The Salzburg Coconut Tree
Is the Salzburg Festival still suffering from a burnout? Maybe, but do you think the Festspiele just fell out of a coconut tree? An essay about the context of all in which it lives.
Szenenbild aus Der Idiot /// Bernd Uhlig (c)
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how" (Twilight of the Idols). This profound reflection finds a natural home in the problematic essence of the Salzburg Festival - the one filled with scandals, with successes, the shining majesty of the brand and questionable choices. As we open the logbuch of the unusually political 104th Salzburg Festival—marking the seventh year under Markus Hinterhäuser’s intendantship, the first for Marina Davydova as its Schauspielleiterin, and the penultimate for concert director Florian Wiegand - one of the most diverse classic culture festivals in Europe is already happening, yet it still tries to identify itself as something more than « Festival for the arts » (as given in 2020 memorandum) aka resilience per se.
More political than usually
From its inception in 1920, the Salzburg Festival has become an epicentre of cultural and artistic significance, where music, theatre and opera come together. The Salzburger Volksblatt eloquently stated already on August 23, 1920, "Bliebe von allem, was er geschaffen und gewollt, nichts übrig als die Erinnerung daran, dass er auf dem Domplatze zu Salzburg den Jedermann aufführte - seine bedeutung ware besiegelt ein fur allemale." The audience saw the importance of the festival already in the first year, and it has been growing ever since. This year, the festival once again asserts its role as a vital cultural institution with quite inventive concert programs of Ouvertüre Spirituelle, Zeit mit Schoenberg, and the main events - 2 new opera stagings based on Dostoevsky, both engaging into political context of the confrontation between EU and Russia. At the same time the controversial Russian-greek conductor Teodor Currentzis is still being invited to play in Salzburg, whereas in Vienna he is a persona non grata.
But in order to understand the festival’s problematic its crucial to remind what complex matrix lies behind these choices and what riddles are solved - Described in the 2021 centenary catalogue as "a theatre of the world," the Salzburg Festival stands as a stage for some of the most significant artistic dialogues due to its unique history. It began as "beacon of hope for Europe" post-WWI, symbolising renewal and the persistence of life. After WWII it conserved itself as the Kammerton of operatic and classic music tradition under Karajan’s 30 years, but as the world changed, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the festival was (and is) constantly in debate over its continuity, the need for transformation came as well. Gerard Mortier's transformative tenure from 1991 to 2001 expanded the festival's repertoire and fostered vigorous public discourse, setting a precedent for the festival's multifaceted European identity. As Mortier once said, "The Salzburg Festival is not a museum; it is a place where new ideas are born." Today’s intendant Markus Hinterhäuser, who has been confirmed in his post up to 2031, being himself an offspring of Mortier’s intendanz (he led the contemporary music program Zeitfluss in Kollegienkirche back then), continues on this track with certain struggles - new programs, new XX century operas in repertoire… yet as Zachary Woolfe pointed out in a New York Times article 10 years ago (!), a clear and encompassing identity for the festival remained elusive, particularly due to arguably chaotic tenures of Ruzicka, Jürgen Flimm, and Alexander Pereira that followed Mortier's departure.
Today, on his 7th edition, Markus Hinterhäuser faces a sea of opinions and criticisms. This year we have 2 new operas, but they are staged by Festival’s luminaries Sellars and Warlikowski. This choice in itself is symptomatic, let me show why. Much of that sea of debate can be put into 2 camps: Some critics claim Hinterhäuser isn't contemporary enough and he rather works for the festivals survival then develops it, while others argue his choices are disconnected from Austrian realities. Other critics state that he hasn’t the most diverse set - inherited by taste from Mortier - of stage directors to invite for opera productions: Warlikowski (Bassarids 2018 / Elektra 2020 / Macbeth 2023 / Idiot 2024), Castellucci (Salome 2018 / Don Giovanni / 2021 - 24 / Blaubarts burg 2022), Sellars who works with the Festival since Mortier as well (Saint Francois d’Assise 1992 / Oedipus Rex 1994 / Le Grand Macabre 1997 / l’amour de loin 2000 / Clemenza di Tito 2017 / Idomeneo 2019 / Gambler 2024); or Marthaler (Pierrot Lunaire 1996 / Katya Kabanova 1998 / Nozze di Figaro 2001 / Vec Makropulos 2011 / Falstaff 2023).
Nepotism in Salzburg?
All these are shouting examples of certain nepotism of the festival’s intendant, of his tapestry approach to editing the festival proposal under the certain influence of friendships… which certainly doesn’t serve the goal of « place where new ideas are born ». We know, that Hinterhäuser is by no means conservative, but how can one push new ideas, if one lives in the shadow of the same artistic matrix of backups, safe choices balanced with daring ideas all in order to make the overall performing image looking smooth, whilst the main issue of the festival as given by Nietzche 140 years ago remains - why Salzburg Festival?
