What is the point of literature in 2010?

Living in modern Britain I have absorbed the assumptions of this (very) secular culture: we are here by accident- the end product of 4 billion years of brutal evolution. There is no God, and life is a meaningless affair, without purpose or goal. There are no other, better worlds or realities. This painful, grief-striken little existence is it. We live on a tiny ball of rock in a cold, vast universe which does not know we are here and does not care. When you die you rot and that is it. This is a pretty bleak picture I think you'll agree. So where does art and literature fit into it? Does literature have anything to offer in the way of consolation? Or can it do no more than reconcile us to our fate?

I ask this because I have been reading a wonderful collection of essays by Jeanette Winterson called 'Art Objects'. She is a contemporary English-British novelist who argues passionately that the true artist is a visionary. Winterson is contemptuous both of realism and of the idea that art exists to entertain. If you want no more than realism and entertainment (she argues) then watch TV or films. The artist should inspire, should take us out of ourselves and open our minds to other levels of reality- to other dimensions. You can guess the writers she admires: Shakespeare, Dante, Blake, Wordsworth, Eliot's Four Quartets etc etc

Let me give you a few quotes from her essay Imagination and Reality :

"We live in a consensus reality, a consensus... encouraged by government, mass education and the mass media [with a] disregard for individuality..."

"We think we live in a world of sense experience and that what we can touch and feel, see and hear, is the sum of our reality...neither physics nor philosophy accepts this...It is in Victorian England that the artist first becomes a rather suspect type who does not bring visions but narcotics and whose relationship to different levels of reality is not authoritative but hallucinatory" "

"The earth is not flat and neither is reality. Reality is continuous, multiple, simultaneous, complex, abundant and partly invisible. The imagination alone can fathom this and it reveals its fathomings through art...The true function of art is to open us to dimensions of the spirit and of the self that normally lie smothered under the weight of living"

Lovely stuff- but no more than wishful thinking? If the depressing Materialism of Richard Dawkins is true then is there a role for visionary artists like Blake? Are they just deluded- even insane? Is there more to reality? Are there higher dimensions?

This is a good post Wickes. I've just read it over, but I am wary of typing anything in ad hoc, as it is such a complex question. It touches on philosophy, religion, science, psychology and secularism, and the posts will no doubt reflect the cultural and religious background of the poster. The question is how to respond? Do we post our own view or discuss aspects of the post?

I don't know - that essayist seems kind of dated.

The point of literature [or art] is to fill the gap between open time and lack of meaning. - JBI

The argument toward "visionary" or whatever seems just egotistical. It has nothing to do with vision, it has more to do with hard work. There were numerous psychological experiments done on artists in the 19th century, notably in France which proved that literary genius, as well as other artistic genius, is not tied toward any sort of psychological condition - ordinary people, such as Zola who underwent much testing, display that through working hard, practicing and understanding that which is around one is "good art" created.


The Orphic ideal that carried down, and then resurfaced in Sidney seems to me a kind of silly explanation to anything - it seems to just centralize the role of the artist and as such, it seems no surprise that those are her favorite writers.

Lets take it elsewhere though - in China, the five classic novels were regarded more as "historical writing", especially the first three, rather than fictitious writing, and as such, were more compiled than written.

In Germany, the climate of the time produced an author who would create such works, influenced by the times around him, as Magic Mountain, and Doktor Faustus. In France, Zola was writing out of the filth he saw around him, and in Norway Ibsen was doing the same.

I don't particularly see a vision as exemplifying some special position. I am of the mind that anybody who works hard enough at it, and gets lucky can become a decent writer.

Did J. K. Rowling for instance have a special vision? What about Dan Brown - I think they just filled the empty space of time with what most people needed. I think other authors just do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Living in modern Britain I have absorbed the assumptions of this (very) secular culture: we are here by accident- the end product of 4 billion years of brutal evolution. There is no God, and life is a meaningless affair, without purpose or goal. There are no other, better worlds or realities. This painful, grief-striken little existence is it. We live on a tiny ball of rock in a cold, vast universe which does not know we are here and does not care. When you die you rot and that is it. This is a pretty bleak picture I think you'll agree.

