The Naipaul-challenge

[hampusforev]

I'm sure many of you are aware of Naipauls recent statement that women are "sentimental" and "unequal to men" when it comes to writing. I haven't seen any thread on it though, so I thought I would create one. The Guardian have administered a little test to see if you're as gender-perceptive as Naipaul, and I'd like to see what you guys score. I couldn't tell at all and just guessed, and I think Naipaul's statement is ridiculous. That being said, I personally haven't found any female writers equal to Tolstoy, Shakespeare or Melville. I love Flannery O'Connor, but she hasn't quite produced anything like Anna Karenina, King Lear or Moby-Dick. I think Virginia Woolf is a brilliant critic and thinker, but I can't say I care much for her fiction. I haven't really read any Jane Austen so I can't comment on her. As well as taking the Naipaul-test I'd like you to recommend some female writers that you think rivals the ones I've put forth above.

Here's the test:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/quiz/2011/jun/02/naipaul-test-author-s-sex-quiz

[Heteronym]

I personally haven't found many male writes equal to Tolstoy or Shakespeare either.

[hampusforev]

Haha, yeah, you have a point there...

[PeterL]

Naipaul put his foot into his mouth. If he had said the same things in a more circumspect way, then people would have applauded his sensitiviy to the differences between men and women. There have been studies of the differences in writing, and the differences are widespread and definable. That isn't to say that either is inferior, only that there are real differences. The samples on the site that you linked are too short to guess with any confidence.

There are at least two sites where one can have the sex of a writer guessed at by some software. They are fairly accurate. The links are below.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.html
http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

[mortalterror]

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

[prickly_pete]

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

That's unfair to women. I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society - or at least recently this is the case. That's why alot of "high" art tends to express the hopelessness and irrationality of life and living - sentiments felt primarily by those on the far, far outskirts of society or those with mental disorders. Go to any liberal arts college and look at the Art Majors...well, the world needs coffee makers I suppose lol

Besides the point really. Why does everyone have to measure up to Shakespeare? Did it ever occur to you that his immense popularity - though obviously somewhat do to his talent - has alot to do with the predominance of English in the modern world? Is Zola any less talented than Tolstoy or do people just like reading stories about war more than they do stories about social and economic problems?

[stlukesguild]

I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society -

And I tend to think of those who join the military as mindless, violent, socio-pathic sexual rejects who have nothing to offer society.

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

Would you include yourself in this pathetic stereotype? Is this a confession on your part as to a preference for frilly lace underclothing?

[prickly_pete]

And I tend to think of those who join the military as mindless, violent, socio-pathic sexual rejects who have nothing to offer society.

We're not sexual rejects.

[Drkshadow03]

That's unfair to women. I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society - or at least recently this is the case. That's why alot of "high" art tends to express the hopelessness and irrationality of life and living - sentiments felt primarily by those on the far, far outskirts of society or those with mental disorders. Go to any liberal arts college and look at the Art Majors...well, the world needs coffee makers I suppose lol



Uhm, apparently we attended very different English/Art classes?

Science majors on the other hand . . .

[prickly_pete]

I think scientists and science majors have an optimistic tone. On the other hand it would be a very big mistake to say that most of what has been considered "high" art in the past 100 years or so isn't extremely pessimistic or down right self-loathing.

[Drkshadow03]

I think scientists and science majors have an optimistic tone. On the other hand it would be a very big mistake to say that most of what has been considered "high" art in the past 100 years or so isn't extremely pessimistic or down right self-loathing.

I was commenting more on the art majors are "an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society" part.

Introverted is one of those myths similar to all artists live in a garret. Defenseless I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. And sexual rejects? Seriously?

[prickly_pete]

I lived at the Arts House at Tufts for a semester and was damaged for life. The dorms at MIT though - seemed like fairly healthy individuals living there.

But what are you saying though? That 20th Century art in Europe took a self-confident tone?

[Drkshadow03]

I lived at the Arts House at Tufts for a semester and was damaged for life. The dorms at MIT though - seemed like fairly healthy individuals living there.

I guess I'm confused then by how you're defining your terms. When I think of a sexual reject, I'm thinking of some dorky little guy who has a laugh like a donkey and smells like he hasn't showered for a few days, and has never been laid. Or that guy's female counterpart.


But what are you saying though? That 20th Century art in Europe took a self-confident tone?

No, but art reflects the feelings of the times. Does World War I and II and the plethora of genocides inspire you with confidence for the future?

[prickly_pete]

No, but art reflects the feelings of the times. Did World War I and II and the vast genocides inspire you with confidence for the future?

No less than the Crusades, or Napoleon, or Slavery, or the wanton destruction of Native Americans and their way of life...but somehow earlier ages were able to take on a confident or self-reliant tone in their artwork. Since we seem incapable of this I say we should keep our distance.

I have nothing to learn from the weak or the self-hating. We're almost 70 years removed from WWII and still I think we can generalize contemporary art as expressing hopelessness, irrationality, and dissapointment with the world.

I much prefer the company of scientists than artists.

[Drkshadow03]

No less than the Crusades, or Napoleon, or Slavery, or the wanton destruction of Native Americans and their way of life...but somehow earlier ages were able to take on a confident or self-reliant tone in their artwork. Since we seem incapable of this I say we should keep our distance.

