Hey, a way to procrastinate that actually involves thinking about topics remotely related to my studies. Can't knock that!
I suppose I would say that, since literature touches on so many other fields (one of my old profs used to say that an English major needed to know "everything" for this reason), to retain its identity as a field and remain... alive, I suppose, vibrant, fruitful, pick an adjective... it needs to maintain a certain balance between them. Art, and aesthetics, although problematic enough in themselves, have to remain part of the definition of lit, or else the field becomes merely a branch of sociology or history which happens to focus on text. Sociology and history can't be excluded, however, at the very least because aesthetic judgments are to some extent political, historical, sociological... (overlooking this wouldn't be acceptable in visual art criticism or art history either - it could even be called dangerous). I do think contemporary lit theory tends a bit too far in the first direction. I personally don't believe aesthetics boil down entirely to politics - art has internal rules of its own, and relates to things which are human, as well as merely gendered, ethnic, cultural, etc. I can accept the premise that Shakespeare was able to attain the artistic heights he did because of certain advantages which would have been denied to his hypothetical sister (I imagine those advantages run deeper than has been supposed, too - in the sense of the individual's internalization of cultural expectations), but this does not negate the artistic value of his work, or make some philosophically shallow, artistically weak piece from the same period equally worthy of serious analysis simply because it was written by someone with more disadvantages. Sometimes it seems there is an effort to examine in-depth, that which has no depth, simply to promote balance (I'm not denying that there are some neglected literary gems which could legitimately broaden the canon; just criticizing purely political grounds for bringing a work into the spotlight). I suppose this "depth" would be a separate category, then - I mean a sort of crossroads of aesthetics and philosophy in general: innovations in form, as well as innovations in content as they relate to the history of ideas. Where form and content work hand in hand, it seems to me, the result tends to offer both aesthetic pleasure and significance, and therefore neither one should be neglected too long.
I've read philosophical texts which suggest that beauty is nothing more than the promise of happiness. This is to say that for something to be beautiful, for something to be aesthetically significant, it must have enough to it that a quick look isn't enough to tell you what's going on. The example we used was a church by Van Gogh versus a church by Thomas Kincaid. They called the Kincaid piece 'kitsch' as in it shows technical prowess and is pretty, but lacks that bit of soul that seems to characterize most 'good' paintings.
So, do you think we should go by this method of determining books? Rather than seeking out less stellar art just to balance the scales (and thereby weaken then canon) should we base merit off of whether or not a piece of literature holds promise for future interest?
I suppose I would say that, since literature touches on so many other fields (one of my old profs used to say that an English major needed to know "everything" for this reason), to retain its identity as a field and remain... alive, I suppose, vibrant, fruitful, pick an adjective... it needs to maintain a certain balance between them. Art, and aesthetics, although problematic enough in themselves, have to remain part of the definition of lit, or else the field becomes merely a branch of sociology or history which happens to focus on text. Sociology and history can't be excluded, however, at the very least because aesthetic judgments are to some extent political, historical, sociological... (overlooking this wouldn't be acceptable in visual art criticism or art history either - it could even be called dangerous).
I do think contemporary lit theory tends a bit too far in the first direction. I personally don't believe aesthetics boil down entirely to politics - art has internal rules of its own, and relates to things which are human, as well as merely gendered, ethnic, cultural, etc. I can accept the premise that Shakespeare was able to attain the artistic heights he did because of certain advantages which would have been denied to his hypothetical sister (I imagine those advantages run deeper than has been supposed, too - in the sense of the individual's internalization of cultural expectations), but this does not negate the artistic value of his work, or make some philosophically shallow, artistically weak piece from the same period equally worthy of serious analysis simply because it was written by someone with more disadvantages.
Sometimes it seems there is an effort to examine in-depth, that which has no depth, simply to promote balance (I'm not denying that there are some neglected literary gems which could legitimately broaden the canon; just criticizing purely political grounds for bringing a work into the spotlight).
I suppose this "depth" would be a separate category, then - I mean a sort of crossroads of aesthetics and philosophy in general: innovations in form, as well as innovations in content as they relate to the history of ideas. Where form and content work hand in hand, it seems to me, the result tends to offer both aesthetic pleasure and significance, and therefore neither one should be neglected too long.
Or, in other words, "both/and". XD
Reply
So, do you think we should go by this method of determining books? Rather than seeking out less stellar art just to balance the scales (and thereby weaken then canon) should we base merit off of whether or not a piece of literature holds promise for future interest?
Reply
Leave a comment