Writers, experience and their time

I have been thinking about it and I've realised that alot of writers do not write about their own time - you know, their present - why is this? Do you think writing should always express a certain viewpoint on the social, political and economical times the writer lives in, or do you feel that writing about a time - say a medieval era in which a 21st century writer could have no first hand experience of is, too, good writing? Is experience essential to writing? If the writing is fantastical or about a different era of history should it be allegorical so current affairs shine between the lines?

If we were to dictate that art... not merely writing... were to be only about the artist's personal experience that would pretty much eliminate 90% of all art, wouldn't it? No Bible, no Shakespeare, no Homer, no Virgil, no War and Peace, no Divine Comedy (unless we believe that Dante actually did experience the journey through heaven and hell), no Les Miserables, no Sistine ceiling, no Rubens, no Mozart's Magic Flute, none of Wagner's operas, etc...

Do you think writing should always express a certain viewpoint on the social, political and economical times the writer lives in

Absolutely not. There are no "shoulds" in art. There mere idea that an artist should be dictated to as to what subject matter and what viewpoints are or are not permissible or worthy of merit is completely repugnant to me and counter to the very raison d'etre of art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

If we were to dictate that art... not merely writing... were to be only about the artist's personal experience that would pretty much eliminate 90% of all art, wouldn't it? No Bible, no Shakespeare, no Homer, no Virgil, no War and Peace, no Divine Comedy (unless we believe that Dante actually did experience the journey through heaven and hell), no Les Miserables, no Sistine ceiling, no Rubens, no Mozart's Magic Flute, none of Wagner's operas, etc...

Do you think writing should always express a certain viewpoint on the social, political and economical times the writer lives in

Absolutely not. There are no "shoulds" in art. There mere idea that an artist should be dictated to as to what subject matter and what viewpoints are or are not permissible or worthy of merit is completely repugnant to me and counter to the very raison d'etre of art.

---

In a sense, but take The Magic Flute - that is an allegory, with the secret trials parodying freemasonry. And, as it is said, if the banging on the anvils in Das Rhinegold sounds like industrial machinery, that is no mistake - the ring has been interpreted as allegory time and time again.

In that sense then, we can look further - for instance, how many Italian noblemen are dressed up as saints in Italian painting? Most of the faces seem real, and historians have traced plenty of them down.

There is more of the spirit of the air than is let on - of course, that is talking about the attitude - France's Thais, for instance, has his attitude in a completely removed setting, but there is more France than more of the early Cenobite tradition.

In that sense, though I agree with you that the direct subject matter seems to be removed, the style and content always seem to be contemporary. The idealization of even the religious figures is, ultimately, built on the perceptions of the Renaissance in Michelangelo's work, as for Rubens, well, he painted his wife a bunch of times, and was obsessed with his own aesthetic code rooted in his time (and everything gaudy), and I doubt anything actually looked like that, and he did paint contemporary figures, so I can't seem to see much of a problem arguing he was just as rooted contemporary as anyone else.


When someone creates art, if they are not contemporary in their stance, they can only be old fashion, in which case they are boring, or radical, in which case they either become famous as an innovator, or are forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adagio

I have been thinking about it and I've realised that alot of writers do not write about their own time - you know, their present - why is this?

---

In many cases writers write about their time, but they set it into a different timefor any of several reasons, including that the past or the future can reflect present situations without offending as many people.

Quote:

---

Do you think writing should always express a certain viewpoint on the social, political and economical times the writer lives in, or do you feel that writing about a time - say a medieval era in which a 21st century writer could have no first hand experience of is, too, good writing? Is experience essential to writing? If the writing is fantastical or about a different era of history should it be allegorical so current affairs shine between the lines?

---

Whether writers intend to, or not, they express views toward social, political, and economic issues. Humans have organized themselves in similar ways through the millennia, so the time setting isn't all that important.

Quote:

---

Is experience essential to writing?

---

Unless a writer wants to write about nothing (which some do) then experience of some sort is quite necessary.

Quote:

---

If the writing is fantastical or about a different era of history should it be allegorical so current affairs shine between the lines?

---

Yes, see above.

Oh, and I would say, as a genre, the traditional historical novel as defined by Sir Walter Scott is a dead form - I think you need a bit of allegory or something in order to write in historical perspectives and be praised these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

No Bible

---

Well, that would surely be the definition of a silver lining.

Quote:

---

Absolutely not. There are no "shoulds" in art.

---

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I like writers that write from personal experience, and include social criticism...But writers should write about whatever the hell they want. Whether a book or story needs anything such as allegory, personal experience, and political/social/economic criticism for you to want to read it is another thing entirely, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

When someone creates art, if they are not contemporary in their stance, they can only be old fashion, in which case they are boring, or radical, in which case they either become famous as an innovator, or are forgotten.