I have nothing to learn from the weak or the self-hating. We're almost 70 years removed from WWII and still I think we can generalize contemporary art as expressing hopelessness, irrationality, and dissapointment with the world.

I much prefer the company of scientists than artists.

Eh, one of the major differences is that the literatures of those various historical events often depicted those events as positive and romanticized them. Much of the criticism and view of those events as bad (with the exception of perhaps slavery) doesn't really come about, until you get into contemporary society full of hopelessness and self-loathing criticism. Also, since all those literatures are so old anyway I couldn't possibly relate to them the way I could more contemporary literature full of hopelessness, irrationality, and disappointment, according to your earlier statements.

As for the rest of it, good for you?

[prickly_pete]

That's just dishonest. There's always been debate. History isn't 5,000 years of spooning.

The contemporary artist produces works that emphasize hopelessness because he hates himself and feels like a loser not because of some awakening after an historical event. He's only vaguely aware of something in the past called WWII and probably totally unaware of anything that happened in WWI. Sorry mate - these folks just aren't to be trusted.

[stlukesguild]

Prickly Pete-But what are you saying though? That 20th Century art in Europe took a self-confident tone?

DarkShadow- No, but art reflects the feelings of the times. Did World War I and II and the vast genocides inspire you with confidence for the future?

No less than the Crusades, or Napoleon, or Slavery, or the wanton destruction of Native Americans and their way of life..

I don't recall the crusades truly wreaking havoc upon the average European nation... unless we are speaking of Spain, and then it would seem that it was the European/Christian forces that were triumphant so they weren't likely to dwell upon the destruction of the Andalusian culture, the expulsion of the Jews and Muslims, the inquisition, or any such thing. It also must be recognized that artists were fully servants of the aristocracy and not likely to insert their own contradictory thoughts into the work. Nevertheless, the religious wars that tore Europe apart most certainly impacted the art work:

The "Triumph of Death" remained a major subject from the middle-ages through the Renaissance:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/5845959456_653a37d9cf_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/5845406479_563066f15d_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5845406835_1337a27bd1_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2490/5845406239_c234253f7f_b.jpg

Endless images extorted the viewer to "remember death" (momento mori):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/5845959598_39e34766e5.jpg

Numerous artworks presented the image of the young and healthy cut down by the plague:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/5845959526_9e23fbf5f9.jpg

As in Poe's Masque of the Red Death, death was often represented as showing up among revelers (Read the introduction to Boccaccio's Decameron)

The Dance of Death was a common theme:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2645/5845959570_4b61a03edf.jpg

Death was such an everyday occurrence... hangings, gallows, the death of loved ones from simple diseases... that the average person took death in stride... mocked it... made jokes about it. As Bruegel recognized, they were all dancing under the gallows:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5266/5845958830_71288b4598_b.jpg

One of the first great works of art that was broadly accessible was the series of prints by Albrecht Durer... including the ever-popular Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/5845407251_b659263b9c_b.jpg

As for the Napoleonic Wars, I can't say that Victor Hugo or Tolstoy presented a positive view of the war. Neither did Goya:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/5846014828_dd415bd283_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5845462097_4742f71234_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5318/5846014920_5d5c5f2ac4_z.jpg

And you want us to believe that African-American and Native-American art isn't filled with anger, sorrow, and frustration as a result of their experiences to this day?

But European art of the 20th century simply wallows in horror and ugliness, right...?

Hmmmm....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/5845547245_547253c278_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/5845547199_b73d1c3be8_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/5845547273_fb61f4e2f0.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/5846100256_f308170aee_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/5845547481_6928d54c64_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/5846100320_dd229c7c5e_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2589/5845547539_7b79244742_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/5845547583_91428d7c25_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2484/5846100452_05ac7642d7_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/5845547699_20af106cb0_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5189/5846100558_49e33b4e12_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/5845547789_d33f176a15_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/5845547939_ab7153dcd9_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5304/5845548019_0d79311f68_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2789/5845548097_fb0a3237df_z.jpg

Yep... those sad Modern European artists... nothing but images of horror and ugliness.

[Drkshadow03]

That's just dishonest. There's always been debate. History isn't 5,000 years of spooning.

The contemporary artist produces works that emphasize hopelessness because he hates himself and feels like a loser not because of some awakening after an historical event. He's only vaguely aware of something in the past called WWII and probably totally unaware of anything that happened in WWI. Sorry mate - these folks just aren't to be trusted.

About as dishonest as your generalizations about modern art . . . :Yawn:

I would add more, but St Luke just pwned you and there doesn't seem to be the need.

[IceM]

That's unfair to women. I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society - or at least recently this is the case. That's why alot of "high" art tends to express the hopelessness and irrationality of life and living - sentiments felt primarily by those on the far, far outskirts of society or those with mental disorders. Go to any liberal arts college and look at the Art Majors...well, the world needs coffee makers I suppose lol

Besides the point really. Why does everyone have to measure up to Shakespeare? Did it ever occur to you that his immense popularity - though obviously somewhat do to his talent - has alot to do with the predominance of English in the modern world? Is Zola any less talented than Tolstoy or do people just like reading stories about war more than they do stories about social and economic problems?

