Printable View
Aesthetic. What is so hard to understand about this? Does everything have to be counted quantitatively? We are talking about quality here, not quantity. It's not about counting anything, but taking a work for what it is by it's intrinsic artistic merit. And how do you see religious influence as something less vague than artistic merit?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Meh, I was refering to atheist notion that there is no book superior to others. Without determining a criteria, it is just a vague argument obviously impossible to counter.
Alright. Of course, one cannot counter this argument by saying 1+1=2. But not what humanities are about either.
Surely you meant 2 times 2 makes 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Did I? Then perhaps I am simply mistaken in my calculations :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I wouldn't be so quick on the draw for Dante. He's almost dead already. Shakespeare, sure, but Dante has fallen a long way from his once mighty podium.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Wow. I have to say that that post was as odious as any I've seen anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.
No worries on the offence, I don't take any.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I still think you're completely missing what I've said during the thread so far, but it doesn't matter - others can read and take from it what they will.
Far from being an exercise in "logical power", I thought it might be a fun thread.
Shows that even I make mistakes!
:D
More passion in here than the average religion one.
No idea, soccer is such an inferior game to rugby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Nah, and this is the really funny part - I've admitted to all sorts of elitism myself, but the only difference is that I won't insist that I'm right. I have taken great pains to demonstrate that I am voicing a personal opinion. I find it somewhat ironic that the same admission is so difficult on the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
;)
As to humanities, I stick with the what the science graduate said to the humanities graduate:
"Fries with that Mac, please."
You know I don't actually agree with these ideas necessarily, but you're all acting like the Atheist's comments are coming from the twelfth layer of the Gorgon Galaxy, so horribly alien and repugnant that how could anyone possibly think such things? Yet just looking at the quote above he could practically be paraphrasing a major literary critic like Terry Eagleton in his mainstream, though horribly Marxist, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Eagleton at one point suggests it is perfectly possible and reasonable that a society might exist someday in the near future that might thin shakespeare dull, not be able to relate ot it, and find no value in his work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
How many literary theorists, whether feminists, marxists, Foucauldians, race theorists, or many other varieties, have in fact critiqued the idea of the Canon on pretty much the same theoritical basis that the Atheist writes in the quote above? It's only a reflection of the current power structure, whether that be white wealthy males or just a more generalized power structure or whatever, it's propogated by the interests of power so the argument goes, even to the point that "checklist" for aesthetic quality is nothing more than a production of power and engrained cultural habits.
Now, I want to stress I don't agree necessarily with any of these ideas, but one should at least recognize that these ideas exist, and aren't as wild or out there as some of you are making it sound. In fact, many of these challenges are fairly mainstream within academic literary studies. Just thought I would note it.
I've read Eagleton, I just assumed Atheist hadn't. Eagleton however doesn't say that texts are devoid of aesthetic value, he simply states that it varies from society to society, being that Shakespeare can be deemed mediocre by a society. That doesn't negate the concept of literary value.
Either way though, it is a rather flimsy hypothesis. There are similarities between all people - we all are born, live, and die, and from that we can see other trends - most of us know who are parents are, have sexual drives, and other drives. From that then, we can say that there are natural or automatic similarities between people, and therefore it would make sense that from that a general notion of good and bad can be decieved (I.E., we all wish to live and not die). And from that, our society shapes its aesthetic views. Of course, we may get to a point in time when society is so foreign to our society that the old canon is dated and irrelevant, but how long will that take? Homer is still read and enjoyed today. The Bible is still read and enjoyed/studied today. We haven't budged much in 3000 years, how long will it take. Such argumentative thinking is only theoretical, and incredibly impractical. The relevancy of some texts over others to our society is undeniable.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Oh, and what arguments have YOU been articulating?Quote:
Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.
Only voicing personal opinion? Come on, don't make me laugh. You still won't stop on those rhetorics, won't you?Quote:
Nah, and this is the really funny part - I've admitted to all sorts of elitism myself, but the only difference is that I won't insist that I'm right. I have taken great pains to demonstrate that I am voicing a personal opinion. I find it somewhat ironic that the same admission is so difficult on the other side.
Actually, your posts since the beginning have been only that: rhetorics. Not a single positive argument, you're actually a good "internet debater" but on the level of constructive dialogue, not so much.
How many literary theorists, whether feminists, marxists, Foucauldians, race theorists, or many other varieties, have in fact critiqued the idea of the Canon on pretty much the same theoritical basis that the Atheist writes in the quote above? It's only a reflection of the current power structure, whether that be white wealthy males or just a more generalized power structure or whatever, it's propogated by the interests of power so the argument goes, even to the point that "checklist" for aesthetic quality is nothing more than a production of power and engrained cultural habits.