Or in other words, for what purpose? What is the constitutional identity of the « main classic culture festival »? The question becomes even more crucial today, because of how crises and wars affect the social fabric itself, from which Festival draws the biggest sense since its foundation. Is it still, as already formulated by Karajan, « festival for the arts and artistic excellence »? (This one is certainly in people’s heads still, which results in entire front of attacks against direktorium’s contemporary approach). Is it the political engagement of art for reconciliation as done by Reinhardt? Or maybe we might look back on the founding texts written by Hoffmansthal in 1918-1921, where he clearly stated that Salzburg Festival as a project of « Musikalisch theatralische Festspiele in Salzburg zu veranstalten, das heißt: uralt Lebendiges aufs neue lebendig machen; es heißt: an uralter sinnfällig auserlesener Stätte aufs neue tun, was dort allezeit getan wurde; es heißt: den Urtrieb des bayrisch-österreichischen Stammes gewähren lassen » - someone would argue it is even nationalist… The concepts of festival literally reflected every position of society throughout its 124 years history and continues to do so! Maybe from this fact the answer to why must come?
A struggle since the 1920s…
Intriguingly, past debates around Festspiele (notably Toscanini’s departure, Brecht’s Totentanz, the Wozzeck premiere scandal of 1951, Gottfried von Einem’s fight for contemporary music in 1950s, Karajan’s overtaking in 1956-57, Ernst Lothar’s resignation in 1959, the Thomas Bernard scandal of 1972, the entire Mortier consequence, Flimm‘s research of 2006-2010, Pereira’s sparkling explosion 2011-2014 and its spendings), only underline the festival's own ongoing struggle to balance tradition with innovation and the constant search for identity and its role in regard of European Culture.
In European Context Salzburg looks even more ambiguous in 2024. Other festival institutions who also aim at bigger audiences and bigger role and impact in culture such as Berliner Festspiele, Aix en Provence, Avignon, Festival d’Automne de Paris and Wiener Festwochen have been arguably more successful in this crucial search for identity, relation to audience and their respective artistic proposals then the Mozartstadt. Under the first overturning year of Milo Rau’s Wiener Festwochen dared this year to question the very social fabric of Wien in its Trials and community projects; Avignon with its artists openly stood against extreme right party during French parliamentary election in June; Aix less on a political surface, more on an artistic one, achieved a very inventive edition this year. Not to mention Berliner Festspiele, which produces festivals seemingly all the time (Theatertreffen, MusikfestBerlin, Treffen Junge szene), resonates and echoes in entire Europe as much as Parisian Autumn festival which undertakes international coproductions and commissions from everywhere…
The goal: something bigger than a bourgeois reunion
In this broader context, the urge for Salzburg to identify itself as something bigger than a bourgeois reunion or « festival of arts » in regard of its aim to be the cornerstone of European culture grows higher. I don’t say, that Hinterhäuser must cut his ear every month, as he references van Gogh in interviews. I say that if the festival acknowledges the perspective given by Mortier for the unique trio of performing arts, then the directorium must act accordingly. Yes, the Salzburger Festspiele model is quite a unique riddle to solve, but Mortier called us to dare and to strive upon the festival’s biggest assets: its heritage and relations with different artists all across Europe, which ultimately constitute the European facet of festival DNA.
An this year, indeed, Salzburg has already achieved quite a special edition, particularly in cultural political relation. Regardless the fact, that there are 2 revivals of Mozart, which are needed for economic sake, 2 soviet modern operas by Weinberg and Prokofiev are to be part of its repertoire this year, Nina Khrushcheva was invited to give the opening Festrede, a reading of Navalny’s letters happened. The Schauspiel program undergoes its own transformation with a new Jedermann, the Kraus’ reading of « Lezten Tage der Menschheit » is planned, where we directly find the words: « Die Welt geht unter, und man wird es nicht wissen. Alles, was gestern war, wird man vergessen haben; was heute ist, nicht sehen; was morgen kommt, nicht fürchten. Man wird vergessen haben, daß man den Krieg verloren, vergessen haben, daß man ihn begonnen, vergessen, daß man ihn geführt hat. Darum wird er nicht aufhören » (Act V, scene 49). In the Overture Spirituelle section we have 3 contemporary opera concertante evenings and also a huge tribute is being paid to Schoenberg’s 150th anniversary with a special concert program edition t By no means can this be called a bad edition! Of course, the contemporary wing of debates will say, that, for example, the 2013 edition opened with a contemporary opera of Birtwistle « Gawain » not with concertante Capriccio, the conservative wing will say that the festival doesn’t have enough of opera premieres: usually there are 4-6 productions. But how can one demand contradicting things if the Salzburg Festival itself hasn’t properly conceptualised itself yet?
Our little Bohema chronicle will explore its current state and potential futures. By reflecting on various performances within several program series and critically analyzing their results and impact, we aim to provide a comprehensive account of this year’s edition in order to seek a possible answer via the searching for a Nietzsche’s why to Stefan Zweig's query about the festival's role as the "Olympic Games of Art in the modern era”.