---

Or they choose to express their art in that way? Putting these superficial guidelines on how a piece of art should be written is kind of close-minded if you ask me. If I am a writer and I feel that enough has been said about my own time period and not enough about a certain time period, isn't it my duty to make a commentary on that period??

In a sense, but take The Magic Flute - that is an allegory, with the secret trials parodying freemasonry. And, as it is said, if the banging on the anvils in Das Rhinegold sounds like industrial machinery, that is no mistake - the ring has been interpreted as allegory time and time again.

In that sense then, we can look further - for instance, how many Italian noblemen are dressed up as saints in Italian painting? Most of the faces seem real, and historians have traced plenty of them down.

There is more of the spirit of the air than is let on - of course, that is talking about the attitude - France's Thais, for instance, has his attitude in a completely removed setting, but there is more France than more of the early Cenobite tradition.

In that sense, though I agree with you that the direct subject matter seems to be removed, the style and content always seem to be contemporary. The idealization of even the religious figures is, ultimately, built on the perceptions of the Renaissance in Michelangelo's work, as for Rubens, well, he painted his wife a bunch of times, and was obsessed with his own aesthetic code rooted in his time (and everything gaudy), and I doubt anything actually looked like that, and he did paint contemporary figures, so I can't seem to see much of a problem arguing he was just as rooted contemporary as anyone else.

When someone creates art, if they are not contemporary in their stance, they can only be old fashion, in which case they are boring, or radical, in which case they either become famous as an innovator, or are forgotten.

"Do not bother about being modern - Unfortunately it is the one thing that, whatever you do, you cannot avoid."- Salvador Dali

I must say I largely agree with Dali. An artist cannot almost help but be of his or her time. This is as much true, if not more so, of the mediocre art than of the acknowledged masterpieces. The paintings of Bouguereau and the other academic painters of their time are far more of their time... "period pieces"... than are the paintings of Degas, Manet, Monet, etc... which appear far more timeless due to the fact that they continue to speak to us and to impact and influence later artists. I certainly don't accepts the notion that art which does not embrace a contemporary style is doomed to being old fashioned and forgotten. Bach was certainly old fashioned in many ways... especially toward the end of his career... and yet the resulting works are far greater than anything from the latest modern composers of the era. The same may be said of Monet. In his final years he was painting the grand waterlilies in a style that was unquestionably still locked into Impressionism... and yet art had moved on to Fauvism, Cubism, Dada, and even Surrealism by this time. Nevertheless, the resulting works are as great or even more so than all but the best works by the latest representatives of the avant-garde.

Today... in an era lacking any dominant strain or direction... the question becomes even more confusing. For example, I'll speak of the visual arts seeing as I am most experienced in that among the art of today. The following are all examples of leading figures among contemporary art:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3500/...25a467e7_o.jpg
-Chuck Close

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/...67c9d620_o.jpg
-Lucian Freud

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2471/...0e705132_o.jpg
-Will Cotton

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/...f1b5975f_o.jpg
-Odd Nerdrum

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2573/...1dd34443_o.jpg
-Wolf Kahn

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/...5ecec461_o.jpg
-Anselm Kiefer

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2654/...a5084389_o.jpg
-Francesco Clemente

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/...f11016a4_o.jpg
-Sean Scully

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/...dde000cb_o.jpg
-Howard Hodgkin

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2182/...992676e7_o.jpg
Any Goldsworthy

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/...eeb8bc6b_o.jpg
-Eric Fischl

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/...fbb1ef4d_o.jpg
-Martin Puryear

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2518/...8d15b522_o.jpg
-Haruki Murakami

Obviously what we have now is a vast array of styles... some far more traditional than others... yet each capable of producing works of great resonance. There is undoubtedly debate and disagreement between artists of varying camps as to which is THE direction art should be heading toward and which art style is or is not outdated or avant-garde. On one level the very concept of the need for continual innovation... novelty... is itself outdated as it was the central tenet (Pound's "Make it new.") of Modernism which itself has faded into history.

We have the same thing happening in literature. On one hand we have figures such as Anne Carson, Charles Olson, Geoffrey Hill, Henri Michaux, Georges Perec and other Post-Modern/Experimental writers. On the other side we have Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, Phillip Roth, Gore Vidal, Cormac McCarthy, etc... who work within a far more traditional form. Again, even those who work within a traditional form cannot help but be modern... cannot help but reveal that they are writing today... unless they were to consciously turn their art into a sort of reenactment of the past.

Oh, and I would say, as a genre, the traditional historical novel as defined by Sir Walter Scott is a dead form - I think you need a bit of allegory or something in order to write in historical perspectives and be praised these days.

But is War and Peace or Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities any less a work of its own time than The Tin Drum, Gore Vidal's Julian, or Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

Or they choose to express their art in that way? Putting these superficial guidelines on how a piece of art should be written is kind of close-minded if you ask me. If I am a writer and I feel that enough has been said about my own time period and not enough about a certain time period, isn't it my duty to make a commentary on that period??

---

An idealist statement, but lets be honest, the conversation progresses, whether the artist chooses to be a part of it or not. Even authors as famous in their day as Emile Zola, by the end of their lives had become old fashion, because their style was exhausted.

The conversation of works progresses, despite the lives of those who create the works - the actual intent of the author is secondary when texts are understood - if there is nothing contemporary in a text, or nothing new, then the text ultimately fails.

Keep in mind, there is an audience people are writing to. I couldn't rewrite a Virgilian epic with the same material, because, quite simply, the book could not be read as a Virgilian epic - it could only read as a contemporary attempt at recreating the forms of a Virgilian epic, since the spirit of the age that spawned Virgil has expired - what is Virgil has become archaic. That doesn't mean the old texts lose something, it means one cannot possibly go back and recreate the conditions that spawned the text - the process destroys that connection.

If the conversation contained within one text doesn't move, ultimately the text is boring, as it contains that which has already been argued - contemporary times call for contemporary address - the big questions are still asked, but ultimately, they are answered and questioned in light of the contemporary climate.

Even Walter Scott's Historical novels feature a highly contemporary idea of those historical events - the reliance on, for instance, Scottish settings merely reinforced the sort of romantic Gothic associated with such settings - The Lammermuirs are his Otranto, plain and simple.

There is a reason why Raphael's Plato happens to look like Leonardo da Vinci.

In that sense, Racine writing based on classical material is still Racine writing contemporary works - the classical material is just a device based on the cultural trends he was working in. The fact that Verona and not London is the stage for Romeo and Juliet, doesn't change the fact that the play is expressing something rooted in the cultural climate of England at the time, and not bound or even reliant on the cultural associations with Verona - the distance created by the author just makes it easier for a detachment to occur between what goes on onstage, and what is going on outside the theatre, and as such, there is less of a striving for accuracy or familiar names or even contemporary events (unmasked) because of such a removal.

The use of alternative settings, in a sense changes how the text ages, as the content is bound to a different sphere in time - Wagner, for instance, wrote with mythology as his source material, as the myths themselves can stand for timeless metaphors (standing for what is a bit of a debate though). Shakespeare used history and foreign settings, such as Italy, or Bohemia, or wherever.

The mind delights in removal, but that removal is only artificial - one could, for instance, take popular fantasy, which argues to be the most removed, and dissect it, to show it is perhaps the least removed setting.

The genre itself functions on a series of tropes, which the reader, generally an adolescent male by all stereotypes, both knows and expects. The world itself is supposed to feel foreign, yet at the same time, have a series of things (notably, a sort of patriarchal medieval feel to it) and a strong political grounding which is common in almost all of that sort of fiction - the epic struggle between good and bad, mixed with some damsels in distress, and some farmboy who happens to be the lost heir to an ancient kingdom that has the power to defeat the villain, or whatever.

Is it so difficult to take that and accept it as an allegory, or perhaps a contemporary condition - the psychology of the readership, ultimately (and it is quite a readership judging by the sales) is one that seeks to be removed from contemporary times, be within an idealized pre-industrial setting, where patriarchy, and, the one common goodguy who turns out to be a hero, while being a complete loser is made to shine, defeat the badguy, get the girl, and then rule the world benevolently, or return home rich and famous to enjoy the girl.


Is that a traditional plot arch? Perhaps, though it is far removed from its medieval models. It's made to reinforce a sort of patriarchy that has gone out of fashion outside of these removed worlds, where everyone who is nobody socially in highschool can perhaps be cool inside the book, and feel like they know some super hero type character who gets the girl in the end - we have a culture still built around it - it's the exact same plot arch as the movie Transformers, and perhaps, when we stretch it out a bit, the same plot as Harry Potter -

Even in the most removed settings seem to be just stand-ins for contemporary ideas - the high school loser who happens to be misogynist with a strong streak of chivalry - the idiot Spider man Guy who thinks he can impress a girl by chanting Shakespeare or William Butler Yeats, with little understanding or want of understanding of both the poetry and the girl.

The content is almost always contemporary, or almost contemporary, no matter what the setting is. In truth, settings in general seem to function as sort of metaphors - in some cases, overt ones. Calvino's Invisible Cities obviously enough all happen to have Girl's names, keep in mind, but lets go to another level: the popular romance.

