Goodreads:
Days of Reading
Marcel Proust
I have not read Proust since my first try at college (roughly twenty years ago). I remember being overwhelmed by him. Part of that is the time constraints of a college semester. That meant we had two weeks to read In Search of Lost Time in a span of about two and a half weeks. Proust had, as indicated in Days of Reading, a much larger love of reading than I did at 17/18. I still struggle with all the many things that pull me in thousands of directions and won't allow me the time to read as much as I would like. If I tried to read that single novel in seven volumes in the span of two and a half weeks I would undoubtedly resort to what made the endeavor successful the last time - Cliff Notes. It's funny though that Proust explains, both explicitly and implicitly, why his masterpiece is so long.
Explicitly, he notes the length of his novel is long because he doesn't conceive of the novel as a succinct plot with a few characters. Days of Reading began as a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity". This is the implicit reason for the lengthy novel. We know that this essay was supposed to be a newspaper article entitled, "Snobbery and Posterity" because Proust tells us at the very end that is what he had initially set out to write. He was completely unsuccessful and instead wrote something completely different and promised to give the article at a later date.
I was expecting a short story when I picked this book up. I didn't read the cover and was struck unawares when it turned out to be a couple essays on literary criticism, art, aesthetics and the nature of truth. I'll have to reread this with a notebook some time later to grasp everything, but Proust has such a beautiful and flowing style that one can't help but admire his writing. If Proust is correct what draws me to him in his style is my recognition of his quality of vision and his role as the doorman, welcoming all readers into his own private universe.
Proust compares readings to an number of things: loving relationships, religious experience, friendships, telephone calls and more. He tends to elevate reading above all the comparisons he makes, but he still subordinates it to truth and creating. Reading is a form of friendship, a pure form. If we spend an evening with a book we do so because we choose to, not because it is imposed on us. "Reading is on the threshold of the spiritual life; it can introduce us to it: it does not constitute it" (Proust, 72). "Reading is for us the instigator whose magic keys have opened the odor to those dwelling places deep within us that we would not have known how to enter" (Proust, 75). For Proust, the truth is something that is deeply buried on the inside of the individual. The only way to make truth real is to create something out of that internal truth. Reading allows us to dig in there; but, it is a means and not an end.
There are two other quotes i underlined in the book that I'll add here so I don't forget them that aren't really relevant to the review. I just thought the were interesting and masterful sentences. "Love-affairs with living people may sometimes have a sordid origin which is later purified" (Proust, 39). "And so this voluntary servitude is the beginning of freedom" (Proust, 42). Two contradictory realities brought into harmony in such a short space of words: Proust was capable of succinctness! I think though, Proust very much enjoyed the sound of his own voice on the page. However, I type this in the complete knowledge, having brought to the cusp of this truth by reading this book, that I enjoy the sound of my voice at least as much as he enjoyed his.
Showing posts with label Aesthetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aesthetics. Show all posts
Monday, September 30, 2019
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Notes on Confessions Book IV
Confessions
St. Augustine
Book IV
Ch. 1
Augustine confesses his past sins so he can make a sacrificial offer.
He asks what is he without God, "For what am I to myself without thee but a guide to my own downfall?"
Ch. 2
"I knew not how to love thee because I knew not how to conceive of anything beyond corporeal splendors".
Ch. 3.
Augustine argues against astrology because it tries to take the blame rightly placed on individual men and transfer it to the heavens and the celestial bodies.
He condemns astrological predictions coming true, through the voice of an old wise man, as the combination of chance and the workings of the human mind to turn those events caused by chance to fit the prediction.
Ch. 4
"There is no true friendship save between those thou dost bind together and who cleave to thee by that love which is, 'shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who is given us'"
Augustine turned a friend away from God to his superstitions. Yet, God still followed the two men and saved the man who had fallen away from him before his death.
God is both, at once, the God of vengeance and a Fountain of Mercies
Ch. 5
Dealing with grief is easier with God than without.
Ch. 6
"Every soul is wretched that is fettered in the friendship of mortal things".
Augustine is so overcome with grief at the loss of his friend that he is falling apart. This extra passion and the violence it is causing his soul occurs because he does not know God, who can balance him.
Ch. 7
Grief without God: "All things looked gloomy even the very light itself". He found solace in weeping but when his soul no longer wept it was weighed down.
Grief with God: the weeping provides some relief but in the end one's soul is not weighed down, having been "raised up to thee, O Lord, for thee to lighten and lift it"
"Thus my error was my god"
Ch. 8
Time does strange things in the mind
Ch. 9
The only thing we cannot lose is God. Even if we lose him by rejecting Him we still find Him in the end, when we are punished for that rejection. Where can a man go to hide from God?
Ch. 10
"Wherever the soul of men turns itself, unless toward thee, it is enmeshed in sorrows"
The physical aspect of creation is good for what it was designed to do; but it cannot supersede the eternal. It cannot appoint its beginning or its end.
Ch. 11
"Do not let the tumult of your vanity deafen the ear of your heart"
The things of this earth perish. The things of God do not. Why then should my soul long for the perishable?
Even if we could perceive the whole of time and space in God's creation it would pale in comparison to God, the creator.
Ch. 12
If the physical creation pleases you, thank God for it. If another's soul pleases you, thank God for it. In essence, whatever your bent is (physical or spiritual), thank God for the gifts he gives that please you.
God is to be found wherever truth is.
Do not love the gift from God more than God the giver.
Ch. 13
Augustine's aesthetics formed a springboard for him towards finding God.
Ch. 14
Love and admiration of another without anchoring in God can be a selfish thing. Augustine loved and admired the orator in a way that he wanted to be loved and admired.
Love of another can stem from the other's popularity too. Augustine loved that orator because others loved him.
He then asked an interesting question: If others had not loved the orator then I would not have loved the orator. Yet, the orator's qualities would still be the same only the audience reactions would have changed. If this is the case, should one be loved and admired for the sake of their works, if their works are so susceptible to the tastes of the crowd?
Ch. 15
Evil is not a substance at all.
Like the emotions that stir up violent acts, the errors in our thinking contaminate the life of a rational soul.
All the knowledge and skill in learning is worth nothing if one errs by not understanding that all their knowledge flows from God.
"For our stability, when it is in thee, is stability indeed; but when it is in ourselves, then it is all unstable"
"And we need not fear that we shall find no place to return to because we fall away from it. For, in our absence, our home - which is thy eternity - does not fall away.
St. Augustine
Book IV
Ch. 1
Augustine confesses his past sins so he can make a sacrificial offer.
He asks what is he without God, "For what am I to myself without thee but a guide to my own downfall?"
Ch. 2
"I knew not how to love thee because I knew not how to conceive of anything beyond corporeal splendors".
Ch. 3.
Augustine argues against astrology because it tries to take the blame rightly placed on individual men and transfer it to the heavens and the celestial bodies.
He condemns astrological predictions coming true, through the voice of an old wise man, as the combination of chance and the workings of the human mind to turn those events caused by chance to fit the prediction.
Ch. 4
"There is no true friendship save between those thou dost bind together and who cleave to thee by that love which is, 'shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who is given us'"
Augustine turned a friend away from God to his superstitions. Yet, God still followed the two men and saved the man who had fallen away from him before his death.
God is both, at once, the God of vengeance and a Fountain of Mercies
Ch. 5
Dealing with grief is easier with God than without.
Ch. 6
"Every soul is wretched that is fettered in the friendship of mortal things".
Augustine is so overcome with grief at the loss of his friend that he is falling apart. This extra passion and the violence it is causing his soul occurs because he does not know God, who can balance him.
Ch. 7
Grief without God: "All things looked gloomy even the very light itself". He found solace in weeping but when his soul no longer wept it was weighed down.
Grief with God: the weeping provides some relief but in the end one's soul is not weighed down, having been "raised up to thee, O Lord, for thee to lighten and lift it"
"Thus my error was my god"
Ch. 8
Time does strange things in the mind
Ch. 9
The only thing we cannot lose is God. Even if we lose him by rejecting Him we still find Him in the end, when we are punished for that rejection. Where can a man go to hide from God?
Ch. 10
"Wherever the soul of men turns itself, unless toward thee, it is enmeshed in sorrows"
The physical aspect of creation is good for what it was designed to do; but it cannot supersede the eternal. It cannot appoint its beginning or its end.
Ch. 11
"Do not let the tumult of your vanity deafen the ear of your heart"
The things of this earth perish. The things of God do not. Why then should my soul long for the perishable?