This is just ignorant. Your dislike of art stems from, especially in your other thread on art, its inability to be directly utilitarian and applicable to the daily life. You haven't found reason to appreciate great art and are appearing more and more like an artistic iconoclast, unable of appreciating what lies beyond your narrow understanding of what is pertinent to life. Save us the inflammatory attacks on artists. I respect your right to disregard high art, not your insistence on dismantling it.

With Shakespeare's popularity, the question isn't the merit of his craft compared to that of Tolstoy or Zola. Rather, the audience finds more redeeming qualities to the writing and more affirming characteristics of humanity. There is more to ponder in Shakespeare's works than Tolstoy's. I'm sure we can agree Tolstoy is a fabulous writer. But is it really any question that an audience consistently favors the writer whose work is more affirming, thought-provoking, and pertinent to oneself?


That's just dishonest. There's always been debate. History isn't 5,000 years of spooning.

The contemporary artist produces works that emphasize hopelessness because he hates himself and feels like a loser not because of some awakening after an historical event. He's only vaguely aware of something in the past called WWII and probably totally unaware of anything that happened in WWI. Sorry mate - these folks just aren't to be trusted.

The contemporary artist produces works that one feels is under-represented in the artistic domain, whether through medium, ideals or subject (although Stluke, as a practicing artist, can speak more to this than me, a college freshman). What the artist produces is not necessarily a reflection of the artist's own belief. It can instead reflect something that deserves attention. Suggesting the artwork is a direct representation of the artist's views is just as suggesting that Conrad is a racist for presenting the European perspective of Africa in Heart of Darkness. Sometimes the artist must operate through a persona or detach himself from his work in order to create something great or necessary.

[mortalterror]

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

Would you include yourself in this pathetic stereotype? Is this a confession on your part as to a preference for frilly lace underclothing?

You're right, it's probably not the art at all. More likely it's liberal politics that turns men into sissies.

P.S. Two things. It's memento mori not momento mori, and isn't The Colossus no longer attributed to Goya?

[stlukesguild]

You're right, it's probably not the art at all. More likely it's liberal politics that turns men into sissies.

AS opposed to Neo-Con politics that turns them into mindless sociopaths?

P.S. Two things. It's memento mori not momento mori, and isn't The Colossus no longer attributed to Goya?

I'll have to get that Latin Spell Check installed.:sosp:

As for The Colossus... the attribution's still up in the air. There are supposed "problems" with weak brushwork that suggests the painting wasn't by Goya's hand... but no alternative has been suggested that seems capable of so audacious an image. It is quite possible that the painting was completed by an assistant or a copy by an assistant or based upon a lost drawing by the master.

[mortalterror]

You're right, it's probably not the art at all. More likely it's liberal politics that turns men into sissies.

AS opposed to Neo-Con politics that turns them into mindless sociopaths?

P.S. Two things. It's memento mori not momento mori, and isn't The Colossus no longer attributed to Goya?

I'll have to get that Latin Spell Check installed.:sosp:

As for The Colossus... the attribution's still up in the air. There are supposed "problems" with weak brushwork that suggests the painting wasn't by Goya's hand... but no alternative has been suggested that seems capable of so audacious an image. It is quite possible that the painting was completed by an assistant or a copy by an assistant or based upon a lost drawing by the master.

But Asensio Julia, Goya's assistant, signed it with his initials.

[blazeofglory]

He may be right from some perspective. Women can be equal to men in everything they do but the social constructs or structures never favored them. That is why we must agree that women's writings could not equal males. I however am sure that in future some new females will emerge who will not only equal them but will also outshine them. I can predict given the enthusiasm is seen in them

[prickly_pete]

And you want us to believe that African-American and Native-American art isn't filled with anger, sorrow, and frustration as a result of their experiences to this day?

Sorrow is one thing - the hopelessness, pointlessness, and the totaly futility of accomplishing anything in life through rational calculation is something different entirely. If you don't think a good deal of contemporary art manifests these feelings (possibly also described as "Middle Class Vacuity" or the "Emptiness of Modern Life") then you haven't been doing your homework. Simple as that.

Drkshadow seems more accutely aware of this than you and tries to attribute it to WWI the Holocaust or some other historical event. He's right to an extent but I think its more based on a real sense of powerlessness that people have. I'm not saying its WRONG to have these feelings or for an artist to express those feelings, but to deny that they exist on a massive scale - especially in the art community - is simply turning a blind eye. No other way to describe it.

[hampusforev]

Sorrow is one thing - the hopelessness, pointlessness, and the totaly futility of accomplishing anything in life through rational calculation is something different entirely. If you don't think a good deal of contemporary art manifests these feelings (possibly also described as "Middle Class Vacuity" or the "Emptiness of Modern Life") then you haven't been doing your homework. Simple as that.



I think it's you who are doing too much homework actually, because you're just echoing platitudes about "contemporary art" which are instilled in any art 101 class you care to take. But let's not veer too much off topic now peoplez.


He may be right from some perspective. Women can be equal to men in everything they do but the social constructs or structures never favored them. That is why we must agree that women's writings could not equal males. I however am sure that in future some new females will emerge who will not only equal them but will also outshine them. I can predict given the enthusiasm is seen in them

Your contention is that the canon is formed by some sort of patriarchal authority favoring men over women? I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'd just like you to elaborate.

