Relationship Between Artist and Writer

This past week in my senior seminar class we had an art professor come and speak about an art project he had recently completed. My professor hoped that my classmates, fellow writing concentrations, and I would consider the similarities between the life of an artist and the life of an author. I will admit that when I first discovered that this artist was coming to speak in our seminar I thought it quite odd. Why invite an artist as a guest speaker? Couldn’t my classmates and I gain more if we were to have a writer come in as a guest speaker? Naïve was I to the realization that artists and writers likely have more similarities in relation to their careers than they do differences. We share the commonality of the creative mind, and face the same challenges as we go about our creative art. In my attempt to draw further connects between art and literature/writing I decided to delve into the work of formalist artists.

In his article titled, Classicist, Animist, Formalist, Iconoclast, author Steve Durbin draws and explains the diagram, located at the top left hand side of this page. The diagram is Durbin’s attempt to outline artistic approaches. Durbin suggests that depending on where one falls on the two axes in regards to favoring tradition vs. revolution and with consideration given more to art or life, one can be classified as a classicist, animist, formalist, or iconoclast. The diagram projects the formalist as one who strongly upholds both art and revolution, or that which is new over tradition.

In class on Tuesday there seemed to be a great deal of confusion in response to the essay coauthored by Wimsatt and Beardsley. Perhaps in most elementary terms it can be suggested that the formalist critic most strongly upholds writing and revolution. The formalist critic consciously aims not to bring personal experience, or foreknowledge in relation to the author or historical time period, to his or her analysis of the work under critique.

Sometimes sitting in literary criticism class feels all too much like sitting in philosophy class freshman year. My brain feels like it is participating in some extreme cartiactic workout and when class is over I leave the room wondering if I can be sure of anything. According to Wimsatt and Beardsley, if there is a distinction between what the poet created and what the poet intended to create, then the poem is not well written. This seems odd to me, perhaps because the seemingly antiformalist training I have had as an English major. It seems that regardless of how well written a poem is, it is guareenteed that it will be interpreted with a variety of meanings. This because we, interpreters, are fallible beings, when interpreting meaning we all bring our discourse, but I guess a formalist wouldn’t agree with this postmodern statement.

Check out Durbin's article in Art & Perception: http://www.artandperception.com/2008/01/classicist-animist-formalist-iconoclast.html

Separation of Author and Poem

Dare I say that in some regards I think I like this whole notion of formalism. As an English major I have analyzed countless poems and other literary texts according to the historical time period at which they were written, or based upon the biographical data of there author. At times this has proven really quite absurd. Sometimes I honestly feel like we (English majors) are trained to analytically and scholastically make things up, things that probably don’t even apply to, or exist in, a given text. For this reason I am in some regards a fan of Wimsatt and Beardsley’s writing in their coauthored essay, The Intentional Fallacy. I realize that making that statement might make me liable to be disowned by must English scholars. Seriously though, this idea of the separation of the author from the text, I kind of like it. Sounds similar to the radical reformers notion of separation and church and state which by the way I also like. Even if a poem is well written its meaning can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but perhaps that is the beauty of this art form, it isn’t, after all, meant to be a thesis. Furthermore, when we analyze a poem with regard to its time period or the biographical background of its author we risk entitling it to things that aren’t really there, but perhaps things we would like to assume are there.

This is serious English departments have divided over such issues as Mark Krupnick suggests in his article titled Why Are English Departments Still Fighting the Culture Wars?:

“The usual explanation for the divisiveness in English is twofold. First, starting with the invasion of French poststructuralism in the 1960s, advanced literary interpretation changed from being formalist in method and traditionalist in ideology to a brand of French theory whose major distinguishing characteristic seemed to be that it required you to spend more time reading the theorists than reading the canonical texts of Western literature. The second major explanation for the culture wars is that they basically have been about politics, set off when '60s radicals took their battles from the streets into university departments.” Krupnick’s article is right on in my observation. Isn’t it seriously insane when you consider the reality that peoples careers and personal lives bank on their ideologies of the interpretation of literature?

