I just finished reading Milan Kundera’s thought-provoking book, Testaments Betrayed, and have been mulling over some of the interesting points he makes about how an artist’s wishes regarding his work are often ignored and misinterpreted.

Although Kundera uses many examples throughout history, one main theme that pervades his essay is the story of Franz Kafka and Max Brod. Kafka, as most people may know, left explicit instructions with his friend, Brod, to destroy his works upon his death. He did not ask for all of his works to be destroyed, but left a clear list - he wanted his personal writings, letters, and diaries as well as stories and novels that he felt were not successfully written to be destroyed. Instead, Brod believed in his friend’s genius and had all of Kafka’s works and private papers published after his death and became the greatest proponent of his friend’s art. What we know of Kafka today - his works, his life, the resulting Kafkology myths - are a result of Max Brod’s efforts. Thus, the fundamental question: Did Brod do the right thing or did he betray the artistic intentions of his friend? Many have argued that though Brod’s actions may have been flawed, he nevertheless provided the world with the discovery of Kafka, and that this alone more than made up for any kind of betrayal.



“Brod the enigma. He was guided by no ulterior motive, only by the spirit of justice; he loved him for the essential, for his art. But he did not understand that art….Brod understood cubism as little as he understood Kafka and Janacek. Doing his best to free them from their social isolation, he confirmed their aesthetic aloneness. The real meaning of his devotion to them was: even a person who loved them, and was thus most disposed to understand them, was alien to their art.” (Testaments Betrayed, p. 253)



I am not a composer, poet, or novelist - I cannot imagine what I would feel about such a situation. But as a performer, I believe that this issue is important. I have asked my friends who are writers and composers what their thoughts were on this, and they unanimously agreed that an artist’s aesthetic concepts and wishes regarding his creations are absolute. And yet, in both the literary and music worlds, we have clearly seen so many examples of how an artist’s wishes or intentions are ignored. There are concerts that promote the first performances of previously unpublished or abandoned material from a composer’s work and new recordings of previously unpublished fragments. New revised editions with material that the author or composer chose to remove are added back in for “authenticity.” I have never quite understood this concept - why do we perform a work or fragment that the composer himself clearly deemed not suitable for performance and either removed or abandoned? Why - 200 years after a composer’s death, when he no longer has the ability to speak up or protest - do we insist on pulling every possible scrap from his personal, private life as well as from his pile of discarded, incomplete works and shine a bright light onto it like some kind of novelty? Would a composer want us to publicly perform fragments of works that he had completely abandoned? Would an author want excerpts and fragments of ideas he had written in his private journals, notes that were meant only for his eyes, to be published?

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a well-known musician, who shall remain nameless. We were discussing Mozart’s works and he told me that he thought it was very important to go to Austria and see and study the desk, writing instrument, and shoes Mozart wore and used as he wrote a certain piece (I kid you not) because it helps us to play his music better. This same musician also said that he didn’t believe one could perform Bach unless one was German. Now, I strongly disagreed with both of these statements and very vehemently told him so. His way of thinking represents the way some people narrow their view or focus in the hopes of finding a deeper understanding or meaning. But they fail to consider the possibility that taking the exact opposite action and broadening their view could actually provide them with the meaningful perspective they’re searching for.

Even as I passionately argued against his views, this musician insisted that he was right in what he said because he truly “loved” and “revered” Bach and Mozart, and felt that he was “protecting” their authentic values. He believed that we must leave no stone unturned in analyzing their lives, and that every scrap of paper - a fragment tossed out into the trash, or a private note that was only meant for the recipient’s eyes - was important in preserving and understanding the genius of their art. But by insisting that Bach could only be played by Germans, he inadvertently limits the Bach that he loves so much to being an artist of only one country, when his artistic legacy belongs to a perspective and history much larger and greater than that. I was also left thinking about what Mozart would say if he knew people were looking at his shoes to figure out how to interpret his music…it seems, in many ways, that the spirit of Max Brod continues to live on.

Do artists have any control or authority over the legacy they ultimately leave behind? In what ways do we misconstrue or warp an artist’s original aesthetic conception or intention? Do you believe people like Brod are correctly acting in the greater interest of art? Or do you believe he betrayed the fundamental individual freedoms that are at the heart of what art is? Are there circumstances or situations that are exceptions?