Even if we could perceive the whole of time and space in God's creation it would pale in comparison to God, the creator.
Ch. 12
If the physical creation pleases you, thank God for it. If another's soul pleases you, thank God for it. In essence, whatever your bent is (physical or spiritual), thank God for the gifts he gives that please you.
God is to be found wherever truth is.
Do not love the gift from God more than God the giver.
Ch. 13
Augustine's aesthetics formed a springboard for him towards finding God.
Ch. 14
Love and admiration of another without anchoring in God can be a selfish thing. Augustine loved and admired the orator in a way that he wanted to be loved and admired.
Love of another can stem from the other's popularity too. Augustine loved that orator because others loved him.
He then asked an interesting question: If others had not loved the orator then I would not have loved the orator. Yet, the orator's qualities would still be the same only the audience reactions would have changed. If this is the case, should one be loved and admired for the sake of their works, if their works are so susceptible to the tastes of the crowd?
Ch. 15
Evil is not a substance at all.
Like the emotions that stir up violent acts, the errors in our thinking contaminate the life of a rational soul.
All the knowledge and skill in learning is worth nothing if one errs by not understanding that all their knowledge flows from God.
"For our stability, when it is in thee, is stability indeed; but when it is in ourselves, then it is all unstable"
"And we need not fear that we shall find no place to return to because we fall away from it. For, in our absence, our home - which is thy eternity - does not fall away.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Mucha
From Goodreads
Mucha - An Illustrated Life
Roman Neugebauer
I picked this book in the Prague airport on the way home as an afterthought. I'm glad we had a few extra minutes because it was worth the impulse buy. Often those purchases don't pan out as well as this one did, like the house organ. But at about $5, the book not the organ, the stakes weren't that high. It's a quick read and a good miniature biography. There's a lot of interesting stuff in Mucha's life and it is written in an easy style to read. Mucha's aesthetic theories are intriguing too and how they are intertwined in a nationalism and ethnic struggle speak to the condition of late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. He was born and flourished at the dawn of a new age only to die as that dawn was blotted out by the clouds of Nazi Germany. His work's renaissance seems to be being born again at another tempestuous epoch's beginning.
Mucha - An Illustrated Life
Roman Neugebauer
I picked this book in the Prague airport on the way home as an afterthought. I'm glad we had a few extra minutes because it was worth the impulse buy. Often those purchases don't pan out as well as this one did, like the house organ. But at about $5, the book not the organ, the stakes weren't that high. It's a quick read and a good miniature biography. There's a lot of interesting stuff in Mucha's life and it is written in an easy style to read. Mucha's aesthetic theories are intriguing too and how they are intertwined in a nationalism and ethnic struggle speak to the condition of late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. He was born and flourished at the dawn of a new age only to die as that dawn was blotted out by the clouds of Nazi Germany. His work's renaissance seems to be being born again at another tempestuous epoch's beginning.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Plato's aesthetics and religion
(Originally written November 7, 2016 in Book 26)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Sciences
Theory of Art
There is an eternal form "Beauty". Things are beautiful in proportion to their participation in the form beauty.
For Plato, order was beauty. "To the degree that any physical object possess order, it is beautiful (Jones, 192).
Mathematics, because of its orderliness is more beautiful than any object.
Natural objects are more beautiful than objects of art because natural objects are copies of the eternal form and objects of art are copies of copies (shadows of shadows).
The artist is a liar and a deceiver.
Plato treated art cognitively, but recognized the emotive and conative aspects as well. Thus he treated artists as cognitively inferior to scientists, but dangerous magicians for the power they held over people's emotions.
"Meanings can be communicated without words, by a kind of intellectual osmosis. In fact, this is the way all really important things are in life are communicated - not formally via lectures or books, but gradually over long periods of time" (Jones, 194). Plato used myth as a short cut to convey deep knowledge that would otherwise require a long-term relationship between teacher and pupil.
Art stands between two types of knowledge - the direct experiential knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
Religion
Plato often used myth to convey the deep truths of religion as they shortcut to teaching.
Plato argues certain aspects of the nature of God can be discovered via natural theology.
1. God is good and thus not the author of hurtful things
2. God is not the author of all things, not even the author of many things experienced by man because man experiences more evil than good
3. God does punish the wicked
4. God is unchangeable
5. God does not lie or make false representations of himself
Plato advocated a first-cause movement argument. This first cause is a self-mover. This self-mover is soul. The soul is more ancient than all other motions.
"The gods are good, yea, exceeding good" (Jones, 198).
"The gods exist, and that they are careful and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice" (Jones, 199).
Plato housed his religious views in the language of myth which he intended for readers to take seriously, but not literally.
Timaeus -
God is a creator
What God creates is the cosmos
Plato believed the universe is a purposive whole. The universe is well ordered and ordered for the best. It satisfied not merely our intellectual curiosity but also our moral demands.
Plato (opposite of Christianity) is more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theology served two purposes:
1) The discoverable attributes of god shed light on the nature of the cosmos
2) A reminder of our limitations concerning our finite understandings
Plato's religion compared to Christianity
Plato had a profound impact on Christian theology because of similarities with Christianity.
But Plato's god is not an object of worship. His god is good, but not a loving Father.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Sciences
Theory of Art
There is an eternal form "Beauty". Things are beautiful in proportion to their participation in the form beauty.
For Plato, order was beauty. "To the degree that any physical object possess order, it is beautiful (Jones, 192).
Mathematics, because of its orderliness is more beautiful than any object.
Natural objects are more beautiful than objects of art because natural objects are copies of the eternal form and objects of art are copies of copies (shadows of shadows).
The artist is a liar and a deceiver.
Plato treated art cognitively, but recognized the emotive and conative aspects as well. Thus he treated artists as cognitively inferior to scientists, but dangerous magicians for the power they held over people's emotions.
"Meanings can be communicated without words, by a kind of intellectual osmosis. In fact, this is the way all really important things are in life are communicated - not formally via lectures or books, but gradually over long periods of time" (Jones, 194). Plato used myth as a short cut to convey deep knowledge that would otherwise require a long-term relationship between teacher and pupil.
Art stands between two types of knowledge - the direct experiential knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
Religion
Plato often used myth to convey the deep truths of religion as they shortcut to teaching.
Plato argues certain aspects of the nature of God can be discovered via natural theology.
1. God is good and thus not the author of hurtful things
2. God is not the author of all things, not even the author of many things experienced by man because man experiences more evil than good
3. God does punish the wicked
4. God is unchangeable
5. God does not lie or make false representations of himself
Plato advocated a first-cause movement argument. This first cause is a self-mover. This self-mover is soul. The soul is more ancient than all other motions.
"The gods are good, yea, exceeding good" (Jones, 198).
"The gods exist, and that they are careful and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice" (Jones, 199).
Plato housed his religious views in the language of myth which he intended for readers to take seriously, but not literally.
Timaeus -
God is a creator
What God creates is the cosmos
Plato believed the universe is a purposive whole. The universe is well ordered and ordered for the best. It satisfied not merely our intellectual curiosity but also our moral demands.
Plato (opposite of Christianity) is more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theology served two purposes:
1) The discoverable attributes of god shed light on the nature of the cosmos
2) A reminder of our limitations concerning our finite understandings
Plato's religion compared to Christianity
Plato had a profound impact on Christian theology because of similarities with Christianity.
But Plato's god is not an object of worship. His god is good, but not a loving Father.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Assessment of The Kreutzer Sonata - Tolstoy
I finished The Kreutzer Sonata a few days ago and really enjoyed the book. It's a small, cheap edition of three of Tolstoy's stories: How Much Land Does a Man Need?, The Death of Ivan Ilych, & The Kreutzer Sonata. Firstly, I had never read any of these short stories and enjoyed them quite a bit. I especially liked How Much Land Does a Man Need? While, the ending might have been a bit predictable, the wording and the meaning is quite excellent. It's a very short tale that slams the greediness inherent to human beings and serves as a warning against the pains that greediness will bring.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
The way Tolstoy writes about coming to grips with man's end in The Death of Ivan Ilych is among some of the best inner-monologue I think I've ever read. The pain and the suffering internally Ivan has in Tolstoy's work is so well written that I felt sweat beads coming down my brow as I experienced the pangs along with Ivan. Likewise, the jealousy that Pozdnyshev feels throughout The Kreutzer Sonata is so well articulated that I was reliving some old feelings that I thought I had divested myself of long ago. His rage was so palpable I felt myself tensing up and was nearly relieved when the climax came. That relief however was twofold and some modern circumstances aided Tolstoy's literary prowess.