[prickly_pete]

I don't get it. So you're saying that its impossible that art could express the hopelessness or purposelessness of existence? Because to me it seems blatantly obvious that this is a recurring theme not just in painting or literature but in television and popular music as well. Can art only express pretty things? Give me a break.

[stlukesguild]

But Asensio Julia, Goya's assistant, signed it with his initials.

Yes... and no lesser artist could possibly ever make an attempt to claim a greater artist's efforts as his own. Seriously, the painting is so dark to start with and in such poor condition (the Prado is notorious for not having cleaned many of its paintings) that it is impossible for me to offer a personal opinion as I might on another's artist's works. For example, I have seen enough paintings by Rubens in good reproduction and in real life to recognize any number of works in various museums as having been completed by another's hand. Considering the fact that the "experts" themselves are far from agreement I'll settle for "Attributed to Goya).

[hampusforev]

I don't get it. So you're saying that its impossible that art could express the hopelessness or purposelessness of existence? Because to me it seems blatantly obvious that this is a recurring theme not just in painting or literature but in television and popular music as well. Can art only express pretty things? Give me a break.

What I thought people objected was the fact that you attribute hopelessness and purposelessness only to contemporary art... But as I say this is a discussion to be had somewhere else

[prickly_pete]

Contemporary art does seem to have a fixation on weakness, hopelessness, irrationality - things of that nature. I don't think this is an unfair generalization especially since these feelings exist on a massive scale in our society. Depression, abnormal sexual appetites, insatiable quest of money and status, mood equalizers being prescribed by the tens of millions, thearpy, suicide, drug-use, explosive murder rates...one doesn't need to look very far to see this...

...provided their eyes are open that is...

[hampusforev]

Those things existed just as much before the modern era

[prickly_pete]

Those things existed just as much before the modern era

Yeah, uh, I'm sorry but no. You're hereby disqualified.

Thanks for playing.

[hampusforev]

Yeah, uh, I'm sorry but no. You're hereby disqualified.

Thanks for playing.

You're an absolute cretin, you mean to suggest that people weren't depressed before 1900? You mean to suggest that the quest for money is a newfangled obsession? Take any look at art from Ancient Egypt and you will find things that are just as depraved, there are many accounts on necrophilia and other kinds of sexual depravity. I don't know what kind of backassed view of history you have, do you honestly think that mankind just got f-ed in the last 100 years? Your kind of solipsistic world view is ridiculous, one would think that your only account of modern society comes from Fox News or something

[prickly_pete]

You're an absolute cretin, you mean to suggest that people weren't depressed before 1900? You mean to suggest that the quest for money is a newfangled obsession?

By acknowledging that people have been depressed at some time before 1900 that doesn't detract from the fact that clinical depression is present in today's society on a massive scale. By acknowledging that there were people before 1900 who wanted money doesn't detract from the fact that consumerism and the quest for status through aquisition of goods is a part of today's society like it never was before. This has been plainly acknowledged by historians, poltical scientists, sociologists, etc. since at least Marx if not sooner.

It's careless - really, really careless - to pretend like the industrial revolution didn't have a profound impact on how people live and by entension how they think and feel about themselves. Some of this can indeed be seen in art.

[IceM]

By acknowledging that people have been depressed at some time before 1900 that doesn't detract from the fact that clinical depression is present in today's society on a massive scale. By acknowledging that there were people before 1900 who wanted money doesn't detract from the fact that consumerism and the quest for status through aquisition of goods is a part of today's society like it never was before. This has been plainly acknowledged by historians, poltical scientists, sociologists, etc. since at least Marx if not sooner.

It's careless - really, really careless - to pretend like the industrial revolution didn't have a profound impact on how people live and by entension how they think and feel about themselves. Some of this can indeed be seen in art.

This still doesn't suggest that artists are morally depraved, sexual rejects, socially awkward or social outsiders, as you've suggested before. Art is an expression of ideas, some of which may be held by the artist, others not. Simply because some art is gloomy in content does not suggest anything about the artist itself.

As there are more people requiring therapy, there are also more philanthropists, charitable figures and people volunteering effort through relief missions and charities to better the lives of other, often unknown, people. The media portrays the advent and increase of therapy because it sells. Ever notice the staggering amount of celebrity magazines compared to literary journals? The former sells more.

Nobody is suggesting the Industrial Revolution was negligible in the development of the human life. You're just attempting to suggest that artists are miserly because some topics are gloomy in nature, when, as I suggested before, not all, or even most art, is a reflection of the artist's ideas.

[prickly_pete]

As there are more people requiring therapy, there are also more philanthropists, charitable figures and people volunteering effort through relief missions and charities to better the lives of other, often unknown, people. The media portrays the advent and increase of therapy because it sells. Ever notice the staggering amount of celebrity magazines compared to literary journals? The former sells more.

We're not talking about how events are portrayed by the media. Clinical depression exists on a massive scale. Drug-use exists on a massive scale. Prescription medicine for psychological problems exists on a massive scale. These things have never been as present on the scale that they are now. You can't just flippantly overlook these problems with "Oh its just the media - everything is A-OK!!!" It doesn't work like that. We're talking about a very prevelant problem with modern society. Why act like it doesn't exist?



when, as I suggested before, not all, or even most art, is a reflection of the artist's ideas

If its not the artist's ideas then whose - pray tell - are they? Are they plucking these ideas out of the sky? Are they channeling the dead spirit of John Ritter? Michael Jackson maybe? This is silly.