What is with the setting in the romance? Well, for one thing, the most obvious feature is the material things - I think that's why there is such an appeal for 19 century English/European settings - the items and society, the dances and marriage proposals and whatnot - Jane Austen, but not a real Jane Austen, but merely an idealized form.

If we take the setting, we realize why there is such an appeal - it is constructed to seem like a nice and easy time - filled with beautiful big dresses, and pianofortes, and ballrooms and handsome men - all representations of a sort of idealized pre-feminist woman. Compared with contemporary representations of the times, it's almost staggering how off they are, and how fantastical the construction of the setting is. Zola perhaps frames this the best, though Atwood, a contemporary author, has played around with real accounts quite a bit (though she works from a Canadian frame), and certainly Thomas Hardy did a good job at capturing some aspects of it - but why then is there this fantasy?

Well, the model is clearly Pride and Prejudice, which has been, I would argue, misinterpreted to feature a new setting. In it, the woman, Elizabeth is portrayed as the one with independence and power, with wit and charm, and also without a job, and with arguably a pretty easy life.

Compared to contemporaries, who have kids probably, mortgages and dayjobs, that can be quite a removal - but lets go on. She ends up rich and happy, never having to do a days work, she ends up with a great deal of control over her husband, who ends up essentially begging her to accept him at the end, and in between that, all she had to do was go to a few dances, travel by carriage in a nice spring dress, and have dinner with a miserable, albeit rich Lady in her richly decorated estate.

Now, all that makes sense when Austen is writing it, as it is, arguably, an outright critique - a not so common occurrence, which is put in contrast to, for instance, her friend Charlotte's circumstances. But for the popular romance, this sort of fantasy is merely reconstructed as a sort of historical reality, and made to be played out (with a few minor changes, like making a secondary rival to the girl more prominent (the whore) and making the girl a little bit more "damseled up" (the virgin) and the man more of an idealized "hunk", whereas the anti-man "Whickham" seems to be the same). The setting though is not the real setting, it is a mere fabrication of it.

There is no 19th century in these 19th century set texts. Perhaps all the pretty clothes the women wear are taken out of reference books, but what about all the ugly ones the poor people wear?


I think I have justified my response significantly?

An idealist statement, but lets be honest, the conversation progresses, whether the artist chooses to be a part of it or not. Even authors as famous in their day as Emile Zola, by the end of their lives had become old fashion, because their style was exhausted.

But you are assuming a single linear progression of the conversation. Late Ruens was outdated in comparison to the direction that Rembrandt and Vermeer and Velasquez were heading... but the resulting works are also among the most profound and influential of his career. By late in J.S. Bach's career he was seen as outdated in comparison with the work of CPE Bach or Gluck... but again the resulting work (including the Art of the Fugue) were among the greatest of his career and far more important in the long run than anything CPE... and arguably even Gluck ever achieved. Again, art is not a single linear development or evolution of novelties. Such an idea is itself dated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Well, the model is clearly Pride and Prejudice, which has been, I would argue, misinterpreted to feature a new setting. In it, the woman, Elizabeth is portrayed as the one with independence and power, with wit and charm, and also without a job, and with arguably a pretty easy life.

Compared to contemporaries, who have kids probably, mortgages and dayjobs, that can be quite a removal - but lets go on. She ends up rich and happy, never having to do a days work, she ends up with a great deal of control over her husband, who ends up essentially begging her to accept him at the end, and in between that, all she had to do was go to a few dances, travel by carriage in a nice spring dress, and have dinner with a miserable, albeit rich Lady in her richly decorated estate.

Now, all that makes sense when Austen is writing it, as it is, arguably, an outright critique - a not so common occurrence, which is put in contrast to, for instance, her friend Charlotte's circumstances. But for the popular romance, this sort of fantasy is merely reconstructed as a sort of historical reality, and made to be played out (with a few minor changes, like making a secondary rival to the girl more prominent (the whore) and making the girl a little bit more "damseled up" (the virgin) and the man more of an idealized "hunk", whereas the anti-man "Whickham" seems to be the same). The setting though is not the real setting, it is a mere fabrication of it.

There is no 19th century in these 19th century set texts. Perhaps all the pretty clothes the women wear are taken out of reference books, but what about all the ugly ones the poor people wear?


I think I have justified my response significantly?

---

I think it is fair to assume that there are persons with similar lives of Elizabeth in today's highest of high elite societies. Austen was not rich, and it was not common for someone to have achieved the luxuries of the characters in her books. It's not to say that Austen missed some scope of reality in her writing, but she was painting a picture of the highest classes of European society. If you were to look to some of the wealthiest persons today, you'd find that even in this dying economy there are many who have never worked a day in their life, living simply on their fortunes. I do not think that this character is outdated, but moreso transcends time, as however uncommon these characters may be in the societies of the time, they do exist, and always will exist, i'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

An idealist statement, but lets be honest, the conversation progresses, whether the artist chooses to be a part of it or not. Even authors as famous in their day as Emile Zola, by the end of their lives had become old fashion, because their style was exhausted.