I was coming to the conclusion of The Kreutzer Sonata as I was selling plasma. I don't think I've ever written about this experience, but I have apparently expressed my feelings well enough about this to Erin that she mocks my grief at subjecting myself to this torture. I feel embarrassed at selling plasma. I didn't so much feel it when I was younger and in college, but as a grown man I feel embarrassed by the entire situation. I think I should be able to make enough money at thirty-two so as not to be forced to degrade myself in such a manner, but at the same time it's good spending money and I'm basically paid to sit and read. It's a hassle and probably not really worth my time, but if I go twice a week it's a payment of $65 dollars for six hours, four of which are sitting in a waiting room and two of which are with a needle in my vein.
The embarrassment doesn't fully come from the fact that I'm selling part of my body that will replenish itself. The embarrassment comes from the company I keep while doing this veritable prostitution. While I was in college the mix of people selling plasma alongside me was about 80% college kids, 20% other. That other is, without trying to be elitist (although accomplishing it nonetheless) what I would term 'undesirables'. Sometimes the mix would have a larger proportion of that other and the 19 or 20 year-old iteration of me may have occasioned to use the phrase, "the dregs of societies" and that instance may have occurred enough to burn that elitist phrase into my personal lexicon. The 31 and 32 year-old iterations of me then may have described the undesirable caste in such derogatory language and my wife instantly seized upon the phraseology. Thus, some of my embarrassment may arise not only with being a part of that caste, but my own derogatory words being used to describe me in the mouth of another. My embarrassment is thus multi-pronged in that I'm embarrassed to need the money, embarrassed to be among the undesirables, and embarrassed that I have described them as such (because it sounds so awfully high-handed when she says it). Each of these prongs needles me as I'm being needled. But, I am not so embarrassed to spend the money. Plus, it gives me a good five to six hours to sit and read, relatively uninterrupted.
But, on my attempt to finish The Kreutzer Sonata was not uninterrupted, as it were. A certain member of the lowly caste, a person among the dregs would not let me finish the book in peace. Much of the final short story is an inner struggle with jealousy and a lot of psychological feeling and not much action. It is building to an action, namely Pozdnyshev killing his wife. I know that Pozdnyshev is going to kill his wife. I know why he is going to kill his wife - jealousy. But, I am unsure, intentionally led on, as to first, how if he is going to kill his wife and second, if the killing is justifiable (if only in Pozdnyshev's mind). The story is clear on the former and a bit opaque on the latter. But, there is a great deal of psychological turmoil leading up to the climatic scene and I was lying on the table, with a needle in my arm, desperately trying to race the plasma being pumped out of me to finish the story. The lady next to me however was screaming at the workers. Apparently, she did not look at the three hours or so as a time to sit back, relax and read. She took those three hours or more as a time to complain about whatever popped into her mind.
In the lobby while we were waiting she found someone to commiserate with. The two, then three, then four commiserated rather loudly and I changed places on three occasions to escape the commiserating, but it was omnipresent. This is a normal occurrence among this caste of society, but normally I can drown it out and focus on what I'm reading. It took some practice, but I was able to succeed in the end. But, in the back, she was placed on the table next to me as we were being hooked up to our blood machines. First, she complained about the temperature in the room. Being cold-natured, I tend to enjoy the chilliness of the room where we are actually drained of our fluids to be used as life-giving medicines (there is an altruism to this practice as well, though I am confident that neither she nor I really care most of the time about this altruistic reason for "donating" plasma). However, on this occasion, her complaint about the coldness of the room was not unfounded. Second, she complained about the television not being loud enough for her to hear the movie being played. I offer her no solace on this point as I had to concentrate hard to drown out the volume to concentrate on my book. Lastly, as the time neared for the last bus to leave her station she began to scream about being at the donation center for an inordinate amount of time. It takes entirely too long, each and every time plasma donation occurs. This particular time was no different, neither longer nor shorter than normal. But, just as I am coming to the dramatic action of the book, she was coming to dramatic action of her donation. She finished her donation; I did not finish my book.
I finished it later that evening, in the quiet of my own home.
There was much to be admired in the short little book, but this blurb has gone on to be lengthier than I had originally intended. However, this anecdote was funny (after the fact) and I felt it was worthy to be retold here. For this reason, I'll include only two quotes from The Kreutzer Sonata that really struck me. The first is, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness! A beautiful woman utters absurdities; we listen and we hear not the absurdities, but wise thoughts. She speaks, does odious things, and yet we are only conscious of something agreeable. If she refrains from absurd or hateful words and acts, and if she is beautiful to boot, we are straightway convinced that she is a paragon of wisdom and morality" (Tolstoy, 78). There are two things to unpack here. The first is the sentence, "What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness". I know that Tolstoy is speaking here about women in general, but it struck me from a philosophical level. Truly, it is strange that we equate beauty with goodness on an aesthetic level. Second, as a man who has undergone a rough relationship or two, I understand (though I try to suppress) the inner rage at the absurdity of the situation that a good looking woman can have on an otherwise relatively clear thinking man. Tolstoy certainly hits the nail on the head in better language than I could. But the formula is fairly simple: a good looking woman can get away with just about anything simply for the fact that she is good looking.
The second passage goes, "Woman has transformed herself into an object of pleasure of such terrible effect that a man cannot calmly approach her. No sooner does a man draw near a woman than he falls under the power of her spell, and his senses are forthwith paralyzed" (Tolstoy, 84). Again, Tolstoy hits the nail on the head. It's not as sexist as it seems in this cherry picked passage as Pozdnyshev lays much of the blame for women being treated as an object of pleasure on man's shoulders earlier and later in this section, but women once they have realized that they have been relegated to this position, have embraced it with such power that they turn the tables on the men objectifying them. There is an uncanny truth in this situation and the language Tolstoy uses expresses this truth perfectly.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Assessment of Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad
I finished Great Short Works of Joseph Conrad yesterday after a month long struggle. It's not that I didn't enjoy the book because I did, it's just that as an anthology I think I found myself bored with some of the repetitive nature of the stories. I think I would have enjoyed them better in isolation. This particular book included the stories An Outpost of Progress, The Lagoon, The Nigger of the Narcissus, Youth, Heart of Darkness, Typhoon and The Secret Sharer. Youth and Typhoon were my favorites.
An Outpost of Progress was the first ever story I've read of Joseph Conrad. It was in my opinion, better than Heart of Darkness; but, as I stated above, I think that I would have enjoyed reading Heart of Darkness if I hadn't read four other short stories by Conrad right before. I was surprised by Outpost in what it was. I was assuming that Conrad was going to be a bit more, how can I put it, burden-of-the-white-man friendly. While there are some elements of his time that we might find distasteful in a 21st century context, he wasn't as Colonialist or Imperialist in his perspective as I had preconceived. Outpost is the prime example of this as he is much more introspective and questions the morality of colonialism by showing the two white characters as a bit stupid.
I found Youth and Typhoon the most entertaining because of the subject matter. Generally speaking, I like to have a book take me outside of the norms of my everyday life. Conrad was writing about everyday life, but I am removed enough from the seafaring days of the late 19th century, early 20th century that it might he might as well have been writing a fantasy novel for me. Youth and Typhoon were the most fantastic. The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting tale as it took a classical myth and turned it into a dark play on the story set in contemporary times. Heart of Darkness was slow-going for me because I was getting restless with reading Conrad stories. It is on my list of things to read still because I have a stand-alone copy. I was about to take it off that list and realized that I should read it in isolation to get a better understanding of it and to take it on its own footing. The Secret Sharer was rather bland for me. The Lagoon was good, but nothing overly remarkable.
The Preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting read because it covers Conrad's theory on Aesthetics and Art. He describes art as "a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying in its every aspect. It is an attempt to find in its forms, in its colors, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life, what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential - their one illuminating and convincing quality - the very truth of their existence" (Conrad, 57). For Conrad, then art is the attempt at discovering truth. He contrasts artists with scientists and thinkers. The scientists and thinkers speak to man's common sense, to his intellect and to his desire of peace. They speak to man's desire to believe. Artists however appeal to man's sense of wonder. Artists appeal to the parts of man that are hidden behind their appeal for order and facts.
