Sorry for the somewhat open-ended question. I've heard a lot about Wagner since I study late 19th- and early 20th-century Europe. I realized that there would be a performance of Wagner's Lohengrin this weekend at Prague's National Theater, so I decided to suck it up and go see the five-hour-long performance.
So that I can appreciate it best while watching, I was looking for a little bit of context before the show.
First, what was new about Wagner's operas. I seem to vaguely remember something from a German lit class I took, about how Wagner subscribed to some sort of "total performance" idea, that involved elaborate staging, scenery, and loud-as-hell music. Am I remembering correctly or am I wildly off the mark?
Second, what was the artistic and literary context for Wagner's works? I also seem to remember that he was always creating operas that dealt with mythological/legendary themes. And I remember of course that Hitler liked his Wagner.
Finally, how were Wagner's operas received at various points in their existence?
I realize I've asked quite a few questions here, so answer whichever ones you want to/have time for. Thanks a lot!
I can speak to your first question the best but will try to speak to all three as best as I am able. Always happy when a music question arises! I may make minor edits once I read the whole thing for added coherence.
Wagner had a philosophy called Gesamtkuntswerk, which means “total artwork.” The idea being that text, music, scenery, lighting, everything should be unified and support the story being told. Keep in mind that this was very different from other theatrical conventions; many if not all performances involved costumed actors on very spare sets. Opera had moved further away from drama, existing for musical performance more than anything. Indeed, it wasn’t that common for people to watch an entire opera all the way through - they would come in for the arias sung by established performers and ignore other parts, leaving their boxes to socialize instead. Wagner thought otherwise, that these traits represented missed opportunity. Lohengrin, by the way, did include some of these elements but was not the full-blown example of them the way that later works were.
The operas that strongly underscore this philosophy were the four that make up the Ring Cycle (most especially the first two). Wagner had an entire theater built specifically for their performance - it was made to integrate with the story that he wanted to tell. One innovation that was a part of this total artwork that is easy to point to in modern days is that of leitmotif. This would be a brief musical theme designed to connect with a plot point, item, or character. This is used in a modern sense very often. Consider Star Wars, where a specific theme is evocative of the force, or the Skywalker family, and that sort of thing. The same was true in the operas of the Ring cycle, even to the point of aiding in the establishment of dramatic irony.
To provide an example, in the cycle there is a scene where the male lead is trapped in a house built around a massive tree by someone who he knows is going to kill him. He begins to sing of how his father told him that in an hour of need there would be a sword available to him. Meanwhile, the orchestra is playing the sword theme, which by this point has been well-established. Then the lighting glints off of a piece of metal embedded in the tree - a sword! Of course, our hero does not yet know that it is there. In this way all elements of artistry are united for a common purpose.
To address at least part of your second question, Wagner did believe in the idea of the superman and indeed the story of the Ring Cycle is about exactly that. Interestingly, however, incest is involved and there are severe character flaws amongst the protagonists. I’ll leave that sort of analysis for others or your own exploration but it is nonetheless a fascinating point. He certainly believed in the retelling of myths and some of this may have been due to his admiration for some early Greek drama. He believed that the Greeks had come the closest to Gesamtkuntswerk, to a point anyway. His essays speak to that as well as his belief in the importance of using myths in operatic/dramatic storytelling. However he did scale back from strict adherence to the “total artwork” concept after the first two operas of the cycle were complete.
To somewhat address your last point, Wagner’s fame came late in life. He had in no particular order been exiled for a role in the Dresden Uprising, disparaged by peers, sought by creditors, and so on. It was a difficult existence for him. It was in his exile that he wrote the essays that established his philosophies (Gesamtkuntswerk among them) and set the stage for his later career. Some of his later fame is because he had been a bit ahead of his time and people were finally catching up; some of it had to do with the timely rise of Ludwig II in Bavaria, who loved Wagner’s work and gave him a chance - in particular he was a fan of Lohengrin. Surely he’d not have been in position to build that theater without such opportunities.
Side note, if you want to know what to listen for this weekend, the leitmotifs in particular are present in Lohengrin, so look to connect music and objects/characters. The show is also through-composed, so many breaks that are present in other operas are not here.
Further reading:
A History of Music in Western Culture (Bonds)
The Ring of the Nibelung Comprehensive Study Guide
Gesamtkunstwerk is the specific concept you are thinking of in question one. If you had described to Wagner that his taste was described by "Elaborate staging, scenery, and lout as hell music" he would probably be a little disappointed, as his works were almost written in defiance of Grand Opera being overly ostentatious and represented to him a base entertainment.
In his essay The Artwork of the Future he lays out three components to Art; Dance, Tone, and Poetry. These three elements must inevitably be combined into a Gesamkunstwerk.
By framing these elements as precisely together one would achieve a work more than its individual pieces.
In his earlier work Art and Revolution he describes his objections to Grand opera as mere entertainment which does not strive to be a moral guide to the people and bring about their true character.
There are even many of our most popular artists who do not in the least conceal the fact, that they have no other ambition than to satisfy this shallow audience. They are wise in their generation; for when the prince leaves a heavy dinner, the banker a fatiguing financial operation, the working man a weary day of toil, and go to the theatre: they ask for rest, distraction, and amusement, and are in no mood for renewed effort and fresh expenditure of force. This argument is so convincing, that we can only reply by saying: it would be more decorous to employ for this purpose any other thing in the wide world, but not the body and soul of Art. We shall then be told, however, that if we do not employ Art in this manner, it must perish from out our public life: i.e.,—that the artist will lose the means of living.
Wagner, thus demands that the subjects of his works deal with loftier things than mere entertainment
in his essay Religion and Art
When religion becomes artificial, art has a duty to rescue it. Art can show that the symbols which religions would have us believe literally true are actually figurative. Art can idealize those symbols, and so reveal the profound truths they contain.
It is very easy to find sublime messages in mythic/legendary works to convey to ones audience, and indeed it almost demands it.