8 research outputs found
Das Pariser Opernballett auf den Salzburger Festspielen von 1953 : ein tΓ€nzerischer Umbruch in der Festspielgeschichte oder eine misslungene Tanzdiplomatie?
The following paper attempts to show how a singular event of outstanding importance can leave a lasting imprint on strategies and effects of cultural diplomacy in a specific temporal and geographic setting. Within the history of Allied occupation of early post-war Austria, cultural policies deployed by Western Europeans outside of their hard power sphere of influence, i.e. occupation zone, have been long overshadowed by the superpower standoff and, concomitantly, by the politically determined historiography of the early Cold War. Taking the case of the Ballet de l'OpΓ©ra de Paris 1953 guest tour at the Festival of Salzburg, I investigate how this momentous appearance was prepared and negotiated with Austrian and American cultural actors, situated in a particular performative situation of the closing of this year's Festspiele and interpreted by discursively powerful critics in Salzburg and the rest of Austria. Taking the approaches of dance studies, cultural diplomacy and media history, I demonstrate how Lifar's neoclassicism proved to be a touchstone of the conflict between conservatism and modernity, nationalism and transnationality, in which outward deference to an occupation power could not mask the overall rejection of Parisian aesthetic offerings, yet simultaneuously legitimising the troupe as globally relevant cultural actors. Thus, France's dance diplomacy overture was both crowned with success, showcasing French excellence in academic dance, placed itself within several prestige policies and provoked vivid debates, defying the bipolar systems of coordinates readily applied towards Cold War and offering a multidimensional reading of cultural diplomacies' varied power relations, causes and effects
Russian music at the Metropolitan Opera : repertoire analysis in the socio-cultural context of the US contemporary history
Submitted on 06-04-2017. Review date: 04-04-2017. Publication date: 29-01-2018Exploring performances of Russian music at the Metropolitan Opera in New York allows observing the evolutions and paradigmatic changes in American high-brow cultural discourse and analyzing changing structures of repertoire policies and public preferences over the period that covers the entire existence of the Met between 1883 and December 2016. Using the operaβs digital archive, a number of queries on leading Russian composers (Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich) were conducted in order to examine the interrelationship between cultural, political, and musical-historical factors that fed into repertoire dynamics and their reflection in the public space. Within the general operatic context, the Russians could never vie the dominating Italian and German composers. However, Russian authors have consistently taken mid-range positions and their works gained substantial public visibility. Tchaikovsky and Mussorgsky emerged as leaders throughout the period of the inquiry, confirming the thesis of reductionist conservatism of the standard opera repertoire at the Met. Modern composers showed different dynamics, with Stravinsky clearly surpassing the Soviet school due to his public stature, a long period of stay in America, particular position as the doyen of 20th century music, and cultural-political involvement during cold war. Indeed, all important premieres of Prokofiev and Shostakovich fall into the period after 1991, and the critical reactions show the centrality of democracy-totalitarianism binomial in the construction of discourses on contemporary Soviet music. Economic and macro-political factors did not necessarily have a direct impact on opera performances: while the Great Depression years expectedly show an ebbing down of operatic activities, the wartime alliance did not translate in a spike in Russian performances. Favorable economic conjuncture of the post-war period and continuous media expansion of the Met ensured the growing quantity and increasing prominence of Russian works within the New York and American society, available to audiences larger than New York's educated public thanks to Metβs Anglicization policy, performances at various venues at home and abroad, and radio, television, and internet broadcasts. The market made Tchaikovskyβs rule supreme, otherwise leading to partial diversification of Russian repertoire, favored by growing internationalization and public stature of the Met. Overall, the transferred imageries included exoticism, high quality expectations (concomitant with growing musical prestige) and often contradictory perceptions of Russia that went beyond the immediate political agenda and fitted the globalizing patterns of βnationalβ opera repertoire and discourse.ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½-ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΡ Π² ΠΡΡ-ΠΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎ-ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎ- ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎ-Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² Π₯Π₯ Π². ΠΠ° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½-ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΡ (1883-2016 Π³.) Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠ΅Ρ, ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠ°, ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΈ Π±Π°Π»Π΅ΡΠ°, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ·ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ² Π²Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Π° Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΡΡ-ΠΠΎΡΠΊΠ°, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΌΠΈΡΡΠΈΡ Π² Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° (ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π² Π³Π°Π·Π΅ΡΠ°Ρ
, ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅-, ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΎ- ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π΅Ρ-ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΈ Π² Π½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΉΡΠ΅Π΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ). Π‘ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ²Π° ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½-ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅Ρ "ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ" ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π° ΡΠΎΠ½Π΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ Π₯Π₯ Π². Π ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Ρ Π΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄, Π² ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΡΡΡΠΈΠ»Π΅ΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠΌ ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π΄Π΅ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΉΠ½Ρ, Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΉΠ½Ρ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎ-Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΠ·Π°, Π₯ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΉΠ½Ρ ΠΈ Π½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΉΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ 1991 Π³. ΠΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΌ Π² ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ-ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½Π° Π²ΡΠ±ΠΎΡΠΊΠ° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ·ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ² Π²Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΆΡΡΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ² Π‘Π¨Π ΠΈ, ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠ΅, ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΈ, ΠΎΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΠΉΡΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π½ΡΡΠ° Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ. ΠΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ·Π½Π° ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π² ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠΊΠΈ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Π»ΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² - Π§Π°ΠΉΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΡΡΠΎΡΠ³ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π² ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅ XIX Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΠΈ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π² ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π°ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ΅. ΠΠ°ΡΡΠ΄Ρ Ρ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π° ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ², Π² ΡΡΠΌ ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½-ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π»Π° ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΠ»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ, ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π΅Ρ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»Ρ Π΄ΠΎ ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ Π₯ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΉΠ½Ρ. ΠΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Ρ Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π‘ΠΎΡΠ·ΠΎΠΌ Π² Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΉΠ½Ρ, Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ², Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π΅Π»ΠΎ ΠΊ ΡΠ²Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°, Π² ΡΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΡΡΠ° ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π»Π° ΠΏΡΡΠΌΠΎΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΡ, ΡΠ°Π·Π½ΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π·ΠΎΠ½Π°Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈ. Π ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠΏΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Ρ
, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΡ
Π²ΠΎΠΊΡΡΠ³ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°, ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΡΠΊΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ Π² ΡΠΎ ΠΆΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ° ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΡ
Ρ Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ΄Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ. ΠΠ½ΡΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²ΡΠ» ΠΊ Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΡ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π» Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°Π» ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΊ Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ. Π‘ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΡ Π² "ΠΠ΅Ρ" ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ Π½Π΅Π»ΠΈΠ½Π΅Π°ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡ Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ, ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ ΡΠ²Π΅Ρ Π½Π° Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠΈ, Π² ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊ Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π΅Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π· ΠΏΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠΌΠ»ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡ Π² ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈ. ΠΠ±ΠΎΠ³Π°ΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠ΅Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈΠ· Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ Π² Π‘ΠΎΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΡ, Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΏΠ»ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌ ΠΌΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π² ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ² Π‘ΠΎΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ½Π½ΡΡ
Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ², ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π² ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΈ, Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠ²
Tchaikovsky meets Debussy : French and Soviet musical diplomacy in occupied Austria, 1945-1955
Defence date: 11 September 2017Examining Board: Professor Federico Romero, EUI; Professor Pieter M. Judson, EUI; Professor Thomas Angerer, UniversitΓ€t Wien; Dr. Barbara Stelzl-Marx, Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institut fΓΌr Kriegsfolgenforschung, GrazTaken in their socio-political context, competitive strategies of using music as a means of asserting individual prestige have seldom been considered by historical research. This dissertation argues that the promotion of their own national music and performers was an important asset for France and the USSR. Unlike the US and the UK, the continental European Allies could claim membership of a common European musical canon, and thus legitimize their presence within Austrian soundscapes and discursive fields. Allied-occupied Austria represents a highly interesting case study, particularly due to the uniquely open forms of competition that took place between different Allies and between East and West, Austriaβs complex ideological and cultural history, which stretched from multinational monarchy to Nazism, and the symbolic standing of the country as the land of music, which itself informed Allied musical policies. Drawing on documentation from the Allied administrations, bilateral cultural societies, and native Austrian institutions, the dissertation investigates the design and conduct of musical diplomacies, the agency of the actors involved, and their adaptation to Austrian expectations and reactions. Emphasizing high-brow art music, both France and the USSR supported performances of French and Russian music by Austrian musicians. However, they also launched a number of important guest tours, the reverberations of which extended widely throughout Austrian society, successfully integrating folk music and dance into French and Russian musical offerings. The reception of French and Russian music in Austria is investigated through influential daily newspapers, notably in Vienna, Salzburg, and Innsbruck. Discursive constructions of musical French- and Russianness were marked by BildungsbΓΌrgertum conservatism and nationalism, whereas high-brow elitism established common ground between the French, Soviet and Austrian actors. Pursuing their own agendas, powerful cultural journalists allotted positions of prestige to and critically engaged with French and Soviet/Russian musical exports, notably with diverging modernities. They also diversified the images of the two countries, ascribing to them a series of nationally defined musical categories, existing independently of considerations of hard power and political entanglements. An investigation of these layers of musical transfer and interpretation will contribute to our understanding of the communicative dynamics of cultural diplomacies, multifaceted national imageries, and the nexus between local, national, inter- and transnational histories of music and culture.Chapters 2 βInformation and cultural services in the French administration : diplomatie culturelle and its application in occupied Austria' and 4 'Soviet concerts : red artists or old Russia?' of the PhD thesis draw upon an earlier version published as a chapter 'Zur Kulturpolitik der UdSSR in Γsterreich 1945 bis 1955 : Musik als ReprΓ€sentationsmittel und ihre Auswirkungen auf ΓΆsterreichische Russlandbilder' (2016) in the book βΓsterreich im Kalten Krieg : neue Forschungen im internationalen Kontextβ
Adieu lβAllemagne, bonjour la FranceΒ ?