"Fiction - if it at all aspires to be art - appeals to temperament. And in truth it must be, like painting, like music, like all art, the appeal of one temperament to all the other innumerable temperaments whose subtle and resistless power endows passing events with their true meaning, and creates the moral, the emotional atmosphere of the place and time. Such an appeal, to be effective, must be an impression conveyed through the senses; and, in fact, it cannot be made in any other way, because temperament, whether individual or collective, is not amenable to persuasion. All art, therefore, appeals primarily to the senses, and the artistic aim when expressing itself in written words must also make its appeal through the senses, if its high desire is to reach the secret spring of responsive emotions" (Conrad, 58). For Conrad then, writing is about eliciting an emotion from a reader. It has to appeal to the senses in order to reach that area where man hides his emotions. Interestingly, he states that writing must achieve the plasticity of sculpture, the color of painting and the magic suggestiveness of music. He calls music the "art of arts". I find that an author calling music the art of arts an interesting occurrence. It suggests a humility in Conrad. To achieve the aim of becoming art, Conrad demands that the form be perfect so that the end can be achieved. His chief aim is "to make you see" through his prose.
"Art is long and life is short, and success is very far off. And thus, doubtful of of strength to travel so far, we talk a little about the aim - the aim of art, which, like life itself, is inspiring, difficult - obscured by mists. It is not in the clear logic of a triumphant conclusion; it is not in the unveiling of one of those heartless secrets which are called the Laws of Nature. It is not less great, but only more difficult" (Conrad, 60). The aim of art is to arrest, however briefly, the busy workers of earth and compel them to glance a moment at the object of art, to make them smile. And while this is an intensely difficult task, when that smile, when that moment of pause does occur "behold! - all the truth of life is there: a moment of vision, a sigh, a smile - and the return to an eternal rest" (Conrad, 60). It's an interesting theory of aesthetics and one that demands a little more study from me.
The one part that I found incredibly interesting in Heart of Darkness is the Russian fellow who becomes enamored with Kurtz. This son of an Arch-Priest of the Government of Tambov is going to make an excellent short-story character. My aim will be to enlarge his mind further.
An Outpost of Progress was the first ever story I've read of Joseph Conrad. It was in my opinion, better than Heart of Darkness; but, as I stated above, I think that I would have enjoyed reading Heart of Darkness if I hadn't read four other short stories by Conrad right before. I was surprised by Outpost in what it was. I was assuming that Conrad was going to be a bit more, how can I put it, burden-of-the-white-man friendly. While there are some elements of his time that we might find distasteful in a 21st century context, he wasn't as Colonialist or Imperialist in his perspective as I had preconceived. Outpost is the prime example of this as he is much more introspective and questions the morality of colonialism by showing the two white characters as a bit stupid.
I found Youth and Typhoon the most entertaining because of the subject matter. Generally speaking, I like to have a book take me outside of the norms of my everyday life. Conrad was writing about everyday life, but I am removed enough from the seafaring days of the late 19th century, early 20th century that it might he might as well have been writing a fantasy novel for me. Youth and Typhoon were the most fantastic. The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting tale as it took a classical myth and turned it into a dark play on the story set in contemporary times. Heart of Darkness was slow-going for me because I was getting restless with reading Conrad stories. It is on my list of things to read still because I have a stand-alone copy. I was about to take it off that list and realized that I should read it in isolation to get a better understanding of it and to take it on its own footing. The Secret Sharer was rather bland for me. The Lagoon was good, but nothing overly remarkable.
The Preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus was an interesting read because it covers Conrad's theory on Aesthetics and Art. He describes art as "a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying in its every aspect. It is an attempt to find in its forms, in its colors, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life, what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential - their one illuminating and convincing quality - the very truth of their existence" (Conrad, 57). For Conrad, then art is the attempt at discovering truth. He contrasts artists with scientists and thinkers. The scientists and thinkers speak to man's common sense, to his intellect and to his desire of peace. They speak to man's desire to believe. Artists however appeal to man's sense of wonder. Artists appeal to the parts of man that are hidden behind their appeal for order and facts.
"Fiction - if it at all aspires to be art - appeals to temperament. And in truth it must be, like painting, like music, like all art, the appeal of one temperament to all the other innumerable temperaments whose subtle and resistless power endows passing events with their true meaning, and creates the moral, the emotional atmosphere of the place and time. Such an appeal, to be effective, must be an impression conveyed through the senses; and, in fact, it cannot be made in any other way, because temperament, whether individual or collective, is not amenable to persuasion. All art, therefore, appeals primarily to the senses, and the artistic aim when expressing itself in written words must also make its appeal through the senses, if its high desire is to reach the secret spring of responsive emotions" (Conrad, 58). For Conrad then, writing is about eliciting an emotion from a reader. It has to appeal to the senses in order to reach that area where man hides his emotions. Interestingly, he states that writing must achieve the plasticity of sculpture, the color of painting and the magic suggestiveness of music. He calls music the "art of arts". I find that an author calling music the art of arts an interesting occurrence. It suggests a humility in Conrad. To achieve the aim of becoming art, Conrad demands that the form be perfect so that the end can be achieved. His chief aim is "to make you see" through his prose.
"Art is long and life is short, and success is very far off. And thus, doubtful of of strength to travel so far, we talk a little about the aim - the aim of art, which, like life itself, is inspiring, difficult - obscured by mists. It is not in the clear logic of a triumphant conclusion; it is not in the unveiling of one of those heartless secrets which are called the Laws of Nature. It is not less great, but only more difficult" (Conrad, 60). The aim of art is to arrest, however briefly, the busy workers of earth and compel them to glance a moment at the object of art, to make them smile. And while this is an intensely difficult task, when that smile, when that moment of pause does occur "behold! - all the truth of life is there: a moment of vision, a sigh, a smile - and the return to an eternal rest" (Conrad, 60). It's an interesting theory of aesthetics and one that demands a little more study from me.
The one part that I found incredibly interesting in Heart of Darkness is the Russian fellow who becomes enamored with Kurtz. This son of an Arch-Priest of the Government of Tambov is going to make an excellent short-story character. My aim will be to enlarge his mind further.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - James Joyce
Oh boy. What a grind it was to finish this one. First of all, there is no denying that this is truly a phenomenal book with incredible insights and Joyce does an amazing job of putting you into the story as a fly on the wall who can use every sense to imagine being in the story. We see, hear, feel, taste and smell alongside Stephen Dedalus. Secondly, I find much of Stephen Dedalus to be extremely boring. That may be sacrilegious, but I fear and fear not the repercussions of that sentence.
After I finished the book I did some reading and found that Joyce had originally submitted this as a treaty on Aesthetics. I found his take on aesthetics to be interesting. "-Art, said Stephen, is the human disposition of sensible or intelligible matter for an esthetic end" (Joyce, 207). In fact, Stephen's entire conversation with Lynch about art, aesthetics and beauty is fascinating. His contention that beauty should create a stasis between pity and terror rather than a kinetic emotion is an interesting and dispassionate notion. I think it is wrong, but it is at the very least thought provoking. His take on false art producing kinetic emotions like desire and loathing is something to take into account. Sadly, his attempt to get his thoughts on aesthetics was unpublished and he housed it in this semi-autobiographical tale that had more boring parts than interesting ones. I guess he accomplished his goal and left me in sort of a stasis, offering few kinetic emotions about his book.
One of the few times I felt kinetic emotion was during the retreat section when the priests were calling for repentance so that no soul would suffer eternal damnation. In my mind's eye I recalled terrifying sermons from the retired senior pastor who gave such terrifying images of hellfire and brimstone I prayed nightly to escape such a fate. Tears and stress overtook me overtime he preached this message and I can't imagine hell much scarier than as he put it. I empathized with Stephen as he struggled with repenting and the notion that he had done to much to escape this terrible fate. "What did it avail to pray when he knew that his soul lusted after its own destruction?" (Joyce, 103-104). I understand that line on a visceral level. I also understand his wrestling with faith throughout the book, though I find my ending point to be vastly different than that of Stephen's.
I found that like Daumal in A Night of Serious Drinking Joyce also sends a jab to the nose of reason. While Daumal called reason the off-loading of the responsibility to think, Joyce calls reason a pollutant. "A phrase of Cornelius Agrippa flew through his mind and then there flew hither and tither shapeless thoughts from Swedenborg on the correspondence of birds to things of the intellect and of how the creatures of the air have their knowledge and know their times and seasons because they, unlike man are in the order of their life and have not perverted that order by reason" (Joyce, 224-225).
