The New York Philharmonic in Pyongyang

With the New York Philharmonic considering a performance in Pyongyang, both the WSJ and the NYT have run op-eds frowning on the idea.

In the WSJ, Terry Teachout doubts the concert will really move the hearts of the North Koreans:

Should the orchestra of Gustav Mahler, Arturo Toscanini and Leonard Bernstein be making music for a man like that? Some thoughtful observers think it’s worth a try. Music critic Greg Sandow, a contributor to the Journal, has argued on his blog that “if even a few North Koreans can see for themselves what the West is like, and if they can meet some Americans, there’s no telling how deep the effect might be. . ..a Western orchestra playing its heart out–as I’m sure the Philharmonic will–might well be a revelation.”

I take Mr. Sandow’s point, and I, too, believe devoutly in the life-changing power of Western art. But as he himself acknowledged, “Attendance at the Philharmonic’s concerts will be carefully controlled. And of course any concert in Pyongyang can’t possibly reach the North Korean people, because only the elite, for the most part, are allowed into Pyongyang.” Even if such a concert were to be telecast, the handful of North Koreans lucky enough to see it, isolated as they are from the rest of the world, might well conclude that by sending a great orchestra there, the U.S. was showing its support for the tyrants who rule them. That’s why I’ve come to the conclusion that should the Philharmonic choose to play in Pyongyang, it will be doing little more than participating in a puppet show whose purpose is to lend legitimacy to a despicable regime.

Meanwhile, in the NYT, a hard-hitting team of Richard Allen and Chuck Downs advises the New York Philharmonic to just say no:

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend. If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

It matters not to me whether the New York Philharmonic will perform in North Korea. I think it’s kind of odd that the New York Philharmonic would want to perform in a place like North Korea. But then again, I guess it’s only a matter of time before Secretary of State Rice — or even President Bush — is paying tribute to the Court of Comrade Kim, so why not the New York Philharmonic?

UPDATE: At his blog, Mark Russell posted that a performance might be a good idea after all:

I just talked to Andrei Lankov (the obvious go-to guy for comparing North Korea and Russia), and he said that the North Koreans do take their classical music seriously. They have not politicized it the way the Soviet Union did (although they did ban the public performance of classical music for about 15 years, in the 1960s and 70s), and it is probably the least controversial part of high culture, accepted in a way that painting and the other Western fine arts art not.

So if classical music is relatively accepted in NK, how can performances by the New York Philharmonic help? Well, it is always good to show Americans in a positive way publicly in North Korea. If it could lead to a North Korean orchestra playing in the United States, so much the better. Since so much of NK is built in propaganda and lies, the more channels you have to bring in outside information and influences the better.

Read the rest on your own.