---

Actually, no - I don't agree. I don't think it's bleak at all. And existence does have a purpose, which is to enjoy it, and enable others to enjoy it.

Without eternity to worry about, I think people are much happier. I certainly am.

So literature, like anything else, is part of the experience of living. For me, an important part. For others, maybe not - they might prefer fly-fishing.

What more should one want?

The argument toward "visionary" or whatever seems just egotistical. It has nothing to do with vision, it has more to do with hard work. There were numerous psychological experiments done on artists in the 19th century, notably in France which proved that literary genius, as well as other artistic genius, is not tied toward any sort of psychological condition - ordinary people, such as Zola who underwent much testing, display that through working hard, practicing and understanding that which is around one is "good art" created.

Not to undermine the importance of hard work upon art... but if understanding and a little hard work are all that art is then why aren't you another William Blake... or even a Charles Bukowski?:confused:

If the depressing Materialism of Richard Dawkins is true then is there a role for visionary artists like Blake?

I somewhat suspect there will be a role for William Blake long after Dawkins is little more than a historical footnote.

I'm far more an agnostic than an atheist, and I think that there may very well be some sort of spiritual afterlife.

Our concept and definition of time cannot be accurate. If time were infinite and didn't have a beginning, then we could never arrive at where we are today. Hence, time itself (as we are able to comprehend and define it) has to have a starting point. Before time what could have possibly existed? Something beyond our concept of time and space. It could be that we simply don't understand how time works and will one day define it and realize it must have had a beginning - I think the "time" when we'll be able to coneptualize that and explain it is well beyond my lifetime and probably beyond my granchildren's grandchildren...but who knows? I'll make an assumption that there may very well be something beyond time and space as I can comprehend them. I make the assumption because my brain tells me that's a wiser avenue than the alternative.

With that said, I think literature helps us even beyond science to explore different paths, possible paths, and deadends. It allows us to (sometimes) come to realizations that we likely would not have come to on our own. It gives us hope...

I too find the reality which you describe rather bleak Wickes. I see little comfort in the double helix, Hubble's relayed beauty or the noble plight of Sisyphus. Perhaps eternity would ultimately be a burden but I have always considered the reality of my mortality to be profoundly unjust.

I'm not sure to what extent I agree with Ms Winterson but I like this:

Quote:

---

The true function of art is to open us to dimensions of the spirit and of the self that normally lie smothered under the weight of living.

---

Whether it is the 'true' function of art is not something I'm capable of speaking to. But I think that certain works (I'm thinking the poetry of Dante and much of Shakespeare amongst others) possess an aesthetic quality that does move us or speak to us in ways that cannot be reduced to mere sociology.

Now some will desire a more rational explanation. I don't buy JBI's hard work line. Talent is more than half the battle. Maybe Nick Hornby or Zola worked hard and became decent writers. William Blake had something more. Or to borrow an example from Clive James' essay, 'Slouching towards Yeats':

And now my utmost mystery is out.
A woman's beauty is a storm-tossed banner;
Under it wisdom stands, and I alone --
Of all Arabia's lovers I alone --
Nor dazzled by the embroidery, nor lost
In the confusion of its night-dark folds,
Can hear the armed man speak.

"Forty years ago when I first read those lines, I had to remind myself to start breathing again. They still hit me with the same force, and I still can't fully understand them. But i began to understand them when I realized that putting together a phrase like 'dazzled by the embroidery' was something that hardly anybody can do. 'A woman's beauty is a storm tossed banner' is something an averagely gifted poet might fluke, although not often. To write 'dazzled by the embroidery', however, you have to possess the means to put ordinary sounding words together in an extraordinarily resonant way."

I agree and I suspect that the means of which James speaks are probably akin to genius. Yes I know. Bloom and all that. But when I read the above stanza I do indeed feel myself freed from the 'weight of living.' I suspect that others do too. And I believe that that is why artists like Blake, Dante and Yeats etc will always have a profound role in our inner lives, regardless of the (welcome) ascension of materialists like Richard Dawkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The argument toward "visionary" or whatever seems just egotistical. It has nothing to do with vision, it has more to do with hard work. There were numerous psychological experiments done on artists in the 19th century, notably in France which proved that literary genius, as well as other artistic genius, is not tied toward any sort of psychological condition - ordinary people, such as Zola who underwent much testing, display that through working hard, practicing and understanding that which is around one is "good art" created.

Not to undermine the importance of hard work upon art... but if understanding and a little hard work are all that art is then why aren't you another William Blake... or even a Charles Bukowski?:confused:

---

a) I am young, b) I'm getting there, c) circumstance happens to be a pretty important factor, d) Would I really want to be?

In all honesty, it would seem Eliot would have been happier being rich in America. Blake was a bit crazy, and Bukowski a scumbag. What the art is and the artist are two different things. I may want to write like Keats, but quite frankly, I would rather live into old age. I love Leopardi, but would not like to be him.

I merely wanted to point out that you don't need some sort of super power, or psychological problem. It is more rooted in the tradition, and one's relationship to it, than anything else.

The reason we have Eliot is because Eliot filled what the tradition wanted at that moment - the tradition needed a voice, and The Waste Land especially filled the gap - if he wasn't there, it could have been someone else, and poetry would be very different.

I think the idea of artist as some sort of mystic is kind of a silly notion - the poet-scholar archetype seems more appealing to me anyway, and I would take it way over the depressed syphilitic Bohemian any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Living in modern Britain I have absorbed the assumptions of this (very) secular culture: we are here by accident- the end product of 4 billion years of brutal evolution. There is no God, and life is a meaningless affair, without purpose or goal. There are no other, better worlds or realities. This painful, grief-striken little existence is it. We live on a tiny ball of rock in a cold, vast universe which does not know we are here and does not care. When you die you rot and that is it. This is a pretty bleak picture I think you'll agree. So where does art and literature fit into it? Does literature have anything to offer in the way of consolation? Or can it do no more than reconcile us to our fate?

---

I hate to say it but much of this may be true. However, whether it's true or false, we still have a responsibility to make life on earth as good as we possibly can. The way to do that via literature and art is to create ideas that form into movements, which in turn become incorporated into our governments, economies and social systems. Easier said than done! I know. It's not impossible, though. From the impact that the thinkers of the Enlightenment had on Western civilization to Henry David Thoreau's influence on Ghandi and Martin Luther King, it is not only possible, but perhaps our only saving grace. Even the most intelligent of human beings can maintain a narrow view of the world if not for outside influences. Literature is the gateway drug to bigger and better thinking. God or not, life is what we make it (on earth at least) and we will always need a medium through which to combat the forces of tyranny, oppression and greed.

SLG (quote)- Not to undermine the importance of hard work upon art... but if understanding and a little hard work are all that art is then why aren't you another William Blake... or even a Charles Bukowski?

JBI- a) I am young...

Again... how old was Keats? Rimbaud?

b) I'm getting there

Are you?

c) circumstance happens to be a pretty important factor

Hmmm... I somehow suspect that you have had advantages that would have made you the envy of endless writers and artists.

d) Would I really want to be?

That, of course, is the key question. I'm sorry to have put you on the spot, but my point was merely to question your assertion that the vast majority of success in art can be simply ascribed to "hard work". I doubt that Salieri labored any less than Mozart... and we all know (well except for our resident "musicologist") how that played out. Were Dante and Shakespeare so good simply because they labored so much more than other writers? I doubt that you believe as much. As a visual artist I will admit that with the right amount of focused labor almost anyone can become decent. It takes a bit more to actually become "good"... and there are "good" artists teaching in almost every university art department in the world. "Great"... is something altogether different.

In all honesty, it would seem Eliot would have been happier being rich in America. Blake was a bit crazy, and Bukowski a scumbag.

Perhaps any one of them would have been far happier had they taken another direction in life... but still something drove them on. Surely Blake and Eliot at least had more than enough intelligence to have taken another path... one that was more assured of financial reward.

What the art is and the artist are two different things.

Certainly.

I merely wanted to point out that you don't need some sort of super power, or psychological problem.

Perhaps... but what did Mozart have that Salieri didn't have. The simple answer would have been "genius"... but we are also speaking of a very specialized "genius" (and the studies of Howard Gardiner on multiple realms of intelligence... or "intelligences"... certainly suggests that one may labor as hard as possible and one may have a definite "genius"... but there is no guarantee that this genius will be in the field in which you desire to labor. How many writers, composers, artists, etc... were actually far more brilliant as critics, theorists, teachers, etc... as opposed to as artists in the field in which they were so passionate?