Joyce unleashes a stinging attack on Protestantism in the back end of the book. Much of this book houses an Irish history that I don't fully know and can't fully know. It concerns self-rule and the religious trappings of a Protestant-Catholic war that has obvious political overtones. But, I do, even as someone who isn't Catholic understand his criticism of the disorganized way in which protestantism worships and structures there fragmented theological opinions. "I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost selfrespect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?" (Joyce, 243-244). I don't agree that faith is necessarily an absurdity nor do I find Protestantism illogical. But, I do find and struggle with the fact that Protestantism is so incoherent and crave some of the symmetry and logically soundness behind Catholicism.
Lastly, I found this line to be sadly beautiful in its composition and meaning. "The past is consumed in the present and the present is living only because it brings forth the future" (Joyce, 251). I find that restlessness and striving to be endearing, but also wearying.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Assessment of Picasso - Gertrude Stein
So I finished Picasso by Gertrude Stein the other day. I wrote on my Good Reads account "It's a bit of a jarring book to follow, but it reveals a lot about Picasso and Stein without revealing a lot of actual events in either of their lives. It's that which makes the read an interesting one. Unfortunately, or fortunately when I read the book I picture Kathy Bates across from me and I as Owen Wilson having Picasso explained to me. Thanks a lot Woody Allen". I gave it a three star rating because she sort of kept repeating and rambling, which I suppose was her intentional style, but it ended up being somewhat repetitive. But, I desperately envy her life so I can't criticize her work too much.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
There are a couple of passages that stuck out for me in the book that I'll further explore here.
First, she had a fascinating view on whether people or generations really change. "People really do not change from one generation to another, as far back as we know history people are about the same as they were, they have had the same needs, the same desires, the same virtues and the same qualities, the same defects, indeed nothing changes from one generation to another except the things seen and the things seen make that generation, that is to say nothing changes in people from one generation to another except the way of seeing and being seen, the streets change, the way of being driven in the streets change, the buildings change, the comforts in the houses change, but the people from one generation to another do not change" (Stein, 10). This struck me as I have often wondered whether this generation (mine and the one younger than I) have changed drastically because of the onslaught of negative comments on social media and the internet. But, I have often felt that people haven't changed, only that they've been given an anonymous platform to spew their venom that they've previously spewed only in the confines of personal journals or small circles. Stein seems to have confirmed my feeling that it was the latter. But, from an aesthetics standpoint, Stein points out that the creator in the arts is similar to all the others of his generation, being sensitive in the changes around his generation and thus his art is influenced by those changes.
Second, she made a fascinating point about war. Having just come through the Great War, the War to end all Wars, undoubtedly her views were shaped by such a cataclysmic event. "It is an extraordinary thing but it is true, wars are only a means of publicising the things already accomplished, a change, a complete change, has come about, people no longer think as they were thinking but no one knows it, no one recognises it, no one really knows it except the creators. The others are too busy with the business of life, they cannot what has happened, but the creator, the real creator, does nothing, he is not concerned with the activity of existing, and as he is not active, that is to say as he is not concerned with the activity of existence he is sensitive enough to understand how people are thinking, he is not interested in knowing how they were thinking, his sensitive feeling is concerned in understanding how people live as they are living. The spirit of everybody is changed, a whole people is changed, but mostly nobody knows it and a war forces them to recognise it because during a war the appearance of everything changes very much quicker, but really the entire change has been accomplished and the war is only something which forces everybody to recognise it" (Stein, 29-30). Without claiming to be a historian of any such note, it struck me the similarities between pre-WWI and pre-9/11. There was fear and constant tension in Europe pre-WWI. Everyone was on edge in the government. The people might not have felt it in their everyday lives, but times were changing. When WWI came to an end the change was complete and everyone knew it. The war announced the change. Similarly, 9/11 and the War on Terror announced the change. There were rumblings of something terrible to happen at the dawn of the 21st century. The Lockerbie Bombing, the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Bombing and various other terrorist events marked the rumblings of a great conflict to come. When 9/11 happened and the subsequent wars in Iraq & Afghanistan came to be, the world was changed. Americans had become more fearful, less optimistic. The times had changed and the wars in the Middle East, coupled with anti-terror measures at home announced the changes that had been going on for at least two decades in the war. The times had changed, the manner of how people think had changed and everybody was made aware of it in war.
But, not everything I took from Stein was as heavy or serious as this. Thirdly, I discovered that Stein's view of the Creator (the Artist) was what I would label as a hipster or a neo-hipster. "Sot that is the way it is, a creator is so completely contemporary that he has the appearance of being ahead of his generation and to calm himself in his daily living he wishes to live with the things in the daily life of the past, he does not wish to live as contemporary as the contemporaries who do not poignantly feel being contemporary. This sounds complicated but it is very simple" (Stein, 31-32).
I also saw in Stein a personal goal of mine as regards to writing and Picasso as my example. "Picasso was possessed by the necessity of emptying himself, of emptying himself completely, of always emptying himself, he is so full of it that all his existence is the repetition of a complete emptying, he must empty himself, he can never empty himself of being Spanish, but he can empty himself of what he has created. So every one says that he changes but really it is not that, he empties himself and the moment he has completed emptying himself he must recommence emptying himself, he fills himself up again so quickly" (Stein, 32-33). I too, am 'so full of it' (Ha), but in seriousness, I have so much energy and so many stories locked in my head and half written out, that I must find a way of emptying myself. I am not concerned that I cannot fill myself back up again quickly, but I must find the drive to empty myself completely and finish some work.
Another fascinating little line made me think hard about knowledge. "Remembered things are not things seen, therefore they are not things known" (Stein, 35). Stein was relating this to Picasso particularly, but it struck me as one who is interested in epistemology. I don't know where to go with it, but it struck me on some level.
Being as I am, currently fascinated with the surrealists and Stein having been at least connected to the surrealists, I found her differentiating between Picasso and the Surrealists fascinating. Picasso was in a period where he was not painting, but only drawing. "During the summer of 1933 he made his only surrealist drawings. Surrealism could console him a little, but not really. The surrealists still see things as every one sees them, they complicate them in a different way but the vision is that of every one else, in short the complication is the complication of the twentieth century but the vision is that of the nineteenth century. Picasso only sees something else, another reality. Complications are always easy but another vision than that of all the world is very rare. That is why geniuses are rare, to complicate things in a new way that is easy, but to see the things in a new way that is really difficult, everything prevents one, habits, schools, daily life, reason, necessities of daily life, indolence, everything prevents one, in fact there are very few geniuses in the world" (Stein, 43). Firstly, this shows what high-esteem Stein gave Picasso. While I find Picasso to be incredible, I personally find Dali to be my favorite artist. Hence, I have a bent towards surrealists. But, it's an interesting way of looking at surrealism as to say they see the world as it is and then work to complicate it.
As I said, Stein tended to repeat herself and sort of weave back and forth throughout the book, but these are the Picasso periods I gathered from her interpretation:
1. The influence of Lautrec (first visit to Paris)
2. The Blue Period (in Barcelona)
3. Rose period
4. The beginning struggle for cubism
5. African
6. Intermediary
7. Real Cubism - a rather green period (what that means I don't know)
8. Grey Period
9. Calligraphy
10. Naturalistic
Stein makes an interesting distinction between the painter and the writer - "After all the egoism of a painter is not at all the egoism of a writer, there is nothing to say about it, it is not. No." (Stein, 46). All I could think of is my own egoism and its comparison to my brothers...
She also made an interesting point about a dry period for Picasso. "Two years of not working. In a way Picasso liked it, it was one responsibility the less, it is nice not having responsibilities, it is like the soldiers during a war, a war is terrible, they said, but during a war one has no responsibility, neither for death, nor for life. So these two years were like that for Picasso, he did not work, it was not for him to decide every moment what he saw, no, poetry for him was something to be made during rather bitter meditations, but agreeably enough, in a cafe" (Stein, 46). I just thought that imagery was rather funny.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Notes on Timequake - Kurt Vonnegut
I finished Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut the other day, probably the first time I have finished a book by him. I think there was a time I picked up Slaughterhouse Five in the previous century but I'm not sure if I finished it. If I did, it left no lasting impact on me - which, speaks more to my maturity in the previous century than any thing Vonnegut did or did not do with his masterpiece. I enjoyed Timequake very much. I gave it a four-star on my goodreads account. I loved the cynicism and the style. I think it played a part in my short-story entitled The Trade, at least in the tone of the story. I didn't mean to copy his style but it definitely bled through my subconscious. But that is neither here nor there. These are some of the things I really liked about the book:
"Hooray for fireman!