Check out the above article in full: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i04/04b01601.htm

E=mc2- what does that have to do with English studies?

With noses lifted high in the air, we consider ourselves to have an utmost level of creativity, we are literary artists, we are English scholars, and we are pretentious at that. I give myself permission to write these things because I am an English major, and besides I will further justify those notions by saying that not long ago one of my English professors actually suggested that English majors are often rather pretentious. Maybe I am writing from an extreme vantage point, but anyway such was never meant to be my purpose for this entry. I want to consider our cynicism toward those in the sciences. To do so, allow us to consider the theory of relativity. You know the good old Einstein formula, E=mc2. We scoff at such when we consider it in relation to artistic creativity. Unlike the poem in my last entry, knowing the historical background of the formula, or knowing Einstein’s biographical information makes little difference in our interpretation of the formula. Interestingly, the formula was invented during the time of modernism around the same time as formalism. What am I trying to get at? I’m not sure (just kidding). You see, formalism was originally a modernist school of thinking so we can begin making connections. Originally it was the way of doing English Studies. In present day, we are trained to regard poems as vehicles of communication and often regard history above the poem itself. Formalism demands that we look at literature plainly, that we consider how the words create meaning. It is, in effect, anti-romantic, anti-scholastic, even Victorian. Living and writing during this time period, I think T.S Eliot was getting at some of these notions. He suggests, according to my understanding, that the poet be intentional about tradition. That he or she work not so much toward creating but obtaining a deliberative tradition as opposed to accepting an embedded tradition. This drawn from my own understanding and interpretation of T.S Eliot’s, Tradition and the Individual Talent. So is it fair to draw parallels between the sciences and the arts? In relation to history, I reply with a resounding yes!

Innately Formalist- Logical Possibility?

The following poem (by following I mean posted below, for your conveience of course) was presented in literary criticism class today, and we were asked to do a free write about its meaning. Upon completion of this first task we paired with partners and shared that which we had written. Upon first reflection this poem honestly seems quite simplistic. I mentioned to my partner that this poem immediately reminded me of the Casting Crown’s Stained Glass Masquerade song. I had scribbled down thoughts regarding how so many Christians feel compelled to wear a mask, that they are surface level, ultimately that they lack integrity. This song also reminded me of those who might be defined as having inducement personalities, people pleasers, who often lack touch with reality, who fail in the realm of authenticity (ouch, I know I have potentially stepped on toes).

Our professor then interrupted our conversations and informed us that the poem was written by an African American, and asked us to consider whether having that information changed our understanding of the poem’s meaning. My partner immediately suggested that knowing that information certainly changed the poem’s meaning. I snickered and said while of course we can allow that to change the meaning if we want; after all we are English majors. However, I didn’t stop there. I decided to reject that which my field of study has trained me to do and instead suggested that we do not have to allow that knowledge to change our thinking, or understanding, of the poem.

Isn’t it interesting how we often assume things of writng based upon for instance historical or biographical information. In this example we want to pounce on the idea that this poem could be speaking of slavery, but I beg to differ. Surely, this is a possibility, and a rather logical one at that, but I would caution our assumption of such things when there is no clear evidence. Perhaps we are so deeply seeped in this way of thinking that it subjects in us an immediate desire to consider the biographical, intellectual, and historical backgrounds of those texts that we read, or perhaps I am just innately a formalist, though I am not sure if being innately formalist is a logical possibility.

We Wear the Mask- Paul Laurence Dunbar (1872-1906)

WE wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,—
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Why should the world be over-wise,
In counting all our tears and sighs?
Nay, let them only see us, while
We wear the mask.

We smile, but, O great Christ, our cries
To thee from tortured souls arise.
We sing, but oh the clay is vile
Beneath our feet, and long the mile;
But let the world dream otherwise,
We wear the mask!