Yes... Most of us have probably read such criticisms. Aesthetic mastery... even the very patriarchal/racist sense of the word "master" is but one more element in the arsenal of the elite power structure. Again the linkage of political "elitism" with aesthetic elitism. But how do they play out? How does Michelangelo, a frustrated homosexual misanthropist earn the position of the top artist in Western Christian culture? Why not the far safer Raphael? Sure, he died of syphilis, but at least he would never have covered the central chapel of Christendom with homoerotic sexual fantasies, painted Christ and the Saints... and even the Virgin Mary naked:eek::eek::eek:(covered up shortly thereafter, thank God:rolleyes:) over the very altar where the Pope himself was to hold mass... nor dared to have placed portraits of high-ranking clergy who had offended him in his portrayal of Hell in the Last Judgment. Why Shakespeare... with his problematic sexual history and his knack for challenging clear-cut morals and religious faith? Surely Milton would have been far more ideal? And Dante?! My god! Almost a heretic. The woman of his sexual fantasies placed on the right hand throne next to the Virgin Mary?! All his enemies condemned to horrific tortures in hell. Too often I get the feeling that such critics have little, if any, real love or passion for literature or art. Their real obsession is political, but they have the misguided notion that somehow they might change the social construct by erasing the past... or perhaps they just recognize that no one outside of the arts would actually take them seriously.
Since Drk has the honor of drawing me back into this, I will say I have some difficulty with this line of reasoning. A Marxist interpretation of Othello's death speech, a feminist alternative to patriarchal control, or the application of Foucaultan power-knowledge to reader ---> writer --->critic is not the same thing as evoking the Dadaists as grand masters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I understand what you mean when you say you prefer the analysis of each piece over and above a comparative approach Drk, but it is a bit drastic to assert that a newspaper clipping and Hamlet have the same intrinsic value--essentially meaning neither of them has it.
Still, I have a strong theory that resorts to that kind of posting are born from the inability to articluate coherent arguments.
As strong as you might imagine your theory to be, it would be wrong. Postings of the sort to which you refer are simply the result of my growing tired of making the effort to articulate coherent arguments to counter someone who is so well wrapped in the smug belief of his own superiority as a freethinker, iconoclast, and master of debate. No one that values the arts... and all the arts mean to humanity can possibly hold the belief that all art is equal... that a mere scribble or a random page from the phone book is of the same worth as the greatest masterworks. Thus I can only conclude that art means very little to you... or this is but a game. Either way... I tire of it.
I think there is a difference between excluding books by minority or women writers from the canon and excluding "pulp" fiction and some best sellers (e.g. the book I described here)
with the minorities/ women you can use two arguments for revising the canon and including them, i.e. aesthetic ones (=their aesthetic value has been overlooked due to their minority/ gender status) and political ones.
but with 10cent bodice rippers and romances or predictable, pointless crime fiction, there is no political argument. They are not written by the kind of people who read them, or for the people who read them or about the people who read them (apart from not having what is called a "universal" message anyway, although I personally doubt that classics/ contemporary lit have one).
E.g. the 10 cent romance stuff you can buy at supermarkets is read by lower class women. But does it deal with their joys and sorrows? Does it offer any "working class culture" as an alternative to the dominant culture? (yeah, I know I'm an old-stock wannabe Marxist who hasn't caught on to the fact that there is no working class any longer). Does it require them to make any mental effort at all, even about issues that are within their own sphere of experience and that they could easily grasp if they were required to/ given a chance? Is it written by lower class women? Don't know, maybe, but what counts is that it is sold for profit. Ok, that's not too different from mainstream books, but still it's not charitably given away for the enlightenment of the poor lower class woman.
So should the body ripper/ 10c romance/ predictable crime best seller be called "literature" just because lots of people read them?
What I mean is, these people are perfectly entitled to read those books, but the only purpose of this kind of 'literature' seems to be to dumb people down (at least the body ripper and romance thingies). I guess if they are determined to read these, it's up to them, but should dumbing down be glorified by calling it "literature"?
Literature by women/minorities/ immigrants/working class authors etc shows the world from a different perspective than that of the Anglo-Saxon white rich old man (at least some of it does) and by dealing with the 'problems' of these groups offers an alternative to the dominant culture (at least some of them do), i.e. it deals with human issues that affect all of society. It is very easy to argue that these literatures used to be excluded from the canon precisely for these reasons.
But what about the 10c porn-romance/bodice ripper? What does it do except numb thousands of lower class housewives? Marijuana or sleeping pills or a nice cup of hop tea would have the same effect.
Could anyone argue that the bodice ripper/romance/ predictable crime bestseller are excluded from the canon because they are written by a certain social class or race or gender? :confused:
edit I've just come across a description of the subgenres offered by Mills and Boon, so maybe I am not doing them justice with respect to the variety of their stories (although all of them are romance). The German equivalent seems to be less varied, but I'll go and check some of them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
JBI, you're right. He doesn't quite say texts are devoid of aesthetic value, but if I remember correctly he does go a little further beyond just pointing out that texts a text's value may be different from society to society. I do think he does extend that at points to questions whether a given text has any value or whether ultimately it's a matter of cultural construction reflecting a specific formulation of power.
I also hope everyone realizes I don't actually agree with Eagleton. I actually agree more with JBI. I'll provide some select quotes a little bit later from the book and see if anyone would like to respond to them.
To me, Mills & Boons are like fast food...lots available, and not much nutritional value.
Literature is like a gourmet meal prepared by a world-renowned chef...tasty, balanced [most times] and prepared with heart and soul!