I may want to write like Keats, but quite frankly, I would rather live into old age. I love Leopardi, but would not like to be him... I think the idea of artist as some sort of mystic is kind of a silly notion - the poet-scholar archetype seems more appealing to me anyway, and I would take it way over the depressed syphilitic Bohemian any day.

Of course, what you describe is the Romantic notion of the Bohemian "starving artist". It is as true (and false) as most stereotypes. You admire Leopardi and Keats... but wouldn't want to live like them? Are there no alternatives? One need only look to Milton, Jonathan Swift, Paul Valery, W.S. Merwin, Richard Wilbur, J.L. Borges, Goethe, and any number of other authors who fit more into you preferred concept of the poet/scholar. Of course there is always a trade-off when you earn your keep in one profession while seeking to continue to make art... but the more practical career is more likely to result in a certain level of comfort (although you surely realize that academia is no automatic assurance of financial comfort), where surviving upon your art alone is always a risky proposition. And Eliot, himself, admitted that he preferred his lifestyle to that of the Bohemian.

Music to me is a hard one - nothing but pure genius to me can describe how Mozart was able to compose like that - but at the same time, many composers arrived at the work through hard effort rather than "hereditary means".

If we are thinking along these lines - somebody like Harold Bloom can, if what he claims for himself are true, outread almost everybody - he claims something like 1000 pages per hour when he was younger, with almost full retention - so quite frankly, very few people are even able to keep up, but does that make him particularly special as a critic - Edward Said didn't have the gift, but he sure was quoted more, for instance, and is taught in every university it would seem, in a plethora of disciplines.

The question of place and vision though is one that doesn't make sense to me. As you noted, there are contraries to the "visionary" poets, and bohemian poets - but still, every artist seems a product of specific experience, even Mozart who seems like a genius who just appeared with music that is essentially created out of thin air.

As I have stated before - hard work is the backbone - most artists are somewhat hard working - Shelley for instance used to read for hours upon hours each day, Dante too was very well read, and is very informed by what he read, to the point where he cannot be seen if not through his writing. The actual visionary role seems a bit too comfortable to assign.

As mentioned before, artists come in every shape and size - from horrible dictator and mass-murderer to stoic hermit. That there is a visionary sense behind all of them seems to me kind of silly - the bulk of the major Chinese poets, for instance (I go there again since I am reading them as I am writing this) would seem to have been influenced more by needing to pass the imperial exam, which at the peek of poetry in the Tang, had just been severely reshaped to making the writing of poetry one of its chief subjects.


One really needs to doubt such theories of visionary. Frye, somebody who I would think believes in the visionary element argued that Sidney's Defense gestures toward poetry as "having the ability to look back on the paradisaical world of Eden before the fall. Metaphor itself seems to be invested with a power to get beyond speech limitations and the tyranny of the literal. But even then, that seems to me limited.

The languages of art seem dependent on their understanding in order for them to be changed by the new artist. Mozart worked quickly, but Mozart's father was also a composer, and so he had the benefit of being exposed and trained early. the so called "Unsung Milton" is ever present, but what is clear is you don't particularly need to be exceptional to produce great art. Christopher Smart for instance was clinically insane - the resulting work, fantastic.

Of course it can be suggested that some kind of genius helps - or at least being smarter than the rest - but even so, I don't think having a 200 IQ is the right formula, much less do I think being some sort of character archetype, or "visionary" is the formula. When somebody finds said formula, let me know, as of now, quite simply I think artists come about through hard work and circumstance - that's about it. And even then, most of us only view them as creators of their art - a vast number of them led terrible lives, so there is always that guilt factor - one cannot read Du Fu without wondering "had he not suffered, would we not have this fantastic art."

By the visionary token, his son starving to death would have given him some prophetic vision - personally, I just think it gave him a horrible feeling that he could only convey through art, as he needed that kind of metaphorical-allusion heavy medium to try and express the devastation within him. Many people could do it, but none are in his exact circumstances, with his education, and sensibilities.