ConΓ§u comme un moyen de rapprochement franco-autrichien, le dΓ©ploiement des musiques et musiciens franΓ§ais en Autriche sβinscrivait dans la politique dβoccupation et dβexpansion culturelle. Cette diplomatie musicale, partie intΓ©grante de la diplomatie culturelle, visait Γ crΓ©er un sentiment de communautΓ© avec la France au dΓ©triment du nationalisme germanique, Γ Γ©tablir une position de prestige dans le pays de la musique et Γ accumuler un capital symbolique pour la France. MalgrΓ© ses succΓ¨s, la politique franΓ§aise sβest heurtΓ©e aux ambivalences du projet national autrichien entamΓ© sous lβoccupation alliΓ©e et aux images de lβautre que les interlocuteurs autrichiens construisaient autour de la France de la musique, comme la chorΓ©graphie Γ la fois nΓ©oclassique et transnationale promue par Serge Lifar. Γ la place dβun exercice du pouvoir unilatΓ©ral, la diplomatie musicale franΓ§aise sβintΓ¨gre ainsi dans un contexte sociopolitique autrichien transformant son message au grΓ© des critiques et publics locaux.Konzipiert als Vehikel der franzΓΆsisch-ΓΆsterreichischen AnnΓ€herung, integrierte sich der Einsatz der franzΓΆsischen Musik und Musiker in Γsterreich in die Besatzungspolitik und Kulturexpansion. Die Musikdiplomatie, wichtiger Teil der Kulturdiplomatie, hatte zum Ziel, eine Verbundenheit mit Frankreich in Abgrenzung zum groΓdeutschen Nationalismus zu schaffen, eine Prestigeposition im sogenannten βMusiklandβ zu etablieren sowie ein Symbolkapital fΓΌr Frankreich auszubauen. Trotz ihrer Erfolge stieΓ die franzΓΆsische Politik an das unter alliierter Besatzung eingeleitete ΓΆsterreichische Nation-Building-Projekt und an fest etablierte Bilder des Anderen, die von ΓΆsterreichischen Akteuren in Bezug auf das musikalische Frankreich konstruiert wurden, etwa die gleichzeitig neoklassische und transnationale Choreographie von Serge Lifar. Statt einseitiger Machtausstrahlung integrierte sich die franzΓΆsische Musikdiplomatie somit in den ΓΆsterreichischen soziopolitischen Kontext, der seine intendierten Auswirkungen im Sinne der lokalen Kritiker und des Publikums umwandelte
New Onset Tinnitus after High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation
The most common complications of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy are generally related to surgical site infection and hardware malfunction. Less well understood are the adverse neurological effects of this therapy. We present the case of a patient who underwent placement of a Senza HF10 high-frequency spinal cord stimulator with subsequent development of tinnitus, vertigo, intermittent involuntary left facial twitches, and perioral numbness. These symptoms resolved following deactivation of her device. To further explore these less common neurologic complications of SCS therapy, a review of literature and a review of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database are included. Further research and investigation in this area are needed so that clinicians and patients may have more complete knowledge and understanding of the potential treatment-limiting complications of spinal cord stimulation