[hampusforev]

We're not talking about how events are portrayed by the media. Clinical depression exists on a massive scale. Drug-use exists on a massive scale. Prescription medicine for psychological problems exists on a massive scale. These things have never been as present on the scale that they are now. You can't just flippantly overlook these problems with "Oh its just the media - everything is A-OK!!!" It doesn't work like that. We're talking about a very prevelant problem with modern society. Why act like it doesn't exist?

We're not acting like it doesn't exist - you're arguing against a strawman. What people are objecting to is your idiotic notion that modern day artist are depraved social rejects.

[stlukesguild]

Sorrow is one thing - the hopelessness, pointlessness, and the totaly futility of accomplishing anything in life through rational calculation is something different entirely. If you don't think a good deal of contemporary art manifests these feelings (possibly also described as "Middle Class Vacuity" or the "Emptiness of Modern Life") then you haven't been doing your homework. Simple as that.

Drkshadow seems more accutely aware of this than you and tries to attribute it to WWI the Holocaust or some other historical event. He's right to an extent but I think its more based on a real sense of powerlessness that people have. I'm not saying its WRONG to have these feelings or for an artist to express those feelings, but to deny that they exist on a massive scale - especially in the art community - is simply turning a blind eye. No other way to describe it.

Pete... that's not even a good bluff. Your statement was completely destroyed and you come back here acting as if everyone... anyone... still agrees with your assertions about Modern and Contemporary art. Unlike yourself... what... maybe a sophomore...? They're typically the ones who after gaining a little knowledge imagine they know so much more than they do... I don't need to do my homework when it comes to Modern Art... or literature for that matter.

Yes, there certainly is a lot of art over the course of the last century that manifest feelings of hopelessness and futility. Two World Wars, the Holocaust, the genocides in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc..., the "death of God", etc... have certainly all contributed to this. But these feelings are in no way unique within the history of art, nor are they in any way the sole dominant voice of Modern and Contemporary art as I have already shown.

If we focus solely upon the visual artists we can look at the output of the major figures:

Pablo Picasso was undoubtedly the central visual artist of the century. Certainly he painted images of suffering and even horror in the face of the two world wars that ravaged Europe, but he was far from wallowing in hopelessness. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, the iconic Modernist masterwork that stands alongside Joyce's Ulysses and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is in no way an expression of hopelessness. Rather, it is an image of rage. The rage of the young artist at women following the suicide of his best friend over a love affair gone sour:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3053/5849233803_9c5d8e10fc_b.jpg

If one were to define the content of the majority of Picasso's paintings they are certainly not hopelessness and despair, but rather

SEX:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/5849233923_8d0169de88_b.jpg

and VIOLENCE:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/5849882116_977324a820_b.jpg

Picasso's greatest rival among artists was undoubtedly Matisse. Like Picasso, Matisse lived in France throughout most of the horrors of both world wars. His wife and son even fought in the Resistance... and yet his paintings exhibit no despair or hopelessness. He suggested himself that perhaps the greatest response against the horror and ugliness of war was beauty and the belief that war would come to an end and humanity would turn its attention once again to beauty, music...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2650/5849327747_e8e5085efa_b.jpg

dance...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5233/5849882324_6efccf29a0_b.jpg

poetry, art, and love.

Yes, there were expressions of sheer despair and hopelessness. This was especially true of the German artists following the First World War. Such can be seen among the works of the Dada artists as well as the German Expressionists:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/5850105526_b437091f52_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5849552453_b6442fe96c_z.jpg

In spite of the bleak view presented of humanity, these works were not expressions of hopelessness, but rather, as in Picasso's Guernica, they were expressions of rage... rage and the belief that art could actually effect change... influence public opinion... and act as a social consciousness.

The dominant artist among the German painters of the period, Max Beckmann, absolutely embraced the whole spectacle of human life: sex and violence, eros et mort, the classical past, and the contemporary urban sprawl of skyscrapers and jazz. His paintings always have a dark side to them... yet they also embrace the absolute lush sensuality of sex and color. Forced to flee from the Nazis who placed him among the list of "Degenerate Artists" banned from painting under penalty of death, he fled to Amsterdam where he sat out the whole of the war in a small apartment. Rather than falling into despair, he produced some of the greatest paintings of Modernism... quite often on a scale that speaks more of ambition than hopelessness:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5037/5849337023_f2d30f84c2_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/5849337057_1a493e62a5.jpg

As might be expected, the European art immediately following the Second World War fell into a bleak period as the continent faced the horrors that had transpired and dealt with the efforts of reconstruction. Considering the rapidity of reconstruction, however, one cannot suggest an extended wallowing in self-pity.

At this time American art took the lead... and the art was anything but hopeless. The paintings were epic in scale, explosive, completely new (virtually rejecting the whole of European tradition). They were if anything, akin to the jazz music that propelled these artists in their studios.

The paintings spoke of the joy in the new sprawling cities:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5849328835_f5362a93dd_b.jpg

They spoke of the infinity of space and the absolute freedom of dance:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/5849328535_df5a21f4e1_b.jpg

They spoke of the urban sprawl of buildings piled on buildings, and bodies piled on bodies in the crowded streets:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2476/5849883168_10132a583a_b.jpg

continued...........

