.
We begin, arriving at the gallery with the accompaniment of “Promenade”, a lovely theme that is repeated numerous times later as we move from painting to painting. The first painting we view is “the Gnome”; the music is particularly appropriate for an awkward dwarf, probably a wee bit mischievous. We then visit “The Old Castle” and hear a medieval troubadour singing on the grounds of a grand old (I think) Moorish castle. Then a quick visit to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris and the joyous sounds of children at play there. Next is “Cattle”, a bulky Polish ox-cart being tediously dragged uphill by a large ox. The music begins softly, reaches a crescendo, then dies off as the cart progresses out of sight.
We then promenade to “The Ballet of Unhatched Chicks in their Shells”, a sketch Hartmann made of costumes for a children’s ballet; its music is particularly appropriate. Then “Two Jews: One Rich, One Poor” contrasts economic inequity, with contrasting musical themes illustrating it eloquently. The cheerful, upbeat mood of “The Market at Limoges” is quickly negated by “The Catacombs” and its somber dirge.
Mussorgsky left the best till last. The ninth painting is “The Hut on Fowl’s Legs”, depicting the forest home of the famous Slavic witch Baba Yaga. It actually is a sketch of a clock Hartmann drew based on the famous hut. This provides the composer with the opportunity for authentic fairy tale horror themes. The climax is the familiar “The Great Gate of Kiev”. Based on a design Hartmann made for a gate that was never constructed, the accompanying fanfare is magnificent. It makes the listener yearn to purchase another ticket and go through the exhibition one more time.
Thus ends lecture number one of “Appreciation of Art 101”. I did enough outside reading and listening to provide me with an insight into this specific composition; this has enhanced my enjoyment of it dramatically. Unfortunately, I am still struggling with lecture two, the appreciation of non-programmatic serious (classical) music. It is easy to understand the popularity of program music; the listeners are enjoying both a story and the intrinsic beauty of the music. There is no comparable link to understanding pure or abstract music; we are expected to enjoy it simply for its own sake. Nonetheless, it is obvious to me that trained musicians get more out of pure music than the rest of us. I have listened to podcasts by music aficionados analyzing well known musical compositions and marveled at their insight into concepts, an insight I am unable to duplicate.
In many respects this is a perfect example of the underlying question of art appreciation, as Marian the Librarian posed it in “The Music Man”: “What makes Shakespeare and Beethoven great?” There is no question that they are great; their work has survived the test of time. Each was an acknowledged genius in his time; each managed to appeal to all levels of the public. Shakespeare’s language was eloquent and insightful, and he was incredibly productive, producing forty plays in twenty years, plus many poems and sonnets. Beethoven’s productivity was comparable, and the variety of his output also impressive. Marian was looking for a man who would ponder her question; it is much easier to find one who ponders it than one who has the answers to it. My wife would have disagreed with Marian; she felt it was sufficient to appreciate the beauty of the musical selection, or painting, or poem, and that my insistence on understanding what made it beautiful was counter-productive, one more example of “different strokes for different folks”.
I have touched on this general subject previously when reporting on the various sculpture exhibits Public Art Bridgeville has sponsored in the past two years. We neophytes all enjoy the picture-perfect Seward Johnson manikins and are impressed at their ability to be life-like. We also shake our heads at the truly abstract pieces and wonder why artists waste their time producing them. Despite this, we still admit that the abstracts begin to grow on us, the more times we see them. I certainly think the sculptors who did “Fiddlehead” and “Hyperbolic Wind” showed more creativity than did the Johnson atelier.
And, what about the graphic arts? Can anyone predict which contemporary paintings will survive, and which will fade into obscurity? Here, too, I prefer realistic paintings to abstract ones. Keep your Jackson Pollock paint splatters – I much prefer Eric Sloane’s landscapes. But Sloane isn’t solely realistic; everything he does is modified slightly to produce a mood. The realistic/abstract contrast is best exemplified by Norman Rockwell’s “The Connoisseur” which depicts (very realistically) a well-dressed gentleman in an art gallery, contemplating a Pollock abstract. I wonder what kind of music Mussorgsky would write to accompany this painting?
The creative arts provide valuable enrichment to our lives, whether we understand why or not. I am convinced that any effort invested in enhancing that enrichment is worthwhile; hence Appreciation of Art 101. Now I must look for a guest lecturer for Lecture2!