JBI, I think you are forgetting that luck has something to do with it, not all. I truly believe that Ralph Ellison wrote one of they greatest novels that ever could be written, and that this points to innate talent--I also suspect that Wright--who those in the know theorize was the model for Ellison's protagonist, will eventually fade in importance, because his talent is marred by both identity politics and the rhetoric of the hard left.

But to go back to luck, very few writers make it beyond even becoming a footnote. I have been in the trenches 20 years, and I am probably going to die in a nursing home as a footnote to a footnote, and perhaps someone will one day brush the dust off my work and assert that my footnote was a bridge to a point on the alphabet. This is the fate of most writers, critics, artists--but to get an Ellison out of that makes it all worth it, even in the face of physics. That a human being could produce Invisible Man matters even if the narrative winds up observed by a non-living mass or object. Aesthetic needs have their roots in biology, and I agree with sixsmith that the vision thing is not an end unto itself--but there is simply something intangible about the greatest things that we can leave behind--if those things are lucky enough to find exposure.

"The earth is not flat and neither is reality. Reality is continuous, multiple, simultaneous, complex, abundant and partly invisible. The imagination alone can fathom this and it reveals its fathomings through art...

These are almost exactly the sentiments of a Quantum Physicist I heard on the radio last night, (his "art" was mathematics.) As scientists delve deeper in to their reality, they leave behind the observable and the provable. They must use their imagination and make leaps of faith. The hard nosed math comes after, as a way of expressing their belief.

I was once talking to a woman who was a professor - or something - of Pure Mathematics. She said that her research projects tended to begin with the idea that a certain mathematical theory was beautiful.

"I look at it and I think, 'that's so beautiful, it must be true.' And then I search for ways to prove it."

She'd never read Keats, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Living in modern Britain I have absorbed the assumptions of this (very) secular culture: we are here by accident- the end product of 4 billion years of brutal evolution. There is no God, and life is a meaningless affair, without purpose or goal. There are no other, better worlds or realities. This painful, grief-striken little existence is it. We live on a tiny ball of rock in a cold, vast universe which does not know we are here and does not care. When you die you rot and that is it. This is a pretty bleak picture I think you'll agree. So where does art and literature fit into it? Does literature have anything to offer in the way of consolation? Or can it do no more than reconcile us to our fate?

---

Many things offer consolation - bacon sandwiches, a game of scrabble, a robin at the window... the list goes on :)... art and literature are just part of that list, not really any "higher", but they provide a consistent and ongoing pleasure that doesn't make you fatter, require other people, or fly away...

Why should literature reconcile you to your fate? You don't expect that of bacon sandwiches, so why require it of any old novel you might pick up? You might be better reading some stoic philosophy, even if it scores badly as literature, if you want reconciliation to fate. Then again, certain plays of Shakespeare, and many essays of Montaigne, will score highly as "reconcilers to fate" and "literature"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

I ask this because I have been reading a wonderful collection of essays by Jeanette Winterson called 'Art Objects'. She is a contemporary English-British novelist who argues passionately that the true artist is a visionary.

---

And none so more than Winterson :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

Winterson is contemptuous both of realism and of the idea that art exists to entertain. If you want no more than realism and entertainment (she argues) then watch TV or films.

---

Silly argument! Dickens is more entertaining than most TV and films

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

The artist should inspire, should take us out of ourselves and open our minds to other levels of reality - to other dimensions.

---

She's starting to sound like a string theorist. What's life like in the 7th dimension?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

You can guess the writers she admires: Shakespeare, Dante, Blake, Wordsworth, Eliot's Four Quartets etc etc

---

Thankfully I have yet to find Shakespeare use the 'new age' speak that you put in Winterson's mouth. Did she actually indulge in such cliches as "take us out of ourselves and open our minds to other levels of reality - to other dimensions." From the quotes you give it appears that such phrasing is indeed hers. Shame - I quite liked "Oranges".

We live in a free society, not a consensus reality. Our satirists (Ian Hislop, Paul Merton...) continuously pour scorn on what our government gets up to. If you don't like the offerings of mass education and the mass media then read another book. The products of all the ages are there freely available for us to read. Winterson protests too much.

What we can touch and feel, see and hear *is* the sum of our reality...both physics and the best philosophy accepts this. (Try reading Kant and the swinging attacks on string theorists by proper physicists.)

