Response to Required Reading
Aug 29, 2011
Senior Thesis - Class of 2012
By Alan R. Neal
Article A:
"Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag
I think she is essentially saying that art critics or the public's interpretation of art in the past has hindered the true enjoyment of art. It has tainted the way the western societies look at art, bringing the work down to a level of deconstruction that allows society to feel more comfortable with their limited interpretation than to allow the art to just be art, to just enjoy it as the expression of the artist, and to not find the need to delve so deeply into it's meanings, even if there is meant to be one.
Even the opening phrase she includes leads one to believe that maybe what we've been taught all our lives, to not judge a book by it's cover, could be the wrong way of going about it. Plato was a brilliant man, supposedly. But he seems to be incapable of seeing past his own limitations by stating that art is "an imitation of an imitation." (4) In many ways, Plato is technically correct when she notes that, to Plato, a painting of a bed, no matter how good it is, is just a painting of a bed; you can't sleep in it, you can't give it hospital corners, or even change the pillows. She rightfully states that the painting isn't "true." Yet, Aristotle was able to see beyond the "falseness" of a work of art, and realize how much it feeds the soul: "Lie or no, art has a certain value according to Aristotle because it is a form of therapy. Art is useful, after all, Aristotle counters, medicinally useful in that it arouses and purges dangerous emotions."(4)
She states that mimetic theorists should look beyond the limits of mimesis, and consider the idea that decorative and abstract art can be as valid an experience as any concerned with mimesis alone. That all can be lumped together into one pleasant experience, exclusive of none. She further explains that honesty in a work of art is the best way to impart the feelings of moving out of the realm of common vernacular and into the realm of majesty, and that transparency is [the] "most liberating value in art - and in art criticism - today."(4)
She emphasizes that a work of art should be experienced using our senses, and that interpreting the art only takes away from the enjoyment of it. That assimilating it into thought is the wrong way of experiencing art. She feels that, in todays society, we often live with too much sensory overload, and that our enjoyment has been dulled to a point where we no longer have clarity of feeling or emotion of our senses.
She ends with this very serious note: "The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us."(4) If only we could convince the world of critics and interpreters to learn how to accomplish this, we would not get mired down in our own overabundance and over-excess, to the possible point of no return.
Article B:
"Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes
Article B:
"Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes
Mr. Barthes takes us on a wild ride of wordsmithing. His opening paragraph reminds me of my first encounter with a drag queen: Is it a man? A woman? A perversion? Or an artistic triumph? The illusion was somewhat successful. Until she spoke. The depth and breadth of her baritone voice threw the entire illusion into disarray. Then I saw her hands. This was no illusion. It was a blatant mockery of womanhood in general, a way of saying: "I am a man, but I have the skill to make you think I am a woman." Sadly, after years of experiencing this phenomenon, I was never quite able to understand the purpose behind it. That is, until I took my father to a drag show in Orlando, at the world famous Parliament House Resort. In my entire life, I'd never seen my father laugh so hard or so much. Only then did I realize that the effect was really more of comedy than of tragedy. That a man, dressed as a woman, could get by with so much more than a real woman could in a show such as the one she was in was not only a revelation, but it brought my Dad and me to a new way of understanding each other. Mr. Barthes didn't seem to have such a revelatory experience. He seemed to remain confused.
Therefore, analyzing this article was, in short, like wading through extremely thick oil. Is he reprimanding the author? Or the reader? Is he dismissing the job that the author assumes, which would be to impart his internal knowledge to his readers. Yet, if we kill off the author, then what will get written? There may be many readers, but if none of them are putting their thoughts into words, then what will there be to read? It's just like the chicken and the egg. He's saying that the author has to die in order for there to even be a reader. And he gives numerous examples of his concept. Yet, he is an author, and we are reading his ideas on paper, aren't we? At one point, he exclaims that: "Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile." So, I have to ask: Why are we even bothering to read this article at all? This author himself is telling us that critics are the scourge of the earth, and that the reader can't read until the author is dead. Yet he remains a critic of critics, and a critic of authors, as well as of writers and readers! One of Mr. Barthes' detractors, a Mr. Jacques Derrida, said: "Since there are no symbols of constant and universal significance, the entire premise of structuralism [which was what Mr. Barthes believed] as a means of evaluating writing (or anything) is hollow."(5) I think that Mr. Barthes may have been brilliant for his time. Curiously enough, now that he is dead, we are free to read his work without referencing his many critics. "Barthes saw the notion of the author, or authorial authority, in the criticism of literary text as the forced projection of an ultimate meaning of the text. By imagining an ultimate intended meaning of a piece of literature one could infer an ultimate explanation for it. But Barthes points out that the great proliferation of meaning in language and the unknowable state of the author’s mind makes any such ultimate realization impossible."(5) I think that discounts his own writing by making such claims, which, even though there may be some truth to it, is a professionally suicidal way of making all writers and authors extinct, and to a certain extent, unnecessary. Although I do not see a possibility of losing all authors, writers, or critics anytime soon. Humankind is still full of new ideas and knowledge, and writing it allows the writer to share it with others who choose to read it. Neither the end of publishing or writing is in the near future, for with today's technology, writing and authorship have been taken to a new level. Certainly the plethora of text we have to choose from is overwhelming nowadays. But with the right tools, we can choose more carefully now than ever before what we wish to read or learn. It's a shame Mr. Barthes isn't around to see what we have to choose from today. I am sure Barthes would be turning over in his grave if he realized that anyone can now, thanks to technology and the internet, be a critic, an author, or writer, or any other term that we wish to use to describe someone who puts words down for others to read. Relating to art, we all know that the artist is always going to be associated with the art, no matter what happens to the original piece. And what would be wrong with that? Artists such as Banksy are notorious personalities, yet having him associated with a piece of work certainly works in his (and his works) favor, and doesn't diminish the role of the author or his work. The chicken or the egg? The answer is irrelevant. It's too late to stop the proliferation of either!
Article C:
"WHAT IS AN AUTHOR?" by Michel Foucault
Mr. Foucault seems to think the way some authors used to be treated by society was without question; their ownership was assumed, and no one seemed to challenge it. By the same token, he seems a little bitter that authors during the modern era are assigned authorship because theirs is now a monetary consideration that they must take ownership of. His comparison between authors of mathematical texts and those who write biological or medical texts seems a little unfair, however. Today, many mathematicians get plenty of credit for their work, specifically those who do research in a university setting. The list of famous mathematicians who've been published is exhaustive. Click here to reference a list of famous mathematicians on Wickipedia (1, 2, and 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematicians. Note how many are from the recent modern era, some still alive. So, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Foucault wasn't able, or perhaps he didn't try, to do the research on his facts. After all, somebody had to write the textbooks school children learn from, creating a standard that is upheld to this day.
My biggest question is how does this article relate to our work in the art world today? Is he saying that sometime in our past, authors such as ourselves have been overlooked, or taken for granted, because they were involved in a field of work that wasn't popular at that time? Things change over time, and obviously, things are totally different today from the way they were back in Aristotle's day. I think art is as popular today as it has ever been. Sadly, I also believe that many people that used to buy art, frankly are unable to buy art now because of the economic situation in our country. And since Mr. Foucault died in 1987, he's hardly an expert on todays market conditions.
There is a curious phrase a little more than halfway through the article, and I quote:
"If by accident or design a text was presented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author. Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as, in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereignty of the author."
Does this suggest that keeping an author anonymous helps to generate interest in playing the game of "find the author"? Is this a potential public relations ploy we could play on as artists? Keeping the author a mystery generates more interest in a work of art? Hmmm…something to think about!
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments must be approved for posting