As we move into the 60s the art became even more confident, explosive, and glittering... again much like the music... the rock music... that drove the era.

There was an awareness of the war raging in the background... like the jet fighter in James Rosenquist's iconic F-111, but this reality check was countered by American consumerism, sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, Hollywood, TV, and brilliant shiny surfaces:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/5849883510_ac37026138_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2666/5849883464_d9bfa389d3.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3023/5849329071_e634a79d55.jpg

Again, there were certainly artist who offered an alternative view. Vito Aconci masturbating beneath the stage in a New York gallery or Manzoni selling cans of his own sh** certainly spoke of hopelessness or pointlessness... but such was mostly the pointlessness learned as the result of an academic art education that stressed theory (often imported from French Deconstructionists) over the actual practice of making images. In spite of this, the image remained.

Perhaps the most popular artists in the 70s on through the 1980s were the two Andys: Andy Warhol, who embraced the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, celebrity, popular culture, and the big cities... and Andrew Wyeth who continued to speak to the beauty found in simple rural life in America:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/5850230942_662d4ecdd2.jpg

The mid-80s saw a return to painting on a large scale. Big, juicy paintings coming out of Germany announced the new-found confidence of a rebuilt Germany:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5240/5849709119_9eb2b94939.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/5849709217_0a1e84d5a5_b.jpg

In the US the leading direction was perhaps a renewed attention to Realism. Artists such as Eric Fischl explored the possibilities of narrative paintings dealing with contemporary psycho-sexual dramas:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5233/5849329135_7a1ab58ac8_z.jpg

Others, like Chuck Close, presented epic-scale portraits of friends and acquaintances filtered through the experience of photography. Even following a spinal artery collapse in 1988 which left him severely paralyzed the artist refused to surrender to hopelessness but continued painting... producing what may be the greatest work of his career:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/5849883770_35e6e2af88.jpg

If anything, recent directions in art have leaned toward a renewed embrace of the "beautiful" and "sensual":

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2726/5849329367_d1db4f3e9e_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/5849329195_dfae5d082f_z.jpg

Feminist critics like Wendy Steiner in her text Venus in Exile argued that Modernism downplayed or rejected the traditionally "beautiful" as being too "feminine" (as opposed to masculine), too emotional (as opposed to intellectual), and pandering to the bourgeois or middle-class as opposed to speaking of the bohemian or the aristocracy... but one can find more than a a few exceptions among the leading artistic figures from across the entire century.

He's right to an extent but I think its more based on a real sense of powerlessness that people have. I'm not saying its WRONG to have these feelings or for an artist to express those feelings, but to deny that they exist on a massive scale - especially in the art community - is simply turning a blind eye. No other way to describe it.

Now if anyone needs to go back and do his homework I would suggest that it might be a certain schoolboy in way over his head. The notion of hopelessness and powerless may have shown up in art during certain periods... especially immediately after the two world wars... but you have quite misunderstood the Romantic notion of the artist as outsider. Rather than a feeling of self-loathing and self-pity, the embrace of the Bohemian Artist was a feeling of superiority over the rest of society... the blind sheep... and a rejection of bourgeois values and the idea that art had any practical purpose or owed anything to the audience.

These notions have slowly faded into history among a great majority of artists. certainly, there are still those who embrace the notion that art is a rejection of bourgeois values... but if anything, art has become increasingly careerist and populist. One of the major directions taken in recent painting is what is known as Neo-Pop or Pop Surrealism which embraces popular culture, glitz, glamour, and wealth:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/5850597084_9888da6aa6_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/5850045955_70f1c9caea.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5117/5850597132_34bb5dfbdb_z.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2792/5850597292_ce68c20376_z.jpg

Again... the whole of art history is but a narrative... and the narrator can pick and choose that which fits his or her goals. You would have us believe that the majority of the last century involved the Romantic concept of the artist as frustrated outsider wallowing in hopelessness, pathos, bathos, and self-pity. The examples I present here and above would seem to put more than a small hole in your theory.

Honestly, from my own experience with artists... beyond the 20-year-old artist-wanna-bes in college who embrace the idea of the artist as outsider more than they embrace the reality of making art... most artists are far from self-pitying. Most have larger-than-life egos which are quite necessary in the field. Most are far from believing that what they do is hopeless of futile. Again, the ability to continue to create art demands a healthy self confidence... an audacity... and an ego that often verges on arrogance.

Contemporary art does seem to have a fixation on weakness, hopelessness, irrationality - things of that nature.

We can play with making such ignorant blanket statements all day... and they prove nothing. If you are to convince even the least idiot it may be necessary that you back up your statement (of questionable "facts") with examples. Otherwise the majority might just assume that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and you are simple talking out of your posterior... or... as has been suggested... you are simply an agitator... a troll, if you will... and have no real interest in the facts one way or another.