Scum of the Earth as some may be in their daily lives, they can all be saints in emergencies.
Hooray for fireman" (Vonnegut, 7).
First, of this sentence is funny. Second, it points out the fact that as horrible as people can be, they have the capacity to be good, and even better than good.
"People so smart you can't believe it, and people so dumb you can't believe it. People so nice you can't believe it, and people so mean you can't believe it" (Vonnegut, 14). I just really liked the double emphasis in this passage.
"He commented unfavorably on the camouflage suits our own generals wear nowadays on TV, when they describe blasting the bejesus out of some Third World country because of petroleum. 'I can't imagine,' he said, 'any part of the world where such garish pajamas would make a soldier less rather than more visible. We are evidently preparing.' he said, 'to fight World War Three in the midst of an enormous Spanish omelet" (Vonnegut, 27). That's just hysterical to me. Subversive, cynical and distrustful of the government, but hysterical.
This is a long passage, but it's a good one: "'God created the heaven and the earth,' the old, long out-of-print science fiction writer went on. 'And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Satan could have done this herself, but she thought it was stupid, action for the sake of action. What was the point? She didn't say anything at first. But Satan began to worry about God when He said, let there be light and there was light. She had to wonder, What in the heck does he think he's doing? How far does he intend to go, and does he expect me to help him take care of all this crazy stuff? And then the shit really hit the fan. God made man and woman, beautiful little miniatures of Him and her and turned them loose to see what might become of them. The Garden of Eden' said Trout, 'might be considered the prototype for the Colosseum and the Roman Games'" (Vonnegut, 29). A fascinating retelling of the Genesis account.
Chapter 14 might be my favorite chapter in the whole book. I won't quote the whole thing, but Trout's explanation of 'ting-a-ling' is hysterical and sad all at once. "It was nothing but a dirty joke, but this poor, sick man had come to believe it a parable about the awful blows that life had dealt him" (Vonnegut, 58). Ting-a-ling indeed.
"Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful" (Vonnegut, 121). Vonnegut, being a humanist recognizes some of the flaws that a purely naturalistic viewpoint has. He presents it in his gallows humor type of way, but he recognizes the flaws. The problem here is his pride. His pride in himself and his pride in the humans who can achieve happiness without religion. Somewhere else in the book he praises his ex-wife who died without losing faith. He seems genuinely happy about that. I'm not sure if he was mocking her or not. It felt a bit more sincere. But, earlier on this page he lets his feelings be known about religion by relating a story about Isaac Newton. "That Newton was advised by those who were his nominal supervisors to take time out of the hard truths of science to brush up on theology. I like to think they did this not because they were foolish, but to remind him of how comforting and encouraging the make-believe of religion can be for common folk" (Vonnegut, 121). First, I reject out of hand the false dichotomy set up between religion and science. Second, I find this sad. Lastly, I sense a bit of elitism from Vonnegut when dealing with the common folk who still hold religious sentiments. I disagree with his philosophy of religion.
While I disagree with Vonnegut on his philosophy of religion, I found myself nodding my head to his amusing and simplified aesthetic theory. "I was pleased to reply with an epistle which was frankly vengeful, since he and Father had screwed me out of a liberal arts college education: 'Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the bees,' I began. 'There are many good people who are beneficially stimulated by some, but not all, manmade arrangements of colors and shapes on flat surfaces, essentially nonsense. You yourself are gratified by some music, arrangements of noises, and again essentially nonsense. If I were to kick a bucket down the cellar stairs, and then say to you that the racket I had made was philosophically on a par with The Magic Flute, this would not be the beginning of a long and upsetting debate. An utterly satisfactory and complete response on your part would be, 'I like what Mozart did, and I hate what the bucket did'. Contemplating a purported work of art is a social activity. Either you have a rewarding time, or you don't. You don't have to say why afterward. You don't have to say anything. You are a justly revered experimentalist, dear Brother. If you really want to know whether your pictures are, as you say, 'art or not,' you must display them in a public place somewhere, and see if strangers like to look at them. That is the way the game is played. Let me know what happens. I went on: 'People capable of liking some paintings or prints or whatever can rarely do so without knowing something about the artist. Again, the situation is social rather than scientific. Any work of art is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you. Does he or she have a reputation for seriousness, for religiosity, for suffering, for concupiscence, for rebellion, for sincerity, for jokes?" (Vonnegut, 167-168). Art as a conversation between two or more people. A simplified definition of what art is. I can dig it.
Overall, I loved this book. I can't wait to pick up another Vonnegut book in the near future.
"Hooray for fireman!
Scum of the Earth as some may be in their daily lives, they can all be saints in emergencies.
Hooray for fireman" (Vonnegut, 7).
First, of this sentence is funny. Second, it points out the fact that as horrible as people can be, they have the capacity to be good, and even better than good.
"People so smart you can't believe it, and people so dumb you can't believe it. People so nice you can't believe it, and people so mean you can't believe it" (Vonnegut, 14). I just really liked the double emphasis in this passage.
"He commented unfavorably on the camouflage suits our own generals wear nowadays on TV, when they describe blasting the bejesus out of some Third World country because of petroleum. 'I can't imagine,' he said, 'any part of the world where such garish pajamas would make a soldier less rather than more visible. We are evidently preparing.' he said, 'to fight World War Three in the midst of an enormous Spanish omelet" (Vonnegut, 27). That's just hysterical to me. Subversive, cynical and distrustful of the government, but hysterical.
This is a long passage, but it's a good one: "'God created the heaven and the earth,' the old, long out-of-print science fiction writer went on. 'And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Satan could have done this herself, but she thought it was stupid, action for the sake of action. What was the point? She didn't say anything at first. But Satan began to worry about God when He said, let there be light and there was light. She had to wonder, What in the heck does he think he's doing? How far does he intend to go, and does he expect me to help him take care of all this crazy stuff? And then the shit really hit the fan. God made man and woman, beautiful little miniatures of Him and her and turned them loose to see what might become of them. The Garden of Eden' said Trout, 'might be considered the prototype for the Colosseum and the Roman Games'" (Vonnegut, 29). A fascinating retelling of the Genesis account.
Chapter 14 might be my favorite chapter in the whole book. I won't quote the whole thing, but Trout's explanation of 'ting-a-ling' is hysterical and sad all at once. "It was nothing but a dirty joke, but this poor, sick man had come to believe it a parable about the awful blows that life had dealt him" (Vonnegut, 58). Ting-a-ling indeed.
"Science never cheered up anyone. The truth about the human situation is just too awful" (Vonnegut, 121). Vonnegut, being a humanist recognizes some of the flaws that a purely naturalistic viewpoint has. He presents it in his gallows humor type of way, but he recognizes the flaws. The problem here is his pride. His pride in himself and his pride in the humans who can achieve happiness without religion. Somewhere else in the book he praises his ex-wife who died without losing faith. He seems genuinely happy about that. I'm not sure if he was mocking her or not. It felt a bit more sincere. But, earlier on this page he lets his feelings be known about religion by relating a story about Isaac Newton. "That Newton was advised by those who were his nominal supervisors to take time out of the hard truths of science to brush up on theology. I like to think they did this not because they were foolish, but to remind him of how comforting and encouraging the make-believe of religion can be for common folk" (Vonnegut, 121). First, I reject out of hand the false dichotomy set up between religion and science. Second, I find this sad. Lastly, I sense a bit of elitism from Vonnegut when dealing with the common folk who still hold religious sentiments. I disagree with his philosophy of religion.
