Christian Gerhaher on the time after the pandemic: "Cultural life has petered out"

Created: 02/16/2022, 17:30

By: Markus Thiel

"From the point of view of our initiative, it is clear that politicians have made serious mistakes," says Christian Gerhaher.

© Clive Barda

He's in Vienna right now, rehearsing for the premiere of Berg's "Wozzeck".

In general, Christian Gerhaher had a lot to do during the pandemic - which also has to do with the small form of lieder he prefers.

In addition, the Munich baritone is one of the heads of the "Stand Up for Art" initiative, which fights against cultural lockdowns.

So it's time to take stock of these two difficult years.

For the 52-year-old, one thing is clear: cultural life will not fully recover from the restrictions.

In our conversation at the beginning of the pandemic you said: "Maybe my artistic life will change too." Did that happen?

It's not time to sum up, the pandemic is not over.

But – yes, it has changed.

A lot has been cancelled, a lot has lost its naturalness.

However, my own life is not that important.

What I notice overall: the importance and self-perception of cultural institutions have changed significantly.

Because cultural institutions are frustrated with how subordinate they have been treated?

Rather, I believe that the institutions that have survived well compared to amateur music and too many independent soloists or the promotion of young talents are beginning to realize that the reduced number of viewers will no longer serve as an excuse if the houses are no longer full.

You don't really know how this deficit in visitors can ever be compensated for.

Will everything go back to the pre-pandemic status quo after some kind of transition?

I don't think so.

I would be happy if it happened.

But what I've noticed since I've been working professionally: The area of ​​so-called classical music is much less important and enjoys much less attention compared to the time when I grew up with it as a recipient.

This incredible presence of artists like Hermann Prey, Fritz Wunderlich or Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, for example, no longer exists today.

And: The arts in our country were endangered and damaged to a dubious extent by political interventions - especially in the "lockdown light" at the end of 2020.

And our initiative "Standing Up for Art" is convinced that some of the court decisions made during the pandemic will, in retrospect, be judged to be misjudgments.

That, for example, instead of demanding from politicians

Can it still be that the pandemic is also a catalyst?

Does the cultural scene now really have to think about strategies for better reaching audiences?

I view the question of how to get the audience more interested in your cause from a certain distance.

If a "Parsifal" has to be moved to a gym to make him attractive, then I feel that's weak.

I don't understand this update mania in directors.

Why do you have to be so skeptical about content that it is a great and honorable task to understand in a differentiated way, by jazzing it up and thus very often trivializing it?

This development has been problematic for a long time.

It testifies to a deep-seated skepticism towards works of art.

Accordingly, the culture leans back with the attitude: "We are good and important, we offer quality, so come to us." Or do you have to take a step or two towards the audience right now?

My conviction is: the offer of an art that seeks less effect and impact than meaning ultimately arouses interest.

But of course we have to do something.

For two years we weren't able to promote or even create young talent – ​​not only among the artists but also among the audience.

This punches a huge hole in the entire structure.

Added to this is the increasing neglect of artistic content in those educational institutions that are most important: schools.

Of course, theaters and orchestras cannot do without educational projects.

But they cannot in the least replace an exposure to the arts in schools.

This is also and above all a problem in the state of Bavaria, which calls itself a “cultural state” in its constitution.

What specific allegations do you make of cultural policy in the pandemic?

It's not about making accusations.

I am pleased that it seems at least a little as if politics have learned something new.

From the point of view of our “Stand up for Art” initiative, it is clear that she made serious mistakes.

That is why there is still a pending lawsuit before the Bavarian Constitutional Court as to whether the “lockdown light” was allowed a year and a half ago.

We believe that he was in no way justified.

It has been extremely damaging to the arts, especially compared to other areas of society.

This undermined the constitutional state goal of culture.

It is therefore important that mistakes in politics, for which we do not want to scold anyone, are clearly identified as such in order to better protect the arts in future, comparable situations.

What does that mean specifically?

Secure the freelancers better?

I mean less the financial resources.

You can't really blame the public sector for that - the situation was confusing at first.

However, the bridging funds helped the institutions to survive.

For now at least.

I mean the freedom to practice our profession, so unjustly curtailed by the lockdown rule.

Other areas of society were treated better than the performing arts, without being able to explain this through studies and ignoring existing studies on the comparatively high level of safety of their performance venues.

In fact, one cannot help but call this decision arbitrary.

"Stand up for art" has been protesting for a long time.

A few weeks ago there was a concerted outcry from the cultural scene in Bavaria because they felt worse off than the gastronomy.

Suddenly the state government showed understanding.

Should artists have raised their voices earlier and louder?

How should one do that?

Our initiative was loud enough.

On the contrary: at some point we almost drowned in the background noise because everyone thought: we know their opinion.

On principle, however, one cannot blame the arts.

Like the sciences, these embody a world whose creativity is shaped by individual action and therefore does not easily speak with one voice.

That is why it makes so much sense that freedom of science and art are protected in the same article in the Basic Law.

These areas of society must be guaranteed a special kind of free development: the state must protect the arts, not the arts themselves.

That is why it is so important that the protection of culture is included in the Basic Law.

Did the pandemic bring more solidarity among artists?

Or does everyone go their own way again when it has become reasonably normal?

If we showed solidarity, it was only out of necessity.

In my opinion, there will be no powerful art unions.

This is due to the nature of our individual occupation.

So what will cultural life look like in five or six years?

I fear that amateur music in particular has suffered so much damage that it will go into the future very weakly.

That applies to the institutions, but it also applies to potential young talent.

How are choirs supposed to get new blood if there hasn't been any singing for two years?

I'm very worried about that.

At the same time, it affects the audience of tomorrow.

An example: Gerold Huber and I are very frequent guests at London's Wigmore Hall.

It's our favorite spot for lieder singing.

Actually always with two sold-out evenings per program.

But now it has become more difficult.

And so it is with other events.

There is a fear of contagion.

At the moment, interest does not seem to be as mobilizable as it used to be.

If the pressure on the culture increases...

...there is no pressure.

It's more of a sanding on the sides.

It's like a fading of our activity and content due to disinterest.

What I'm getting at: Does this mean that there will be an even greater impoverishment of the repertoire?

Because you only lure with the hits?

It has long been the case that there is a demand for a few central repertoire pieces.

Especially with private organizers.

I believe that being honest and relatively direct, trying to convey content genuinely and truthfully, is the only way to survive as an artist.

Although the comparison is stretched, could one imagine a Sophocles who would have conceived his plays dishonestly and let maximum effect guide him?

Then they would never have survived two and a half thousand years.

While pandering might work tactically, it's bad advice strategically, and ethically, if I may say so, anyway.

And we cannot practice our profession honestly by always doing the same thing.

A wide repertoire is the basis for our success.

So says a famous singer from whom the audience accepts and embraces a lot.

Something like that can change suddenly.

How often does it happen that people say: We've had enough of that.

It will be the same for me at some point.

In addition, Gerold Huber and I have not only had a bed of roses over the past 30 years, but have also been confronted with a lack of success.

We had to fight long enough to be noticed.

Fortunately, all of this didn't tempt us to curry favor or act as pied pipers, and we wouldn't have succeeded either.

We have to trust the content of the works more again.

The interview was conducted by Markus Thiel.