[prickly_pete]

Yes, there certainly is a lot of art over the course of the last century that manifest feelings of hopelessness and futility. Two World Wars, the Holocaust, the genocides in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc..., the "death of God", etc... have certainly all contributed to this

OK, as long as you're willing to meet me half way I'm fine with that. The difference I see as that rather than these feelings generating out of some historical event seen in retrospect they're more a result of the conditions that people live under in an advanced society such as our own. I mentioned the "pointlessness of Middle Class" life or something along those lines earlier. People go to work, put in a minimal amount of effort, collect a paycheck, and their basic needs are basically taken care of. They aren't being challenged and most of the decisions regarding their lives and their environment are completely out of their control. Even at the local level the ability to influence decision making on something as simple as putting up a Stop Sign is greatly limited. There's very few outlets for people to pursue real goals (and by real goals I don't mean getting a degree, or getting a nice physique, or some other activity that is less a personal goal than something a modern society demands, promotes, or expects an individual to perform anyways).

Obviously then these are some of the reasons why depression exists on the scale that it does, why drug-use is so prevalent, why feelings of inferiority (either physically, sexually, emotionally or otherwise) are so prevalent, why feelings of powerlessness have become part of the psychological make-up of our world. Wide spread emotional and psychological problems don't exist because people are aware (and btw this awareness is limited if not completely absent in most) of WWII or the Holocaust or Vietnam. Other ages experienced war as well but widespread feelings of anxiety, depression, etc. don't seem to have been anywhere near as prevalent as they are today.

The only thing I'm saying is that these feelins are result of the world people are living in and a profound sense of dissastisfaction with their own lives. Western Art over the past century or so has definitely tried to channel these feelings. I'm not saying this is wrong, I'm just saying it is what it is.

[hampusforev]

I think this thread has already lost it's purpose, maybe a sign of the modern dilemma according to prickly_pete? Anyway, as the population continues to grow, so does drug-use and depression, but likewise happiness, love and charity. It's a fallacy to think that the contemporary man or woman is somehow more depressed or displeased with their lives than past generations, because it is impossible to measure.

[prickly_pete]

I think this thread has already lost it's purpose, maybe a sign of the modern dilemma according to prickly_pete? Anyway, as the population continues to grow, so does drug-use and depression, but likewise happiness, love and charity. It's a fallacy to think that the contemporary man or woman is somehow more depressed or displeased with their lives than past generations, because it is impossible to measure.

You're absolutely right - what was I thinking? Everything is A-OK and running smoothly here!

[IceM]

We're not talking about how events are portrayed by the media. Clinical depression exists on a massive scale. Drug-use exists on a massive scale. Prescription medicine for psychological problems exists on a massive scale. These things have never been as present on the scale that they are now. You can't just flippantly overlook these problems with "Oh its just the media - everything is A-OK!!!" It doesn't work like that. We're talking about a very prevelant problem with modern society. Why act like it doesn't exist?




If its not the artist's ideas then whose - pray tell - are they? Are they plucking these ideas out of the sky? Are they channeling the dead spirit of John Ritter? Michael Jackson maybe? This is silly.


I am not even remotely suggesting therapy, drug addictions and the sort do not exist. The post you quoted is to suggest that such eye-opening issues are often over-exaggerated by the media because it is attention-grabbing and it sells. The amount of people participating in charity and involving themselves in selfless acts of goodness are larger now than ever before. There is an unprecedented amount of charity being given by millions of people. However, fewer people hear of this, because hearing of kindness is not as socially explosive and gaudy as scandal and tragedy. Our media's underexposure to charity and overexposure to personal troubles make it easy to over-estimate the latter and underappreciate the former. Your suggestions are ignorant to the former.

Is Shakespeare an anti-semite for content in The Merchant of Venice? What about Conrad for his generalizations of Africa in Heart of Darkness? And is Twain a racist for using the word n****r in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The artist, as occasionally does the author, will sometimes create a persona through which he can capture an idea he may not feel. Conrad's generalizations of Africa highlight their ignorance to Africa and the prevalent biases. This does not reflect on the author, only the period in which he wrote.



You're absolutely right - what was I thinking? Everything is A-OK and running smoothly here!

Grow up.

[hampusforev]

You're absolutely right - what was I thinking? Everything is A-OK and running smoothly here!

Last resort of a bad argument; sarcasm. No, it's not okay, far from it. But has it ever been? Your contention that modern man/woman hates themself more than past generations is ludicrous. Your way of arguing is extremely childish and obstinate... It's pretty f-ing annyoing.

Anyway, back to thread's ACTUAL meaning: I don't know who made the initial point that perhaps the reason why women authors aren't as appriciated is because we live in a very male-centred world. I'm always weary about these vague femenist notions of patriarchy, which divides complicated issues into just male vs. female when other societal factors are just as important or even more so. I will contest that it seems like the canon is made up of mostly dead European males, which would hardly seem fair.

[prickly_pete]

Last resort of a bad argument; sarcasm. No, it's not okay, far from it. But has it ever been? Your contention that modern man/woman hates themself more than past generations is ludicrous.

Wrong! Its plainly acknowledged, even by most of the people in this thread, that modern society has a pessimistic tone about it (though others have attributed this - with some justification - to WWII, Genocide, Vietnam, etc). I mean, I'm sorry, but I just can't sit here with baited breath waiting on the next post from someone who wants to shrug off massive social problems as if they don't exist. You don't think radically different societies have radically different problems...I really don't know if there's anywhere for us to go from there mate.

[Drkshadow03]

Is Shakespeare an anti-semite for content in The Merchant of Venice?

Actually he kind of is.