While I disagree with Vonnegut on his philosophy of religion, I found myself nodding my head to his amusing and simplified aesthetic theory. "I was pleased to reply with an epistle which was frankly vengeful, since he and Father had screwed me out of a liberal arts college education: 'Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the bees,' I began. 'There are many good people who are beneficially stimulated by some, but not all, manmade arrangements of colors and shapes on flat surfaces, essentially nonsense. You yourself are gratified by some music, arrangements of noises, and again essentially nonsense. If I were to kick a bucket down the cellar stairs, and then say to you that the racket I had made was philosophically on a par with The Magic Flute, this would not be the beginning of a long and upsetting debate. An utterly satisfactory and complete response on your part would be, 'I like what Mozart did, and I hate what the bucket did'. Contemplating a purported work of art is a social activity. Either you have a rewarding time, or you don't. You don't have to say why afterward. You don't have to say anything. You are a justly revered experimentalist, dear Brother. If you really want to know whether your pictures are, as you say, 'art or not,' you must display them in a public place somewhere, and see if strangers like to look at them. That is the way the game is played. Let me know what happens. I went on: 'People capable of liking some paintings or prints or whatever can rarely do so without knowing something about the artist. Again, the situation is social rather than scientific. Any work of art is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you. Does he or she have a reputation for seriousness, for religiosity, for suffering, for concupiscence, for rebellion, for sincerity, for jokes?" (Vonnegut, 167-168). Art as a conversation between two or more people. A simplified definition of what art is. I can dig it.
Overall, I loved this book. I can't wait to pick up another Vonnegut book in the near future.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Aesthetic Notes on Nadja
There is much about surrealist aesthetics that I don't understand. Here are some notes on Aesthetics from André Breton's Nadja.
Aesthetics:
"Chirico
acknowledged at the time that he could paint only when surprised (surprised
first of all) by certain arrangements of objects, and that the entire enigma of
revelation consisted for him in the word: surprise" (Breton, 15). Breton
goes on to note that the art that Chirico created certainly was linked with the
object that inspired it, but only in a way that two brothers resemble on
another or as a dream about a person resembles the actual person. Firstly, the
dream part is a part of the surrealist fascination with dreams. But, the
element of surprise seems to be essential to understanding the Surrealist
aesthetic desire as well. I was not familiar with De Chirico until I looked him
up, but after seeing some of his more famous paintings like Love Song,
The Red Tower and The
Disquieting Muses I realized I had at least seen some of his works. They encapsulate
(at least his work during his 'metaphysical' period) what I've always
considered surrealism's enjoyable aspects.
"I
insist on knowing the names, on being interested only in books left ajar, like
doors; I will not go looking for keys" (Breton, 18). This seems an
interesting aesthetic ideal for Breton considering the surrealist paintings. I
guess in some extent the door is left ajar in that a painting or drawing in
that style naturally opens itself to multiple vantage points and
interpretations. But, on the other hand the door seems firmly closed to getting
to the meaning behind the works.
There
is a long passage on Breton's concept of beauty after the dots on page 159
through the final page 160. But the final sentence of the book seems to
articulate Breton's view on beauty well enough. "Beauty will be convulsive
or will not be at all". If something therefore, doesn't cause an unconscious
reaction then it isn't beauty at all. Convulsions aren't usually something that
I incorporate into my ideas of pleasurable experiences, but there are of course
muscle convulsions that are. It's just an ugly word to associate with
beauty.
Monday, February 9, 2015
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
In going through the long and tedious notes about aesthetics and What is Art by Tolstoy that I took nearly seven years ago... (Incredibly seven years ago was 2008???) I came across an interesting theory coming from Christian Felix Weiße. [on a side note I'm pretty pumped that I got the ß symbol on first guess on this Mac Keyboard]. Anyway, Christian Felix Wieße was a German writer and philosopher of education. He had this theory that Art comes into being through the introduction of spiritual reality into external, dead, indifferent matter. All I could think of was the Living Plastic from Doctor Who.
So I thought a good short story idea might be centered around this theory.
Think an artist suffering from Weltschmerz bringing to life work by introducing a spiritual reality into "external, dead, indifferent matter", a gestalt intelligence and mayhem.
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
So I thought a good short story idea might be centered around this theory.
Think an artist suffering from Weltschmerz bringing to life work by introducing a spiritual reality into "external, dead, indifferent matter", a gestalt intelligence and mayhem.
The Weltschmerz of Felix Weisse
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Artist and His Time (1953)
(Originally written October 14, 2008 in The Journal)
The Artist and His Time (1953) by Albert Camus
The artist accepts his time as it is. He minds his own business.
Word, though perverted, provisionally keep their meaning.
Marxism is religious in nature.
The end of history cannot have any definable significance to us in our present condition. It is only knowable by faith.
Artists have no need to interfere in the affairs of the world, but men do. The artist however does not need to sacrifice his nature to some social preaching.
The ivory tower and the social church are two points of the resignation of life.
The artist must simultaneously serve suffering and beauty.
The artist is to give voice to the sorrows and joys of all.
Art justifies itself by proving it is no one's enemy.
Art gives form, not content to justice and liberty.
Any authentic creation is a gift to the future.
The Artist and His Time (1953) by Albert Camus
The artist accepts his time as it is. He minds his own business.
Word, though perverted, provisionally keep their meaning.
Marxism is religious in nature.
The end of history cannot have any definable significance to us in our present condition. It is only knowable by faith.
Artists have no need to interfere in the affairs of the world, but men do. The artist however does not need to sacrifice his nature to some social preaching.
The ivory tower and the social church are two points of the resignation of life.
The artist must simultaneously serve suffering and beauty.
The artist is to give voice to the sorrows and joys of all.
Art justifies itself by proving it is no one's enemy.
Art gives form, not content to justice and liberty.
Any authentic creation is a gift to the future.
Helen's Exile (1948)
(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)
Helen's Exile (1948) by Albert Camus
Despair can be known through the stifling effect of Beauty. Tragedy reaches its fulfillment in stifling beauty.
Greek thought negated nothing, but practiced balance. It never went to extremes. Modern thought negates whatever it does not glorify. It is extreme. It glorifies one thing and leads to the eventual total ruin of reason.
The execution of God has left man only to think of power and history. It has left man to not think of nature, but only what man can or has built.
The artist wishes to remake the world. He aims at freedom. Beauty cannot exist apart from men nor can man exist apart from beauty.
We cannot live hating ourselves. We may dislike our era, but this is our only time.
Admit of ignorance, reject fanaticism, accept the limits of this world and of man, this is the Greek reasoning.
Helen's Exile (1948) by Albert Camus
Despair can be known through the stifling effect of Beauty. Tragedy reaches its fulfillment in stifling beauty.
Greek thought negated nothing, but practiced balance. It never went to extremes. Modern thought negates whatever it does not glorify. It is extreme. It glorifies one thing and leads to the eventual total ruin of reason.
The execution of God has left man only to think of power and history. It has left man to not think of nature, but only what man can or has built.
The artist wishes to remake the world. He aims at freedom. Beauty cannot exist apart from men nor can man exist apart from beauty.
We cannot live hating ourselves. We may dislike our era, but this is our only time.
Admit of ignorance, reject fanaticism, accept the limits of this world and of man, this is the Greek reasoning.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Notes on the Absurd Creation (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally written October 13, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus
Absurd Creation
To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.
The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.
Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?
The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.
"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)
"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)
Art is carnal.
Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.
Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.
Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.
"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".
To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)
Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).
The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.
Kirilov
In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.
Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.
The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.
Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).
All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.
Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.
Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.
"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].
Ephemeral creation
The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).
"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).
Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.
Diversity is the home of art.
There is no barrier between being and appearing.
The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 16 (B)
(Originally Written March 7, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
History has shown that only religion has aided in the progress of humanity.
"The great evil is not that men do not know God, but they have set up instead of God, that which is not God" (Maude, 235). So it is with art today.
"Christian perception gave another, a new direction to all human feelings, and therefore completely altered both the content and significance of art" (Maude, 237).
"The essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition by every man of his sonship to God and of the consequent union of men with God and with one another" (Maude, 238).
True art has the characteristic of uniting all men, not just a few. Non-Christian art may unite a few people, but in uniting those few they divide them from the many. Patriotic art is a prime example of this. Church art is another example. Good Christian art must transmit a feeling to all men regardless of their demographics.
Only two feelings unite all men:
1. Feeling stemming from the universal sonship of God and universal brotherhood.
2. Feelings of common life accessible to all men.
Only two objects for art can be considered good:
1. That which flows from love of God and the relationship of God to man and man to man.
2. That which flows from the most basic feelings felt by every human being.
The first is religious art; the second is universal art.
Religious art is manifested best in words, but can also be manifested in sculpture and painting. Universal art is best manifested in music, but can be manifested in dance, architecture, words, painting and sculpture as well.
The overburdening of the viewer with details of the producer blocks the transmission of feelings. The simpler, the better. In true art, feelings are expressed without superfluous extras.
The more detailed a story becomes, the more provincial it becomes and thus, the less universal it is.
