Hm, I meant poverty in a specifically Nietzschean sense - poverty of the spirit, the opposite of overabundance. Poverty as a lack - of will, of joy, of desire, of energy, of strength. And then - art as an expression of that lack, or at least as something growing out of it, perhaps created to mask it, as an attempt (perhaps a successful one!) to supply whatever is lacking. Must art itself be crippled if it grows from such circumstances? Or can such art be as uplifting to its audience as art created out of abundance? - Does it perhaps depend on the audience? Say we have the spiritual equivalent of trash-sculptures. Is it possible for the "wealthy" viewer (again in a spiritual sense) to raise himself above them and to use them to recognise that his situation isn't as bad? We must remember that there is a difference between our hypothetical trash-sculpture and, say, a tragedy - that is, a direct portrayal of misery. The great spirit can put affliction onstage and still celebrate life and elevate the spirits of his viewers. But can someone who in his spirit denies life create something that has the same effect? I have a feeling the answer lies beyond Nietzsche.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment