Is the opera a luxury? Is luxury political? Is art free? Some thoughts on Anna Netrebko premiering in Puccini’s Turandot at Milano’s Scala last week.

 
LOL-Essay 003
2nd of July 2024
​By Peter Seele
 
One of the most ethically controversial questions is whether luxury is political or not. Is it just design, excellence, or quality any without normative, moral or political strings attached? This however seems to be the communication strategy of most brands and companies. Maybe some rainbows here or some controversial pictures there. But it is hard to tell, if this is part of the marketing strategy or if this is a statement linked to an identity or to a founder or an executive. I am thinking of Armani’s current huge advertisement in Milano in walking distance from the Armani hotel. A man, fashionable, but however without shoes is behind a wall luring to the city behind. Or the ads from the Benetton campaign many, many years back creating one scandal after the other with a dying person in hospital, a blood-soaked shirt of a soldier, a nun etc. These were also the most successful years of the brand. So political messages do have a function from a purely marketing management perspective, but is that political? I would doubt that in a world, where marketing is king.
The second dimension of luxury and being political: isn’t the mere fact that luxury products are qualified as such form a purely economic point of view by the fact, that it is price elasticity defining also what is luxury and what is not? Simply put: By scarcity through a price tag (and other means) the dimension of social inequality is already set. And social equality and inequality as such is political. In this perspective the very idea of luxury is political – just by being luxury. Or by being perceived as luxury. It is not available for everyone. Or as Bugatti’s current claim puts it: “If it is comparable, it is no longer Bugatti.”
But next to these two perspectives where luxury and political visibility are affected, the third dimension is the question of cancelling luxury products or events for political reasons. Shall we consider this a bit controversial, socially acceptable or a necessity? I want to zoom in on this third dimension with the example of the world-famous opera singer Anna Netrebko, who has been cancelled in several countries, among them the U.S.A, Germany and Switzerland. The reason to think about this, is that last week the premiere of Puccini’s Turandot took place at Milano’s Teatro alla Scala. Princess Turandot was played by Anna Netrebko, prince Calaf, by her husband Yusif Eyvazov, the famous tenor.
To make it short: I argue that canceling artists – unless they engage in political discourse or propaganda – should not be considered at all. What is remarkable of the case of the premiere in Milano on June 25th 2024 (except for the fact that I was there), is the question of timing. And with timing I am speaking of the Russian invasion in Ukraine in February 2022. New Yorks Metropolitan Opera fired her. The soprano sued Metropolitan and won later and was compensated for the financial loss, as the NYT reports. Also in 2022 the Bayrische Staatsoper in Munich canceled her as for the lack of distancing herself from “Putin’s politics and the attack of Ukraine”, as several media outlets reported.
However, in 2024 the Berliner Staatsoper in Germany will start the autumn season again with her, which led to some critical voices finding a “lack of tactfulness” but the outrage seems to have calmed down, particularly as the soprano also distanced herself from the Russian president, as the “Standard” from Vienna reports (it might be noteworthy here, that Anna Netrebko holds both a Russian and Austrian passport). And Milano just did open the Turandot. Just like that. No big deal. Nevertheless in Lucerne, a city in neutral Switzerland, Anna Netrebko was cancelled also in 2024 for “security reasons” following NZZ, though the show at the KKL did not directly coincide temporally or spatially with the Ukraine-Peace-Conference.
As Anna Netrebko condemned the war and as there was no upfront political communication or propaganda – to my knowledge – I am with the Scala and the Berliner Staatsoper to feature one of the best sopranos of the world – for the sake of art. And art only.
If artists decide to become political actors, that is quite a different story. But in this regard art and commerce, as in the first example mentioned above share the attitude of being neutral – for reasons of professionality. Does it make a difference, if the opera house is funded by public money, and the respective government does have a political role in a conflict? I would say: In open democratic societies is should not play a role, even if the house is funded with public money. As art is free and the freedom of art is guaranteed in the constitution. See the example of the painter Jonathan Meese and the controversy and the legal decision that the freedom of art covers his performances. Does this also apply to non-deliberative democracies, autocracies, monarchies and other absolutistic regimes? When there is not freedom of art, then art is becoming political. Which in return leads to the interpretation, that the underlying luxury of culture is the freedom of art, and not the prestige of the stage, not the origin of an artist and not the attempt to politicize art.
And if anyone does not like the artist or context of the art: In open societies everyone is also free to discuss. Or stay at home.
 
 
PS: The question of cancelling or not cancelling Anna Netrebko after the premiere in Milano had hardly any news value or coverage. Why? Maybe because things have calmed down. Or even more probably: Because the day after the premiere at the Scala, the news was published that Anna Netrebko and her husband Yusif Eyvazov split up. Is this specific distribution of gossip over political news value a good sign?