Only a very few artists in Victorian England became suspect through their use of narcotics. Winterson's comment that their "relationship to different levels of reality is not authoritative but hallucinatory" is a good point. But Winterson's own relationship to different levels of reality is also not authoritative but hallucinatory.

I don't find the Materialism of Richard Dawkins depressing at all, quite the opposite. It's the guff produced by Winterson that I find depressing.

Of course there's a role for visionary artists like Blake! Dawkins has written in praise of such poets, and bemoans the fact that he can't write like them to produce a visionary account of evolution -- though I think he is overly modest. Dawkins is most certainly a prose artist.

Blake might have been deluded in believing his visions were reality, but that doesn't detract form his visions being great metaphors for the human condition.

Why look for more reality than what you get? Why seek higher dimensions? Aren't four enough? Winterson seems greedy for more spirituality, she might be happier & less batty if she realised that what we have is enough.

I'd love to see Falstaff tackle Winterson... Failing that John Carey does an excellent demolition job on her in "What good are the arts?" Does anyone have a link to these two arguing? I can imagine sparks flying....

http://www.321books.co.uk/reviews/ph...e-the-arts.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I don't find the Materialism of Richard Dawkins depressing at all, quite the opposite. It's the guff produced by Winterson that I find depressing.

---

I'll go along with that. She really is a terrible downer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Music to me is a hard one - nothing but pure genius to me can describe how Mozart was able to compose like that - but at the same time, many composers arrived at the work through hard effort rather than "hereditary means".

---

Don't back away from you hard work argument so quickly! His father had him slogging through his scales at a very early age...

As Paulclem points out in his response to Wickes; the initial argument touches on such a diverse range of the many aspects of thinking, that its a bit daunting. But then lets touch upon them.

Realism & Vision:

Camus wrote that "No art can completely reject reality, and only reality with all its warmth and blood, its passion and its outcries. It simply adds something which transfigures reality." Thus one could argue that from the other side, realists must call up their own brand of idealism. Dress themselves, as it were, in a loud coat with pockets rattling with the fools gold of these idealistic illusions. Appearance after all in today's world, providing it is a successful imposture is an important feature of human politics. Change the appearance of things and you are a long way to changing the reality.

The point of literature:

So where does the writer fit in? I cannot help but reflect on George Bernard Shaw who appears to have translated the facts of his life into a spiritual autobiography. His thesis and antithesis of fact and fantasy became a formula for absorbing his own needs into a universal pattern. Creative evolution had the potential for replacing his lonely sense of being a sojourner on this planet rather than a native of it. It gave his talent a use and his writing career a sense of purpose. This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being thoroughly worn out before you end up in "the nursing home as a footnote to a footnote" as expressed by Jozanny. Live in contact with dreams and you will get something of their charm: live in contact with facts and you will get something of their brutality.

Genius or Application:

The jury is still out. Take your choice:
"Genius does what it must, and talent does what it can"
"Unless one is a genius, it is best to aim at being intelligible."
"If a man is going to behave like a bast--d, he'd better be a genius."
Interpretation of what is genius and what is talent is not an absolute value but must be evaluated. The effusions of the interpretation of art today poisens our sensibilities. In a culture whose already classic dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of sensuality. interpretation is sometimes the revenge of the intellect upon art.

Give Alan Watts' The Book a read. He presents a less dreary view of existence. In sum, art and audience are two sides of the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Of course it can be suggested that some kind of genius helps - or at least being smarter than the rest - but even so, I don't think having a 200 IQ is the right formula, much less do I think being some sort of character archetype, or "visionary" is the formula. When somebody finds said formula, let me know, as of now, quite simply I think artists come about through hard work and circumstance - that's about it.

---

Malcolm Gladwell has some interesting insights into this subject. For instance, he claims that an IQ beyond about 120 is superfluous, and that the brain is molded by thousands of hours of practice. But what implants that drive to practice so much beyond the normal? I can't see Leopardi or Pope being anything other than alienated hunchbacks. Again, I can't envision a world where a monumental work like The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire could be produced by anyone other than an Edward Gibbon. His example, a life of failed romance and personal deformity, is a devout lesson to all men what can be accomplished if you'd just re-channel the effort that goes into chasing tail. Why'd they create such impressive bodies of work? Because they had to. They didn't have anything else going for them and they wanted to justify their existence.

