So Riedel... really enjoys giving impetus for the romantic in terms of the world that surrounded them. I know, I know, this seems very obvious - artists, as we see them now, are very inclined to do this. The stereotypic image of the 'artist,' musician or otherwise, that we claim in society today is one of the rebel, the outlandish man on the street-corner proclaiming his own genius. "Look at me! I'm doing something new and brilliant, and if you don't know about it, you don't understand true art, how dare you!" And while there is nothing wrong with this sort of innovation, it seems interesting, as Riedel seems to suggest, that the Romantic era helped give rise to this image of the artist. It also becomes fun, if not a little tongue-in-cheek, to speculate on how this image plays into our views of art today.

Of course, it makes perfect sense that the 'becoming' of the Romantic era which Riedel describes would create the idea of the artist that has remained prominent. While we have lost some elements, some still remain. The idea of an artist reacting to a newly automated world is something that today's artist can relate to, as is the idea of the artist representing himself as an individual, rather than just being a highly skilled craftsman. Indeed, the latter is a cornerstone of how many define art today, and the former is one that many artists embrace when they conceive their works, since it is always trendy to reject society from time to time.

This is not to say that everything that Riedel describes as part of the life of the Romantic artist exists today. The support structure, I would think, of the artist has changed somewhat from the one that supported Romantic-era artists. Riedel talks about a growing 'nouveau riche' middle- to upper-middle class that allows artists to create independent of benefactors, as opposed to the previous system of funding for the arts, which limited artists to create what their wealthy benefactors (in some cases... you know... the church) desired to be created.

I can see where Riedel's point makes sense in the context of the Romantic era - the support of the masses helped bring forth creations of the self by virtue of the fact that no one benefactor was supplying the means to both create and survive. However, that being said - the closest thing we have to this structure left in society today is that of the entertainment industry - which has picked up the term 'artist,' and which uses the wealth of the middle- to upper-middle class to distribute money to themselves and a few of the 'artists' they have crafted images of, who can turn out what they are told to when they are told to. It is interesting, in light of this degree of control, that independent consumers have been taught to not know better in many cases, assuring the complete autonomy of the industry to do what they want as an extension of 'what the public wants.'

While I am not denying the ability of all of today's entertainment-artists, I am suggesting that there may be more valuable forms of art that have been lead to extinction for lack of corporate, and therefore, public recognition. It is odd to fathom just how many works have died of suffocation under a mound of promotional materials for the latest Britney Spears spectacle. Not that I'm claiming anything to be wrong with spectacle - or we wouldn't have Liszt - but it's nice to give other forms some breathing room. I am also not trying to argue that every person that claims to be an artist is - the entertainment industry can afford to scream louder than the man on the corner, but neither, by saying 'look at me' , can create anything more than self-promotion.

It is interesting, in light of this, to see what has persisted from the Romantic era that we consider true 'art.' Riedel talks about the salons and gathering places, and about the work-a-day artists who created something of momentary, if not lasting value. Perhaps that is what we still have today in the entertainment culture - not salons, but concert stages that virtuosi have left vacant for the masses to fill with their Gym Class Heroes and their All-American Rejects. Certainly more was created then than has lasted. Maybe you have to fund the mundane to find the inspired. Maybe it is when we as a society are lucky enough to find someone that can bridge the gap, that we gain what persists: a work that is created as art in the moment, but that is also accessible, a work that can inform current and future society while only elevating itself to the place it ought to attain. Perhaps Riedel's suggestion of Handel as consciously doing this is correct, perhaps not. It is, however, very possible, that our generation of art and artists is simply waiting for the creation of its own Messiah.