[prickly_pete]

I am not even remotely suggesting therapy, drug addictions and the sort do not exist. The post you quoted is to suggest that such eye-opening issues are often over-exaggerated by the media because it is attention-grabbing and it sells. The amount of people participating in charity and involving themselves in selfless acts of goodness are larger now than ever before. There is an unprecedented amount of charity being given by millions of people. However, fewer people hear of this, because hearing of kindness is not as socially explosive and gaudy as scandal and tragedy. Our media's underexposure to charity and overexposure to personal troubles make it easy to over-estimate the latter and underappreciate the former. Your suggestions are ignorant to the former.

They're not overexaggerated though, that's the thing. Millions of people are currently on medication for depression. Millions more are drug-addicts. Millions more still are in therapy or counseling for anger management, sexual anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, or some other psychological problem. You can't simply ignore these questions by pointing out that there are a large number of charities. The two facts are completely unrelated. Its like saying we have 0% unemployment because attendance at Yankee Stadium is up compared to last season.

Completely counterproductive to talk about things this way.

[IceM]

They're not overexaggerated though, that's the thing. Millions of people are currently on medication for depression. Millions more are drug-addicts. Millions more still are in therapy or counseling for anger management, sexual anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, or some other psychological problem. You can't simply ignore these questions by pointing out that there are a large number of charities. The two facts are completely unrelated. Its like saying we have 0% unemployment because attendance at Yankee Stadium is up compared to last season.

Completely counterproductive to talk about things this way.

I'm not ignoring that people require therapy or receive counseling. I'm suggesting, again, that your argument is one-sided. Let me clarify.

My argument for this sub-topic is that you're overly generalizing society based on only one component of it. I am not disregarding the millions of people requiring medication or in depression. My consistent rebuttal is that there are just as many, perhaps more people than your somber forecast, donating, participating in charity, and involved in selfless acts of kindness. This isn't to suggest that your general notions should be dismissed, but that you're ignorant to the abundant kindness in society, one that is often less documented by the media distributing the news because it is less attention-grabbing. Your argument suggests a one-sided nosedive into self-pitying depression and misery. Yet it is ignorant to the exponential growth of participation in charity, which demonstrates a greater willingness to be involved and demonstrate selfless acts of kindness. Your arguments suggest a one-sided understanding that is ignorant to that which goes underappreciated and under-reported in all of our mediums of newscasting.

For that reason, your argument fails. It seeks to create a broad generalization of contemporary life that is ignorant to the less-noticable qualities that define contemporary life. Does it suffer from depression, drug addiction and general strife? Yes. But it is not defined by it, as you try to do.

[Rores28]

I'm not ignoring that people require therapy or receive counseling. I'm suggesting, again, that your argument is one-sided. Let me clarify.

My argument for this sub-topic is that you're overly generalizing society based on only one component of it. I am not disregarding the millions of people requiring medication or in depression. My consistent rebuttal is that there are just as many, perhaps more people than your somber forecast, donating, participating in charity, and involved in selfless acts of kindness. This isn't to suggest that your general notions should be dismissed, but that you're ignorant to the abundant kindness in society, one that is often less documented by the media distributing the news because it is less attention-grabbing. Your argument suggests a one-sided nosedive into self-pitying depression and misery. Yet it is ignorant to the exponential growth of participation in charity, which demonstrates a greater willingness to be involved and demonstrate selfless acts of kindness. Your arguments suggest a one-sided understanding that is ignorant to that which goes underappreciated and under-reported in all of our mediums of newscasting.

For that reason, your argument fails. It seeks to create a broad generalization of contemporary life that is ignorant to the less-noticable qualities that define contemporary life. Does it suffer from depression, drug addiction and general strife? Yes. But it is not defined by it, as you try to do.

He's understands your argument... he's simply pretending not to

[prickly_pete]

For that reason, your argument fails. It seeks to create a broad generalization of contemporary life that is ignorant to the less-noticable qualities that define contemporary life. Does it suffer from depression, drug addiction and general strife? Yes. But it is not defined by it, as you try to do.

Fair enough, but allow me to clarify as well ;)

It is true that more people are involved in charities, but again this has no more bearing on general mental health than does an increase in gym memberships. I point out depression and drug use as symptoms of a more general social problem. If you look at popular music, at film, at news, at the speeches of elected officials you can't help but notice that our age has a very pessimistic tone compared with previous ages. There's not alot of belief in personal initiative, or enterprise, or self-reliance, or self-confidence. The vast majority of people generally think society is heading in the wrong direction.

This is very different from previous ages (such at the Pioneer or Colonical Times) that had a much more optimistic tone expressed in the art, public speaking, and views of themselves.

[JBI]

7/10 but I recognized a few.

[Drkshadow03]

7/10 but I recognized a few.

That's exactly what I scored too.

[tonywalt]

So men are as sentimental as women? I think I will remember this the next time I'm sick....

I would rather have a woman looking after me...

[prickly_pete]

Yeah, women make be the only thing that actually makes life worth living.

[Tournesol]

Is this Naipaul who we're referring to the V.S. Naipaul? Then let me assure you - this is what he lives for - to irk people. Albeit his writing is exceptional but the man is a nihilist. Whatever is, to him is not.

[tonywalt]

It is VS Naipaul.