Stained Glass Masquerade- Casting Crowns

Is there anyone that fails
Is there anyone that falls
Am I the only one in church today feelin' so small

Cause when I take a look around
Everybody seems so strong
I know they'll soon discover
That I don't belong

So I tuck it all away, like everything's okay
If I make them all believe it, maybe I'll believe it too
So with a painted grin, I play the heart again
So everyone will see me the way that I see them

Are we happy plastic people
Under shiny plastic steeples
With walls around our weakness
And smiles to hide our pain
But if the invitation's open
To every heart that has been broken
Maybe then we close the curtain
On our stained glass masquerade

Is there anyone who's been there
Are there any hands to raise
Am I the only one who's traded
In the altar for a stage

The performance is convincing
And we know every line by heart
Only when no one is watching
Can we really fall apart

But would it set me free
If I dared to let you see
The truth behind the person
That you imagine me to be

Would your arms be open
Or would you walk away
Would the love of Jesus
Be enough to make you stay

Listen to the song I refer to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRUJrjUGGfg

Vocation & Books

Emerson on Vocation:

Emerson implicitly draws upon an all time favorite word among those of Messiah College namely, vocation. He writes about vocation, though never using the term, in relation to a distribution of functions. In the distribution of functions the scholar serves as the delegated intellect. Accordingly, “In the right state he is, Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking.” I would suggest that here Emerson is writing about something that is relevant to present day. Often, the work of a scholar is looked down upon as if to suggest that scholars are those who lack any or all practical skills. This as if to say that the work of merely reading books is easy and true work demands physical labor. Though in observation such are the ideas of many who can barely stand the mental work of academia or lack the ability to even attempt scholarly work at any capacity. I have a bitter distaste for the extremes of both academic and practical work. I’m all about attempting to find a balance between the two, similar to my seeking a balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Though this balance might appear to be in relation to completely different subjects, I would contend that they are really quite similar.

Emerson on Books:

“The theory of books is noble. The scholar of the first age received into him the word around; brooded thereon; gave it the new arrangement of his own mind, and uttered it again. It came into him, life; it went out from him, truth. It came him short-lived actions; it went out form him, immortal thoughts. It came to him business; it went from him, poetry. It was dead fact; now, it is quick thought. It can stand, and it can go. It now endures, it now flies, it now inspires. Precisely in proportion to the depth of mind from which it issued, so high does it soar, so long does it sing.”

Clearly, Emerson is skeptical about reading and perhaps about writing as well. Though it can be noted that essentially the writer is the one who brings meaning and life to recorded word. However, this statement makes me wonder how fact is misconstrued through the imagination of the poet writer. The writer takes from the old and creates the new, so how is the reader to sort fact from fiction? Though pity those who suggest that we should neither read nor write. Surely, that would defy learning from the past, and ultimately we would be far less advanced an all aspects of life and society. Books are something that we seldom think about in relation to any form of theory. Books as theory, the theory of books, are something we might want to consider.

Video Emerson- Check it!:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cas9bBd3cJU

Interrelationship: Culture & Perfection

While I appreciate Matthew Arnold’s creation of the interrelationship between culture and perfection in, Culture and Anarchy, I find it difficult to follow how he arrives at such. How would he suggest we pursue total perfection, when we are a very different people, individuals? He suggests that we allow the will of God to prevail but sadly, the will of God is often misconstrued even by the best of finite minds. Still, I uphold Arnold’s call to see and learn truth in an effort to pursue both personal satisfaction and bring about culture. I wonder whether this might realistically be a logical impossibility. Arnold’s essay, provokes a lot of pertinent considerations, but in my mind, also leave a lot of questions.

Defense of Poetry, Higher Calling of Poet

Recently, as I have reflected on my purpose as a writer I have thought at length about the task of using writing as a tool for upholding integrity. Viewed as such, I, as well as writers like me, have quite a high calling. Writing which serves to validate the poetry of all man-kind is that which Percy Bysshe Shelley suggests in A Defense of Poetry. That writing serves to validate the poetry of all humankind, emphasizing its infinite, and ultimate source. This flowing from transcendentalism would allude to the human imagination. As Shelly suggests poetry, “ever communicates all the pleasure which men are capable of receiving: it is ever still the light of life; the source of whatever of beautiful, or generous, or true can have place in an evil time.” The reading of poetry has the potential of making us more ethical persons as its poetical faculty is two-fold. It engenders in the mind a desire to reproduce and arrange according to rhythm and order and creates that which is good or beautiful. Writing as an ethical value system, something that I can’t say I had ever previously seriously considered.

Interesting background information to consider when reading A Defense of Poetry:

http://www.clayfox.com/ashessparks/reports/kate.html

Live the Emerson Questions

The following is for Dr. Powers (as he shared that he enjoys questions) but is not to be mistaken as exclusive, as it is inclusive to all who enjoy living the questions (specifically Emerson questions).

My stream of conscious thoughts while sitting in Literary Criticism class discussing Emerson’s, The Poet:

In regards to the transcendental, I’m not even sure, does this mean that everything has a substance and an accidence? This based largely upon that which I can recall from the studying the Aristotle worldview in a theology class. Dr. Powers says transcendentalism is a form of philosophical idealism. He explains it by saying that the things experienced in the world are merely reflections of the spiritual world that is more real. Ok, I remember from theology class, this concept of the “chairness” of a chair (go figure) as being an eternal essence, that unseen. It is the substance of the chair. If I recall correctly the accidence would be that which we see in the temporal world. I learned this all in relation to transubstantiation though, so I am not even sure if it applies. So in example, in transubstantiation it is the substance that changes while the accidence stays the same. Ok, so what Emerson is alluding to is this idea that we are connected to everything, though we can only see in part. So this leads me to materialism. Would Emerson hold to a material salvation? If so, then perhaps I am on to something. He would hold that the kingdom of God begins on earth and therefore might equate the poet as a representative of Jesus, one who does the work of Christ. Though I honestly wouldn’t bank on the idea that Emerson holds to a systematic theology, I think this is simply my attempt to systemize that which I pull from this single work (that could be dangerous). Wait…Emerson is Unitarian right?

a pretty romantic post

…for the next week and a half we shall bask together in the period of romance, or the romantic time period…

Before we get started- foundational knowledge:

Romanticism:

- late 18^th and early 19^th century

- Precise characterization or specific definition…unfortunately there really isn’t one

- Some scholars view romanticism as:

1. continuous with the present
2. an inaugural movement in modernity
3. a counter Enlightenment, or resistance to the Enlightenment
4. an aftermath of the French Revolution

- largely about intuition, imagination, feeling as opposed to deductive reason

Ralph Waldo Emerson 1803-1882:

- poet, philosopher, leader of transcendentalist movement (ideal spiritual state transcends the physical and empirical and is realized through intuition rather than doctrines of established religions)

* Once upon a time Harold Bloom declared, “Emerson is God”. I’m not so sure I would suggest that this statement is theologically sound, but nonetheless I offer it as food for thought.

I can’t begin without writing about one issue, among others, that I take with transcendentalism, namely the idea that all of creation is inherently good. Hold up, what about human depravity? This one discrepancy between Emerson and me leads to countless discrepancies. I detest what this idea further amounts to, that intuition is the source of truth, that individual perception illuminates and structures the world. Sounds to me like egocentrisicm to the max, like we become our own god as our minds determine that which Truth is. Besides this would mean that there are multiple truths, as if our world isn’t chaotic enough as we seek truth. Clearly, I come to literature and largely life with a lens far different from the lens of Emerson.

In Emerson’s The Poet, he suggests that all experience is meaningful, sounds reasonable to me. However, he goes to write that to be a poet is to be alert to meanings that saturate all of existence, sound a bit iffy, and it gets more obscure. According to Emerson everyone has the ability to hold the special office of poet, but few do, and those who do are sovereign. Sovereign, you have got to be kidding me Emerson?! Unless I have a completely different understanding of the denotation of the word sovereign; I do not for one minute believe that poets reign over others as emperors, or liberating gods, as he suggests. Perhaps I cam completely taking Emerson out of context, I think I might hope that I am!

Lets give Emerson some credit- the following is a quality quote that I highlighted from Emerson’s From The American Scholar:

“The writer was a just and wise spirit; henceforward it is settled the book is perfect; as love of the hero corrupts into worship of his statute. Instantly the book becomes noxious: the guide is tyrant. The sluggish and perverted mind of the multitude, slow to open to the incursions of Reason, having once so opened, having once received this book, stands upon it, and makes an outcry if it is disparaged. Colleges are built on it. Books are written on it by thinkers, not by Man Thinking; by men of talent, that is, who start wrong, who set out from accepted dogmas, not from their own sight of principles. Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these works. Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm. Hence the booklearned class, who value books, as such; not as related to nature and the human constitution, but as making a story of Third Estate with the world and the soul. Hence the restorers of readings, the emendators, the bibliomaniacs of all degrees.”

On Postcolonial Theory

This afternoon I spent some time in the library doing a bit of research on postcolonial criticism. I am currently enrolled in a postcolonial literature course, and thought it might be helpful to understand the perspective from which such critics analyze literature. I’m not going to deny the fact that this was unassigned work, I know, I am a dork. Simply put, or rather as an act of defense, allow me to say that I just dislike enrolling in a course and feeling as though I have little or no foundational knowledge on the subject matter. Furthermore, I was able to gain, even if only ever so slightly, a bit of understanding on another literary theory, namely that of postcolonial. I am quite thankful for the interrelationship between English classes.

Postcolonial literary critics re-examine classic literature with a specific focus on the social discourse that shaped it. Messiah College English majors, note that once again that which we learned in heteroglossia, namely that of discourse is of utmost importance. Postcolonial theorists describe the colonial subject as having double consciousness or double vision. This meaning quite simply that the colonial subject has a consciousness, or way of perceiving the world, that is divided between two antagonistic cultures: that of the colonizer and that of the indigenous community (Critical Theory Today 368). Many postcolonial theorists argue that postcolonial identity is necessarily a dynamic, constantly evolving hybrid of native and colonial cultures. This hybridity or syncretism does not consist of a stalemate between two warring cultures but is, rather, a productive, exciting, positive force in a shrinking world that is itself becoming more and more culturally hybrid (Critical Theory Today 369).

For the visual learners:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=keIXyeAxGK0

• please note this blog is informal and likewise so is my writing and citing of works- yes, I do know how to use MLA, and to write properly but I am not going to stress over it for the purpose of blog entries

The Basics (because I sense the need for some common foundational ground or understanding): Words on Literary Theory The Basics (because I sense the need for some common foundational ground or understanding): Words on Literary Theory

What is literary theory:
According to an article (What Is Literary Theory) I recently read, literary theory, also known as “critical theory”, or plainly “theory” is a set of concepts and intellectual assumptions which are used in explaining or interpreting literary texts. Presently, it is undergoing a transformation into “cultural theory”. Literary theory is inclusive to any principles derived from internal analysis from either literary texts, or that knowledge which is external to the text that can be applied to multiple interpretive situations. It is assumed that all critical practice related to literature depends upon an underlying structure of ideas in at least two ways. The first being that theory provides a rationale for that which constitutes the subject matter of criticism, or “the literary” and secondly, the specific aims of critical practice, the act of interpretation in and of itself.

From whence did literary theory come:
Literary theory and the formal practice of such interpretation draws a parallel with history and philosophy. Evidence shows that it dates back at least as far as Plato.

The evolution of literary theory:
That which might be termed "modern literary theory" emerged in Europe during the nineteenth century. Friedrich Nietzsche has been credited as perhaps the greatest nineteenth century influence on literary theory due at least in part to his deep epistemological suspicion.

Three twentieth century literary theory movements:

1. Marxist theory

- of the Frankfurt School

- approaches to literature require an understanding of the primary economic and social bases of culture since Marxist aesthetic theory sees work of art as product, directly or indirectly, of base structure of society

2. Feminism

- analyzes production of literature and literary representation within framework that includes all social and cultural formations as they pertain to role of women in history

3. Postmodernism

- consists of both aesthetic and epistemological strands

- in art this included a move toward non-referential, non-linear, abstract forms; heightened degree of self-referential; and the collapse of categories and conventions that had traditionally governed art

- has led to series questioning of the so-called metanarratives of history, science, philosophy, and economic and sexual reproduction

- all knowledge seen as constructed (hence desconstructism which all good Messiah College English majors remember quite well from heteroglossia class) within historical self-contained systems of understanding

• All three of the above have brought about the incorporation of all human discourses

It might appear to be an elementary question, but I’m not finding it to be so elementary: What is an author?

Is he or she, as Plato suggests, a purveyor of falsehoods, or perhaps a function of discourse, as Foucault or Barthes might offer, or is an author a quasi-divine seer, as Emerson stated? What is an author? Such was the question of discussion that directed my literary criticism class this afternoon. We will study and marvel over questions like it throughout the semester.

Without bringing in any outside sources, simply drawing upon my current, and limited understanding of authorship, I suggest the following. Largely, an author is one who breathes life into a thought, idea, concept, and/or ideology. At the moment at which that thing aforementioned is brought to life it comes under authorship. Many would argue, as many of my classmates do, that an author is not synonymous with an artist. I would suggest that an author can have authorship over those things inclusive to the arts. Furthermore, both spoken and written word can be under authorship. They are merely subcategories of that which is the work of an author.

I am not ignorant to the reality that many find fault in my assumption that everyone is an author if they contribute to the work of idea, thought, concept, or/ideology. However, it must be said that not everyone is an "author proper". This is a vital distinction. For instance, I would suggest that everyone who thinks about God is a theologian, but this is not to be taken to mean that everyone is a "theologian proper". Similarly, I would suggest that while many are authors few are "authors proper". With this proposition I must now consider what constitutes that which I refer to as an "author proper". This my friends is a question which presents a challenge, one which is seemingly insurmountable when you are lacking sleep, have been up since 6 a.m. and are presently starring at the clock in an academic hall which reads 11:30 p.m.

To my fellow classmates of English 394, Literary Criticism: It is my hope that we might learn from one another as we read and comment on one another’s blogs throughout the semester. I think we learn perhaps best when we are in relationship. These blogs will help us to commit to continuing interaction outside the classroom. I look forward to what I might learn as we share in our study of literary criticism. While I cannot promise you any profound words, it is my honest intent to seek, study, and share that which is related to my study of theoretical foundations of literary and cultural studies.

To my friends, many of whom are not, nor ever were, nor ever will be English majors: I thank you in advance for journeying with me. As aforementioned in my page description, literary criticism is not solely for those of us who have chosen to earn our bachelors degree in English. Rather, it is for all who read or write at any level and at any capacity. Perhaps you might discover the way in which literary criticism is most applicable to your specified field of study or vocation.

To those of you who arrived here by whim: Let me begin by saying that I believe your landing upon my page was certainly not by whim, but rather by the intervention of divine appointment (note the sarcasm). However, without getting too theological I do believe that nothing happens without a reason. Perhaps you might discover something new or afresh related to literary criticism. Even more, I hope that I might discover and learn from you.

To all pilgrims united with me on my journey: It is my hope that we might learn in relationship. For those of you whom I have the opportunity of speaking with in person, it is my hope that you might share your related thoughts and discoveries with me. For those of you whom don’t have that luxury, perhaps because of a barrier of distance, I trust that the limitation will not discourage you in our interaction together as we journey our study of literary criticism. I welcome and encourage the comments of all whom journey with me, at any distance, toward obtaining a better understanding of literary and cultural studies.