I think the Genius or Application debate is a red herring here. Winterson said artists were Visionaries rather than Geniuses, they are not quite the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I think the Genius or Application debate is a red herring here. Winterson said artists were Visionaries rather than Geniuses, they are not quite the same thing.

---

If "oranges are not the only fruit," as Winterson suggests, then surely there are also forms of visionary besides the ecstatic. That Blake/Rumi mystical poet channeling the voice of god kind of stuff smacks of the Orphic mystery religions, and the sort of climate that Christianity itself grew out of. Why turn from one excited, babbling, pseudo-enlightened guru to another? We would do well to recognize that there are other types of sublimity, other categories of heightened thought, other poetic traditions available to us.

I think you may be a little quick to link the word "visionary" with the Orphic and the mystical. It can simply mean, " having or marked by foresight and imagination." I don't pretend to know Ms Winterson's mind, but I think that is the more likely context here.

I think literature, if anything, serves to remind us that we are all members of the human race. Learning your own culture through literature and studying other cultures similarly can root one in their literary tradition, which in my opinion is a stronger bond than any type of nationhood. Whether we all die and rot or float around mystically in the clouds, literature is an important analysis and representation of us as we live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

If "oranges are not the only fruit," as Winterson suggests, then surely there are also forms of visionary besides the ecstatic. That Blake/Rumi mystical poet channeling the voice of god kind of stuff smacks of the Orphic mystery religions, and the sort of climate that Christianity itself grew out of. Why turn from one excited, babbling, pseudo-enlightened guru to another? We would do well to recognize that there are other types of sublimity, other categories of heightened thought, other poetic traditions available to us.

---

No, it is more just a Western fixation that comes from said Orphic tradition - as mentioned earlier, Du Fu, for instance, is writing out of a failed life and an education system molded on poetry. Li Bai would seem the visionary poet, but even he seems more influenced by wine than anything else.

When we think visionary, we almost by necessity gesture to Greek conceptions of poetic identity, and artistic identity. Beowulf though is not less artistic for being composed as a collective effort and being anonymous. We like to think of Homer as the blind visionary, or Blake as a seer, by really, when you get to manuscript, you see interesting things - namely that for all the vision, there are quite a few edits and rewrites going on in the background.

As for IQ over 120 being superfluous, well, I never got my IQ tested and never will - I think I am better off not knowing, as I don't support such testing as determinant of anything. But the idea would make sense - how much of art is determined by one's capacity for solving geometric problems, for instance, or storing knowledge - we like to think of art as the conveying of feeling, but even that is too limited and contradicted a view.

Art itself to me just seems something that happens - as I put before, it just fills what Benjamin deemed "cold, empty time" that is, there is no longer a widely held belief that the world is going to end any second with the coming of Jesus Christ or whomever, so people just need something to create a sort of identity around. Benedict Anderson would argue on literature as creating a national identity, to create shared communities and identities amongst people who don't actually know each other - to me that would make sense. What is implied with everybody reading Dickens at the same time every week when the new installment came out in periodical is something of a feeling of meaning and purpose in a world where, on a philosophical level, life is meaningless, and everything is weighed equally (life is as equal as death, good as equal as bad, everything is just existence without actual purpose).

As I have stated before - hard work is the backbone - most artists are somewhat hard working - Shelley for instance used to read for hours upon hours each day, Dante too was very well read, and is very informed by what he read, to the point where he cannot be seen if not through his writing. The actual visionary role seems a bit too comfortable to assign.

I don't think any artist would disagree with the premise that hard work is the backbone of art. Certainly I will even agree with the supposition that most artists... at least most artists of any real merit are hard-working. Most artists that I know can work the average person under the table. I'm not questioning the importance of hard work. I am questioning whether the hard work alone is enough to push the artist into the realm of what we deem artistic genius. Certainly, as has been noted, Mozart (and Picasso like him) had the advantage of a father pushing him as a child. But so did all of Bach's children... like their father before them... and while several became talented composers in their own right... especially C.P.E. Bach... none of them came close to Mozart... or the level of their father.