But you are assuming a single linear progression of the conversation. Late Ruens was outdated in comparison to the direction that Rembrandt and Vermeer and Velasquez were heading... but the resulting works are also among the most profound and influential of his career. By late in J.S. Bach's career he was seen as outdated in comparison with the work of CPE Bach or Gluck... but again the resulting work (including the Art of the Fugue) were among the greatest of his career and far more important in the long run than anything CPE... and arguably even Gluck ever achieved. Again, art is not a single linear development or evolution of novelties. Such an idea is itself dated.

---

Agreed, Hemingway's best work came in the fifties and sixties, after the modernist movement was supposedly over and the postmodern had begun. I guess you'd better tell a lot of these old timers that they ought to die or stop writing by the time they're forty for the good of artistic progress.

I don't see art as a linear progression or a conversation. I see it as more of an evolution, and if you know anything about evolution then you know it's non-linear. The trend is less toward greater perfection and more toward greater diversity, with the earliest species predominating. It's not survival of the fittest but survival of the most adaptable. Interpret that as you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

Agreed, Hemingway's best work came in the fifties and sixties, after the modernist movement was supposedly over and the postmodern had begun. I guess you'd better tell a lot of these old timers that they ought to die or stop writing by the time they're forty for the good of artistic progress.

I don't see art as a linear progression or a conversation. I see it as more of an evolution, and if you know anything about evolution then you know it's non-linear. The trend is less toward greater perfection and more toward greater diversity, with the earliest species predominating. It's not survival of the fittest but survival of the most adaptable. Interpret that as you will.

---

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you - the actual solid movement is not what is important, but the attitude of the people the artist is writing about and for. Hemmingway and Bach both progressed, through their careers, linearly as well - that's the point, they progressed, hence, writing some of their best works late career, whereas Zola wrote in his late career books that, as far as I know, haven't been translated since just after they were written, and aren't really read.

The Old Man and the Sea, for instance, is very different than The Sun Also Rises - there is progression there, linearly - on the other hand, Wordsworth after Elegiac Stanzas seems to have not moved on at all (except for the Prelude). He stood still, wrote mediocre poems, and became a convention - the spirit of the age was lost - he didn't move forward, he essentially died.

But my post, in terms of moving forward, was more directed toward content than "movement" stylistics. People writing genre romances today, for instance, aren't moving forward. There are always the trend setters, then the copycats, than the latecomers when everything has become part of standardized culture, and then things repeat - so you have a trend known as "Contemporary British fiction", with writers like Martin Amis and MacEwan writing in the contemporary style, then somewhere along the lines that style starts to seem a bit old, and some new person comes along with some new trend setter - it's the simple Nietzschean model, only as applied to pieces of artwork. But what is certain, is after a certain point, the form itself seems to fade, so that someone writing like Mozart today would a) not be able to, as the form is too far removed to be made into a contemporary form (it would imply a deliberate use of old stylistics, as apposed to a natural, or new set, which in itself changes the music already). Things change, otherwise people would be writing the same works over and over again (which happens in dry periods, where the movement slows down, and nothing good is written).

Siegfried Wagner wrote more operas than his father (in the exact same style). None are preformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I don't see art as a linear progression or a conversation. I see it as more of an evolution, and if you know anything about evolution then you know it's non-linear. The trend is less toward greater perfection and more toward greater diversity, with the earliest species predominating. It's not survival of the fittest but survival of the most adaptable. Interpret that as you will.

---

I think your argument says it best. I believe that art is very non-linear. A writer does not write to a certain genre or movement, they just write whatever is subjectively good art to them. It is only later that it becomes evident of the particular movement they were writing towards, simply by social evolution. Generally in a time period, all art will be centered towards a certain style or revolution. But those who think that artists are completely aware of this as it happens, are certainly missing the mark. A writer doesn't think "i'm going to make a Romantic piece"; Sure, that does happen sometimes but it is really those artists that are often forgotten about hundreds of years later.

I'm going to have to disagree with both of you - the actual solid movement is not what is important, but the attitude of the people the artist is writing about and for. Hemmingway and Bach both progressed, through their careers, linearly as well - that's the point, they progressed, hence, writing some of their best works late career, whereas Zola wrote in his late career books that, as far as I know, haven't been translated since just after they were written, and aren't really read.

The Old Man and the Sea, for instance, is very different than The Sun Also Rises - there is progression there, linearly - on the other hand, Wordsworth after Elegiac Stanzas seems to have not moved on at all (except for the Prelude). He stood still, wrote mediocre poems, and became a convention - the spirit of the age was lost - he didn't move forward, he essentially died.

I think you are simply equating artistic progression with artistic quality. Wordsworth's late poem are not simply a repeat of his early works... they are simply mediocre or bad. Arguably the conversation had moved on past old J.S. Bach, old Rembrandt, old Monet, old Picasso, old Tolstoy, old Goethe, old Borges and Beckett. Other artists were never even part of the "conversation"... being either outsiders or dismissed as outdated from the outset (Vermeer, Morandi, Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Rachmaninoff, Puccini, Bonnard, Richard Strauss, William Blake, Thomas Traherne, Fernando Pessoa, etc...) They, however, found something of merit was still to be found in an 'outdated" language... or a language that did not fit into the fashion of the time. They may also have realized that the surface innovations and novelties that so seduce the young are not truly what art is about.

A writer doesn't think "i'm going to make a Romantic piece"; Sure, that does happen sometimes but it is really those artists that are often forgotten about hundreds of years later.

Exactly. While Picasso and Braque survive, those who jumped upon the Cubist bandwagon are far more likely to be forgotten than any number of artists who did not make any such attempt at being fashionable. How many of the composers who jumped upon the innovations of Stravinsky or Shoenberg are still listened to today? How many heirs of Eliot and Pound seem painfully dated?

It is not like Borges, even if he after the progression of blindness wrote more poems than prose, more ryhime poetry, using more traditional forms, is any different from the young borges. The technical capacity even improved (Borges discovered more oriental forms, more aspects of germanic language) but the old borges is a living dead person. Not inovative at all, but the same person. Even if he had dialogues with himself, they certainly can not split their personality in a productive line. It is us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adagio

Do you think writing should always express a certain viewpoint on the social, political and economical times the writer lives in, or do you feel that writing about a time - say a medieval era in which a 21st century writer could have no first hand experience of is, too, good writing?

---

That's a hard question, but I would think that the answer has to be both yes and no. It seems pretty obvious that a good writer writes for an audience, and the audience is by definition a contemporary, or an anticipated, one. No one would write for a past audience, since past readers can't read a book printed today. And, therefore, one can't write a book about past controversies and expect his or her work to have the same reaction it would have had when those topics were fiercely debated. For example, arguing that we should repeal the navigation acts of the 18th century probably won't hold readers' attention like it used to. I think that extends to most bygone social, political, and economic viewpoints. If those views are truly outdated and past relevance, then, no, I wouldn't write a novel about them.

All novels set in the past, though, don't necessarily have to appeal to social, political, or economic viewpoints--nor do I think readers only care about those kinds of issues. Many, and I would agree with them, believe that understanding the past has intrinsic value. There's a whole discipline devoted to the study of it. Historical fiction often taps into that interest. A novel like Vanity Fair--published in the late 1840's but set about thirty years earlier--makes its fair share of sociological points, but it also appeals to our desire for a vivid, coherent past and it even forestalls attempts to manipulate what happened. Some of the best paragraphs in the novel do all of these things at once:

Quote:

---

But the writer of these pages, who has pursued in former days,
and in the same bright weather, the same remarkable journey,
cannot but think of it with a sweet and tender regret. Where is
the road now and its merrv incidents of life? Is there no Chelsea or
Greenwich for the old honest, pimple-nosed coachmen? I
wonder where are they, those good fellows ? Is old Weller alive
or dead ? and the waiters, yea, and the inns at which they waited,
and the cold rounds of beef inside, and the stunted ostler, with
his blue nose and clinking pail, where is he, and where is his
generation ? To those great geniuses now in petticoats, who shall
write novels for the beloved reader's children, these men and
things will be as much legend and history as Nineveh, or Coeur
de Lion, or Jack Sheppard. For them stage-coaches will have
become romances — a team of four bays as fabulous as Bucephalus
or Black Bess. Ah, how their coats shone, as the stablemen
pulled their clothes off, and away they went; ah, how their tails
shook, as with smoking sides at the stage's end they demurely
walked away into the inn-yard. Alas ! we shall never hear the
horn sing at midnight, or see the pike-gates fly open any more.
Whither, however, is the light four-inside Trafalgar coach carry-
ing us ?

---

Clearly Thackeray is making a point about the rapid industrialization of his country--something for a then contemporary sociologist--but he's also calling attention to how reality will be romanticized by future generations. He's lamenting that the next wave of writers will have lost what it's like to ride in a coach, and will replace the actual experience with an idealized version of it. Far from fantasizing about the past, the narrator is giving the actual sensations stirred by it: a horn at midnight, a gate opening. The text is full of little observations like that which recall the way life was lived before. That's part of what historical fiction tries to do. One could make the argument that it ultimately fails at representing the past, and it only presents a tempting illusion of what really happened. Yet I think you could argue the same thing about any sociological point that was made in the text. Is it representing or distorting? That's unclear, but what is known is that audiences want a sociological point, just as they want a vivid, coherent depiction of the past. Both are desires that a good author can aim to gratify.

Of course, all stories set in the past don't always enlighten readers about the period they're set in. No doubt, some of them are anti-feminist fantasies. I'm just arguing that there can be reasons for writing a historical novel beyond fantasy and allegory.

As for this stuff about "the conversation"--an ambiguous term, to say the least--I would say that if there is one conversation it has to include more than just political, economic, and social considerations. Part of "the conversation" has to relate to the past and how it's perceived. Some historical fiction contributes to this part of the conversation, and seems valid if for no other reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

A writer doesn't think "i'm going to make a Romantic piece"; Sure, that does happen sometimes but it is really those artists that are often forgotten about hundreds of years later.

Exactly. While Picasso and Braque survive, those who jumped upon the Cubist bandwagon are far more likely to be forgotten than any number of artists who did not make any such attempt at being fashionable. How many of the composers who jumped upon the innovations of Stravinsky or Shoenberg are still listened to today? How many heirs of Eliot and Pound seem painfully dated?

---

No, but they do think "I'm going to do something no one has ever done before", or "I'm going to write better than these poets", or even "I'm going to try this new style out, and see what the results look like."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

No, but they do think "I'm going to do something no one has ever done before", or "I'm going to write better than these poets", or even "I'm going to try this new style out, and see what the results look like."

---

I think this is just one opinion against another opinion. I don't believe that such artists had to really think about "being different", for Picasso it just came to him, that was how he expressed himself. He didn't think "i'm going do something no one has ever done before", he thought, "I'm going to make an art piece and hopefully it'll get shown in a gallery and perhaps published". If the art is true, then there is no huge deliberation beforehand about what kind of art is going to be made. A great artist wants to make a great piece of art, and, if anything an art piece that can live up to the work of their own favorite artists. I don't believe it took Picasso any real effort to be different. He just was. And so he just made art the way he wanted to make it. And later it started a movement. There is no deliberation needed. Historians at the time might have tried to put him in some group with other artists, or talk about how his art was going to change the face of art, but historians are far from artists.

A writer doesn't think "i'm going to make a Romantic piece"; Sure, that does happen sometimes but it is really those artists that are often forgotten about hundreds of years later.

SLG (quoted)- Exactly. While Picasso and Braque survive, those who jumped upon the Cubist bandwagon are far more likely to be forgotten than any number of artists who did not make any such attempt at being fashionable. How many of the composers who jumped upon the innovations of Stravinsky or Shoenberg are still listened to today? How many heirs of Eliot and Pound seem painfully dated?

No, but they do think "I'm going to do something no one has ever done before", or "I'm going to write better than these poets", or even "I'm going to try this new style out, and see what the results look like."

I think this is just one opinion against another opinion. I don't believe that such artists had to really think about "being different", for Picasso it just came to him, that was how he expressed himself. He didn't think "i'm going do something no one has ever done before", he thought, "I'm going to make an art piece and hopefully it'll get shown in a gallery and perhaps published". If the art is true, then there is no huge deliberation beforehand about what kind of art is going to be made. A great artist wants to make a great piece of art, and, if anything an art piece that can live up to the work of their own favorite artists. I don't believe it took Picasso any real effort to be different. He just was. And so he just made art the way he wanted to make it. And later it started a movement. There is no deliberation needed. Historians at the time might have tried to put him in some group with other artists, or talk about how his art was going to change the face of art, but historians are far from artists.

JBI is writing from the perspective of a future critic. I am writing from the perspective of an artist (painter). The reality, as I have experienced it myself and witnessed it in the artists I know, is not unlike some of what T.S. Eliot suggests in his essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, or what Harold Bloom suggests with his concept of the "anxiety of influence". In other words the artist, if he or she is not an outsider with little of no education, chooses a number of artists who represent an ideal of a sort. Initially the artist begins with attempts to emulate what his or her predecessors have done. At a certain point the artist recognizes that he or she can admire a predecessor, but still must take his or her own path. This path may build upon the work of these predecessors or rebel against them. Such a rebellion may take the form of seeking out the shockingly new... or turning back to a style thought of as archaic. In painting, for example, German Expressionism built heavily upon early Renaissance and medieval art. In classical music Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was modeled heavily upon ancient Russian folk music and rituals while contemporary composers such as Gorecki and Arvo Paart have built upon pre-classical medieval/modal musical forms.

Where the art falls short is when the artist is too reverent of his or her models... (academicism) to the point of bringing nothing new... or rather nothing of him or herself to the conversation. This academicism can be found in the work of the artist following the latest cutting-edge concepts as well as in the work of the artist overly reverent to the work of some "old master" to the point that he or she puts nothing of him/herself into the work. It is also a question of aesthetic merit. Picasso and Braque were both working with the same ideas... developing the same shockingly new ideas about space and form... yet in the long run Picasso is the greater artist by far (not to undervalue Braque... but any 20th century artist outside of Matisse pales along side of Picasso).

If we take Cervantes, for example, it is clear that he deeply admires the tradition of the Romances and Epics that his Don Quixote builds upon and parodies. He loves The Poem of the Cid and Tirant Lo Blanc, but insists upon bringing something of himself to the conversation. Contrary to what is generally thought, Pablo Picasso deeply admired the work of his predecessors... however he obviously brought a great deal of himself to the conversation... he could not help but see his predecessors through the eyes of a man living in the 20th century.

I don't imagine that there is a conscious attempt to be of one's time or to do something new for the sake of novelty... rather there is a struggle to find a language that best speaks to how one perceives the world. In some cases this involves an apparent iconoclasm or shocking "newness"... in other cases the artist may build upon existing traditions in a manner that is not obviously "new"... but perhaps digs deeper at some aspect of what his or her predecessors had achieved.

In the end if it were only the newness or novelty of the art that held our attention all art would rapidly be forgotten. It would be like a joke that once heard loses its impact... and yet art is not like this. We continue to read Shakespeare and listen to Mozart and marvel at Michelangelo because they achieved something within the artistic language of their time that goes far beyond novelty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The reality, as I have experienced it myself and witnessed it in the artists I know, is not unlike some of what T.S. Eliot suggests in his essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, or what Harold Bloom suggests with his concept of the "anxiety of influence". In other words the artist, if he or she is not an outsider with little of no education, chooses a number of artists who represent an ideal of a sort. Initially the artist begins with attempts to emulate what his or her predecessors have done. At a certain point the artist recognizes that he or she can admire a predecessor, but still must take his or her own path. This path may build upon the work of these predecessors or rebel against them. Such a rebellion may take the form of seeking out the shockingly new... or turning back to a style thought of as archaic. In painting, for example, German Expressionism built heavily upon early Renaissance and medieval art. In classical music Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was modeled heavily upon ancient Russian folk music and rituals while contemporary composers such as Gorecki and Arvo Paart have built upon pre-classical medieval/modal musical forms.

---

That may be true, but it seems like we're spiraling away from the OP. The question that I thought was raised is about the author and the "social, political, and economic times the writer lives in." "The conversation" that's been imagined isn't one between artists, but one that's carried on by the rest of society about current issues. It isn't so much about whether a poet can write a Romantic poem in the age of Realism, but rather about whether someone today could write a good novel about the nineteenth-century without linking it back to now contemporary "social, political, and economic" issues. And could they write it with only scant knowledge of that time period? At least, that's what I think was asked--the wording is a little garbled in places.

The question that I thought was raised is about the author and the "social, political, and economic times the writer lives in." "The conversation" that's been imagined isn't one between artists, but one that's carried on by the rest of society about current issues. It isn't so much about whether a poet can write a Romantic poem in the age of Realism, but rather about whether someone today could write a good novel about the nineteenth-century without linking it back to now contemporary "social, political, and economic" issues.

Returning to the OP I stand by my initial response in that a vast majority of art is set in a time or place well removed from the direct experience of the artist. If it weren't we'd be stuck with nothing but poems of domesticity and paintings of still-life objects or landscapes out the artist's back door with the few exceptions of those artists like Hemingway or Rimbaud who actually led rather eventful lives. At the same time, admittedly, no artist can help but be of his or her time. Our view of the middle ages, for example, is certainly far removed from how the artists of that era experienced the here and now that was their era. Does a writer need to infuse a work set in the historical past or the imagined future or some non-existant fantasy with some layers of allegory and symbolism... some comment on themes that touch upon the present? I don't know that the artist needs to employ such consciously... but I rather suspect that bringing a contemporary view to the past cannot be avoided. For example... I think we need only look to how different a film of the 1930s or 1950s might portray a specific historical era or historical drama in contrast to the same era or drama as portrayed in a later film. Certainly, we could not imagine the 1939 version of Wuthering Heights being produced today.

Pierre Menard, Pierre Menard
It is different from portraits of his own time from aesthetic experience and from tematics experience.
The question is a mistake. Being from his own time is not giving up influence and past. My time is the sucession of times before me. So, I am also everything before us. All the rest is fictional.

Pierre Menard...

Exactly!:thumbs_up