In music, the melody is accessible to every one, but when extremely complex harmonies are added, the melody is lost and the piece loses universality.
Whether I like a thing or not, if it fails to be religious or universal art, I must consider it bad art. Only by judging first if a work transmits feelings or not and then deciding whether the thing unites or divides people can we decide if the work is real or counterfeit and if it is real, we can then decide if it is good or bad.
Art is spiritual food.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
History has shown that only religion has aided in the progress of humanity.
"The great evil is not that men do not know God, but they have set up instead of God, that which is not God" (Maude, 235). So it is with art today.
"Christian perception gave another, a new direction to all human feelings, and therefore completely altered both the content and significance of art" (Maude, 237).
"The essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition by every man of his sonship to God and of the consequent union of men with God and with one another" (Maude, 238).
True art has the characteristic of uniting all men, not just a few. Non-Christian art may unite a few people, but in uniting those few they divide them from the many. Patriotic art is a prime example of this. Church art is another example. Good Christian art must transmit a feeling to all men regardless of their demographics.
Only two feelings unite all men:
1. Feeling stemming from the universal sonship of God and universal brotherhood.
2. Feelings of common life accessible to all men.
Only two objects for art can be considered good:
1. That which flows from love of God and the relationship of God to man and man to man.
2. That which flows from the most basic feelings felt by every human being.
The first is religious art; the second is universal art.
Religious art is manifested best in words, but can also be manifested in sculpture and painting. Universal art is best manifested in music, but can be manifested in dance, architecture, words, painting and sculpture as well.
The overburdening of the viewer with details of the producer blocks the transmission of feelings. The simpler, the better. In true art, feelings are expressed without superfluous extras.
The more detailed a story becomes, the more provincial it becomes and thus, the less universal it is.
In music, the melody is accessible to every one, but when extremely complex harmonies are added, the melody is lost and the piece loses universality.
Whether I like a thing or not, if it fails to be religious or universal art, I must consider it bad art. Only by judging first if a work transmits feelings or not and then deciding whether the thing unites or divides people can we decide if the work is real or counterfeit and if it is real, we can then decide if it is good or bad.
Art is spiritual food.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 12
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 12
Three things cooperate to cause the production of counterfeit art:
1. The professionalism of the artist for hire
2. Art criticism
3. Schools of art
When art became a profession it was due to the upper classes' obsession with art for their pleasure. In art becoming a profession the most fundamental quality of art was lost, its sincerity.
Art criticism has also led to counterfeit art because criticism is being done by perverted individuals. The critics claim it is their job to explain art, but if an artist produces a true work of art, he transmits his feelings to others. Therefore, what is there left to explain?
An artist's work is not open for interpretation.
The artist would choose to express his feelings with words if he could, but he could not. Therefore, he expressed it with art.
Universal art has a definite and indubitable criterion - religious perception. Because the upper classes lack this they must search for some external criterion for art and thus, critics exist. Universal art needs no interpretation and thus, no critics.
Art schools are also harmful. How can one teach one how to transmit a unique feeling? These schools teach how to transmit feelings of other artists' experience. The teach how to counterfeit.
"Infection is only obtained when an artist finds those infinitely minute degrees of which a work consists, and only to the extent to which he finds them" (Maude, 201). These degrees of minuteness are only found when a man yields to his feelings. They cannot be taught to be found.
Schools may teach what is necessary to produce something resembling art, but not art itself. The teaching at schools stops exactly where art begins.
These three things, the making of art into a profession, art criticism and art schools have made most people unable to understand what is art by forcing them to become accustomed to counterfeits.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 12
Three things cooperate to cause the production of counterfeit art:
1. The professionalism of the artist for hire
2. Art criticism
3. Schools of art
When art became a profession it was due to the upper classes' obsession with art for their pleasure. In art becoming a profession the most fundamental quality of art was lost, its sincerity.
Art criticism has also led to counterfeit art because criticism is being done by perverted individuals. The critics claim it is their job to explain art, but if an artist produces a true work of art, he transmits his feelings to others. Therefore, what is there left to explain?
An artist's work is not open for interpretation.
The artist would choose to express his feelings with words if he could, but he could not. Therefore, he expressed it with art.
Universal art has a definite and indubitable criterion - religious perception. Because the upper classes lack this they must search for some external criterion for art and thus, critics exist. Universal art needs no interpretation and thus, no critics.
Art schools are also harmful. How can one teach one how to transmit a unique feeling? These schools teach how to transmit feelings of other artists' experience. The teach how to counterfeit.
"Infection is only obtained when an artist finds those infinitely minute degrees of which a work consists, and only to the extent to which he finds them" (Maude, 201). These degrees of minuteness are only found when a man yields to his feelings. They cannot be taught to be found.
Schools may teach what is necessary to produce something resembling art, but not art itself. The teaching at schools stops exactly where art begins.
These three things, the making of art into a profession, art criticism and art schools have made most people unable to understand what is art by forcing them to become accustomed to counterfeits.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 16 (A)
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 15
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 15
The way to separate art from counterfeit is to consider its infectiousness. True art infects; counterfeit art does not. If a work does not create a union between the producer and the audience then it is not art. Art, true art, destroys the separation and isolation of one's own personality and unites men under one feeling.
The degree of infectiousness is the measure by which we judge good art. The stronger the infection the better the art is. The degree of infectiousness depends on three things. First, the feeling that is transmitted. Second, the clearness of the transmission. And, third, the sincerity of the artist. The third is the most important to how infectious a piece will be. The absence of any one of these conditions precludes a work from being art. This is how art is judged regardless of its subject matter, regardless of whether the feeling transmitted is good or bad.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 15
The way to separate art from counterfeit is to consider its infectiousness. True art infects; counterfeit art does not. If a work does not create a union between the producer and the audience then it is not art. Art, true art, destroys the separation and isolation of one's own personality and unites men under one feeling.
The degree of infectiousness is the measure by which we judge good art. The stronger the infection the better the art is. The degree of infectiousness depends on three things. First, the feeling that is transmitted. Second, the clearness of the transmission. And, third, the sincerity of the artist. The third is the most important to how infectious a piece will be. The absence of any one of these conditions precludes a work from being art. This is how art is judged regardless of its subject matter, regardless of whether the feeling transmitted is good or bad.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 14
(Originally Written March 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 14
If we admit that art is a man's intentional transmission of his feelings to another we must also admit that what the world of the upper classes calls the whole of art is not art at all, but counterfeit. The difficulty we have in deciphering what is real art from what is counterfeit is that there is so much counterfeit art existing today. Also, the difficulty arises in the skill of the counterfeiters. Their external craftsmanship often is better than true artists.
True art is modest.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 14
If we admit that art is a man's intentional transmission of his feelings to another we must also admit that what the world of the upper classes calls the whole of art is not art at all, but counterfeit. The difficulty we have in deciphering what is real art from what is counterfeit is that there is so much counterfeit art existing today. Also, the difficulty arises in the skill of the counterfeiters. Their external craftsmanship often is better than true artists.
True art is modest.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 13
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 13
The combination of two arts into one (like Opera) is asking to do the impossible. It is asking to have two new feelings expressed independently as one. If there is a combination of arts, either one or both works are counterfeit.
One of the chief conditions of artistic creation is "the complete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived demand" (Maude, 205).
True art exists as such that if one tiny part were altered or replaced or moved then the entire piece would cease to be art.
Wagner's subversion of music to poetry is absurd. One art form cannot serve another. Each must exist independently of one another. Wagner hypnotizes his audience. This hypnosis produces his desired effects upon people. They are not infected as they would have been by true art. If one fails to be hypnotized by this spectacle they sit silently so as not to be criticized for their view. They sit as a sober man does in the midst of the drunk.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 13
The combination of two arts into one (like Opera) is asking to do the impossible. It is asking to have two new feelings expressed independently as one. If there is a combination of arts, either one or both works are counterfeit.
One of the chief conditions of artistic creation is "the complete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived demand" (Maude, 205).
True art exists as such that if one tiny part were altered or replaced or moved then the entire piece would cease to be art.
Wagner's subversion of music to poetry is absurd. One art form cannot serve another. Each must exist independently of one another. Wagner hypnotizes his audience. This hypnosis produces his desired effects upon people. They are not infected as they would have been by true art. If one fails to be hypnotized by this spectacle they sit silently so as not to be criticized for their view. They sit as a sober man does in the midst of the drunk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)