There is also the question as to whether "genius" alone is adequate (or even "genius" combined with hard labor). Certainly some artists are undoubtedly geniuses in nearly any sense of the word. Milton was unquestionably so. Surely Goethe, Dante, Borges and Leonardo no less. But was Cervantes a genius? Certainly Don Quixote is a work of genius, but can we imagine Cervantes fully cognizant of all that was entailed in that work in the same way that we are almost certainly that Milton is fully aware of what he has created?

Gardiner's research on the human brain and multiple intelligences suggest that someone may work incredibly hard toward the goal of artistic creation, and one may even be blessed with a genius of some form or another... but unless this genius is properly aligned, there is no guarantee of artistic brilliance. In other words... one may have the genius for the sort of thought demanded of the literary critic or academic... but one may not have the genius for literary/artistic creativity... no matter how much effort one puts toward this end.

Edward Hirsch wrote a lovely little book upon the mystery of artistic creation and inspiration entitled The Demon and the Angel. Hirsch's book was inspired by essays and lectures of Federico Garcia-Lorca dealing with the concept of what he called the "duende". Garcia-Lorca's concept of the "duende" relates to the concepts of external inspiration be it through the "spirit", the daimon (δαίμων), the muse, God, the subconscious, etc... Yeats, Garcia-Lorca, Blake, Emerson, and endless other artists speak of artistic inspiration as tapping into something external. On the most pedestrian level most artists will speak of being "in the zone"... something akin to the "runner's high" where one can seemingly do no wrong... where ideas come from who knows where. Emerson declares "The one thing which we seek with insatiable desire is to forget ourselves, to be surprised out of our propriety, to lose our sempiternal memory, and to do something without knowing how or why..." Garcia-Lorca admits, "If you ask me why I wrote 'a thousand glass tambourines,' I will tell you that I saw them, in the hands of angels and trees, but I will not be able to say more." Most artists, indeed, are nearly incapable of telling you why and where the most brilliant aspects of their art came from... perhaps because they don't fully comprehend it themselves.

This brings us to the instance in which an artist creates a single work or body of undisputed genius... and then seemingly runs dry. What happens to Wordsworth? Rimbaud? Ralph Ellison? Allen Ginsberg spent much of his adult life in attempting to reach the "duende" that he proclaims inspired Howl through a disordering of the senses ala Rimbaud through sex, drugs, etc... all to no avail. The writer Elizabeth Gilbert speaking at the TED talks proposes an intriguing view of the visionary/mystical/Orphic/Dionysian interpretation of "Genius" as opposed to the common Western ego-centric notion of "genius":

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/el...on_genius.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The writer Elizabeth Gilbert speaking at the TED talks proposes an intriguing view of the visionary/mystical/Orphic/Dionysian interpretation of "Genius" as opposed to the common Western ego-centric notion of "genius"

---

By all means, take your cue from the Coyote Ugly chick.

I think it's a bit silly to presume that all literature must be visionary. That's only one of hundreds of adjectives that different books might appropriately fall under. God help us if Twilight is visionary. Then again, God help us if Twilight is considered literature. But if it entertains some, then so be it! Some books are merely for entertainment, and that's alright. To each his own. It's entirely different from movies and TV. Reading is a personal experience, and it exercises that wondrous organ known as the imagination. That's what makes people cry out passionately: "The movie wasn't HALF as good as the book!" It's a separate experience all together.

Yes, but even popular culture lends itself to apocryphal readings Lumiere, including the poor little rich girl, Rowling. Sometimes I engage in feeling sorry for myself for my congenital condition, so much so that all types of housewives yelled at me in the past, and while I may not have grown out of my self-pity, I have moved past the anxiety and outrage implicit in existentialism. We are here, survived nearly being wiped out in Africa until we emerged out of the bottleneck to rule the globe in less than a 100k--use what we have and shut up already. Literature is one of our creations, provides ways of seeing, methods of escape, delight and distress, but we cannot place demands on it, or any of the arts, beyond what they are.

By all means, take your cue from the Coyote Ugly chick.

Well I think Blake and Emerson and Yeats and Garcia-Lorca might just convey similar ideas better... but for some reason TED never invited them to speak.:confused: